CWP No. 14916 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14916 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: August 20, 2010 Mohinder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. A vague petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to supply complete information to the petitioner. 2. It has been made out that the petitioner made two applications viz. Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 to seek information from DPI (Secondary Schools) Punjab, Chandigarh. Relevant portion of application dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) reads as under:- “Sudhir Chand, who is posted in the office of CEO these days. I am enclosing herewith record relating to his annual increment. Please tell whether he has secured this increment rightly or not because as per your letter he has not passed within one year and he has secured CWP No. 14916 of 2010 2 the increment in a wrong way. The matter regarding passing of the type test may be also be enquired into because it is just possible who has secured annual increment in a wrong manner must have passed his type test also in a wrong manner.” Annexure P-2 dated 11.11.2009 seeks the following information:- “(i) Copy of investigation/inquiry annual increments. (ii) Complete particulars regarding passing of type test (Paper, Application for Admission, Roll No. etc. and complete record of type).” 3. Perusal of Annexure P-5 indicates that as per result of type test of Sh. Sudhir Sharma, Clerk, he passed the test as per Director, Education Department memo dated 07.03.1990, copy of which has been sent to the petitioner. The other portion of information given by the Public Information Officer is that service book of Sudhir Sharma has been scrutinized. It reveals that he was granted annual increment from a wrong date. Action to recover the excess benefit granted to him from 01.11.1988 till 24.12.1989 is being taken. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide order Annexure P-7, the State Information Commission has observed that the requisite information has been supplied vide letter dated 22.04.2010 and, therefore, the case is disposed of and closed. 4. On a perusal of Annexure P-1, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above, I find that it is a vague application and does not specify a document or information. Rather it seeks adjudication/decision as to whether Sudhir Sharma had “secured his increment rightly or not”. While it CWP No. 14916 of 2010 3 is projected before this Court that Annexures P-1 and P-2 are two separate applications, I find that the applications have been termed by the authorities as Annexure P-2 being a reminder of Annexure P-1. 5. Perusal of relevant portion of Annexure P-2 also indicates that information sought at Sr. No. 1 (from the portion extracted above) is vague. The petitioner seeks copy of investigation/inquiry regarding annual increments. It does not give sufficient particulars of document or information sought from the Public Information Officer. 6. Considering the nature of applications, I find that information has been supplied vide Annexure P-5 and, therefore, conclusion drawn by State Information Commission is reasonable and calls for no interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 20.08.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?