Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 1519
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Institute Of Companies Secretaries Of India - Appellant
Versus
Paras Jain - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5665 of 2014
Decided On : 11-04-2019
Vikas Mehta, Adith, Vasanth Bharani, R.D. Makheeja, Advocates, for the Appellant; Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advocates, for the Respondent
The candidate has the choice to seek answer scripts under the Right to Information Act or under the Guidelines of the appellant, and the appellant can charge fees accordingly.
Headnote:
Right to Information - Company Secretary Examination - Rule 4 of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 - Guideline No.3 of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India - Rule 4 of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, Sections 15, 15A, and 17 of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980
Fact of the Case:
The respondent sought inspection and certified copies of his answer scripts from the Institute of Company Secretaries of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Institute demanded fees as per Guideline No.3, but the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the prescribed fee under Rule 4 of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 should be charged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both the statutory guidelines of the appellant and the Right to Information Act provide avenues for seeking inspection and certified copies of answer scripts. The existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive, and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order quashing Guideline No.3.
Issues: The main issue was whether the fee prescribed under Rule 4 of The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 or that under Guideline No. 3 of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India should be charged when seeking answer scripts of the appellant's examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the candidate has the choice to seek the answer scripts either by the avenue under Right to Information Act or under the Guidelines of the appellant. If sought under the Right to Information Act, payment has to be made as per the Rules therein, and if sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order quashing Guideline No.3 was set aside. The court also left it open for the appellant to make a representation to the Government for enhancing the fee prescribed under the Right to Information Act.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2014 of the Delhi High Court wherein, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the respondent herein, it set aside Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of appellant-Institute of Companies Secretaries of India and directed it to charge fee prescribed as per Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent appeared in the final examination for Company Secretary conducted by the Appellant in December, 2012. On being unsuccessful in qualifying the examination, the respondent made an application under the Right to Information Act for inspection of his answer sheets and subsequently, sought certified copies of the same from the appellant. The appellant thereafter has demanded? 500/- per answer sheet payable for supply of certified copy(ies) of answer book(s) and? 450/- per answer book for providing inspection thereof respectively as per Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of the appellant. It is to be noted that the respondent obtained the said information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Being aggrieved by the demand made by the appellant, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court wherein the Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. A Letters Patent Appeal was thereafter preferred by the respondent wherein, the Division Bench quashed Guideline No.3 notified by the appellant and held that the appellant can charge only the prescribed fee under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005.
4. The short issue before us is 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.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that it is undisputed that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to the appellant. However, in light of specific guidelines formulated under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980, the same should be applicable and not that which is provided under the Right to Information Act. He further contends that owing to quashing of Guideline No. 3 by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, the appellant cannot collect any amount of fee except the one prescribed under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which adds to financial strain on the appellant.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that any candidate who seeks his answer scripts under Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be charged under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. Further, the learned counsel submits that the candidates must have a choice to seek the answer scripts either by the avenue under Right to Information Act or under the Guidelines of the appellant framed by the examination committee of statutory Council under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we have also meticulously perused the record.
8. The appellant is governed by the provisions of Company Secretaries Act, 1980 and under Sections 15, 15A and 17, the Examination Committee of the statutory Council has framed Guideline No. 3 providing an avenue to the candidates to either inspect their answer scripts or seek certified copies of the same on payment of the stipulated fees. Guideline no.3 stipulates payment of? 500 for obtaining certified copies and? 450 for seeking inspection of the same.
"3. Fee of? 500 per subject/answer books payable fo
