JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 08.06.2012 passed by State Information Commissioner whereby the petitioner no. 1 was directed to supply the answer sheets of each and every candidate, who had appeared in the entrance examination of M.B.B.S. course in the petitioner’s college; and further to show cause as to why penalty may not be imposed against the petitioners under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Petitioner No.1 is running an institute in the name and style “Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences” for different graduate and post graduate medical courses; respondent No. 2 vide application dated 02.11.2011 sought certain informations from the petitioner wherein information sought at serial no .6 was to supply the photocopies of the answer books of all the candidates appeared in the entrance examination for M.B.B.S. course for the Academic Session starting from 2011; all other information demanded by respondent no. 2 were supplied; however, information sought at serial no.6 was denied. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 2 approached the State Information Commission wherein impugned order was passed. 3. Despite valid personal service on the respondent no. 2, none appeared for respondent no. 2. 4. I have heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma and Ms. Rajni Supyal, Advocates, for the petitioners and have carefully perused the record. 5. Undisputedly, photocopy of the answer sheet of respondent no. 2 and other information sought by respondent no. 2 were supplied to respondent no. 2 except information sought at serial no. 6 whereby demand was raised to supply the photocopies of the answer books of other candidates appeared in the entrance examination of M.B.B.S. course for the Academic Session commencing from 2011. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Others, 2011 AIR SCW 4888 in para 24 has held as under: “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. 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. 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.” 7. As per the dictum of the Apex Court, the examining body, if it is in a fiduciary relationship with the 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 answer books to anyone else. 8. In view of the above, respondent no. 2 is not entitled to have photostat copies of the answer books of the other examinees. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.