C.W.P. No.16782 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.16782 of 2011 Date of Decision.08.09.2011 Ram Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of village Raunta, Tehsil Nihal Singhwala, District Moga .....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab through Secretary Department of Home Affairs, Punjab, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the denial of a licence for opening a depot for the petitioner and granting the same to the 4th respondent. The petitioner applied under the RTI Act to elicit information whether opening of any depot had been made possible without a recommendation from the Gram Panchayat resolution. The reply to the query under the Act has been that in no case was a depot permitted to be opened without a recommendation from the Gram Panchayat and in particular, it is also stated that at the time of grant of depot to the 4th respondent, the Sarpanch of the village namely Darshan Singh had participated. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that only the said Darshan Singh had participated and there was no resolution. He would also contend that there had been a resolution in favour of the petitioner for allotment. I cannot see from C.W.P. No.16782 of 2011 -2- the reply given by the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act that in the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, there was no one except Sarpanch of the village to approve the resolution. On the other hand, it is merely an incidental information, which has been added to the fact that in no case, the permission in the name of any person was issued by the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has failed to show as to how he is equipped better than the 4th respondent or how the allotment to the 4th respondent could be faulted for any other reason. 2. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 08, 2011 Pankaj*