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, 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 reasons provided by the Information Commission for rejecting the appeal were contrary to the facts and that the authority failed to explain why the requested information was not supplied. The State Information Commission argued that its order was detailed and free from illegality.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 06/03/2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The Court found that the Commission's assigned reason for rejecting the appeal was incorrect and that the Commission had failed to discuss or explain the specific reasons for not providing the information sought by the petitioner. Citing the 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, the Court emphasized that arbitrariness in an order stems from a lack of application of mind, which is best demonstrated by recording reasons. The absence of reasons suggests an order is legally unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The Court reserved liberty for the State Information Commission to reconsider the appeal afresh, providing an opportunity for hearing to all parties and deciding 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 arbitrary and legally unsustainable due to a lack of disclosed reasoning, contrary to the principles laid down 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. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Information Commission's order was based on reasons contrary to the facts and failed to adequately explain the denial of information. The appellate authority did not properly consider the reasons for withholding the information. Respondent's arguments: The State Information Commission contended that the order passed was detailed and did not suffer from any illegality.