Vikash Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikash Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. This order 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 Commission's reasons for rejecting the appeal were contrary to the facts and that the actual reasons for not supplying the information were not explained or considered by the appellate authority. The respondents, including the State Information Commission, argued that the Commission's order was detailed and without illegality.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was unsustainable. The Court found that the Commission's rejection of the petitioner's appeal was based on reasons that appeared incorrect to the facts of the case. Crucially, 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 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 reiterated that the recording of reasons is an essential feature of administrative orders and demonstrates due application of mind. The absence of such reasons renders an order arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. The Court, however, reserved liberty for 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 March 6, 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 reasons for not providing the requested information, thereby violating principles of natural justice and administrative law? The petitioner argued that the Information Commission's rejection of the appeal was based on reasons contrary to the facts and that the Commission failed to explain why the requested information was not supplied. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, emphasizing that an order must disclose due application of mind, which is best demonstrated by recording reasons, and that absence of reasons suggests arbitrariness. The petitioner also cited Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers, stating that recording reasons is essential for the dispensation of justice. The respondent State Information Commission contended that the order passed by the Commission was detailed and contained no illegality.