IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32973 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, P.R.S. PILLAI, MEMORAIL, BALAVIKAS TRUST, GANDHI MARG, OPP. HINDUSTAN LATEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -5. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI.JESSEL VINOHAR RODRICKS SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SRI.S.SANJITH SRI.SHALEENA RAJAN SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 039. 2. A.M. VARGHESE, CHAIRMAN, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT TRUST, A.J. RESIDENCY, VIKAS BHAVA PO, NANDAVANAM ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.32973 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the State Public Information Officer of a Public Trust and is aggrieved by Exhibit-P9 order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act, the 1st respondent. Second respondent sought for certain information as regards the petitioner, vide Exhibit-P1, essentially as to whether the Trust is exempted under Section 80G (5) (vi) of the Income Tax Act and whether it has permission under Section 35 AC of the said Act. Another prayer sought for was regarding the the audited balance sheet for the year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. Disclosure of this was resisted by the petitioner as per Exhibit-P2 and ultimately the matter reached the Chief Information Commissioner who passed Exhibit-P9 order directing disclosure of the entire information sought for. This has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P ( C) No.32973 of 2008 2 2. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent and reply has been filed by the petitioner. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. 4. Section 8 of the Right to Information Act is relied on, to justify non-disclosure of the information and at the time of arguments, specific reference is made to Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act, which reads as follows: “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” 5. It is contended that the petitioner, a Director of the Trust is placed in a fiduciary capacity in so far as the Trust is concerned and therefore he cannot be compelled to disclose the information . 6. Learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent Sri.M.Ajay submits that though Section 8 is invoked in Exhibit-P2, the first reply given by the petitioner, specific reference is not made to Section 8(1) (e). It is further contended that the information sought for in Exhibit-P1 is W.P ( C) No.32973 of 2008 3 not one held by the petitioner on the strength of the fiduciary relationship which he enjoys qua the Trust in question. I think the stand taken by the 1st respondent is correct, except as regards query No.1. 7. In my view, this aspect alone may be reconsidered by the 1st respondent. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the case as regards the information sought for with regard to query No.1 in Exhibit-P1. I make it clear that I am not interfering with Exhibit P9 as such and the information otherwise sought for under Exhibit-P1 with regard to items 2 to 4 will have to be supplied by the petitioner as per the directions of the Chief Information Commissioner. In circumstances where the matter was pending before this Court, time for supplying this information shall stand extended up to 15.1.2009. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.32973 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No.32973 of 2008 5