H.N. SARMA, J. - (1.) ARUNACHAL Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, 'APPSC') feeling irritated by the decision passed by the ARUNACHAL Pradesh Information Commission rendered in case No. APIC/14/02 on 26.04.07 directing them to allow the applicant/Respondent No. 2 for perusal of his answer script of Mathematics paper where he appeared in the test conducted to select candidate for appointment in the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise), has approached this Court by filling this writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC and Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1. None appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2/applicant at the time of hearing. The applicant/Respondent No. 2 appeared in a competitive examination being an aspirant for the post of Inspector (Tax & Excise) conducted by the APPSC. The Respondent No. 2 not being satisfied with the evaluation of his answer script in Mathematics paper, he applied for perusal and inspection of the answer script by filing necessary statutory application in Form-A under the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') to the Public Information Officer of the Commission complying with the necessary requirements. Vide communication dated 09.02.2007, the Public Information Officer of the Commission refused his prayer. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed an appeal on 30.03.2007 before the Chief Information Commissioner of the State Information Commission constituted under the Act. The appellate authority after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.07 allowed the appeal and directed the APPSC to allow the applicant for perusal of his Mathematics answer script as prayed for, within a period of 1 month. The said decision is challenged by the APPSC in this writ petition. Mr. N. Tagia, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC contends that the disclosure of answer script in question so examined by the specific examiner appointed by the Commission constituted a fiduciary relationship and in the event of disclosing the same to the applicant, it would be violative of such relationship that exists between the Commission and the related examiner which attracts the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(e) of the Act and such fiduciary relationship is required to be maintained for larger public interest. It is also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the information sought for being the personal infomation about the performance of the applicant, there is no involvement of any public interest and as such the Commision has no obligation to allow the applicant to peruse the answer script, under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. Learned Standing Counsel press into service the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Maharashtra Board of Higher Secondary Education Council Vs. Paritosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1534 and some other unreported decisions rendered by the Kerala State Commission and by the Central Information Commission, and such other commission, but the text of the judgments have not produced before the Court. Referring to the aforesaid decisions, lear-ned Standing Counsel contends that in the event of allowing the prayer of the applicant there would be delay in attaining the finality of the examination process and it will be against the norms of public policy. It is further contended that APPSC is guided and regulated by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Limitations and Functions) Regulation, 1988 and in the matter of conducting the competitive examination, the regulation do not contain any such provisions for supply/inspection of the answer script to a candidate. It is further contended that the impugned judgment not having disclosed the nature of public interest involved in the matter, the same is a cryptic one without disclosing the mind of the authority and accodingly the same is liable to be interfered with.
(3.) MR. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/the State Information Commission, per contra contends that the applicant has got existing right to receive the 'information' with the meaning of Clause-2(j) of the Act and the APPSC being a public authority and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India has get an obligation under Section 4 of the Act to provide such information to the applicant by allowing him to peruse the answer script and by refusing to do so the APPSC has violated the provisions of the Act and also has violated the existing right of the appellant. It is also contended that on earlier such inspection of answer script in respect of Civil Service Examination conducted by the APPSC in the year 2002 was allowed to one Dr. Takin Gammy and as such the APPSC is not permitted to take a different stand in case of the applicant. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Parliament in order to ensure greater and more effective excess to information repealing the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 which was holding the filed till then. The preamble of he Act reads as follows: "WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interest including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interest while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal; NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it." Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'information' as any material in any form, including rec-ords, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press release. circulars orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form, which can be excess by a pubic authority under any law for the time being in force. Section 2(h) defines 'public authority'. Section 2 (j) defines "right to information" which also includes inspection of all documents and records. Section 4 of the Act makes its obligatory upon the public authority for maintaining necessary records. The Right to Information has been guaranteed by the Act to all citizens of the country. The Act can be aptly described as statutory recognition of the segments of right to information emanated from Article 19 (a) of the Constitution of India in statutory form. Under the Act the transparency in the administrative functions of the various organs of the Government has been sought to be made available to the public. Whether in the matter of public administration be it in the form of adjudication of rights of citizens or in the matter of infrastructure building of the State, or otherwise transparency of the actions of the public authority has become an order of the day. The very objective of the Act is to allow the citizens to scrutiny the Governmental action within the parameter of the Act to ensure accountability and transparency in Governmental functions. However, Section 8 of the Act provides certain restrictions in the form of exemption. ;