IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.15131 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 3, 2010 KARAMJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for respondent No.5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 14.9.2009 (Annexure P-10) whereby respondent No.4 i.e. Public Information Officer in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala Forest Division, Patiala, has been directed by respondent No.2 i.e. Punjab State Information Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, to supply details of properties of family members of the petitioner to respondent No.5; namely, Joginder Singh Lehal. In fact, there is no dispute, however, litigation has been carried to this Court. Civil Writ Petition No.15131 of 2009 2 It seems that the petitioner was also holding the charge of Public Information Officer in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Patiala. Respondent No.5 filed an application seeking certain information on nine counts. Information on eight counts was given. The 9th prayer made in the application seeking information reads as under:- “9. Details of the family members of Sh. K.S. Jattana DFO Patiala, Assets (movable and immovable) possessed by each member and the date of acquiring the said assets and their value.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already given the liberty to the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests to supply the information vide communication dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) , which pertains to the petitioner himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is not required to disclose the property details of the family members who are not dependent on the petitioner and are independent of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 states that the said respondent only seeks property/asset details of the petitioner and his dependent family members. The relevant contents of letter (Annexure P-4) sent by the petitioner to the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests read as under:- “In regard to the aforesaid subject Shri Joginder Singh Lehal son of Shri Jeeva Singh, R/o House No.2509/Sector 35-C, Chandigarh has sought information vide his application dated 10.09.2009. The information relating to this circles has already been supplied to the applicant vide a letter no.508 Civil Writ Petition No.15131 of 2009 3 dated 08.10.2008. In application at Sr. No.9 the applicant has sought the information regarding the name property details of the family members. This office the information has already supplied the information regarding the family members of the undersigned to the applicant vide letter dated 5008 dated 08.10.2008. The property details of the undersigned has been sent to the your office by the undersigned from time to time. It is requested that the action be taken according to the relevant provisions, so that the Punjab State Information Commission be informed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner is ready and willing to disclose his assets and assets of his dependent family members which, in any case, he is required to give under service rules to the department-employer, as can be made from the above highlighted portion from the extracted portion of the letter (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for respondent No.5 states that respondent No.5 would be satisfied if the said information is given. This petition is disposed of with directions to the Public Information Officer in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests to supply the information to respondent No.5, as detailed above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. August 3, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?