Vikas Pandey vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Vikas Pandey, filed a Right to Information (RTI) application on July 12, 2022, seeking information regarding the Commercial Tax Inspector departmental recruitment examination held on June 26, 2022. Specifically, he requested model answer keys, the number of vacant posts category-wise for OBC, ST, and SC, and a copy of the answer sheet of a successful candidate, Rakesh Kumar Minj. The Public Information Officer (Respondent No. 4) rejected the application, stating the information pertained to a third party. The First Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) and the State Information Commission (Respondent No. 2) also dismissed the petitioner's appeals. The State Information Commission, while upholding the rejection, imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,500 on the Information Officer. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the appellate authorities.

Held

The Court directed Respondent No. 4 (Public Information Officer) to provide the information demanded in points 1 and 2 of the RTI application to the petitioner within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court implicitly acknowledged that information sought in points 1 and 2 was not third-party information and should be disclosed. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for not providing information point 3, the operative direction focuses solely on points 1 and 2, suggesting that the denial for point 3 might have been upheld or was not the primary focus of the Court's intervention. The ratio decidendi is that recruitment examination details like model answer keys and vacancy statistics are not third-party information and are disclosable under the RTI Act. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether information sought in points 1 and 2 of the RTI application, pertaining to model answer keys and category-wise vacant posts for the Commercial Tax Inspector recruitment examination, can be denied on the grounds that it relates to a third party, under the Right to Information Act, 2005? 2. Whether the denial of information sought in point 3 of the RTI application, concerning a specific candidate's answer sheet, is justified on the grounds of it being third-party information under the Right to Information Act, 2005? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that information sought in points 1 and 2 of the RTI application does not relate to a third party and should have been provided. He argued that the denial of this information by the Information Officer, First Appellate Authority, and Second Appellate Authority was an error. The petitioner relied on the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Respondents' arguments: Counsel for Respondent No. 2 (State Information Commission) submitted that information sought in points 1 and 2 of the RTI application could be provided to the petitioner. The State counsel adopted the arguments of Respondent No. 2.