1 2025:CGHC:14843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1453 of 2025 1 - Vikas Pandey S/o Shri Uma Shankar Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Sheetla Para, In Front of Sheetla Mandir, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commercial Tax- G.S.T., Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Secretary, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - First Appellate Authority and Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax Office, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Public Information Officer and Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Office, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Commissioner, Commercial Tax- G.S.T. Department Commercial Tax Office, Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer and Shri Shyam Sundar Lal Tekchandani, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.24 11:08:00 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 2 i.e. State Information Commission and the respondents may kindly be directed to provide information as mentioned in the RTI Application dated 12.07.2022 (Annexure P/2) within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed. 10.3 Cost of the petition may be awarded.” 2. The petitioner questions the order dated 6.3.2024 by which the respondent No.2/Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has rejected the 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. 3. 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 3 information has not been supplied to the petitioner has not been explained and considered by the appellate authority. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission submits that the order passed by the Commission is a detailed order and there is no illegality. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents and the impugned order with due care. 6. 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. 7. In the case of East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678, the Hon’ble 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 4 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 difÏcult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order. 8. Likewise, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 6.3.2024 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However, liberty is reserved with the State Information Commission to consider the appeal of the petitioner afresh by providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to decide the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh