Quashed

Mohd.Kamran Azam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020WRIC/14035/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a BA.M.S student challenging the first-year examination result and seeking reevaluation due to perceived low success rates. The court held that while no direction for reevaluation was warranted at that stage, the petitioner was entitled to inspect answer books under the RTI Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 and 3 to show answer books to the petitioner within two weeks upon submission of a fresh application.

Mohd.Kamran Azam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — RTI and Transparency | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 35

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14035 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd.Kamran Azam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Tewari,Braham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The petitioner is a student of B.A.M.S Course at W.T.M Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Fatehpur Mafi, Post Palaula, District Amroha. The grievance of the petitioner is that the First Year Examination result of B.A.M.S Course declared in February 2020 is not correct, inasmuch as, only 6% of the total students have been declared successful. The petitioner claims that he had applied for answer books being made available to him under the Right to Information Act, but the authorities have not shown the answer books to the petitioner. The instant petition has been filed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to reevaluate the answer books of the petitioner in various subjects.

¶6

At this stage, no material has been brought on record to warrant issuing a direction to the authorities to reevaluate the answer books. Even otherwise, such power has to be exercised very sparingly and in exceptional cases, where the mistake is writ large on the face of record. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to see his answer books in pursuance of the application filed by him under the Right to Information Act, as held by the Supreme Court in C.B.S.E vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay 2011 (6) AWC 5567 .

¶7

Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are represented before this Court by Sri L.K. Tripathi, Advocate to ensure that the answer books

¶8

are shown to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a true attested copy of the instant order, along with fresh application making request for being shown the answer books.

¶9

(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶10

(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶11

Order Date :- 29.9.2020/Jaideep/-

Mohd.Kamran Azam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Kamran Azam v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahfooz Alam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Anil Kushwaha Alias Malkhan Singh and 2 Others Vs Kaushal Kushwaha Alias Pappu and 2 Others

Mahatam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Vivek Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kushma Devi and 5 Others Vs Govt of U P and 2 Others

M/S Ram Bhajan Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another