(1.) HAVE the respondents acted in conformity with the provisions of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996, in rejecting the petitioner's request for the supply of a copy of the report/order made by the Lokpal ? Do the provisions of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996 require that the report on the conduct of a Public man be kept under cover ? This is the core of the controversy in the present case. The fact may be briefly noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to be an old Congressman. He filed a complaint before the Lokpal, Punjab against Mr. Jagmohan Singh Kang, respondent number 4. It was inter alia alleged that while serving as a state Revenue Minister, the fourth respondent had acquired property disproportionate to his know sources of income. A copy of the complaint submitted by the petitioner on May 22, 1996, has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the Writ Petition. On September 9, 1996, the petitioner submitted a supplemental complaint. A copy has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ Petition. Vide letter dated July 12, 1999, the Registrar informed the petitioner that "having considered the relevant documents and evidence" the Lokpal had "come to the conclusion that the allegations have not been substantiated and as such, this case has been closed and the complaint filed." The petitioner made an application for the supply of a copy of the report. The request was declined. Vide letter dated August 6, 1999, the petitioner was informed that "in view of the confidentiality involved in the matter under Section 18 of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996, his request for the supply of the copy has been declined by the Hon. Lokpal." Aggrieved by the two orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively, the petitioner has approached this court through the present Writ Petition.
(3.) ON behalf of the state of Punjab, Mr. M.S. Sandhu, Special Secretary, Department of Vigilance, has filed a reply. It has been averred that the State Government has passed no order. The petitioner has made no complaint against it. No relief whatsoever has been claimed. Thus, the writ petition in so far as it relates to respondent No. 1 should be dismissed.