Pavan Sachdeva vs Central Public Information Officer(Hudco) And Ors.

$~2, 3 and 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 28.04.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:

+ W.P.(C) 7217/2015 and CM APPL. 3362/2022
PAVAN SACHDEVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Pavan Sachdeva, Advocate.

versus

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER(HUDCO) AND
ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Jatin Lalwani,
and Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Advocates.

3
+ W.P.(C) 7577/2015
PAVAN SACHDEVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Pavan sachdeva, Advocate.

versus

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Jatin Lalwani,
and Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Advocates.

4
+ W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 1 of 11

PAVAN SACHDEVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Pavan sachdeva, Advocate.

versus

THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER AND ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Jatin Lalwani,
and Mr. Nikhil Purohit, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


These petitions arise out of applications preferred by the petitioner
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“ RTI Act ”), seeking information
in relation to a Community Centre at Andrewsganj, New Delhi. The subject
matter of these three petitions is substantially connected, as the reasons
assigned for denying the information overlap.
2. W.P.(C) 7217/2015 arises out of an application filed before the
Central Public Information Officer („ CPIO ‟) of the Housing Urban
Development Corporation Ltd. („ HUDCO ‟).
3. The facts as gleaned from the record appear to be that the Government
of India (“ GoI ”) had leased out the land in question to HUDCO. After
development of the project, portions of the land were allotted to various
private parties. The petitioner states that his company is one of the allottees
of a portion of the said land. There seems to be litigation between the
petitioner‟s Company and the HUDCO on account of cancellation of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 2 of 11

allotment.
4. During the relevant period, the GoI, intended to handover the project
in question to NBCC. It is for this reason, correspondence took place
between the GoI, HUDCO and NBCC. The petitioner sought copies of this
correspondence, minutes of meetings and resolutions passed between the
parties, and inspection of the files under the RTI Act.
5. In W.P.(C) 7217/2015, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated
16.03.2015 before CPIO, HUDCO/ respondent no.1, seeking the following
information:
“ a. The letters issued by Hudco to MOUD from 30.8.2011 onwards till the
date of issue of the documents.
b. The letters received from MOUD by Hudco from 30.8.2011 on wards till
the date of issue of documents.
c. The letters issued by Hudco to NBCC from 1.1.2014 onwards till the date
of issue of the documents.
d. The letters received from NBCC by Hudco from 1.1.2014 onwards till the
date of issue of documents.
e. Minutes & resolutions passed by board of directors meetings in respect of
Andrewsganj project from 30.8.2011 onwards till the date of issue of
documents. ”

6. The said application was rejected by the authority vide order dated
10.04.2015, by invoking Sections 8(1)(a), (d), (e), (h) and (i) of the RTI Act.
The First appellate Authority vide order dated 11.05.2015 upheld the order
of the CPIO. The Central Information Commission („ CIC ‟) vide order dated
06.07.2015 dismissed the Second Appeal.
7. In W.P.(C) 7577/2015, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated
21.02.2015 before respondent no.1, requesting for the same information as
sought in his application dated 16.03.2015. The said application was
rejected by respondent no.1 vide order dated 24.03.2015 by invoking the
same provisions, as in the order dated 10.04.2015 (in the lead matter). The
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 3 of 11

petitioner then preferred a First Appeal on 04.04.2015, to which the CIC
proceeded to dispose of the appeal in terms of its earlier order dated
06.07.2015.
8. In W.P.(C) 7645/2015, the petitioner filed an RTI application dated
21.02.2015 before the CPIO, NBCC. Seeking the following information:
“a. letters issued by NBCC to MOUD from 01.01.2014 onward till
date of issue till documents.
b. letters received from MOUD by NBCC from 01.01.2014 onward
till the date of issue of documents
c. Letters issued by NBCC to Hudco from 01.01.2014 onward till
date of issue of documents
d. Letters received from Hudco by NBCC from 01.01.2014 on ward
till the date of issue of documents
e. Minutes and resolutions passed by the board of directors meeting
in respect of Andrewsganj Project from 01.01.2014 onward till the
date of issue of documents
f. Minutes and resolutions passed by board of directors meeting in
respect of Andrewganj project from 01.01.2014 onward till the
date of issue of documents
g. Opinion dated 28.09.2014 from Attorney General of India ”.

