JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Smt. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and none appears for the respondent No.1. 2. By the instant writ petition, the Manipur Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the MPSC”) has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the matter of giving an opportunity of being heard to 82 (eight-two) selected candidates in the MCSCC Examination, 2016 and also to direct the respondent No.1 to hear the said 82 successful candidates in the light of the objections raised by them. 3.1. Facts and circumstances as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is an institution established under the provisions of Article 315 of the Constitution of India to conduct examinations for appointment of persons to various services of the State of Manipur. The MPSC conducted the MCSCC Examination, 2016 for recruitment to 82 posts of various categories like MCS Grade-II, MPS Grade-II, SDC, MSS/ Section Officers, Election Officer, etc. and after the result thereof being declared, 82 persons had been given appointment orders by the State Government. 3.2. The respondent No.2 submitted an application dated 14-06-2017 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the RTI Act”) to the SPIO/ MPSC praying for furnishing scanned copies of the answer sheets along with the marks allotted to the eighty-two selected candidates in the said examination and to provide the mark tabulation sheets of all the candidates who appeared in the said examination. In reply to the said application, the SPIO/ MPSC informed the respondent No.2 that the information sought for by her, being a third party information, cannot be divulged as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. Being aggrieved by the said letter of the SPIO/ MPSC, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal dated 10-10-2017 under Section 19 of the RTI Act read with the High Courts’ order dated 04-10-2017 passed in writ petition being WP(C) No. 505 of 2017 to the appellate authority, MPSC for availing the said information. Being aggrieved by the said letter of the SPIO/ MPSC, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal dated 10-10-2017 under Section 19 of the RTI Act read with the High Courts’ order dated 04-10-2017 passed in writ petition being WP(C) No. 505 of 2017 to the appellate authority, MPSC for availing the said information. The First Appellate Authority, MPSC passed a speaking order dated 08-11-2017 stating that since the answer scripts of the recommended candidates fall under the Third Party Information, there is no, at present, reason to invoke the exception under Section 11 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the speaking order dated 08-11-2017, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal being Appeal Case No. 17 of 2018 before the Manipur Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”), Imphal on the ground of failure to furnish complete information. 4. The stand taken by the petitioner, the MPSC before the Commission is that there has been no denial of the information sought for by the respondent No.2 and all the applications and the appeal have been considered and decided by it. Prompt response was given thereto. Since the information sought for being a Third Party Information, the furnishing thereof is impermissible under Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and moreover, to furnish scanned copies may be prejudicial to the interest and privacy of the selected candidates. 5. The respondent No.1, the Commission passed a final decision/ order dated 10-08-2018 directing the SPIO / MPSC to provide certified copies of the answer sheets of the said 82 selected candidates of the MCSCC (Main) Examination, 2016 to the respondent No. 2 herein within 30 days thereof. While disposing of the appeal, the Commission has held that Section 11 of the Act is not a provision for exemption or a tool to deny information but it provides procedure. The respondent No.2 being a citizen, can file the application for seeking information in public interest. Even the exempted information can be furnished if it is in the larger interest of the general public. In support of its finding, the Commission has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and a decision rendered on 13-07-2013 by High Court of Delhi in UPSC Vs. R.K Jain, WP(C) No. 1243 of 2011. In support of its finding, the Commission has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and a decision rendered on 13-07-2013 by High Court of Delhi in UPSC Vs. R.K Jain, WP(C) No. 1243 of 2011. After perusal of the report of the Committee appointed by this court, the learned Commission has come to the conclusion that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for protection of personal information and public interest justifies disclosure of the information as per Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, the Commission directed the SPIO/ MPSC to furnish the information. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10-08-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 6. The RTI Act was enacted by the Parliament and as seen from the statement of Objects and Reasons, the purpose for which it was enacted, was 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 and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In the words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the RTI Act was enacted to ensure smoother, greater and more effective access to information and to provide an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognised under the Article 19 of the Constitution. Section 3 provides that all the citizens have the right to information held by or under the control of public authority except those which are exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act from disclosure of information. Section 3 provides that all the citizens have the right to information held by or under the control of public authority except those which are exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act from disclosure of information. The relevant provisions are reproduced herein below: “Section 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; Section 2(j) ?right to information" means the right to information accessible under this 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) (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; Section (n) ?third party'' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Section 3. Right to information.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. Section 6. Request for obtaining information.—(/) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to - (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in writing. (2) An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him. (3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,— (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made. shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Section 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. Section 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 no 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 sub-section (/), 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 clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (/), 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. Section 11. Third party information.