JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 9th April, 2009 by which information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was denied by the Public Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation by placing reliance upon Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. The first appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Act was dismissed by the order dated 9th July, 2009 and the second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Central Information Commission was also dismissed by the order dated 13th May, 2010. These orders have been assailed in this petition. 2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that pursuant to an advertisement dated 28th June, 2000 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for LPG Distribution-ship for Tehsil Tamkuhiraj, District Kushi Nagar, both the petitioner and Smt. Vijaya Mishra submitted their applications. Interviews were conducted on 10th August, 2007 and Smt. Vijaya Mishra was placed at serial No. 1, while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2. Ultimately, LPG Distribution-ship was offered to Smt. Vijaya Mishra. 3. The petitioner claims that as the income statement of Smt. Vijaya Mishra in the application form submitted by her regarding the income of her husband was not correct, she filed an application on 5th February, 2009 under Section 6 of the Act for seeking the following information : (a) Whether, Smt. Vijaya Mishra had disclosed the income of her husband and had enclosed the income statement of her husband in the application form and whether she disclosed information that her husband was working in the U.P. State Medical Services in year 2000 and if the income statement was enclosed then a copy of the same may be supplied to her. (b) Whether Smt. Vijaya Mishra, who was working in a School at Kanpur even prior to 2000, had disclosed such information and whether she had disclosed her income in the application form and if such information was given, then a photostat of the same may be supplied. 4. The Public Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation denied information to the petitioner by the order dated 9th April, 2009 by placing reliance upon Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. 5. 4. The Public Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation denied information to the petitioner by the order dated 9th April, 2009 by placing reliance upon Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. 5. The first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the order dated 9th July, 2009 and the same is quoted below : “This appeal has been filed by the applicant who made an application on 5.2.2009 to the respondent under RTI Act, 2005 and sought the personal details pertaining to Smt. Vijaya Mishra and her husband. The respondent replied the said application vide his letter dated 9.4.2009 and denied the information. Being dissatisfied with the said reply the appellant has filed his appeal. I have gone through the application, appeal memo of the appellant and reply from the respondent. The appellant is seeking the copy of the application form submitted by Smt. Vijaya Mishra for the allotment of LPG distributionship at Tamkuhiraj, Dist. Kushinagar, and income certificate of Smt. Vijaya Mishra’s and income certificate of Dr. Ramesh Tiwari the husband of Smt. Vijaya Mishra. The respondent has rejected the above information claiming exemption under Sections 8(1)(e) and (j). I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the candidates for the allotment of Dealership/distributionship contains the personal information and is held by the respondent in the fiduciary capacity. Further larger public interest does not warrant disclosure of such personal information. It appears to me that the appellant has grievances with regard to allotment of distributionship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra which cannot be redressed under RTI Act. In view of the above there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.” 6. The second appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Central Information Commission by the order dated 13th May, 2010 which is quoted below : “The appellant has asked certain documents, mainly the income certificate of a third party. The CPIO has refused to furnish the information under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the documents, submitted by the third party in question, are false and the same are therefore required for submission to the Court, which examine the matter relating to award of dealership. The appellant pleaded for providing the documents, which are in possession of the respondent. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the documents, submitted by the third party in question, are false and the same are therefore required for submission to the Court, which examine the matter relating to award of dealership. The appellant pleaded for providing the documents, which are in possession of the respondent. Decision: The appellant has asked for a copy of the income certificate submitted by a third party. The information in question has no relationship with any public activity. Therefore denial of information under Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act is justified. The appeal is, therefore, considered unnecessary and is thus disposed of” 7. Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to the aforesaid information and the respondents committed an illegality in denying such information to the petitioner by taking recourse to the exemption from disclosure of information contained in Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act whereas infact such plea, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not available to the respondents. 8. Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and has submitted that they do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Under Section 6 of the Act, a person who desires to obtain any information has to make a request in writing. The petitioner did make such a request by filing the application on 5th February, 2009. The petitioner desired to know whether Smt. Vijaya Mishra had submitted the income statement of her husband in the application for submitted by her for the LPG distributionship and whether she had disclosed that her husband was employed with the U.P. State Medical Services in the year 2000. Further information that was sought by the petitioner was whether Smt. Vijaya Mishra was the owner of the School at Kanpur while she working in 2000 and whether such information was given by her in the application form. 11. The Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation, however, denied such information to the petitioner by placing reliance upon Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act which are reproduced below : 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— ... ... ... ... 11. The Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation, however, denied such information to the petitioner by placing reliance upon Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act which are reproduced below : 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,— ... ... ... ... (e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; ... ... ... ... (j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person “ 12. Sub-Section (e) of Section 8(1) of the Act provides that there shall be no obligation to give such information which is available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. 13. The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, 2011(4) ESC 600 (SC), examined in detail the exemption provided for in sub-section (e) of Section 8(1) of the Act. The respondent had appeared for the Secondary School Examination 2008 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and as he was disappointed with the marks awarded to him, he filed an application under the Act for inspection and re-evaluation of his answer books. The following questions arose for consideration before the Supreme Court : (i) Whether an examinee’s right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof? (ii) Whether the decisions of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education, 1984 (4) SCC 27 and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof? (ii) Whether the decisions of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education, 1984 (4) SCC 27 and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof? (iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books “in a fiduciary relationship” and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under Section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act? (iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards? 14. The Supreme Court held that those Examining bodies, who are able to demonstrate that the evaluated answer-books fall under any of the categories of exempted “information” enumerated in clauses (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) Section 8 of the Act, will be bound to provide access to the information and any applicant can either inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts or obtain certified copies thereof. 