{"id":121200,"date":"2009-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-30T21:01:35","modified_gmt":"2016-08-30T15:31:35","slug":"shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009<\/div>\n
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                 Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00871 dated 19-8-2007\n                   Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:          Shri Rakesh Agarwal\nRespondent:         Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Traffic (Hq.)\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
      By an application of 20-4-07 Shri Rakesh Agarwal asked the Addl.
\nCommissioner of Police (Traffic) for the following information:\n<\/p>\n
      “1.    Please provide me the number of autorickshaws that
\n             have been seized since 1.8.2004 including those that
\n             were detained as a result of suspension of permits under
\n             section 86 of the MV Act 1988.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     Was for OSS issued for each seized auto rickshaw.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.     In all cases in which form OSS was not issued, please
\n             provide the name and designation of the senior most
\n             officers in the team that seized the vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.     For each auto rickshaw that was seized since 1.8.2004,
\n             please provide a copy of the corresponding challan\/form
\n             OSS.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Section 86 of MV Act 1988<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      5.     Under section 86 of the MV Act you have the right, under
\n             certain conditions to suspend the permit bu8t not to
\n             detain the vehicle. However, vehicles are routinely
\n             detained under this section. Kindly provide the legal
\n             basis for such action.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.     A notice is issued under this section to the permit holder
\n             before the permit is actually suspended. Please provide
\n             copies of all such notices issued in respect of auto
\n             rickshaws since 1.1.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.     How many such notices have been issued since 1.1.2007?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.     In how many cases was permit suspended?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9.     A permit holder is given the reasons in writing for the
\n             action taken by you. Please provide copies of all
\n             documents that contain these reasons in all cases where
\n             permits were suspended since 1.1.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.   I enclose the copy of a challan issued to an auto rickshaw
\n      driver. When the driver went to the police station to get
\n      his vehicle released after filing Superdari in the Court, his
\n      RC was seized till the disposal of the challan. Please
\n      provide the legal basis for this action.\n<\/p>\n
      SECTION 207 OF MV ACT 1988<\/p>\n
11.   From a reading of section 207, it is clear that a vehicle
\n      can be impounded only when it is being driven without a
\n      proper licence, registration certificate or permit, or when
\n      the conditions of the permit are violated relating to the
\n      route, area of purpose. However, I have come across
\n      100s of instances where vehicles have been seized on
\n      the filmiest of pretexts, thus contravening the provisions
\n      made in this section. The enclosed challan is a case in
\n      point in which the driver has been charged with
\n      overcharging.\n<\/p>\n
 Please separately provide copies of all challans\/ form OSS in
\nrespect of auto rickshaws seizures issued since 1.1.2007 which
\nhave not specifically been issued as a consequence of
\ncontravention of section 3 or section 4 or section 39 or without
\nthe permit required under section 66 (1) or in contravention of
\npermit conditions relating to route, area or purpose.\n<\/p>\n
SECTION 206 OF MV ACT 1988<\/p>\n
12.   Section 206 (2) empowers you to seize a person’s driving
\n      licence only. However, your officers are routinely found
\n      to be seizing other documents as well. Please provide
\n      the legal basis for such action.\n<\/p>\n
13.   This section also states that an officer can only seize a
\n      licence “if he has reason to believe that the driver may
\n      abscond or otherwise avoid the service of summons”.
\n      However, it is seen that the licences and\/ or other
\n      documents are routinely seized. In fact, on 27th October.
\n      I was issued a challan at Vijay Path and my licence was
\n      seized. I successfully contested the charge and now plan
\n      to file a civil case against the concerned officer and\/ or
\n      your department on several counts upon receiving a
\n      certified copy of the Order. Please provide legal basis for
\n      seizing documents as a matter of routine rather than as
\n      exception, with special reference to my own case
\n      (Challan no. 653471 issued at Vijay Path on 27.10.06, car
\n      no. DL7C-E6256).\n<\/p>\n
      PUNCHING OF LICENCE<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
       14.    When an accused demands a challan to appear in a court
\n             instead of admitting guilt and payment the compounding
\n             fee on the spot, it is clear that he should be treated as
\n             innocent until proven guilty. However, in 100s of cases,
\n             in their overzealousness, like in the case of challan no.
\n             1203\/063129 (copy enclosed), the challaning officers
\n             punch the licence. In this situation, please provide the
\n             legal basis for the action of challaning officers. To save
\n             you laborious work, as a gesture of goodwill, I am not
\n             demanding data pertaining to punching since 9th April.”\n<\/p>\n
      To this he received a response on 25-5-07 from DCP (Traffic) appellant
\npoint wise. Not satisfied, however, appellant Shri Rakesh Agarwal moved his
\nfirst appeal before the Addl. CP (Traffic) on 30-5-07 challenging the
\ninformation provided against each point. Upon this, in a carefully worded
\norder of 29-6-07 Shri M.S. Upadhye, Addl. CP (Traffic) allowed part of the
\nappeal while refusing part as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “It is noted that point wise information based on facts has been
\n      furnished to the appellant by PIO\/ Traffic except on some points.
