Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The Public Information Officer/ Administrator General & Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu Chennai – Appellant
Versus
S. Majeed & Another – Respondents
W.P. No. 9340 Of 2023 & W.M.P. No. 9447 Of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2023
RTI Act - Right to Information - Section 8 (1) (e) - Summary of Acts and Sections: RTI Act, 2005 - Section 2 (h), Section 2 (j), Section 6, Section 8 (1) (e) - The court discussed the petitioner's obligation to provide information under the RTI Act, the definition of 'public authority,' the right to information accessible to citizens, and the exemption from disclosure of information under Section 8 (1) (e). The court analyzed the fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the Trust Estate, the scope of the RTI Act, and the citizens' right to access information held by public authorities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a public authority, was directed to provide information under the RTI Act by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claimed exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) due to a fiduciary relationship with the Trust Estate. The 2nd respondent's order was challenged in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a public authority, is obligated to provide information accessible under the RTI Act. It held that there was no fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the Trust Estate, and the information sought was not exempted under Section 8 (1) (e). The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to provide the information to the 1st respondent.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's obligation to provide information under the RTI Act, the existence of a fiduciary relationship, and the scope of exemptions under Section 8 (1) (e).
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the RTI Act, the definition of 'public authority,' and the absence of a fiduciary relationship between the petitioner and the Trust Estate. It emphasized the citizens' right to access information held by public authorities and the limited scope of exemptions under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to provide the information sought by the 1st respondent within two weeks. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission/2nd respondent dated 25.1.2023 in Case No.SA 1579/A/2021 and quash the same.)
1. The order of the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to provide the details sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act’) by the 1st respondent, has resulted in the filing of the present petition.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property situated at No.79 and 80, Broadway, Chennai is administered by the petitioner on the orders of this Court dated 2.5.1939 under a Scheme Decree made in C.S. No.314 of 1930 and for carrying out the charities and welfare measures as per the wish of the Testator under the supervision of this Court, the petitioner has to obtain permission of this Court.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent made an application dated 5.2.22 under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking to furnish information with regard to the affairs of MKP Maraikayar Trust. It is the case of the petitioner that the information is in no way related to him as he is in no way connected with the Trust estate nor is a beneficiary. The information with regard to the estate is vested with the petitioner under the scheme decree made in the aforesaid civil suit and the application of the respondent is only made with an ulterior motive. It is the further case of the petitioner that the affairs of the Trust under the control of the petitioner are exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that the functioning of the petitioner as Administrator of the Trust is in a fiduciary capacity and the petitioner is not under obligation to furnish any information to third parties and, therefore, the information sought for by the 1st respondent is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e).
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that if any of the beneficiaries of the Trust made an application for information from the petitioner, the petitioner would be under obligation to furnish to them and the 1st respondent, being in no way connected with the Trust, the petitioner is under no obligation to furnish the information as the petitioner is exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that the information sought for by the 1st respondent is totally irrelevant to him and does not meet the criteria or object of the RTI Act.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that W.P. No.32025/19 filed against the Government has been disposed of vide order dated 2.3.20 and the said writ petition is in no way connected with the present petitioner. However, reply was given by the petitioner vide letter dated 3.3.20 to the 1st respondent that the information sought by the 1st respondent stands exempted u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. It is the further case of the petitioner that the appeal before the Registrar General, High Court, viz., the appellate authority u/s 19 (2) of the RTI Act was also rejected vide order dated 1.9.2021. Against the said order, the 1st respondent preferred second appeal in S.A. No.6601/A/2020 before the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, another second appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent in S.A. No.1579/2021 in which the 2nd respondent has issued notice of enquiry dated 13.01.2023.
6. It is the further case of the petitioner that though on the day the petitioner was represented by an authorised officer, however, the 2nd respondent had informed that the property is a public property and, therefore, the petitioner is under obligation to furnish the information to the 1st respondent leading to the passing of the impugned order, whereby direction has been given to provide the information as sought for within
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a public authority, as defined under the RTI Act, is obligated to provide information accessible to citizens, and exemptions under Section ....
A public body or statutory trustee is not exempted from the Right to Information Act under the fiduciary relationship clause when maintaining accounts and registers required by law. Such records are ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and the balancing of the right to information with the protection of commercial confidence. Th....
Disclosure of personal information under RTI requires explicit consent from the candidate, balancing public interest and privacy provisions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
