2019 (4) TMI 1629 - SC - Indian Laws

When the answer scripts of appellant s examination is sought whether the fee prescribed under Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 payable or that under Guideline No. 3 of the Guideline, Rules and Procedures for Providing Inspection and/or Supply of Certified Copy(ies) of Answer Book(s) to Students, framed by the Examination Committee of appellant s statutory Council at its 148th Meeting held on 14.08.2013? HELD THAT - Guideline no.3 of the appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines. Such quashing was done despite no prayer being made to that effect on behest of the respondent, quashing of Guideline No.3 was unwarranted. It is to this limited extent that we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it quashed Guideline No.3. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of guidelines for providing inspection and certified copies of answer scripts under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the fee charged by the appellant, Institute of Company Secretaries of India, for providing inspection and certified copies of answer scripts under Guideline No.3 and Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005.

2. The respondent, who appeared for the Company Secretary exam, sought his answer sheets under the Right to Information Act and was charged as per Guideline No.3. The Delhi High Court, in a Letters Patent Appeal, set aside Guideline No.3 and directed the appellant to charge fees as per Rule 4 of the Right to Information Act.

3. The main issue was whether the fee prescribed under Rule 4 of the Right to Information Act or under Guideline No.3 of the appellant should be applicable when candidates seek their answer scripts. The appellant argued that specific guidelines under the Company Secretaries Act should prevail, while the respondent contended that candidates should have a choice between the two avenues.

4. The Supreme Court noted that both the Right to Information Act and the appellant's guidelines provided avenues for seeking inspection and certified copies of answer scripts. The Court emphasized that the existence of these two avenues was not mutually exclusive, and candidates could choose either route for obtaining information.

5. The Court held that the guidelines of the appellant, framed under the Company Secretaries Act, were meant to govern its day-to-day operations and responsibilities. However, these guidelines did not override the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which also entitled candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts.

6. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was criticized for quashing Guideline No.3, as it was done without any prayer from the respondent. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order quashing Guideline No.3, emphasizing that candidates could choose between the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the appellant's guidelines.

7. The appellant was granted the liberty to make a representation to the Government for enhancing the fee prescribed under the Right to Information Act, considering the financial burden caused by the nominal fee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also deemed disposed of.