JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur dated 14.1.2008 wherein and where under the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur ordered that : i) The information sought by the petitioner (respondent No. 2 herein) which is more fully described in para. I request to provided a Photostat copy of his answer script in written test as well as the marks awarded to him separately in the viva-voce, personality test by the DPC members in the recruitment of SI/ Jamadar in Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006 after concealing the identity of signature of the examiner, incase if it is recorded in that script and the members to be provided by the SPIO within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this order, all free of cost under intimation to this Commission. The personal appearance of the petitioner in the office of SPIO is not required. ii) The appellant can approach this Commission again in case of any grievance within three weeks from the date of this order. 2. Heard Mr. N. Kotiswar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Viscount, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. After hearing the submissions of learned Advocate General at some length and also taking into consideration of the relief sought for in the present writ petition, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition could be disposed of at the motion stage. Accordingly, this writ petition has been taken up for disposal after giving the opportunity of submitting the case of the writ petitioners by the learned Advocate General. 4. The fact in the present writ petition is short and simple and accordingly a brief fact of the case leading to the filing of the present writ petition is noticed hereunder. 5. The Selection Committee (for short DPC) conducted the selection test of the candidates consisting of physical efficiency test (PET) during the period from 7.11.2006 to 12.11.2006 at the 1st M.R. Ground for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors/Jamadars of Manipur Police Department. The written test of the candidates qualified in physical efficiency (PET) was held on 21.11.2006 and on a later date at Khuman Lampak Indoor Stadium and the 1st M.R. Banquet Hall respectively. The result of the DPC was declared on late evening of 18.12.2006. The written test of the candidates qualified in physical efficiency (PET) was held on 21.11.2006 and on a later date at Khuman Lampak Indoor Stadium and the 1st M.R. Banquet Hall respectively. The result of the DPC was declared on late evening of 18.12.2006. The present respondent No. 2 Shri N. Uttam Meitei appeared in the said selection test or/ DPC for recruitment of SI and Jamadar of the Manipur Police Department. 6. On 21.12.2006, Shri N. Budhachandra Singh, (father of the respondent No. 2) submitted an application to the writ petitioner No. 3, Joint Secretary (Home), State Public Information Officer (SPIO), Government of Manipur for furnishing informations regarding respondent No. 2 who appeared in the said DPC, which read as follows : 1) That, the marks awarded by the DPC against the qualified candidates on Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held during the period from 7.11.2006 to 12.11.2006 at 1st M.R. Ground, Imphal. 2) The marks obtained by the PET qualified candidates in the Written Test Examination held on 21.11.2006 and on a later date at Khuman Lampak Indoor Stadium and 1st M.R. Banquet Hall respectively. 3) As the result of the DPC was declared on late evening of 18.12.2006 the overall marks obtained by the qualified candidate in PET, Written Test and viva-voce/personality Test the undersigned is earnest desire to know the marks obtained by the selected candidates so as to enable him to get the information whether the DPC has done justice or not while selecting the candidates as per their performance in comparison with that of his son. 4) To call the answer scripts of the selected candidates along with the answer script of his son named below to verify by a team of expert appointed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur. 7. As the petitioner No. 3 failed to response to the said application dated 21.12.2006, Shri N. Budhachandra i.e. (father of the respondent No. 2) approached the State Chief Information Commissioner (respondent No. 1) by filing the appeal dated 24.4.2007 for furnishing the information mentioned in the said application dated 21.12.2006. In the said appeal dated 24.4.2007 it had been mentioned categorically that DPC had tempered or/manipulated the marks obtained by the candidates and no action was taken up by the concerned authority against the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Chairman of the said DPC for recruitment of SI/Jamadar of the Manipur Police Department. In the said appeal dated 24.4.2007 it had been mentioned categorically that DPC had tempered or/manipulated the marks obtained by the candidates and no action was taken up by the concerned authority against the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Chairman of the said DPC for recruitment of SI/Jamadar of the Manipur Police Department. The SPIO i.e. the petitioner No. 3 also appeared before the Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur and filed an application dated 26.6.2007 stating inter-alia that the application/appeal filed by the N. Budhachandra is not maintainable as the DPC is governed by laid down rules/procedure and the power of the Commission under the Act does not perhaps, extend to holding/ reviewing a DPC and also that son along with five others had filed W.P.