9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2001-02. (A).You have informed that the answer paper for Part-I English Part-II not traced out. So please inform me the name and designation of the officer who is the custodian of the answer paper. (B).Please inform me that whether theUniversity has taken departmental action against the said officer for the lapse. If not the reason may be informed. (C).Please inform me the name of the officer who is bound to take action for the loss of answer sheet. (D).Please inform me the nature of punishment in the case of loss of answer sheet with relevant provisions of University Statute. (E).Please inform me whether you have taken any action to refund the revaluation charge remitted by the candidate. (F).Please inform me the name and address of the person. (G).Please issue me a true photo copy of answer paper Part-III English Main Paper, Part I (H).Please inform me the name and address ofthe Lecturer/Professor who valued the paper first and who revalued the paper on the application of the candidate. 3. By Ext.P2 communication dated 25.6.2008, the Assistant Public Information Officer of the University informed the 2nd respondent that the details requested ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnished. Regarding Question No.(D), the action like debarring could be intimated. What was provided in the appellate stage for question No.(E) and (G) appears to be satisfactory. With regard to Question No.(F), the same need not be answered because it did not fall within the purview of the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Regarding Question No.(H), the Commission had taken a very consistent view that once the process of completion of examination was over the name, details of persons involved could not be treated as confidential and in case, the request was made in a case the information should be provided. The status of confidentiality ends with the completion of process of examination. The PIO is hereby directed to provide the information in the above said lines within 15 days of receipt of this order. 6. Ext.P6 has been challenged in this writ petition. Though served from this Court, no counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.P.C.Sasidharan and learned counsel for the 1st respondent, State Information Commission, Mr.M.Ajay. 7. According to the University, Ext.P6 order is vitiated on s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mation Officer of the University did not give such information, the Appellate Authority had in Ext.P4 informed the applicant that the answer papers are collected from various centres after examination and are kept under the custody of the Branch Officers in Pareeksha Bhavan. Obviously this piece of information would have been sufficient and it is not known why the reply given in this regard under Ext.P4 should have been treated as inadequate either by the applicant or by the State Information Commission. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that lakhs of answer scrips are generated every year and it is not as if any single official can be treated as the custodian of one particular answer script or a group of answer scripts, as the case may be. Several officials would have had an opportunity to deal with such answer scripts. Ultimately, it is the University, a statutory authority and any nominated official of the University, who could be treated as the custodian of the answer scripts. This version given by the University was obviously acceptable and adequate and I am of the view that it should have been so treated by the 1st respondent. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. The State Information Commission proceeded to hold that once the process of examination is over, the details of the persons involved could not be treated as confidential and status of the confidentiality ends with the completion of the process of examination. The said information was therefore, directed to be provided. 14. Learned counsel for the University submitted that details regarding the identity of the person who had valued a particular answer script and the person who had revalued the same answer script are confidential in nature and they cannot be compelled to be disclosed, both by reason of Section 8(1) (e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act reads as follows. 8(1)(e) - Information available to a person, in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information 8(1)(j) - Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is to give a written notice to such third party and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally regarding whether the information is to be disclosed. Views of the third party would also have to be kept in mind before such information is disclosed. In the present case, Ext.P6 order does not show that a notice had been issued on the appeal to the person in relation to whom the information has been sought. Since the State Information Commission is dealing with an appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it was bound to follow the procedure under Section 11 of the Act while dealing with the appeal, at the instance of the applicant, dissatisfied with the information that was given by the Appellate Authority of the Calicut University. That procedure has not been followed in the present case. 18. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. It is declared that Ext.P4 reply given by the Appellate Authority of the Calicut University under the Act shall be treated as an adequate and sufficient reply to Ext.P1 application made by the 2 nd responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
