# Public Service Commission U.P v. State Information Commission & Anr

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 250
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-08
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Anil Kumar Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/public-service-commission-u-p-v-state-information-commission-anr-42766
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-readwith right
to
information
Act
2005-Section8(1)(e)-
Commission seeking exemption- to supply
the copy of answer sheet Math I of PCS
examination 2007-being aggrieved to with
order passed by Appellate authority-on
ground if such request accepted-about 75
staff
shall
be
required
to
supply
information-and shall be flooded by of such
application-held-in view of law developed
by Apex Court in Aditya Bandopdhyay casecommission can not deny to supply the
photocopy
of
desired
answer
sheetapprehension
of
commission
baselesspetition dismissed.

Held: Para-14
We, therefore, hold that in the light of
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the examining body does not
hold the answer book in a fiduciary
relationship and the exemption under
Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not
available. We, accordingly, do not find
any error in the direction issued by the
State Information Commission.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 497; (1975) 4 SCC 428.

## Text

250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."
(emphasis added)

4. Petitioner has shown his age 24
years at the time of filing this writ petition
and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination,
his adoption could have taken place before
1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above
requirement of law and considering the fact
that even before this Court, no document has
been placed to establish the claim of
petitioner with respect to his alleged adoption
by the deceased employee, and, on the
contrary, learned counsel for petitioner
admits there does not appear to be executed
any registered adoption deed, I do not find
any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order
impugned in this writ petition warranting
interference.

5. The writ petition lacks merit.
Dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69747 Of 2013

Public Service Commission U.P...Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission & Anr...
 Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, Sri U.N.
Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, Sri Balram Singh

Constitution of India, Art.-226-readwith right
to
information
Act
2005-Section8(1)(e)-
Commission seeking exemption- to supply
the copy of answer sheet Math I of PCS
examination 2007-being aggrieved to with
order passed by Appellate authority-on
ground if such request accepted-about 75
staff
shall
be
required
to
supply
information-and shall be flooded by of such
application-held-in view of law developed
by Apex Court in Aditya Bandopdhyay casecommission can not deny to supply the
photocopy
of
desired
answer
sheetapprehension
of
commission
baselesspetition dismissed.

Held: Para-14
We, therefore, hold that in the light of
the decision of the Supreme Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the examining body does not
hold the answer book in a fiduciary
relationship and the exemption under
Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not
available. We, accordingly, do not find
any error in the direction issued by the
State Information Commission.

Case Law discussed:
(2011) 8 SCC 497; (1975) 4 SCC 428.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Respondent no.2 filed an application
under the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred as the Act) requesting
the Public Service Commission, U.P.
(hereinafter referred as the Commission) to
supply a photocopy of the mathematics Ist
paper of P.C.S. Mains Examination, 2007.
The Public Information Officer of the
Commission
gave
a
reply
intimating
respondent no.2 that he had already inspected
the answer book and since there was no
provision of revaluation of the answer
book,as such photocopy of the answer book
of the relevant paper could not be supplied.

2. Respondent no.2, being aggrieved
by the response given by the Public
Information Officer, filed an appeal
1 All] Public Service Commission U.P. Vs. State Information Commission & Anr.
251
before the Ist Appellate Authority, which
was
rejected
by
an
order
dated
29.11.2012.

3. Respondent no.2 thereafter preferred
a second appeal before the State Information
Commission, who, after considering the
matter, passed an order dated 12.11.2013
directing the Commission to furnish a
photocopy of the answer sheet of the
mathematics Ist paper. The Commission,
being aggrieved by the said order, filed a
review application, which was rejected by an
order dated 28.11.2013. The Commission,
being aggrieved, has filed the present writ
petition.

4. Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma,
the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by
Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, for the
petitioner and Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi,
the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Balram Singh, for respondent no.2.

5. The controversy involved in the
present writ petition is, whether the
Commission is obliged to furnish a certified
copy of the answer book or photocopy
thereof to the applicant? This issue has been
squarely decided by a decision of the
Supreme Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497,
wherein the Supreme Court held that where
the answer book is evaluated by the
examiner appointed by the examining body,
the
evaluated
answer
book
is
an
"information" under the Act. The Supreme
Court further held that the evaluated answer
book does not fall under any of the categories
of exempted information enumerated in
clause (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) of section 8
of the Act and consequently, the examining
body was bound to provide access to the
information and that any applicant could
not only inspect the document/record,
take notes, extracts but could also obtain
certified copies thereof.

6. The Supreme Court in the
aforesaid decision further held that the
examining body does not hold the
evaluated answer book in the fiduciary
relationship and that the exemption under
Section 8(e) of the Act was not available
to the examining body with reference to
the evaluated answer book.

7. The object of the Act is to ensure
maximum disclosure of the information
and
minimum
exemptions
from
disclosure. The Act was enacted to ensure
smoother, greater and more effective
access to information and provide an
effective framework for effectuating the
right to information recognized under
Article 19 of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision
of Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra) has held that the right to
information is a cherished right. The
Right to Information Act, 2005 should be
interpreted in a manner which would lead
towards dissemination of information
rather than withholding the same.

8. We are of the opinion, that this
right to information flows from freedom
of speech and that the people of this
country have a right to know every public
act that is done in a public way by the
public functionary and are entitled to
know the particulars of every public
transaction in all its bearing as held by the
Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Raj
Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428.

9. The provisions of the Act make it
clear that a right is given to a citizen to
access information. At the same time,
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is an obligation of the public
authority to maintain the records in the
manner provided and disseminate the
information in the manner provided. The
Supreme Court in Central Board of
Secondary Education (Supra) has held
that the evaluated answer book is an
information under Section 2(f) of the Act
and consequently, such information is
required to be disseminated if asked for.
An applicant has a right to access such
information held or under the control of a
public authority.

10. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that if the order of the
State Information Commission is allowed to
stand, it will open the floodgates for similar
demand and that such direction would
become
impracticable
and
counter
productive and would adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration. The learned
counsel contended that the officers and staff
of the Commission would get bogged down
with such non-productive work and that
75% of the staff would be involved in
furnishing
such
information
to
the
candidates.
The
learned
counsel
consequently, submitted that the direction to
supply photocopy of the answer sheet is
patently erroneous and should be set aside.

11. As held by the Supreme Court in
Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the candidate has a right to access
the information under the Act. The answer
sheet is an information under Section 2(f) of
the Act and such information is required to
be disseminated to the candidate. The Act
provides that maximum disclosure of the
information should be made. The Supreme
Court has held that the exemption provided
under the Act is not available to the
examining body with regard to supply of
the evaluated answer book. The Supreme
Court has however, directed the examining
body to hide the signatures and name of the
examiner while supplying a photocopy or
certified copy of the answer book.

12. In the instant case, the State
Information Commission has taken care
of this aspect while directing the
Commission to supply the answer book.

13. The objections of the petitioner are
untenable and are based on presumptions.
There is nothing on record to indicate that a
large demand has been made by the
candidates for supplying copies of the
answer sheets nor there is anything on record
to suggest that 75% of the staff are presently
involved in the work. This Court is of the
opinion that supply of answer sheets cannot
be denied on such surmises and conjectures.

14. We, therefore, hold that in the
light of the decision of the Supreme Court
in Central Board of Secondary Education
(Supra), the examining body does not
hold the answer book in a fiduciary
relationship and the exemption under
Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not
available. We, accordingly, do not find
any error in the direction issued by the
State Information Commission.

15. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the writ petition is dismissed.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP
SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71103 of 2013