JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.05.2019 filed under Section 138 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act and dispose the same in accordance with law. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 04.05.2019 filed under Section 138 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act and dispose the same in accordance with law.) Common Order 1. The petitioner has sought a mandamus directing R2/the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and R3/the Income Tax Officer to dispose the applications under Section 138 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') dated 04.05.2019. 2. The writ petitions have been filed as early as on 2019 and pleadings were stated to be complete at the time when the matter came up for final hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 24.06.2022 based upon the submission made by learned Senior Standing Counsel, the following order was passed:- “The petitioner has sought information in regard to R4 relying upon the provisions of Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that deals with 'disclosure of information of respecting assessees'. 2. In additional typed set dated 18.09.2019, the petitioner has placed on record his application filed before the various authorities, who have replied stating that the files have been transferred to other authorities and hence, they are not in a position to entertain the request of the petitioner. A counter has also filed by R3 to similar effect. 3. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel makes an oral submission in regard to the applicability of Section 138 stating that Section 138 (1) (a) provides for the furnishing of information only to those officers/authorities/bodies stipulated under Section 138(1)(a)(i) and (ii) and that sub-clause (b) to Section 138(1) should be read with in tandem with sub-clause (a). 4. Thus, his submission is that disclosure of information can be made only to those officers/authorities/bodies set out under clause (i) and (ii) of Section 138 (1) (a) and not to a third party. 5. Let a counter be filed in this regard by R1 or R2 as a final opportunity. List on 30.06.2022.” 3. 4. Thus, his submission is that disclosure of information can be made only to those officers/authorities/bodies set out under clause (i) and (ii) of Section 138 (1) (a) and not to a third party. 5. Let a counter be filed in this regard by R1 or R2 as a final opportunity. List on 30.06.2022.” 3. The respondents have filed an additional counter on 14.07.2022 wherein they have taken a stand contrary to that adopted by learned Senior Standing Counsel in the course of submissions. As rightly stated by R2, the provisions of Section 138 (1) (b) entitle 'any person' to approach the authorities for information relating to any assessee, though full discretion is vested in authorities to decide as to such information be supplied or otherwise. 4. Pending writ petition, on 13.07.2022 the application of the petitioner has also come up to be rejected on the ground that the Officer does not satisfy the precondition of ‘public interest’ to enable supply of the information as sought for by the petitioner. 5. For the purpose of clarity and completion, the provisions of Section 138 (1) (a) and (b), dealing with ‘disclosure of information respecting assessees’ is extracted below: Disclosure of information respecting assessees. 138.(1)(a) The Board or any other income-tax authority specified by it by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to— (i) any officer, authority or body performing any functions under any law relating to the imposition of any tax, duty or cess, or to dealings in foreign exchange as defined in clause (n) of section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999); or (ii) such officer, authority or body performing functions under any other law as the Central Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in the public interest, specify by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, any such information received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, as may, in the opinion of the Board or other income-tax authority, be necessary for the purpose of enabling the officer, authority or body to perform his or its functions under that law. (b) Where a person makes an application to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in the prescribed form 18 for any information relating to any assessee received or obtained by any income-tax authority in the performance of his functions under this Act, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do, furnish or cause to be furnished the information asked for and his decision in this behalf shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. 6. Sub-Section 1 (a) provides for the Board or any other Income Tax Authority to furnish or cause to be furnished any information in its/their possession to an officer under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 or any other Officer/Authority or body performing functions under any other law as may be prescribed by the Central Government, having regard to public interest, and to enable the Officer/Authority/body concerned to perform their functions under that law. 7. Clause (b) of Section 138 (1) entitles 'any person' to make an application to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, information relating to any other assessee and the Authority concerned, if it is satisfied that it is in 'public interest', may supply such information of his decision to supply such information shall be final and not be called in question in any Court of law. 8. Order dated 13.07.2022 passed in the case reads as follows: “Shri J. Jayaprakash ( PAN AFWPJ9175J ) assessed in Central Circle 2 ( 4 ) , Chennai , had filed application seeking information under clause ( B ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 before the Director General of Income Tax , ( TN & P ) Chennai vide Form 46 dated 04.05.2019 in the cases of M / s : Jyothirmaye Estates and Shri Brahmanandam Dhanda. As the jurisdiction of the cases M / s . Jyothirmaye Estates ( PAN AAKFJ0057A ) and Shri BrahmanandamDhanda ( PAN AESPD2628B ) vests with ACIT , Central Circle 2 ( 4 ) , Chennai , the petition filed by Shri J. Jayaprakash has since been obtained from the O / o . As the jurisdiction of the cases M / s . Jyothirmaye Estates ( PAN AAKFJ0057A ) and Shri BrahmanandamDhanda ( PAN AESPD2628B ) vests with ACIT , Central Circle 2 ( 4 ) , Chennai , the petition filed by Shri J. Jayaprakash has since been obtained from the O / o . the Director General of Income Tax , ( TN & P ) Chennai for the purpose of consideration and disposal. The petition was carefully considered. The information sought by the applicant relates to the material / information pertaining to the partnership firm , M / s Jyothirmaye Estates , ShBrahmanandamDhanda , Sh Ram Anjaneyulu , Sh J Sekar Reddy and Sh RV Sathyanarayana gathered during search operations conducted by the Directorate of Investigation in the year 2019. The applicant had business connections with above persons and had also been covered by the department in the above mentioned search proceedings conducted . The assessments in the case of the applicant as well as the above related persons have also been completed on the basis of the material gathered during the course of the search proceedings . The information sought by the applicant thus appears to be out of personal considerations . The applicant has not established what public interest would be served by disclosure of information pertaining to above persons to the applicant . The disclosure of information with regard to the financial matters of third parties assessed with the department , as sought by the applicant , cannot thus be considered to be in public interest within the meaning of section 138 ( 1 ) ( b ) of IT Act .” 9. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner read with order dated 13.07.2022 does not reveal any flaw in the satisfaction exercised by the Officer/Authority/body concerned in passing the order. 10. Clause (b) of Section 138 (1) states that the requisite information as sought for by the applicant may be furnished if the Officer were to be 'satisfied' that it is in 'public interest' to do so. 10. Clause (b) of Section 138 (1) states that the requisite information as sought for by the applicant may be furnished if the Officer were to be 'satisfied' that it is in 'public interest' to do so. Since the authority in this case has categorically set out its satisfaction to the effect that furnishing of information is not in 'public interest', assigning reasons for the same, stating that the material sought for appears only to be for settlement of personal disputes between the parties, I find no flaw in the order and no cause to interfere in the subjective satisfaction of the Officer. In my considered view, the requirement of personal hearing prior to disposal of the request for information, as the consideration of the request is based upon the application, seeking information and the satisfaction of the Officer. It is only when the application filed is unclear or the authority requires further information that the question of calling upon the applicant will arise and the Mandamus as sought for is not liable to be issued. 11. In light of the discussion, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.