9. Aforementioned application was also rejected by the CPIO vide order
dated 18.03.2015 by invoking sections 8(1)(d), (e) and 11(1) of the RTI Act.
The same was upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated
27.04.2015. The petitioner, on preferring a Second Appeal to the CIC , the
order passed by the First Appellate Authority and the CPIO was upheld vide
21.07.2015.
10. The broad reasons assigned by the concerned CPIO for denying
information sought by the petitioner was that the matter was at the stage of
discussion between HUDCO, Ministry of Urban Development and NBCC,
and that disclosure of the same was available to the parties in a fiduciary
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 4 of 11

capacity, and disclosure of the said information would be against the
economic interests of the State. The CPIO also seems to have apprehended
that, information disclosed would be used by the petitioner in the pending
litigation in relation to the Andrewsganj project.
11. NBCC, while denying information has also invoked Section 11(1),
taking the stand that the information sought by the petitioner relates to third
parties, and contains confidential information; the disclosure of which would
harm the competitive position of the third party.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
13. The Court at the threshold finds that Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is
the procedure to be followed for the disclosure of third party information,
and the same is not an exemption to deny disclosure of information.
14. The primary issue, that, thus, arises for consideration is whether the
respondents were justified in rejecting the applications made by the
petitioner by making a general reference to exemptions under Section 8 of
the RTI Act, without applying its mind explaining how those exemptions
applied to the documents sought.
15. A bare perusal of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act would show that
information means any material, including records, documents, memos, e-
mails, opinions, advices etc.
16. It is, therefore, the case that correspondence, minutes, resolutions and
records maintained by the public authority would ordinarily fall within the
expression “ information ” or “ record ”. If the material sought for is already
within the control of the public authority, a request for access to the same
shall be considered within the framework of the Act.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 5 of 11

17. It has been pointed out during the course of hearing that the Regular
First Appeals which were pending between the petitioner‟s company and the
respondent stand reserved by the Division Bench of this Court. It is also
submitted that one of the litigations has attained finality from the Supreme
Court. The apprehension of the respondents that furnishing of the
information would adversely affect the rights of the respondents in pending
litigation also, would not sustain in view of the fact that the appeals between
the parties have already been reserved.

18. A perusal of the impugned orders show that the respondents have
mechanically invoked the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(a), (d), (e), (h)
and (i) of the RTI Act, without going through the information sought
through an application of mind. The orders do not indicate as to how the
disclosure of the entire class of information sought would fall within each of
the exemptions invoked.
19. In arguendo , each of the exemptions invoked may be considered
separately.
20. Section 8(1)(a) exempts disclosure of information, where such
disclosure would be prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India with
respect to its security, strategic, or economic interest of the State. The
respondents have merely stated that HUDCO falls within the definition of a
“ State ”, and that disclosure of the requested information “ may ” jeopardize
the interest of HUDCO, MOUD and NBCC.

21. This Court is of the opinion that a public authority claiming such an
exemption is required to go through the documents sought for by applying
its mind, and then come to the conclusion that disclosure of the requested
documents would be sensitive with respect to such interests.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 6 of 11

22. The exemption under Section 8(1)(d) is available only in regard to
such information, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of any third party. The public authority invoking this exemption is
required to specifically identify as to how the disclosure of the information
sought would harm the competitive position of the third party. Information
which may at one point harm the competitive position of a third party may
not continue to do so at a later point in time. It is not the case that an
exemption under Section 8(1)(d), once granted, would continue to apply
perpetually. The exemption itself, is contingent on the effect such disclosure
has on the third party, which is subject to change with time. Reference may
be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H.
1
Satya . The respondents herein have in an overbroad fashion merely stated
that the disclosure of the information sought by the petitioner “ may
jeopardize the interest of HUDCO, MOUD and NBCC ” without making any
reference as to how or what competitive position is affected.
23. While considering the exemption under Section 8(1)(e), it is important
to note that the term “ fiduciary ” is used to describe a situation or transaction
where one person places complete confidence in another person in regard to
his affairs , business or transactions. The term may also be used to refer to a
person who holds a thing in trust for another. The fiduciary is expected to
act in confidence, for the advantage of the beneficiary. Reference may be
made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision of CBSE v.
2
Aditya Bandopadhyay , wherein the Supreme Court has extensively dealt
with the concept of fiduciary duty in light of the RTI Act. The relevant

