The judgment established that when another mechanism exists for obtaining information, the provisions of the Right to Information Act cannot be resorted to, and emphasized that the Act should not be used if the information can be accessed through another statute.

ORDER

C.M. Appl. No. 19892/2022 (for early hearing)

This is an application filed by the petitioners seeking early hearing of the present petition.

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the present petition is taken up for disposal today itself.

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

W.P.(C) 6270/2021

1. The present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the respondent - Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent to provide certified copies of answer scripts by charging the fee prescribed under the Right to Information Rules, 2012, in the event of a candidate making a request to the respondent for seeking information of his/her answer scripts under the Right to Information Act, 2005. To seek the said relief, the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case titled as Institute of Companies Secretaries of Inida (ICSI) Vs. Paras Jain in Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 decided on 11.04.2019, by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court in this decision has, inter alia, observed as under:-

'10. Thus it is clear that the avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act as well as the statutory guidelines of the appellant.

11. We are cognizant of the fact that guidelines of the appellant, framed by its statutory council, are to govern the modalities of its day-to-day concerns and to effectuate smooth functioning of its responsibilities under the Company Secretaries Act, 1980. The guidelines of the appellant may provide for much more than what is provided under the Right to Information Act, such as reevaluation, retotaling of answer scripts.

12. Be that as it may, 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.'

2. The respondent - University has filed its counter affidavit. The same is, however, not on record as it was returned under objections. Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent has tendered in Court the hard copy of the counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent - University is a Public Authority and bound by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He further submits that the Central Government has framed the aforesaid Rules in the year 2012 and in Rule 4 thereof, the fee for providing information is prescribed (a) Rs.2/- for each page (in A-4 or A-3 size paper) created or copied; (b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; and (c) actual cost or price for samples or models. He further submits that the respondent is, however, demanding Rs.1,500/- as fees for providing the answer scripts in any subject. It is further submitted that this is contrary to Rule 4 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, and, therefore, cannot be enforced. He further submits that since the petitioner has right to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to seek the answer scripts, the respondent is bound to follow the aforesaid Rules framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Parvindu Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, is that the respondent University has been instituted under the Guru Go