{"id":114837,"date":"2011-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-05-16T13:29:21","modified_gmt":"2016-05-16T07:59:21","slug":"mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011<\/div>\n
                           CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                               Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                             Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                    Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                          Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003203\/10695Penalty\n                                                                         Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003203\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n
Appellant                              :       Mr. A K Aggarwal
\n                                               37-C, Ayodhya Enclave, Sector-13,
\n                                               Rohini, Delhi-110085<\/p>\n
Respondent                             :       Mr. Rakesh Sharma,
\n                                               Deemed PIO & JE(B)
\n                                               Municipal Corporation of Delhi
\n                                               O\/o the Superintending Engineer-II
\n                                               Rohini Zone, Sector-5,
\n                                               Rohini, Delhi-110085<\/p>\n
RTI application filed on               :       23\/07\/2010
\nPIO replied                            :       20\/10\/2010
\nFirst appeal filed on                  :       17\/09\/2010
\nFirst Appellate Authority order        :       18\/10\/2010
\nSecond Appeal received on              :       16\/11\/2010<\/p>\n
Information Sought:\n<\/p>\n
    1. Number of load taking walls which were removed by the owner of flat no. 37-B.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Number of walls whose thickness was reduced also whether they were load taking walls.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Whether prior approval of MCD is required for the above actions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4. Whether modification plan is required to be submitted by the owner for removal of walls, doors and
\n        windows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5. Whether walls can be removed by the owner by using skilled Labour but in the absence of Govt.
\n        approved contractors, architects and engineers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6. Whether carpet area of the walls may be increased by reducing the thickness of the walls.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. Whether the owner has the right to do illegal modifications.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8. Same as a few points above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9. If any legal proof was collected to prove that the modification was illegal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10. Whether Govt. approved contractors or engineers were involved in this huge modification or they were
\n        not needed. If needed copy of the order to be provided.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11. Whether modification plan was sanctioned by the MCD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    12. If the owner has indulged in illegal modification which is a case of crime. Action is required to be taken
\n        by the Dept. Situation to be confirmed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reply of the PIO:\n<\/p>\n
   1. No such record available.\n<\/p>\n
   2. No such record available.\n<\/p>\n
   3. No such permission is given by the Building Dept.\n<\/p>\n
   4. No modification plan required but it should be in accordance with Building Bye Laws.\n<\/p>\n
   5. In form of a question. PIO not under an obligation to reply.\n<\/p>\n
   6. Work can be done only as per BBL.\n<\/p>\n
   7. No
\n                                                                                                       Page 1 of 4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
    8.    No such record available.\n<\/p>\n
   9.    Site is to be inspected. Action will be taken if there is any U\/C.\n<\/p>\n
   10.   Modification can be done as per BBL.\n<\/p>\n
   11.   No such modification plan has been sanctioned.\n<\/p>\n
   12.   Same as reply to point no.5<\/p>\n
Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Reply was not given by the PIO even after the lapse of 30 days.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
“The Appellant is aggrieved due to the fact that no reply has been received so far. The representative of the PIO
\nstates that the reply has now been prepared. However, on cursory glance to the reply so drafted by the
\ndepartment does not seem to be in order. The PIO is therefore directed to reframe the reply and answer all his
\nqueries specifically within 2 weeks.”\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
No reply was given after the order of the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing dated 29\/12\/2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant : Mr. A K Aggarwal;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B) and Mr. S. C. Meena, AE(B) on behalf of Mr. M. P. Gupta, PIO &
\n                SE-II;\n<\/p>\n
        “The Appellant has been complaining about removal of load barring walls in his building in an
\nunauthorized manner by flat no. 37-B, Ayodhya Enclave. He has produced before the Commission photographs
\nin which no body can have any doubts that load bearing walls appear to have been broken. The Appellant
\ntherefore filed the RTI application on 23\/07\/2010 to get information on the records of MCD. The PIO did not
\nsupply the information until 15\/10\/2010 and states that he gave this information to the Appellant during the first
\nappellate hearing. The FAA in his order has clearly stated that the reply does not seem to be in order and
\ntherefore directed the PIO to send the answer to all the queries within 02 weeks. After this no information has
\nbeen sent to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent states that the original RTI application was given to Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B) and the FAA’s
\norder was to be implemented by Mr. S. C. Meena, AE(B).”\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated 29\/12\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       “The Commission directs Mr. S. R. Meena, EE(B) to provide the information with all the
\npapers evidencing action taken to the Appellant before 15 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
\nPIOs Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B) and Mr. S. C. Meena, AE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.