—(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (/) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section b, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision. 9 Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 22. Act to have overriding effect.—The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” 7. The short question that arises for consideration by this court, is as to whether the respondent No.2 is entitled to seek certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets/ scripts of the said selected candidates. It has been submitted by Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the Commission while considering the said appeal has failed to give opportunity of being heard to the 82 recommended candidates which is mandatory under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the said order dated 10-08-2018 passed by it needs to be renewed; that the compliance of the said order dated 10-08-2018 may give rise to various legal complicacies as the procedure to be followed by the petitioner is not specifically directed in the said order; that the Commissioner has failed to see that before a Third Party Information is furnished, the procedure as laid down under section 11(1) and 19(4) is to be followed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. UPSC & ors., (2013) 12 SCC 489; R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India & anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794 and UPSC & ors. Vs. Angesh Kumar & ors. (2018) 4 SCC 530 . On the other hand, it has been submitted by Smt. G. Pushpa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 does not come under the Third Party Information and therefore, the required procedure prescribed under Section 11(1) and 19(4) need not be followed by the MPSC. It has further been submitted by her that the evaluated answer sheets are not the personal properties of the selected candidates and as such, they do not fall within the meaning of the Third Party Information. She has also placed reliance in CBSE & anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 ; H.D. Gupta Vs. PIO Government of Delhi in Appeal No. CIC S/G/A/2010/001162 by the CIC; Mukesh Kumar vs. Chief Information Commissioner by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; Lissing Perme vs. Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad & anr. 8. Before going into the merits of the case, it may be appropriate for this court to examine the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in particular, the decisions relied by upon by the parties in the present case, on the issues relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the RTI Act. The first decision is the one rendered In CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case wherein the respondent made an application under the RTI Act for inspection and re-evaluation of his answer books. The CBSE rejected his request on the ground that no candidates shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of answer books. The first decision is the one rendered In CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case wherein the respondent made an application under the RTI Act for inspection and re-evaluation of his answer books. The CBSE rejected his request on the ground that no candidates shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his answers or disclosure or inspection of answer books. Being aggrieved by it, he filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court which was disposed of on 05-02-2009 holding that evaluated answer books of an examinee writing a public examination conducted by the statutory bodies like CBSE or any university or Board of Secondary Education being a “document, manuscript record, and opinion” fall within the definition of “information” as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that the examining bodies were bound to provide inspection of evaluated answer books to the examinees. When the civil appeals came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, four questions were formulated: (i) Whether an examinee’s right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof? (ii) Whether the decision of this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof? (iii) Whether an examining body hold the evaluated answer books “in a fiduciary relationship” and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act? (iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards? The Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the objects sought to be achieved by the RTI Act, held that the evaluated answer book is an information under the RTI Act and every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or to take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to the exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI At. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharastra State Board and the subsequent decisions following the same, will not affect or interfere with the right of the examinee seeking inspection of the answer books or taking certified copies thereof. The examining body does not hold the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship. Not being information available to an examining body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption under section 8(1)(e) is not available to the examining bodies with reference to the evaluated answer books. As no other exemption under section 8 is available in respect of the evaluated answer books, the examining bodies will have to permit the inspection sought for by the examinees. When Section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. The relevant paras of the said decision are as under :- “23. The definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term “record” is defined in Section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer book is a document or record. When the answer book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer book becomes a record containing the “opinion” of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer book is also an “information” under the RTI Act. 24. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that subject to the provisions of this Act all the citizens shall have the right to information. The term “right to information” is defined in Section 2(j) as the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Having regard to Section 3, the citizens have the right to access to all the information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act. Having regard to Section 3, the citizens have the right to access to all the information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act. The object of the Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to information regarding functioning of every public authority. 27. The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer books are exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are “information” held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 41. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to the students who participate in an examination, as a Government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words “information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship” are used in Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act in its normal and well-recognised sense, that is, to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary- a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a Director of a company with reference to a shareholder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a Receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the examinee, with reference to the evaluated answer books, that come into the custody of the examining body. 44. We may next consider whether an examining body would be entitled to claim exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, even assuming that it is in a fiduciary relationship with the examinee. That section provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship. This would only mean that even if the relationship is fiduciary, the exemption would operate in regard to giving access to the information held in fiduciary relationship, to third parties. There is no question of the fiduciary withholding information relating to the beneficiary, from the beneficiary himself. 66. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of the RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information [that is, information other than those enumerated in Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act], equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of Governments, etc.” In Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar Case (supra), when the appellant did not succeed in the civil services (main) examination, 2008, he sought for information like production of all records including attendance sheet, raw and moderated marks etc., by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act which was turned down by the Tribunal holding that the principle of moderation has been followed by the UPSC since 1949 and that the method cannot be faulted as subjective or unscientific. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was disposed of holding that the appellants are not entitled to relief because they had approached the Tribunal after a period of more than one year from the date of declaration of the result and the selected candidates had not been made parties. When the matter came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. It has been held that if the methodology of moderation adopted by the Commission is faulted, the entire selection will have to be quashed and that is not possible without giving opportunity of hearing to those who have been selected and appointed in different cadres. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referring to the portion of the judgment in Sanjay Singh Case, observed that it is clear that the three-Judge Bench had approved the method of moderation adopted by the Commission. In R.K. Jain case (supra), the appellant filed an application to the Central Public Information Officer under section 6 of the RTI Act seeking copies of all note-sheets and correspondence pages of a file relating to one Ms. Jyoti Balasundram, Member/ CESTAT. The said information was denied to the appellant, on the ground that the file contains analysis of annual confidential reports, who preferred an appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act which was disallowed citing the same ground. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the Central Information Commission which was also rejected with the observation that it cannot be authorised to be disclosed to a third party. Being aggrieved by it, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi which was rejected by the learned Single Judge relying upon its decision in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Public Information Officer and while observing that except in cases involving overriding public interest, the ACR record of an officer cannot be disclosed to any person other than the office himself/ herself, it remanded the matter to the CIC with the observation that if the CIC comes to a conclusion that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of the information sought for by the appellant, the CIC would follow the procedure prescribed under Section 11 of the Act. The appeal preferred against the learned Single Judge order was dismissed holding that the procedure under Section 11 is mandatory and has to be followed which includes giving of notice to the officer concerned whose ACR was sought for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act and also the observations made by the Kerala High Court in Centre of Earth Science Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian wherein it has been held that the confidential reports of the employees maintained by the employer cannot be treated as records pertaining to personal information of an employee and the High Court of Delhi in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Public Information Officer wherein it has been held that for providing information relating to a third party, the procedure outlined under Section 11(1) cannot be dispensed with. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision rendered in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner wherein the performance of an employee/ officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, held that as the appellant sought for inspection of the documents relating to the ACR of the Member, CESTAT, inter-alia, relating to adverse entries in the ACR and “follow-up action” taken therein on the question of integrity, there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In UPSC & ors. vs. Angesh Kumar case (supra), the respondents who were unsuccessful candidates in the Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination, 2010 approached the Hon’ble High Court for a direction to the UPSC to disclose the details of marks (raw and scaled) awarded to them. The learned Single Judge directed that the information sought for be provided to the respondents within 15 days and this view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Referring to the decision rendered by it in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “6. Thus, it is clear that in interpreting the scheme of the Act, this Court has, while adopting purposive interpretation, read inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 based on the third recital in the Preamble to the Act. Referring to the decision rendered by it in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “6. Thus, it is clear that in interpreting the scheme of the Act, this Court has, while adopting purposive interpretation, read inherent limitation in Sections 3 and 6 based on the third recital in the Preamble to the Act. While balancing the right to information, public interest including efficient working of the Government, optimum use of fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information has to be balanced and can be a guiding factor to deal with a given situation dehors Sections 8, 9 and 11. The High Court has not applied the said parameters. 9. Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced. In the present case, direction has been issued without considering these parameters.” 