[2026:JHHC:11428] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(C) No. 811 of 2014 Tulsi Das, S/o Sri Bisun Das at Present posted as Joint Secretary -cum- Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi, Gyandeep Campus, Bargawan, Namkum, P.O. and P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi through its Secretary, Engineering Hostel No.2, Н.Е.С. Campus, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi; 3. In-charge Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, Engineering Hostel No.2, H.E.C. Campus, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi; 4. Anjani Kumari, father's name not known to the petitioner, House No. G/J-12, Chandrapura, P.O. and P.S. Chandrapura, District Bokaro. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate. : Ms. Risheeta Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III. For the JSIC : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate. ------ 09/ 20.04.2026 Heard Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Information Commission. 2. Notice upon respondent No. 4 has been validly served, however, the respondent No. 4 has chosen not to appear in the matter, in view of that this petition is being heard in her absence. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 25.11.2013, passed [2026:JHHC:11428] -2- in Appeal Case No. 03 of 2013 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby, direction has been issued to the Assistant Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council to supply the information under Column-2 by way of sending the same by speed post or registered post to the respondent No. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 namely Anjani Kumari filed an application dated 20.6.2012 addressed to the Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi seeking information being, (i) The name, designation and address of the Examiner who examined her answer books in the Annual Intermediate Science 2012 Examination and (ii) The certified photo copy of her answer book of Physics subject. She submits that pursuant to receiving the said letter, the reply was sent to respondent No. 4 by the petitioner stating therein that the information relating to serial No. 1 cannot be supplied under the Right to Information Act and regarding serial No. 2, she was informed that the photo copy of her answer book cannot be supplied, however she may be allowed to inspect her answer books. She then submits that however, the respondent No. 4 has preferred an appeal being First Appeal No. 111 of 2012 and during the pendency of the said appeal itself, the respondent No. 4 has also moved before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, whereby notices were sent to the petitioner relating to supply of desired information in Appeal No. 03 of 2013 and thereafter the petitioner sent a reply to the Under Secretary, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi by letter dated 09.09.2013 and explained the position relating to supply of information. She further submits that by order dated 10.09.2013, the Jharkhand State Information Commission, in the said Appeal No. 03 of 2013 has passed a direction to supply the information to respondent No. 4. She also submits by letter dated 31.10.2013, the Information Officer, informed the respondent No. 4 specifying the reason for non-supply of the [2026:JHHC:11428] -3- information relating to item No. 1 and the provisions of RTI Act and regarding Item no. 2, the respondent No. 4 was also informed that it is not possible to supply the photo copy of her answer book, but she can inspect her answer book. She then submits that in spite of giving the above reply, the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi has passed an order dated 25.11.2013, whereby, the Assistant Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council has been directed to supply the desired information. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision of providing the answer-sheets, however, provisions are there to inspect the answer-sheets and offer was already provided to the respondent No. 4 and she has chosen not to inspect the answer-sheets. She refers to the provisions of Section 8(g) of Right to Information Act and submits that first information sought relating to the third party information, in view of that said was not provided and so far as answer-sheet is concerned, in terms of Regulations, only the inspection can be made. She submits that in spite of that the order has been passed, which is not in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that this is the dispute between the petitioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission and respondent No. 4. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand State Information Commission supports the order and submits that rightly the order has been passed and there is no illegality. He next submits that if the information is sought under the Act, the same is required to be provided to the information seeker. 8. It has been pointed out that so far as the first information is concerned that was with regard to name, designation and address of the examiner and the place of posting. Thus, the first information is relating to other person and in light of Section 8(1)(e) and (g) of Right to Information Act, it has been rightly not provided. In this regard, [2026:JHHC:11428] -4- reference may be made to the case of Union Public Service Commission & Ors. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. reported in 2018(4) SCC 530, where in paras-9,10 and 11, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:- “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. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order(s) is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners are dismissed. This order will not debar the respondents from making out a case on the above parameters and approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. 11. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Civil Appeal No. 5924 of 2013.” 9. In light of the regulation of the Council, only the answer- sheets can be inspected and that offer was already provided to the respondent No. 4 and in spite of that the order has been passed by the Jharkhand State Information Commissioner, which is not justified in the eyes of law. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, it transpires that the said order is not in accordance with law and also [2026:JHHC:11428] -5- contrary to the Regulation of the Council, as such, the order dated 25.11.2013, passed in Appeal Case No. 03 of 2013 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi, whereby, direction has been issued to the Assistant Public Information Officer, Jharkhand Academic Council to supply the information under Column-2 by way of speed post or registered post to the respondent No. 4, is hereby, set aside. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-20.04.2026 Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]