Vikas Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Pandey, sought the answer sheet of a candidate who passed the recruitment examination for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. The Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority denied this information. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. The Commission rejected the petitioner's second appeal via an order dated 28.12.2023 (in WPC Nos. 1271/2025 & 1300/2025) and 06.03.2024 (in other writ petitions). The petitioner challenged these rejection orders before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur through multiple writ petitions, arguing that the Commission's reasons for rejection were contrary to the facts and failed to explain why the information was not supplied.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned orders passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, rejecting the petitioner's second appeal, were arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court found that the Commission's orders failed to provide adequate reasons for denying the information sought by the petitioner, specifically failing to discuss or explain why the answer sheet was not provided. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions 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 recording of reasons is an essential feature of administrative decision-making and that the absence of reasons suggests a lack of proper application of mind. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders. The Court granted liberty to the State Information Commission to reconsider the appeal afresh, providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties and deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission rejecting the petitioner's second appeal is arbitrary and legally unsustainable due to a lack of reasoned decision-making? (Issue of law turning on principles of administrative law and natural justice, implicitly referencing the Right to Information Act, 2005). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the Information Commission's rejection order was contrary to the facts and records. The Commission failed to provide a proper explanation for why the requested information (the candidate's answer sheet) was not supplied. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's 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 argue that an order must disclose due application of mind, which is demonstrated by recording reasons, and that the absence of reasons renders an order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Respondents' Arguments: The counsel for the State Information Commission submitted that the order passed by the Commission was detailed and contained no illegality.