Vikas Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 2). This order rejected the petitioner's second appeal, which sought the answer sheet of a candidate who had 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 failed to explain why the requested information was not supplied. The State Information Commission argued that its order was detailed and without illegality.

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated December 28, 2023, 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 and that the Commission had failed to discuss or explain why the information sought by the petitioner was not provided. Citing 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*, the Court emphasized that arbitrariness in an order can manifest from a lack of disclosed reasoning, which is essential for demonstrating due application of mind and for the dispensation of justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order. The Court also reserved liberty for the State Information Commission to reconsider the appeal afresh, providing an opportunity of hearing to all parties and deciding it in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated December 28, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 2) rejecting the petitioner's second appeal is legally sustainable, considering the alleged lack of proper application of mind and failure to disclose reasons for denying the requested information? The petitioner argued that the Information Commission's order was arbitrary and contrary to facts, as it did not adequately explain the reasons for not providing the sought-after information, thereby demonstrating a lack of due application of mind. The petitioner relied on 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*, which emphasize the necessity of recording reasons for administrative orders. The respondent State Information Commission contended that the order passed was detailed and did not suffer from any illegality.