(C) No. 30 of 2007 before this Court as aggrieved parties in the recruitment of SI/Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department and the said writ petition still pending the before this Court and as advised by the Law Department, the matter, the matter being heard by the Commissioner is subjudice. By the same application dated 26.6.2007, SPIO, Government of Manipur prayed for some more time for detail examination of the issue and for some submissions of the objection. The State Chief Election Commissioner, after taking into consideration of the said complain/appeal as well as the case of the writ petitioner and also the materials available on record had passed the order dated 2.7.2007 that– (a) The following information/documents should be furnished to the above complainant by the SPIO within fifteen days, from today free of cost. (i) The marks obtained by the son of applicant namely Shri Nameirakpam Uttam Meitei Chest No. 200, in PET, Written Test and Viva-Voce separately. (ii) The marks obtained the 1st and last Successful Candidates in PET, Written Test and Viva-Voce separately of the same category as that of (i). (iii) The Answer Script of the Written Test of Shri Nameirakpam Uttam Meitei should be allowed to be seen both by the applicant and the candidate. All the information sought by the present applicant (if it is possible to arrange by the SPIO Home). (b) The SPIO is also informed to submit a show cause within fifteen days from the receipt of this order why the penalty as prescribed under Section 20of the Act which includes a maximum fine of Rs. All the information sought by the present applicant (if it is possible to arrange by the SPIO Home). (b) The SPIO is also informed to submit a show cause within fifteen days from the receipt of this order why the penalty as prescribed under Section 20of the Act which includes a maximum fine of Rs. 25,000/- and recommendation for disciplinary action should not be imposed on him for his failure to furnish the information within the time specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 7, without any reasonable cause. (c) In case of grievances in respect of this case; the above complainant may approach this Commission again within five weeks from today. 8. In pursuance of the said order of the learned State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur dated 2.7.2007, the State Public Information Officer i.e. writ petitioner No. 3 issued a Memorandum being No. 14/4(5)/07-H(MIC) dated 21.7.2007 that Shri N. Budha Chandra Meitei and the candidate, respondent No. 2 are informed to be present in person along with the identification papers and a copy of the passport size photograph at Manipur Police Headquarters, Imphal at 2 P.M. on Monday (23rd July, 2007) for inspection of the relevant records. The respondent No. 2, Shri N. Uttam Meitei was out of station at the relevant time and accordingly, only Shri N. Budha Chandra Meitei present in person at the Police Headquarters at 2 P.M. on Monday the 23rd July, 2007 for inspection of relevant records in presence of Shri Laxmi Prasad Chhetry, 2nd Member of the DPC for selection of SI/ Jamadar. 9. The respondent No. 2, Shri N. Uttam Meitei filed an application dated. 9.8.2007 to the said Information Officer/SPIO/Joint Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur requesting to furnish the informations viz to issue a photocopy of answer scripts of the written test for selection of the SI and Jamadar and also to furnish the marks awarded to him in the viva-voce/personality test and the written test separately by the DPC members for selection of SI and Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department held during November and December, 2006. As the petitioner No. 3, SPIO failed to response to the said application dated 9.8.2007 for more than 30 days of the receipt of the request, the respondent No. 2 filed an application/appeal to the appellate authority i.e. the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur for furnishing the informations mentioned in the said application dated 9.8.2007. The Principal Secretary (Home)(appellate authority, Government of Manipur) passed the order being No. 14/4(5)/07/H(MIC) dated 29.10.2007 for rejecting the appeal as the respondent No. 2 had already been given ample opportunity for inspection of the relevant record and as being sub-judice, in W.P(C) No. 30 of 2007 of this Court. The respondent No. 2. Shri N. Uttam Meitei being aggrieved by the said order of the Principal Secretary (Home)/appellate authority, Government of Manipur dated 29.10.2007 approached the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur Information Commission by filing the second appeal dated 27.11.2007. The learned State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur had registered the said appeal as appeal case No. 89 of 2007 and had allowed the same by passing reasoned impugned order dated 14.1.2008 directing the SPIO to furnish a copy of the answer scripts of the respondent No. 2 in the written examination and also the marks awarded in the viva-voce by the members of the DPC for recruitment of SI and Jamadar of the Manipur Police Department. Hence the present writ petition. 10. Hence the present writ petition. 10. The grounds for challenging the order dated 14.1.2008 are that (1) the Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur ought not have entertained the application/appeal of the principal respondent No. 2 for the second time as he had already been given the opportunity to see his own script as per the earlier decision of the learned State Chief Information Commissioner, in complaint No. 18 of 2007 i.e. the order dated 2.7.2007, (2) The learned State Chief Information Commissioner ought not have entertained the second application/appeal of the principal respondent No. 2 on the principle of constructive res-judicata and (3) Opportunity to see the answer script, if permitted, would lead to opening a flood gate as all candidates would be also entitled to ask for photocopy of the answer script and thus the sanctity and confidentiality attached to the competitive test would be compromised and also that the State Chief Election Commissioner, Manipur ought not have allowed the application/appeal of the principal respondent No. 2 merely on general charge of corruption without himself being satisfied of any prima-facie existence of corrupt practice in the recruitment process relating to the answer script of the respondent No. 2. 11. Right to freedom of speech and expression of a citizen of India is guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The right to know, "receive and the impart information" has been recognised within the right to freedom of speech and the expression of the citizen of India. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best himself of imparting and receiving information. A Constitution Bench (8 Judges) of the Supreme Court had dealt with and considered the fundamental right of the citizen of India guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which include the right to receive and impart information in S.P. Gupta v. President of India and Ors. in [1982] 2 SCR 365. The Apex Court in S.P. Gupta (supra) held that "this is the new democratic culture of an open society towards which every liberal democracy is moving and our country should be no exception. The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, discloser of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time and disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest. It is in the context of this background that we must proceed to interpret Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act". 12. The Apex Court (8 Judges) in S.P. Gupta and Ors. (supra) clearly observed that disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of the Government must be the rule, secrecy and exception justified only strictness requirement of public interest so demand. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajnarayan and Ors. reported in AIR. 1975 SC 8865 held that the people of this country have a right to know every public Act, everything that is done in a public way, by the public functionary. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make on wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can at any rate, have no repercussion on public security. 13. A seed for enactment of legislation on a right to information appears to have been sown in the conference of Chief Ministers held on 24.5.1977 at New Delhi. The Parliamentary Standing Committee of Home Affairs in its 3 report also recommended for enactment of legislation on right to information. The Government of India appointed a working group to examine the feasibility and the need for full-fledged Right to Information Act so as to make the government more transparent and accountable to the public. The Parliament enacted Act "Freedom of Information Act 2002" to provide for freedom to every citizen of India to secure assesses the information under the control of public consistent of public interest. The Parliament enacted Act "Freedom of Information Act 2002" to provide for freedom to every citizen of India to secure assesses the information under the control of public consistent of public interest. In order to ensure greater and the more effective mechanism for access to information the government resolved that the Freedom of Information Act 2002 enacted by the Parliament need to be more progressive, participatory and the meaningful. The National Advisory Council deliberated on the issue and suggested some important changes to be incorporated in the said Act to ensure smoother and the greater information. Later on, the government examined the suggestion made by the National Advisory Council and other and decided to make a number of changes in the law. Ultimately, the right to information bill 2005 had been introduced in both the Houses of Parliament and both the Houses passed the bills and received the assent of the President on 15.6.2005. It came into statute book as the Right to Information Act 2005. Aim and object for introducing the Right to Information Bill are : An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Whereas the Constitution of India has established Democratic Republic; And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; And whereas revelation of Information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information; And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal; Now, therefore, it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it. 14. 14. Meaning of "information" is defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 (Right to Information Act, 2005) which reads as follows : 2(f) "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; 15. The "record" in the context of RTI Act, 2005 is defined in Section 2(i) which reads as follows : 2(i) "record" includes-- (ii) any document, manuscript and file; (iii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (iv) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (v) any other material produced by a computer or any other device; 16. The meaning of the "right to information" under the RTI Act, 2005 is also defined in Section 20which reads as follows : "right to information" means the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; 17. On conjoint reading of 2(f), (i) and (j) of RTI Act, 2005 it is clear that information includes records, documents etc. and the right to information, as provided in the Act include right to inspection of works, documents, records, to take notes, extract or certified copies of the documents or record and taking certified samples of material. 18. An application making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. Over and above, Section 6 of the RTI Act does not prohibit filing more than one application for information. An essential requirement of the Section 6 of the RTI Act is that application making request for information shall specify the particular of the information sought by the application. Section 8 of the RTI Act exempted certain informations from disclosure. 8. Over and above, Section 6 of the RTI Act does not prohibit filing more than one application for information. An essential requirement of the Section 6 of the RTI Act is that application making request for information shall specify the particular of the information sought by the application. Section 8 of the RTI Act exempted certain informations from disclosure. 8. Exemption from disclosure of information--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen- (a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; (b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court; (c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (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; (f) information received in confidence from foreign government; (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law-enforcement or security purposes; (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers; Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over. Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (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 Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature, shall not be denied to any person. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (3) Subject to the provisions of Clause (a), (c) and (i) any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section. Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act. 19. Keeping in view of the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and also the decision of the Apex Court discussed above, this Court had meticulously examined the said application dated 9.8.2002 and also the appeal/application dated 29.9.2002 to the Principal Secretary (Home)/Appellate authority as well as memo of appeal of the appeal Case No. 89 of 2007 wherein the respondent No. 2 requested to provide a photocopy of his answer script in the written test as well as the mark awarded to him separately in the viva-voce/personality test by the DPC members in the recruitment of SI and Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006. On such examination, this Court is of the considered view that right to information contemplated in the RTI Act 2005, the relevant portions of which have been discussed above, shall include the right of the principal respondent No. 2 to have a photocopy of his answer script in the said written test and also right to know the marks awarded to him separately in the viva-voce or/personality test and the written test by the DPC in the recruitment of SI and Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006. As reason for requesting the information is not required to be mentioned in the application for information under Section 6 of the RTI Act, the ground of the present writ petitioners for assailing the impugned order dated 14.1.2008 that the learned State Chief Information Commissioner has to prima-facie satisfied the existence of corrupt practice in the recruitment process and relating to the answer script before passing the impugned order for providing the information sought for by the principal respondent No. 2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, this Court is of the considered view that the submissions of learned Advocate General that the principal respondent No. 2 cannot file more than one application for requesting" Information in respect of the selection test for recruitment of the SI/Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006 has no force of law and is not sustainable in eye of the law and also that the writ petitioners had mis-conceived the principle of constructive res-judicata in the context of the present case. 20. 20. The Full Bench of the Central Information Commission had discussed as to whether "right to information" contemplated in the RTI Act, 2005 also include the right to have a copy of the answer script of the candidate in the recruitment test conducted by the selection committee/DPC for appointment to the different posts under the control of the public authorities in Rakish Kumar Singh v. Harish Chander, Assistant Director, Lok Sabha Secretariat, Information Cell, Parliament House and the other cases and passed judgment and order dated 23.4.2007 wherein the Full Bench held that in the case of the public examination conducted by institution established by constitution like UPSC or institution established by an enactment by the Parliament or rules having established system as foolproof as that can be and also an inbuilt system of ensuring fair and correct evaluation with proper checks and balances, citizen cannot seek disclosure of the answer script under the RTI Act, 2005. The Full Bench of the Central Information Commission further held that so far as the departmental examinee are concerned or the proceeding of the other DPC are concerned, the disclosure of proceeding or disclosure of answer script not only of the examinee but also of the other candidates may bring in fairness and the neutrality and will make the system more transparent and accountable. Para No. 42 of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh (supra) rendered by the Full Bench of the Central Information Commission reads as follows : 42. However, in so far as the departmental examinees are concerned or the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee are concerned the Commission tends to take a different view in such cases, the numbers of examinees are limited and it is necessary that neutrality and fairness are maintained to the best possible extent disclosure of proceedings or disclosure of the answer sheets not only of the examinees but also of the other candidates may bring in fairness and neutrality and will make the system more transparent and accountable. The Commission, moreover finds that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee or its Minutes are not covered by any of the exemptions provided for under Section 8 and therefore, such proceedings, and minutes are to be disclosed. The Commission, moreover finds that the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee or its Minutes are not covered by any of the exemptions provided for under Section 8 and therefore, such proceedings, and minutes are to be disclosed. If a written t examination is held for the purpose of selection or promotion, the concerned candidate may ask for a copy of the evaluated answer sheet from the authority conducting such test/examination. The right to get an evaluated answer sheet does not however extend to claiming inspection of or getting a copy of the evaluated answer sheets concerning other persons in which case, if the concerned CPIO decides to disclose the information, he will have to follow the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act. 21. As such, the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of the Central Information Commission in the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh (supra) is that the answer script of the examinee in the proceeding of DPC like the present DPC for recruitment of the SI and Jamadar in the Manipur Police Department during November and December, 2006 and also the proceeding of the DPC shall disclose to the examinee and such disclosure may bring in fairness and neutrality and also will make system more transparent and accountable. 22. This Court is of the considered view that furnishing the photocopy of the answer script of the respondent No. 2 in the said selection test for recruitment of SI and Jamadar of the Manipur Police conducted by the said DPC during November and December, 2006 to the principal respondent No. 2. Sri N. Uttam Meitei shall make the proceeding of the DPC more transparent, accountable and also bring more fairness and neutrality. 23. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the firm view, the impugned order dated 14.1.2008 passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur is legal and sustainable under RTI Act of 2005. 24. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.