Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
1.Heard Sri Rakesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2.Present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission by which the petitioner has been directed to provide copy of OMR Sheet of other selected candidates along with merit list of written examination and the Rules adopted in selection process.
3.While assailing the impugned order, a defence has been taken by the petitioner that it is not permissible to supply information prayed in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Section 11 thereof. Section 8 (1) (d) is reproduced as under:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;"
4.The controversy does not seem to fall within the purview of Section 8 (1) (d) of the Act (supra). The controversy in question does not relate to cover the transaction or trade secrete or intellectual property or issue relating to third party. Rather, it relates to examination and related record.
5.So far as the provision of Section 11 of the Act is concerned, it also does not seem to attract in the present controversy. Section 11 provides that where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request inform such third party to obtain his consent. In the present case, there does not seem to be a situation where some transaction or material has been supplied by third party which has got trapping of confidentiality because of which the Information Officer has to issue notice to third party for approval or reply to document. The order of the State Information Commission relates to supply of certain document with regard to examination conducted by the petitioner.
6.Now, it is settled law that the examinee has got right to get copy of answer sheets and marksheet in which the examinee appeared. In the present case, the document claimed by the private respondent relates to examination conducted by the petitioner. There appears to be no confidentiality in the matter.
7.Today, in these days of transparency, there appears to be no harm in case the certain documents demanded by the private respondent, are provided to him. There appears to be no reason to interfere in the matter.
8.The writ petition is devoid of merit. However, the application moved by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent on merit in accordance with law.
9.Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.