M.N.BHANDARI,J. - (1.) These writ petitions have been heard together as they are arising out of the controversy under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act of 2005").
(2.) The petitioner - Mr.Shyam Lal made an application to seek copies of the answer sheet for RAS Examination - 2007. The Commissioner, Information passed an order to provide required information. The order of the Commissioner, Information has been challenged by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer by maintaining the writ petitions, whereas, Mr.Shyam Lal has preferred writ petition to seek compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner, Information. This Court after hearing the petitioner - Mr.Shyam Lal, present in person, passed following order on 27th November, 2009, which reads as under : "Petitioner, who appears in person, submits that despite order passed by the Commissioner, RTI, Jaipur, the answer- sheets of RAS Examination, 2007 were not made available to him for perusal and which compelled him to approach this Court by filing instant petition. Notices were issued by this Court on 14 th November, 2009. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent so far. Petitioner submits that atleast he may be permitted to inspect his answer-sheets of G.K. Paper I and II and History I and II in compliance of order passed by Commissioner, RTI dt.7 September, 2009. th Petitioner is directed to appear in the office off Commission on 4th December, 2009. Respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to inspect his copies on the said date. List on 11th December, 2009."
(3.) It is stated that pursuant to the order aforesaid, answer sheets of the paper of G.K. Paper I and II and History Paper I and II were shown to Mr.Shyam Lal. He has taken notes out of those copies. It was after taking four hours for it. An affidavit was then filed about inspection of copies, though, it contains allegations about improper marks. In any case, inspection of copies has already been made thus nothing survives in the writ petition, rather, compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner, Information has been made other than to provide photocopies of the answer sheets. It cannot be provided now as copies have been weeded out presuming full compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner, Information in view of the order of this Court dated 27th November, 2011, as quoted above. Mr.Shyam Lal - Petitioner, present in person, submits that he has been awarded zero marks in these papers, though, rightly answered the questions thus evaluation of the answer was not properly done. An affidavit containing such allegations has been filed before the Court, which has not been contested by the RPSC. In view of the above, appropriate order may be passed by this Court. It is, however, admitted that he has already conducted inspection of all the copies. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, so far as the inspection of copies is concerned, it has already been conducted. Mr.Shyam Lal - Petitioner, present in person, has submitted that he has been awarded zero marks for few questions. The perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition does not show it to be in reference to the aforesaid controversy. If the petitioner - Shyam Lal was aggrieved by the award of marks, he could have taken appropriate remedy for it. ;