Civil Writ Petition No.863 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.863 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.05.2011 Dr.Maman Chand Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Ms.Sunita Nandal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Narender Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of application dated 19.06.2009(Annexure P-1), the petitioner sought the informations mentioned therein. 2. The informations were supplied to him, but he sought additional informations, which were not mentioned in his application(Annexure P-1). Ultimately, the State Information Commissioner again directed the respondent- SPIO, to supply the informations mentioned in the application(Annexure P-1), by virtue of impugned order dated 10.11.2009(Annexure P-6). 3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, seeking the remaining informations, inter alia, pleading that the respondents did not supply him the complete information. Civil Writ Petition No.863 of 2011 2 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The respondents claimed that the informations sought by the petitioner have already been supplied to him through the medium of letters(Annexures R-1 to R-5). It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petition and prayed for its dismissal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition in this context. 6. As is evident from the record that all the informations sought by the petitioner have already been supplied to him by the respondent-SPIO, vide letters (Annexures R-1 to R-5). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not supply the additional informations, cannot possibly be accepted, because if the petitioner still intends to seek more additional informations, then he has to move a fresh application before the appropriate authority in this regard. 7. Meaning thereby, as, the entire informations have already been supplied to the petitioner, by way of letters(Annexures R-1 to R-5), therefore, no ground to entertain the present writ petition is made out in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. May 12, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE