JUDGMENT By the Court.—Respondent No. 2 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act) requesting the Public Service Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred as the Commission) to supply a photocopy of the mathematics Ist paper of P.C.S. Mains Examination, 2007. The Public Information Officer of the Commission gave a reply intimating respondent No. 2 that he had already inspected the answer book and since there was no provision of revaluation of the answer book,as such photocopy of the answer book of the relevant paper could not be supplied. 2. Respondent No. 2, being aggrieved by the response given by the Public Information Officer, filed an appeal before the Ist Appellate Authority, which was rejected by an order dated 29.11.2012. 3. Respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission, who, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 12.11.2013 directing the Commission to furnish a photocopy of the answer sheet of the mathematics Ist paper. The Commission, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a review application, which was rejected by an order dated 28.11.2013. The Commission, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, for the petitioner and Sri Keshari Nath Tripathi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Balram Singh, for respondent No. 2. 5. The controversy involved in the present writ petition is, whether the Commission is obliged to furnish a certified copy of the answer book or photocopy thereof to the applicant? This issue has been squarely decided by a decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , wherein the Supreme Court held that where the answer book is evaluated by the examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer book is an “information” under the Act. The Supreme Court further held that the evaluated answer book does not fall under any of the categories of exempted information enumerated in clause (a) to (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act and consequently, the examining body was bound to provide access to the information and that any applicant could not only inspect the document/record, take notes, extracts but could also obtain certified copies thereof. 6. 6. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision further held that the examining body does not hold the evaluated answer book in the fiduciary relationship and that the exemption under Section 8(e) of the Act was not available to the examining body with reference to the evaluated answer book. 7. The object of the Act is to ensure maximum disclosure of the information and minimum exemptions from disclosure. The Act was enacted to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and provide an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision of Central Board of Secondary Education (Supra) has held that the right to information is a cherished right. The Right to Information Act, 2005 should be interpreted in a manner which would lead towards dissemination of information rather than withholding the same. 8. We are of the opinion, that this right to information flows from freedom of speech and that the people of this country have a right to know every public act that is done in a public way by the public functionary and are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428 . 9. The provisions of the Act make it clear that a right is given to a citizen to access information. At the same time, there is an obligation of the public authority to maintain the records in the manner provided and disseminate the information in the manner provided. The Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education (Supra) has held that the evaluated answer book is an information under Section 2(f) of the Act and consequently, such information is required to be disseminated if asked for. An applicant has a right to access such information held or under the control of a public authority. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the order of the State Information Commission is allowed to stand, it will open the floodgates for similar demand and that such direction would become impracticable and counter productive and would adversely affect the efficiency of the administration. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the order of the State Information Commission is allowed to stand, it will open the floodgates for similar demand and that such direction would become impracticable and counter productive and would adversely affect the efficiency of the administration. The learned counsel contended that the officers and staff of the Commission would get bogged down with such non-productive work and that 75% of the staff would be involved in furnishing such information to the candidates. The learned counsel consequently, submitted that the direction to supply photocopy of the answer sheet is patently erroneous and should be set aside. 11. As held by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education (Supra), the candidate has a right to access the information under the Act. The answer sheet is an information under Section 2(f) of the Act and such information is required to be disseminated to the candidate. The Act provides that maximum disclosure of the information should be made. The Supreme Court has held that the exemption provided under the Act is not available to the examining body with regard to supply of the evaluated answer book. The Supreme Court has however, directed the examining body to hide the signatures and name of the examiner while supplying a photocopy or certified copy of the answer book. 12. In the instant case, the State Information Commission has taken care of this aspect while directing the Commission to supply the answer book. 13. The objections of the petitioner are untenable and are based on presumptions. There is nothing on record to indicate that a large demand has been made by the candidates for supplying copies of the answer sheets nor there is anything on record to suggest that 75% of the staff are presently involved in the work. This Court is of the opinion that supply of answer sheets cannot be denied on such surmises and conjectures. 14. We, therefore, hold that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education (Supra), the examining body does not hold the answer book in a fiduciary relationship and the exemption under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act is not available. We, accordingly, do not find any error in the direction issued by the State Information Commission. 15. For the reasons stated aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed.