IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 59 of 2011 Board of Schools Education. ………. Appellant Versus State Information Commission & another. ..………. Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Seema Sah, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application No. 2108 of 2011: Considering the sufficiency of the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the delay condonation application and condone the delay in preferring the present appeal. Special Appeal No. 59 of 2011: Respondent No. 2 appeared in a public examination conducted by the appellant. She applied to the Information Officer of the appellant for a copy of her answer script in Mathematics. That was denied to her. She, accordingly, approached the first appellate authority. The appeal stood dismissed. She, then, preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1. Before respondent No. 1, appellant disclosed that the answer script, copy whereof had been sought for by respondent No. 2, has, in the meantime, been destroyed. Respondent No. 1, in the circumstances, could not direct the appellant to give a copy of the said answer script to respondent No. 2, while, however, expressly held that the Information Officer of the appellant and the appellate authority ought to have had provided a xerox copy of the said answer script before the same was destroyed. 2. In the present appeal, appellant is contending that respondent No. 1 erred in holding that the Information Officer of the appellant and the appellate authority should have provided xerox copy of the answer script 2 as was asked for by respondent No. 2, inasmuch as, the same was not obtainable under sub-section (9) of Section 7 and clause (g) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “2005 Act”). 3. As aforesaid, appellant conducted a public examination. The object of the 2005 Act is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The transparency and accountability of the appellant, in relation to the said public examination, can only be secured by looking at the conduct of evaluating and awarding marks, which can only be collected from the answer scripts in the custody of the public authority as that of the appellant. In terms of the rules made, respondent No. 2 had no opportunity to have her answers re-evaluated. She could only ask for scrutiny and it is well-known that in course of scrutiny, the scrutinizers are only obliged to look into answer scripts and see whether the total marks awarded have been appropriately reflected in the tabulation sheet. The scrutinizers are incompetent to see whether the examiner has omitted to examine a question or many a questions. Scrutinizers are also incompetent to ascertain whether evaluation by the examiner was or was not proper. In the circumstances, the one and the only way to promote transparency and accountability of the appellant, in relation to evaluation of answers given by a person participating in the public examination conducted by the appellant, was only to look at the evaluations made by the examiner appointed by the appellant. The same could only be done by obtaining a copy of the answer script. Xerox facilities are available in abundance in the country and there was no impediment on the part of the appellant in xeroxing a copy of the answer script and handing over the same to respondent No. 2. 3 4. We shall, now, consider sub-section (9) of Section 7 and clause (g) of Section 8 of the 2005 Act, which are as follows: “(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;” 5. As appears to us, the mandate of sub-section (9) of Section 7 is to provide information in the form in which the same is sought. In the instant case, the information was sought by providing a copy of the answer script. An information in the form in which it is sought can be avoided only when it would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. Xeroxing of an answer script, under no circumstances, can disproportionately divert resources of the appellant. In any event, it was well within the competence of the appellant to collect the xeroxing charges from respondent No. 2. Xeroxing of the answer script of respondent No. 2 could not be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the answer script, which is liable to be destroyed after a given period is over. Similarly, disclosure of the evaluation of the answers, given by respondent No. 2, by the examiner appointed by the appellant, upon furnishing xerox copy of the answer script, cannot, under any circumstances, endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The answers given to that public examination were not such informations, which were to be treated as information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. Therefore, the contention of the appellant, that the information sought for could not be given, is hopelessly unwarranted. 6. The appeal, therefore, fails and the same is dismissed. We feel that it is, now, high time that the appellant would give due and proper respect 4 to the Right to Information Act and the aim and object sought to be achieved thereunder by the legislature. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 14.06.2011 14.06.2011 G