Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 537 (KAR)

Member Secretary v. Karnataka State Information

2022-04-13

P.KRISHNA BHAT

body2022
ORDER 1. Calling in question the order dated 30th June, 2016, passed by respondent No.1. in No. 2015, the State has come up with this writ petition. 2. Respondent No.2 filed an information application before the Member Secretary, Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum-Assistant Government Pleader Recruitment Committee, seeking certified copy of the Answer Book-let(Main Examination) held on 31-08-20913 and 01-09-2013 written by him with Registration No.1357. The Public Information Officer rejected the said application. On account of the same, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the appellate authority, namely, respondent No.1 in Appeal DPN/ HQA/RTI/29/2014/15. After hearing, respondent No.1 rejected the said appeal against which, respondent No.2 filed a second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act. Respondent No.1 passed the following order on 30th June, 2016. 3. The learned AGA contends that even though respondent No.2 sought for certified copy of the answer scripts written by him in the examination held for the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutor on 31-08-2013 and 01-09-2013, in view of the matter being investigated by the Lokayukta police and the original answer scripts having already been seized by the Lokayukta police, the grant of certified copy of the answer scripts of the respondent No.2 to him, would impede the process of investigation and therefore it falls within the exemption under Clause(h) of sub-Section(1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and accordingly, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, per contra, contends that respondent No.2 is seeking only the certified copy of the answer scripts and since the originals are already in the custody of the Lokayukta, granting of a copy of the same will in no way impede the investigation and therefore the direction given by respondent No.1 is fully in accordance with law and there is no merit in the writ petition and is liable to be dismissed. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No.2 had taken the examination for the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutor with Registration No.1357 in the examination held on 31-08-2013 and 01-09-2013. By the Information Act, he is only seeking the certified copy of his own answer scripts. Even on this, there is absolutely no dispute. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that respondent No.2 had taken the examination for the selection of Assistant Public Prosecutor with Registration No.1357 in the examination held on 31-08-2013 and 01-09-2013. By the Information Act, he is only seeking the certified copy of his own answer scripts. Even on this, there is absolutely no dispute. The only contention of the learned AGA in support of his writ petition is that grant of certified copy of the answer scripts is exempted under Clause(b) of sub-Section(1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and therefore respondent No.2 is not entitled to a copy of the same. Section 8(1)(h) reads as follows:- '(h) Information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.' There is also no dispute about the fact that the entire original answer scripts including that of respondent No.2 has already been seized by the Lokayukta police in proceedings in Crime No.59/2015. Therefore, grant of certified copy of the answer scripts from the xerox copy maintained by the petitioners to respondent No.2 would in no way impede the process of investigation. It is also required to be borne in mind that respondent No.2 is not seeking the copy of the answer scripts of any other candidate but of his own. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by respondent No.1 who has only permitted respondent No.2 to make an inspection of the same. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merits, and it is dismissed.