9. From the above decisions and in particular, CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay case, it is clear that the evaluated answer book is information within the meaning of “information” as defined in Section 2(i) of the RTI Act which refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions etc. As has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answer in an answer book and submits to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer book is a document or record. Such evaluated answer book is not being held by the examining body in its fiduciary relationship with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer books are evaluated by the examining body. Such evaluated answer book is not being held by the examining body in its fiduciary relationship with reference to the examinee who participates in the examination and whose answer books are evaluated by the examining body. The examining body may simply subject the candidate to a process of verification by an examination, to find out whether such person is suitable for a particular post, job or assignment. An examining body, if it is a public authority entrusted with public functions, is required to act fairly, reasonably, uniformly and consistently for public good and in public interest. Therefore, every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer books, by either inspecting them or take certified thereof, unless the evaluated answer books are found to be exempted under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act. 10. Coming to the present case, an examination was conducted by the MPSC for appointment to various posts in the State of Manipur. There was an allegation against the MPSC for having committed many irregularities in the recruitment process. The matter was brought to this court by way of writ petitions and in one of the writ petitions, this court constituted a Committee to look into the matter and submit a report thereof. As per the report, there were many prima facie irregularities as regards the non-signing of the answer seats by the examiner and supervisor, erroneous in the tabulation, mistakes in the totaling of marks, change of marks without signature etc. In this backdrop, the issue involved herein is required to be examined by this court. It is well settled that the evaluated answer book is not being held by the examining body in its fiduciary relationship and therefore, the examinee is entitled to have access to the information or for that matter, he can take certified copies of it. Now, the ancillary issue that arises for consideration by this court, is as to what is the status of this document or the record namely the evaluated answer book, when a certified copy thereof is applied for by a person other than the examinee. Will the character of this document or the record be changed? Will it be treated as third party information? In what capacity, is the evaluated answer sheet being held by the MPSC, when it is not being held as a fiduciary? These issues are not involved in CBSE Vs. Will the character of this document or the record be changed? Will it be treated as third party information? In what capacity, is the evaluated answer sheet being held by the MPSC, when it is not being held as a fiduciary? These issues are not involved in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not dealt with them in its decision. However, the answers to these issues are not far to seek. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Section 3 provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, all the citizens shall have the right to information which is held or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act. It is an undeniable fact that the MPSC being an institution, ought to act fairly and reasonably. The examination is conducted by the MPSC in accordance with the constitutional mandate as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, from time to time, as and when a requisition is received from the State Government. After the examination having been conducted successfully, the evaluated answer sheets are kept by it under lock and key as an institution in public interest for certain period as prescribed in law. After the examination is over; the result thereof is declared and recommendation thereof has been made, there is no legal relationship between the examinee and the MPSC. The evaluated answer sheets do not belong to the candidates and are not being kept by the MPSC on their behalf. The MPSC is a public institution, and not a private institution, which is governed by rule of law. Such records maintained by the MPSC are public documents which can never be treated as confidential by the candidates at their choice and sweet will. There is no any provision under the RTI Act which empowers a candidate of an examination conducted by a Public Service Commission to treat his evaluated answer sheet/ script as confidential so as to attract the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act. The MPSC is under no obligation from the examinee to withhold such information from the citizen except under Section 8 of the RTI Act. In CBSE Vs. The MPSC is under no obligation from the examinee to withhold such information from the citizen except under Section 8 of the RTI Act. In CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhayay, the CBSE fairly conceded that the evaluated answer books will not come under any other exceptions in sub-section (1) of Section 8 but the contention that they are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(e) of the RTI Act, has been rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the evaluated answer books do not fall under any of the exemptions provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act. In H.D Gupta Vs. Public information Officer, NCT of Delhi, the Central Information Commission, in its decision taken on 17-06-2010, held that an answer script of an examination for a job selection cannot be considered as personal information. The answer scripts were given in course of a public activity which is appearing for a job for a public position and it is impossible to imagine that disclosing an answer sheet can be considered an invasion on the privacy of the individual. A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Delhi in Mukesh Kumar Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, CIC, wherein the petitioner sought for information relating to Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination including copies of proceeding drawn/ note drawn and copies of interview marks etc. and the High Court of Delhi vide its judgment and order dated 19-09-2017 held that the results of a public examination for selecting candidates for appointment to the Delhi High Judicial Service Examination have been placed in public domain and there is no question of claiming any exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and accordingly, the respondent was directed to disclose a tabulated statement of the marks awarded to all candidates except the handwritten record, the disclosure of which would inevitably disclose the identity of the members of the interview panel. In Lissing Parme Vs. Shri Taket Jerang, the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission vide its decision taken