CWP No. 4053 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4053 of 2011 Date of decision : 07.03.2011 Dr. Suresh Gupta and another ...Petitioners versus Public Information Officer, Office of District Food and Civil Supplies Controller, Sirsa and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. L.S Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners **** M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral) Petitioners have directed the instant writ petition, in the nature prohibition, restraining the Public Information Officer, office of District Food and Civil Supplies Controller, Sirsa (respondent No. 1), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,- (respondent No. 2) & Sirsa Gas Service, Rania Road, Sirsa (respondent No. 3) from divulging the details of the petitioners to any other person, in contravention of Section 8 (1) (g) and 8 (1) (i) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred tobe as “the Act”) 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record, with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition. 3. However, the solitary argument of learned counsel that the personal information of the petitioners given to respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3, cannot be provided to any person, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 4. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in CWP No. CWP No. 4053 of 2011 -2- 1338 of 2011 titled as M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. The Central Information Commission and others, decided on 24.01.2011 wherein it was ruled that such routine/general information with respect to booking and supply of domestic and commercial LPG cylinders with home delivery and other related information, already available with Gas Agency, an authorized distributor of Corporation, are not the confidential information and any person is entitled to obtain such information, if permissible under the Act. 5. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioners has utterly failed to point out that how and in what manner under which provisions of law, respondent No.1 can be restrained from performing his statutory duty under the Act through the medium of the present writ petition, as prayed on behalf of the petitioners. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 7 Needless to mention here, that if the petitioners, in any manner, are aggrieved by any order passed by any authority, under the Act, then they would be at liberty to file statutory appeal, in accordance with law. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge March 07, 2011 G.Arora Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No