1 2025:CGHC:9981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1100 of 2025 1 - Vikas Pandey S/o Shri Umashankar Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Sheetla Para, In Front Of Sheetla Mandir, Kanker, Distt.- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Commercial Tax-Gst, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgar Stae Information Commission, Through Secretary, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - First Appellate Authority And Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax OfÏce, Sector - 19, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.01 17:41:59 +0530 2 4 - Public Information OfÏcer And Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax OfÏce, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner, Commercial Tax-Gst Department Commercial Tax OfÏce, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Avinash Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent no. 2 : Shri S.S. Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 06/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) by which the respondent No.2/ Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has rejected the Second Appeal of the petitioner wherein the petitioner is seeking the answer sheet of one of the candidates who passed the recruitment examination for the post of Commercial Tax Inspector. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, the reason assigned by the Information Commission is absolutely contrary to the facts and records of the case and the reason for which the information has not been supplied to the petitioner has not been explained and considered by the appellate authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission 3 submits that the order passed by the Commission is a detailed order and there is no illegality. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the order impugned whereby the second appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the reason assigned therein is incorrect to the facts of the case. The Commission has not discussed and explained that for what reason the information sought by the petitioner has not been provided to him. 6. In the case of East Coast Railway and Another v Mahadev Appa Rao and Others1 the Supreme Court in a very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in the making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the 1 (2010) 7 SCC 678 4 order. 7. Likewise, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v Shukla and Brothers2, the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. 8. For the reasons mentioned herein above, the impugned order dated 06/03/2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However liberty is reserved for the State Information Commission to consider the appeal afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to decide the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib 2 (2010) 4 SCC785