on 27-05-2013 had followed the view of the High Court of Delhi expressed in its earlier decisions that the information submitted by an applicant seeking a public post and which information comprises the basis of his selection to that post, cannot be said to be in private domain or confidential. In fact, the decisions rendered by the High Court of Delhi and the Central Information Commission are not binding on this court except the persuasive value but their decisions appear to be correct and therefore, this court endorses their views. In R.K Jains case, the decision of which is relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the information sought for are copies of all note-sheets and correspondence including the analysis of annual confidential report relating to an employee which were denied to the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme did not interfere with it for the reason that the information sought for are qualified to be personal information and the disclosure thereof would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This decision will not apply to the facts of the present case and since the evaluated answer sheets do not fall under any of the exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the respondent No.2. Even in UPSC & ors. vs. Angesh Kumar case, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that information sought for with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Furnishing raw marks which will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC, will not be in public interest. However, if a case is made out where the Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, the Court is certainly entitled to so require in a given fact situation. This is what has exactly been done by the Commission in the present case keeping in mind the public interest and in particular, the irregularities being found by the Committee constituted by this court in the recruitment process undertaken by the MPSC. 11. The other aspect which the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphasized, is that the information sought for by the respondent No.2, is a third party information and therefore, the same cannot be furnished without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 and 19 of the RTI Act. 11. The other aspect which the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has emphasized, is that the information sought for by the respondent No.2, is a third party information and therefore, the same cannot be furnished without following the procedure prescribed in Section 11 and 19 of the RTI Act. It is not so for the reason that to apply the provisions of Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act, two conditions are required to be fulfilled-one, the information or the record is to relate to or has been supplied by a third party and two, the same has been treated by it as confidential. The second condition is not fulfilled because there is no occasion in law for doing that by the candidates before the completion of the recruitment process. Some of the candidates appear to have requested the MPSC to treat their evaluated answer sheets as confidential after the decision being rendered by the Commission and that too, without any basis or reason at all. In the present case, the information which includes the name, address, age, educational qualifications etc., have been provided by the candidates at the time of participating in the recruitment process and after the examination is over, the evaluated answer sheets/ books containing the marks secured by the candidates, have become public documents and there is no question of they being declared as confidential nor have they been treated as confidential. As seen hereinabove, it has been held that such information are not even the personal information of the candidates under Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, this court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the decision of the Commission and moreover, while disposing of the appeal, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighs the need for protection of personal information and public interest justifies disclosure of the information as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. But assuming that it is a third party information, nothing prevented the MPSC from furnishing the information as sought for by the respondent No.2 by following the procedure prescribed under Section 11 and 19 of the RTI Act. Even a third Party information can be furnished provided it does not fall under any of the exemptions as enumerated in Section 8 of the RTI Act. Even a third Party information can be furnished provided it does not fall under any of the exemptions as enumerated in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The MPSC is not fair in its dealing with the matter and instead of furnishing the information by following the procedure as stated hereinabove, it took the stand that since the information is a third party information, it cannot be divulged to the respondent No.2. Before taking such a stand, the MPSC appears to have not consulted its legal advisor, rather it consulted with the other State public service commission which are not the appropriate and competent authorities to interpret the provisions of RTI Act. It is unfortunate that although the application seeking information was filed on 14-06-2017, the MPSC, despite it being an institution, did drag on the matter deliberately for more than a year and it could have furnished the information within two/ three months there from, in whatever way it adopted, for the reason that the decision in CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay was pronounced in the year, 2011 itself wherein it had already been held that the evaluated answer books do not fall under any of the exemptions from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act. But the MPSC has miserably failed to discharge its duties fairly and reasonably. Even assuming technically that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 is a third party information and that the procedure as prescribed in Section 11 as regards the notice to be given before taking any decision, is to be followed, the proviso thereto specifically states that disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. Although the said proviso has not been specifically mentioned in the decision of the Commission, the overall reading thereof makes it very clear that the Commissioner has decided the appeal on the ground that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the interests of a third party. 12. Although the said proviso has not been specifically mentioned in the decision of the Commission, the overall reading thereof makes it very clear that the Commissioner has decided the appeal on the ground that the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the interests of a third party. 12. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed with the direction that the MPSC shall pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only as costs to be paid to the High Court Bar Association of Manipur and comply with the directions contained in the decision of the Commission within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.