\nFrom the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per
\nthe requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section
\n20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission
\nto show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B) and Mr. S. C. Meena, AE(B) will present themselves before the Commission at the
\nabove address on 25 January 2011 at 10.30AM alongwith their written submissions showing cause why
\npenalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the information
\nsent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to
\nthe appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 25\/01\/2011:
\nRespondent: Mr. Jagdish Kumar, the then EE(B); Mr. S.C. Meena, AE(B) and Mr. Rakesh Sharma,
\n              Deemed PIO & JE(B);\n<\/p>\n
        The then EE(B) Mr. Jagdish Kumar has submitted that the RTI application dated 23\/07\/2010 was
\nreceived in his office on 04\/08\/2010. The RTI application was further forwarded to the JE(B) Mr. Rakesh
\nSharma on 09\/08\/2010 through the AE(B) Mr. S.C. Meena. As per the RTI Act the complete information
\nshould have been provided before 23\/08\/2010. A reply was provided to the Appellant during the hearing held on
\n15\/10\/2010 before the FAA. The FAA in his order dated 18\/10\/2010 has clearly stated that the reply does not
\nseem to be in order and therefore directed the PIO to send the answer to all the queries within 02 weeks. After
\nthis no information was provided to the Appellant. The complete information has been provided to the
\nAppellant vide letter dated 13\/01\/2011 i.e. after the Commission’s direction dated 29\/12\/2010. Deemed PIO &
\nJE(B) Mr. Rakesh Sharma has accepted that the original RTI application and the FAA’s order were received by
\nhim. He admits that he was responsible for providing the information. He has stated that some Sketches of the
\nconcerned property were called from the Building (HQ), MCD, for which four reminder letters were sent to the
\nBuilding (HQ). The said sketches were provided by the HQ only on 07\/12\/2010. Since the information sought
\ncould only be furnished after verifying the same from the said Sketches and after the site inspection, he could not
\nprovide the information. However he did not provide any information to the appellant. He should have provided
\nthe information without the sketches to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Sharma, JE(B) states that when the FAA’s hearing was held there was no such
\nrecords available, hence he gave information that no record was available. The Commission accepts the Deemed
\nPIOs plea that he had given information as per his record to the appellant on 15\/10\/2010. Since the RTI
\napplication has been filed on 23\/07\/2010 the information should have been provided to the Appellant before
\n23\/08\/2010. Instead the Deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Sharma provided the information to the Appellant on
\n15\/10\/2010 i.e. after the delay of 52 days.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
\nCommission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the
\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any
\nreasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the
\ntime specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly
\ngiven incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
\nrequest or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and
\nfifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such
\npenalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
\nshall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
\nInformation Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose
\npenalty:\n<\/p>\n
1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days.\n3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading\n<\/pre>\n
        information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n
4)      Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a
\nrequest was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
\nthe case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
\nsection 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till
\nthe information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has
\nto impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the
\nmatter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on
\nthe PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Since the RTI application has been filed on 23\/07\/2010 the information should have been provided to the
\nAppellant before 23\/08\/2010. Instead the Deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Sharma provided the information to the
\nAppellant on 15\/10\/2010 i.e. after the delay of 52 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr.
\nRakesh Sharma the Commission sees this a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr.
\nRakesh Sharma, Deemed PIO & JE(B) at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay i.e. `250\/- X 52 days = `13000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit
\ncase for levying penalty on Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Deemed PIO & JE(B). Since the delay in
\nproviding the correct information has been of 52 days, the Commission is passing an order
\npenalizing Mr. Rakesh Sharma `13,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount
\nof `13,000\/- from the salary of Mr. Rakesh Sharma and remit the same by a demand draft or
\na Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
\nand send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
\nof the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi –
\n110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `3250\/ per month every month from the
\nsalary of Mr. Rakesh Sharma and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from March
\n2011. The total amount of `13,000\/- will be remitted by 10th of June, 2011.
\nThis decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                        Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                              Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                        25 January 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SC)
\nCC:<\/p>\n
\n\nTo,\n\n1-        Commissioner\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n          Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n\n2.        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary\n          Central Information Commission,\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n          New Delhi - 110066\n                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003203\/10695Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003203 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. A K Aggarwal 37-C, Ayodhya Enclave, Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2001,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011"},"wordCount":2001,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011","name":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-16T07:59:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-a-k-aggarwal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.A K Aggarwal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114837","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}