15. The Supreme Court then examined whether an Examining Body holds the evaluated answer books “in a fiduciary relationship” and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under Section 8 (1)(e) of Act and in this connection observed : “19. Section 8(1) enumerates the categories of information which are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of the RTI Act. The examining bodies rely upon clause (e) of Section 8(1) which provides that there shall be no obligation on any public authority to give any citizen, information available to it in its fiduciary relationship. This exemption is subject to the condition that if the competent authority (as defined in Section 2(e) of RTI Act) is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information, the information will have to be disclosed. Therefore the question is whether the examining body holds the evaluated answer-books in its fiduciary relationship. 20. The term ‘fiduciary’ and ‘fiduciary relationship’ refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. (20.1) Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines ‘fiduciary relationship’ thus: “A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. 20. The term ‘fiduciary’ and ‘fiduciary relationship’ refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. (20.1) Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines ‘fiduciary relationship’ thus: “A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships - such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client - require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations : (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer.” (20.2) The American Restatements (Trusts and Agency) define ‘fiduciary’ as one whose intention is to act for the benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation between them. The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 36A page 381) attempts to define fiduciary thus : “A general definition of the word which is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law. It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, and has been held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar confidence toward others, and to include those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations. The word ‘fiduciary’ as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another’s benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statute, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate. Some examples of what, in particular connections, the term has been held to include and not to include are set out in the note.” (20.3) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16A, Page 41) defines ‘fiducial relation’ thus : “There is a technical distinction between a ‘fiducial relation’ which is more correctly applicable to legal relationships between parties, such as guardian and ward, administrator and heirs, and other similar relationships, and ‘confidential relation’ which includes the legal relationships, and also every other relationship wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised. Generally, the term ‘fiduciary’ applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction. The term includes those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary relations.” (20.4) In Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998 Ch. 1] the term fiduciary was defined thus : “A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty..... A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal”. (20.5) In Wolf v. Superior Court [2003 (107) California Appeals, 4th 25] the California Court of Appeals defined fiduciary relationship as under : “any relationship existing between the parties to the transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. (20.5) In Wolf v. Superior Court [2003 (107) California Appeals, 4th 25] the California Court of Appeals defined fiduciary relationship as under : “any relationship existing between the parties to the transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party. Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interests of the other party without the latter’s knowledge and consent.” 21. The term ‘fiduciary’ refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candor, 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 beneficiary. Examples of these are : a partner vis-a-vis another partner and an employer vis-a-vis employee. An employee who comes into possession of business or trade secrets or confidential information relating to the employer in the course of his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Examples of these are : a partner vis-a-vis another partner and an employer vis-a-vis employee. An employee who comes into possession of business or trade secrets or confidential information relating to the employer in the course of his employment, is expected to act as a fiduciary and cannot disclose it to others. Similarly, if on the request of the employer or official superior or the head of a department, an employee furnishes his personal details and information, to be retained in confidence, the employer, the official superior or departmental head is expected to hold such personal information in confidence as a fiduciary, to be made use of or disclosed only if the employee’s conduct or acts are found to be prejudicial to the employer. 22. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in an examination, as a Government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words ‘information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship’ are used in Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer-books, that come into the custody of the examining body. 23. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer-books, that come into the custody of the examining body. 23. The duty of examining bodies is to subject the candidates who have completed a course of study or a period of training in accordance with its curricula, to a process of verification/examination/testing of their knowledge, ability or skill, or to ascertain whether they can be said to have successfully completed or passed the course of study or training. Other specialized Examining Bodies may simply subject candidates to a process of verification by an examination, to find out whether such person is suitable for a particular post, job or assignment. An examining body, if it is a public authority entrusted with public functions, is required to act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for public good and in public interest. ................. It cannot therefore be said that the examining body is in a fiduciary relationship either with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer-books are evaluated by the examining body. ................. 27. We, therefore, hold that an examining body does not hold the evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. As no other exemption under Section 8 is available in respect of evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit inspection sought by the examinees.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The Supreme Court while interpreting Section 8(1)(e) of the Act has taken into consideration the definition of “fiduciary” and “fiduciary relationship” in the context of the duty of Examining Bodies towards the candidates who have completed a course of study or a period of training in accordance with its curricula and observed that it has to test their knowledge, ability or skill, or to ascertain whether they can be said to have successfully completed or passed the course of study or training and, therefore, held that it cannot be said that the Examining Body is in a fiduciary relationship with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer-books are evaluated by the Examining Body. 17. In the instant case, an advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for awarding of LPG Distribution-ship. 17. In the instant case, an advertisement was issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for awarding of LPG Distribution-ship. The applicants were required to possess to eligibility conditions mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner alongwith others including respondent-Smt. Vijaya Mishra who was awarded the LPG Distributionship, had applied. The petitioner had desired certain information furnished by Smt. Vijaya Mishra in her application form regarding her income to determine whether she satisfied the eligibility criteria or not. The Indian Oil Corporation was required to examine the application to find out the eligible candidates. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), it cannot be said that such information cannot be given to the applicant under Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. 18. Reliance has also been placed on the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act to deny such information to the petitioner. Sub-section (j) of Section (8)(1) of the Act provides that there shall be no obligation to give information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 19. The information which was required by the petitioner certainly had relationship with the public activity or interest of the Indian Oil Corporation as it had awarded the LPG distributionship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra on the basis of the facts stated in the application. 20. The authorities were not justified in withholding such information by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. 21. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders dated 9th April, 2009, 9th July, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. They are, accordingly, set aside. The Public Information Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation shall supply the information sought by the petitioner within two weeks. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. ——————