Fiduciary relationships and their role in denying information under the RTI Act were key in dismissing the appeal.

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.03.2024 seeking information on the following points:

a) Provide me with complete documents/records like enquiry order copy, complete enquiry proceedings, final enquiry report etc. pertaining to the enquiry conducted by then Senior Branch Manager, Andhra Bank Venkateswara Rao against mortgage deed of No.10861 of 2018 dated 15-12-2018.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.05.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The application is rejected prima facie.

Application is rejected Under Section 8(1)(e) because the application is forwarded for the details of the accounts of the third party cannot be provided due to existence of the fiduciary relationship between customer and the service provider.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.05.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.06.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 18.07.2024.

5. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Ms. Shanti, Sr. Manager (law)

attended the hearing through video conference.

6. The appellant inter alia submitted that he had sought record/documents related to an enquiry conducted upon the direction of the higher authority of the bank. He stated that information was related to his ancestral property, not third-party information which was denied by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.

7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought pertained to the third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act has been sought. A written submission dated 18.08.2025 of the respondent has been taken on record. 8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the exemption of section 8 (1) (e) claimed by the CPIO is appropriate as no substantial evidence has been placed before the Commission by the appellant on his claim that the property mentioned in the RTI application is related to him. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE VS Aditya Bandopadhyay Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, Arising out of SLP (C) no. 7526/2009. The following was thus held:

21. The term ‘fiduciary’ refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and condour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term ‘fiduciary relationship’ is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party. There are also certain relationships where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity treating the other as the benefici