ORDER Heard Sri B.D. Kandpal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5-7-2012 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Uttarakhand contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby direction was given to the petitioner to supply the copies of answer books of General Hindi and Essay subjects to the respondent, in compliance of order of 1st Appellate Court. 3. According to petitioner examination of Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat and Uttarakhand Public Service Commission was conducted and a final result was declared on 10th July, 2011. Thereafter respondent filed application under R.T.I. Act seeking photocopies of his all the answer books. The Public Information Officer of the petitioner institution passed order dated 26-3-2012 by which the respondent was intimated to inspect the answer books in the office and copies of answer books cannot be issued to him. 4. Since the petitioner has not supplied copies of answer books to the respondent, he approached to the appellate authority of the petitioner, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and the appellate authority vide order dated 30-4-2012 issued direction to the petitioner to supply the photocopies of the answer books to the respondent after obtaining requisite fee, within a period of 15 days. 5. Since the above order of first appellate court was not complied with by the petitioner, the respondent approached to the Chief Information Commissioner by filing the second appeal and vide impugned order the Chief Information Commissioner issued direction to the petitioner to issue copies to the respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has contended that since the respondent has already inspected the answer books on 21-6-2012 therefore the petitioner cannot be compelled to supply the copies of answer books to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this court towards the judgment of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4888, in which it has been held in the last portion of para 37 as under: The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4888, in which it has been held in the last portion of para 37 as under: The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. 7. In para-24 of the above cited judgment which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by the Apex Court as below: 24. We may next consider whether an examining body would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. That section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the information held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties. There is no question of the fiduciary withholding information relating to the beneficiary, from the beneficiary himself. One of the duties of the fiduciary is to make thorough disclosure of all relevant facts of all transactions between them to the beneficiary, in a fiduciary relationship. By that logic, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with an examinee, will be liable to make a full disclosure of the evaluated answer books to the examinee and at the same time, owe a duty to the examinee not to disclose the answer books to anyone else. If A entrusts a document or an article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted the document or article to B for processing. If A entrusts a document or an article to B to be processed, on completion of processing, B is not expected to give the document or article to anyone else but is bound to give the same to A who entrusted the document or article to B for processing. Therefore, if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer book, Section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the answer book, seeking inspection or disclosure of it. 8. Thus it is quite clear that if a relationship of fiduciary and beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference to the answer book, Section 8(1)(e) of R.T.I. Act would operate as an exemption to prevent access to any third party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the answer book, seeking inspection or disclosure of it. Therefore, the respondent has a right to seek inspection as well as disclosure of the answer books. 9. In view of finding of the Apex Court the petitioner cannot deny to supply the information to the examinee who wrote the answer books. I find no illegality in the impugned order. In the case at hand third party has not applied for the supply of information but the examinee has applied for the copies of answer books written by him. 10. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed at the admission stage. Petition dismissed.