CIC: Charging of exorbitant fee of Rs. 500/- for the purpose of providing a copy of OMR Sheet to a candidate does not stand in conformity with the object & purpose of RTI Act; It is at conflict with the rules governing the field and is highly unreasonable
27 Dec, 2015Information sought:
The complainant sought copy of OMR sheet for roll no. 132115556 and all sets of question papers and answer keys.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and heard. The complainant filed the RTI application on 25.10.2013, seeking the above information. PIO vide reply dated 23.11.2013 informed the complainant that he had not submitted the requisite fee in accordance of the RTI Act and requested him to deposit the fee in appropriate manner. The complainant deposited the fee on 10.12.2013. Having not received any response from the PIO, complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission.
The complainant stated that till date no reply has been provided to him and requested for directions to provide the same. The standing counsel stated that a reply was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 07.03.2014 stating therein that the question papers of Foreign Medical Graduate Examination cannot be supplied as there is a restrictive field of syllabus and that too approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeev Gupta Vs. Union of India (2005 (1) SCC 45). As regards to the OMR Sheet, the complainant was informed that there is a transparent, uniform prescribed procedure for obtaining the same. On a query by the Commission as to what is the fee prescribed by them in order to obtain the OMR Sheet, the respondent stated that Rs. 500/- is required. The complainant stated that the said response was sent to him in relation to a letter forwarded by the PMO and not in response to his RTI application. He further requested the Commission to consider this case as an appeal and give directions to provide the information to him. The respondent admitted that the reply was sent to the appellant in response to his grievance but the same was put in the RTI file as well and no separate reply was sent to the appellant in relation to his RTI application. Considering the request of the complainant, the Commission treats this complaint as an appeal as more than 18 months has already been passed after filing of complaint before the Commission.
Decision:
After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the public authority demanded the fee of Rs. 500/- to provide a copy of the OMR sheet to the appellant. This issue has already been decided the High Courts. In Alka Matoria v. Maharaja Ganga Singh University and Ors. (MANU/RH/1026/2012), the Rajasthan High Court cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay's case which declared that the provisions of the Act of 2005 will prevail over the provisions of bye laws/rules of examining bodies in regard to the examination; and observed that unless the examining body was able to demonstrate that answer book fell under the exempted category of information as described in clause (e) of Section 8 (1) of the Act of 2005, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer book. The Hon'ble Supreme Court said,
“36. Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the byelaws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body able to demonstrate that the answer books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/byelaws of the examining body governing the examinations...”
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court said:
“The only question is about the legality of charging a fee of Rs. 1,000/ per answerbook under the questioned condition No. 2 of the regulations framed by the respondent University. In our view, only a glimpse of the basic provisions of the Act of 2005 is sufficient to declare the questioned condition as invalid. Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. of the Act of 2005 makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that this enactment is having overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law.”
As noticed, per Section 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. , the Act of 2005 has an overriding effect over any other law; and as a necessary corollary, the rules framed there under for the purpose of giving effect to its provisions shall have overriding effect in the field they operate and are supposed to operate. The field in question i.e., the "fee payable" for the purpose of making application under Sec. 6 and for the purpose of providing information under Sec. 7 is the one which is governed by the rules under Sec. 27 of the Act of 2005. Any rule or regulation framed by the respondent University, to the extent standing at contradiction to such rules cannot be regarded as valid. Having regard to the purpose of the enactment and the nature and purport of the provisions therein, we are of the view that even if the respondent University were to make independent regulations for the purpose of providing certified copies, so far the fields covered by the Rajasthan Rules of 2005 are concerned, the respondent- University cannot make any such regulation that could stand at conflict with such rules.
It may be observed that even under the proviso to sub Section (5) of Section 7, the Legislature has contemplated in no uncertain terms that the fees to be prescribed for the purpose of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act should be reasonable and is not to be charged at all from the persons who are of below poverty line. The proviso reads as under: Provided that the fee prescribed under sub Section (1) of Section 6 and sub- Sections (1) and (5) of Section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Viewed from any angle, charging of exorbitant fees of Rs. 1,000/ for the purpose of providing copy of answer book to a student by the respondent University does not stand in conformity with the object and purpose of the Act of 2005, stands at stark conflict with the rules governing the field, and appears to be highly unreasonable.”
In Paras Jain vs. Institute of Company Secretaries of India (LPA 275/2014), the Delhi High
Court said:
“Thus, the demand by the respondents from the petitioner to pay fee in sum of Rs.500/ per subject/answer book copy whereof is sought is not sustainable”.
The ratio of the above dicta is applicable to the present case. The Commission finds that charging of exorbitant fee of Rs. 500/- for the purpose of providing a copy of the OMR Sheet to a candidate does not stand in conformity with the object and purpose of the RTI Act and stands at stark conflict with the rules governing the field, and appears to be highly unreasonable. The Commission directs the respondent to provide a copy of the OMR sheet to appellant, within one week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The appeal/complaint is disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri P.K. Gour Churu v. National Board of Examinations (NBE) in F.No.CIC/YA/C/2014/900080