1
(2011) 8 SCC 781
2
(2011) 8 SCC 497
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 7 of 11

portion of the judgement is reproduced for better clarity:
“ 39. The term “fiduciary” refers to a person having a duty to act for the
benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, 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 is
expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party. ”
24. The respondents herein have failed to show, how ordinary
correspondence, exchanged between public authorities in relation to the
Andrewsganj project is held in a fiduciary capacity. Moreover, the
impugned orders have failed to identify the fiduciary, the beneficiary, or in
what capacity the information sought is being held. To this extent, a blanket
invocation of Section 8(1)(e) cannot be accepted by this Court.
25. The opinion dated 28.09.2014 received from the Attorney General for
India, however stands on a different footing. A legal opinion obtained by a
public authority from the Attorney General of India, cannot be placed within
the same category as correspondence in relation to a project. Such an
opinion involves confidence and trust placed in the fiduciary by the
benefactor. The distinct nature of such an advice rightfully falls within the
exemption of Section 8(1)(e) of the Act. Further, the petitioner has not
demonstrated a public interest that warrants such disclosure in the present
case. Therefore, no disclosure with regard to the same is required for in this
case.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 8 of 11

26. In the context of the opinion of Solicitor General of India, this Court
has held that exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is fully attracted. For the same
reasoning, the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is also applicable to the
opinion of Attorney General of India. Reference may be made to the
decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr v Subhash Chandra
3
Agrawal . The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced as under:
“ 26. On the perusal of the Rules for engagement of Law Officers, it is seen
that it is the duty of the Law Officers to give advice to the Government of
India on legal matters. A Law Officer is not allowed to hold brief for any
party except with the permission of the Government of India. The Law
Officer is also restricted from advising any party against the Government of
India or a Public Sector Undertaking.

27. What can be seen from the Rules as well as the judgments of the
Supreme Court is that the relationship between the Solicitor General of
India and the Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary.
The Solicitor General of India is duty bound to work for the benefit of the
Union and other departments in good faith, where there exists trust and
reliance by the beneficiary upon the Ld. Solicitor General. This Court finds
no infirmity with the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the
Petitioner that the advice tendered by the Ld. Solicitor General to the Union
of India and other various government departments is done in the nature of
a fiduciary, and hence the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act has
been invoked. ”

27. Section 8(1)(i) relates to Cabinet papers, including records of
deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. The
respondents in the present case has sought to avail this exemption in an
overbroad fashion. The exemption under section 8(1)(i) is subject to the
proviso therein, all letters exchanged between HUDCO, NBCC and MOUD
concerning to the project in question cannot be treated as cabinet papers
merely because a government decision may be contemplated.

3
2023 SCC OnLine Del 8352
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 9 of 11

28. Further, this Court in Bachan Singh Rana v Central Public
4
Information Officer & Ors has held that if part of the record is exempt
from disclosure, and the rest can reasonably be severed from the part which
does not warrant disclosure. The public authority is bound to consider
disclosing the part that is not exempted after such severance.
29. Under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, this exemption applies where the
disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension of prosecution of offenders. The apprehension of the
respondents that furnishing of the information would adversely affect the
rights of the respondents in pending litigation also would not sustain in view
of the fact that the appeals between the parties have already been reserved.
30. The nature of the information which are required by the petitioner
seems to be necessary in order to maintain the transparency in the
Government‟s functioning. Apart from the exemption invoked with respect
to the opinion of the Attorney General of India, none of the aforesaid
provisions would have any application to most of the information sought
herein. A bare perusal of the preamble of the RTI Act would indicate that
the said Act, is enacted to secure access to information which is under the
control of public authorities to facilitate better functioning of the democracy
through transparency of information.
31. In order to effectively deal with the petitioner‟s grievance which
remains pending for more than 10 years, it is found appropriate to issue the
following directions:
a. The petitioner to specifically ask the respondents regarding the
inspection of the relevant files.

4
WP(C)6420/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 10 of 11

b. Let the respondent to forthwith fix a time for the inspection and
send to the petitioner an intimation for the aforesaid inspection.
c. The petitioner, thereafter, shall furnish the list of the documents
which he seeks to obtain.
d. Once the said list is furnished, the respondent to furnish the
documents within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
application.
32. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 28, 2026/ aks/ns
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
20:17:28
W.P.(C) 7217/2015, W.P.(C) 7577/2015, W.P.(C) 7645/2015
Page 11 of 11