Vikas Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 2). The Commission had rejected the petitioner's second appeal. The petitioner sought the answer sheet of a candidate who passed the recruitment examination for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The petitioner contended that the reason provided by the Information Commission for rejecting the appeal was contrary to the facts and records, and that the appellate authority failed to consider the reasons for withholding the information. The State Information Commission argued that its order was detailed and without illegality.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was unsustainable. The Court found that the reason assigned in the order for rejecting the petitioner's appeal was incorrect to the facts of the case. It was observed that the Commission had not discussed or explained the specific reasons why the information sought by the petitioner was not provided. Citing the Supreme Court's pronouncements in *East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others* and *Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers*, the Court emphasized that the absence of reasons in an order suggests arbitrariness and renders it legally unsustainable, as recording of reasons is an essential feature of the dispensation of justice and demonstrates due application of mind. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the State Information Commission to consider the appeal afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties and deciding it in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, rejecting the petitioner's second appeal, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the reason assigned by the Information Commission for rejecting the appeal was factually incorrect and that the Commission failed to explain why the requested information was not provided. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments in *East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others* and *Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers* to emphasize the necessity of recording reasons for any order passed by a public authority. Revenue/State's Arguments: The counsel for the State Information Commission submitted that the order passed by the Commission was detailed and suffered from no illegality.