##PAGE1##

के Û(cid:289)(cid:547)य सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग,(cid:91) म(cid:467)ु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई (cid:465)दãल(cid:547), New Delhi – 110067 File No: CIC/ASUVR/A/2025/657621 Ahmed Shakir .….अपीलकता(cid:91)/Appellant VERSUS बनाम THE CPIO ASSAM UNIVERSITY, RTI CELL, SILCHAR, ASSAM-788011 ….(cid:292)(cid:467)तवाद(cid:547)गण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 06.07.2026 Date of Decision : 06.07.2026 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 21.11.2025 CPIO replied on : 01.12.2025 First appeal filed on : 04.12.2025 First Appellate Authority’s order : 17.12.2025

2nd Appeal dated : Nil Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.11.2025 seeking the following information:

“Respected Sir I request a photocopy of my answer script for FYUG 2nd Sem Exam 2025 for Paper Code PHPDSM151 My Name is Ahmed Shakir and Roll No is 022524-010190615 and Reg No 2024003431 4 I have paid the fee and uploaded documents Thank You”

2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.12.2025 stating as under:

“This is with reference to your request registered vide Registration number ASUVR/R/E/25/00162 Additional payment of Rs. 1000 is required for your RTI application.

Please log on to https://rtionline.gov.in to check the status of your request.”

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.12.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 17.12.2025, stating as under-

“With reference to the above, this is to inform you that Assam University being an autonomous body has fixed a charge of Rs. 1000/-per answer script The script can be provided only on payment of requisite fees.”

4. Challenging the FAA’s order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Shri Ahmad Shakir along with Shri Asim Akram, Advocate present through video conference.

Respondent: Dr. S K Nath, Professor/ CPIO present through video conference.

5. Written statement filed by the Appellant and the CPIO is taken on record.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant while narrating the factual background of the matter stated that the Appellant is a student enrolled at Patharkandi College, which is affiliated with Assam University, Silchar (a Central University established under the Central Universities Act, 2009). On 20.11.2025, the Respondent declared the results of the FYUG Even Semester (2nd Semester) examinations. The Appellant obtained 35 out of 70 marks in the Philosophy (DSM 151) paper. Being dissatisfied with the evaluation and seeking to verify the marking, the Appellant decided to inspect his evaluated answer script. On 21.11.2025, the Appellant filed an RTI application seeking a certified photocopy of his evaluated answer script for the Philosophy (DSM 151) paper. The CPIO issued a reply on 01.12.2025 demanding a fixed institutional charge of Rs. 1,000/- as a requisite fee to provide the copy of the answer script. The CPIO did not cite any statutory provision under the RTI Rules, 2012, to justify this demand. The decision of the CPIO was upheld by the FAA while disposing the First Appeal. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant before the CIC. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the demand of Rs. 1,000/- is in direct violation of Rule 4(a) of the RTI Rules, 2012. The Respondent is a Central University established under the Central Universities Act, 2009, and is indisputably a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Act. Consequently, the Respondent is strictly bound by the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012. 9. Rule 4(a) of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, explicitly prescribes the fee structure for providing information under Section 7(1) of the Act, limiting the charge to "rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied." There is no statutory