\n      As far as the figures of prosecution sought by the appellant at
\n      point No. 1, 7, 8 is concerned, PIO\/ Traffic is directed that the
\n      available figures be given to the appellant within 7 working days.
\n      As regards Q. No.2 PIO\/ Traffic is directed to provide clear
\n      information to the appellant whether OSS form is being issued
\n      by the Zonal officers when they impound the vehicles for
\n      violation of permit conditions. As regards information on Q. No.
\n      3 it is informed that vehicles are seized for violation of permit
\n      conditions in accordance with the directions of Hon’ble Supreme
\n      Court of India and all Zonal Officers posted in Traffic Circles are
\n      impounding the vehicles and hence no special teams have been
\n      formed for this purpose. Hence name and designation of senior
\n      most officer in the team is not possible to provide. In respect of
\n      information on Q. No. 4, it is informed that firstly it would be very
\n      difficult to find out the records in circle offices, as each and
\n      every challan slip has to be searched to trace out challans
\n      against auto rickshaws. Secondly, according to section 11 of
\n      RTI Act disclosure of any information or record, or part thereof
\n      on a request made under this Act which relates to or has been
\n      supplied by a third party, can be done only with the permission
\n      of that thir4d party and as such this information can not be given
\n      to the appellant. As regards information on Q. No 5 PIO\/ Traffic
\n      is directed to provide copy of the relevant rules and copy of
\n      notices to the appellant subject to the payment of fees as
\n      prescribed under RTI Act 2005. Information sought at Q. No. 6
\n      cannot be provided being Third Party information. In case the
\n      appellant wishes to have information on any particular case, the
\n      same shall be provided to him with the consent of the concerned<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span>
\n       third party under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.
\n      The requisite information in respect of all other points has been
\n      supplied to the appellant and as such I do not find any reason to
\n      give any direction to PIO\/ Traffic in respect of these points.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Besides, on various issues relating to the legal aspects on documents
\netc. Addl. CP Shri Upadhye ruled as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Being the appellate authority, these are not of concern to the
\n      undersigned whose mandate is confined to ensuring only that
\n      information sought by the appellant is given in accordance with
\n      the RTI Act within the specified time limit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On this order not, in the view of appellant Shri Agarwal, being complied
\nwith, appellant moved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:\n<\/p>\n
      “1.    The Respondent be directed to provide complete and
\n             comprehensive information free of cost in one batch
\n             immediately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     Penalty be imposed on Respondent No. 2 under
\n             section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for the delay in supplying
\n             the information, for not complying with the directions
\n             of Respondent No. 2 and for denying information in a
\n             malafide manner.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In his grounds of appeal he has submitted that against points 1, 2, 5, 7,
\n8, 10 the DCP has failed to comply with the order of the 1st Appellate Authority
\nand has disputed the orders of Addl. CP (Traffic) with regard to points 3, 4, 11,
\n12, 13 and 14. The appeal was heard on 24-4-2009.            The following are
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant
\n      Shri Rakesh Agarwal.\n<\/p>\n
Respondents
\n     Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) and PIO.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri V. K. Joshi, Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
      Shri Prabhakar, DCP (Traffic) and present PIO submitted with
\ndocumentary support that the application of 20-4-07 was received in PIO’s
\noffice on 26-4-07, therefore, the response of 25-5-07 is within the time limit
\nmandated under sub-section (1) of Sec 7.\n<\/p>\n
      On the issue of compliance, however, he agreed that there had been a
\nfailure of compliance at the level of PIO but that compliance with regard to<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span>
\n point Nos. 1, 7 and 8 was made on 5-8-07. Subsequently, in response to our
\nappeal notice further information has been provided on 26-3-07. Appellant
\nShri Rakesh Agarwal agreed that this information has now been received.
\nBecause the last compliance occurred after the second appeal was filed
\nwhich is dated 26-7-07 it is not mentioned in that appeal. Appellant is satisfied
\nwith the answer which he has now received to questions 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10
\nand does not press for more detailed answer to question 3, however, on
\nquestion 4 which has a bearing also on questions 6, 9, 11, 12 and 13 Shri
\nRakesh Agarwal submitted that the information he had sought has been
\ndenied.\n<\/p>\n
        Upon this PIO Shri Prabhakar submitted that whereas he agreed that
\nsuch information as is sought regarding the challan of auto rickshaws is public
\ninformation and it has been decided by the Traffic Department subsequent to
\nthe orders of the Appellate Authority that such information be disclosed, the
\nissue is of compiling such information in order to place it in the public domain.
\nThis exercise is on but because the information sought is enormous and
\ncovers 5 years it will take time to compile fully. He agreed, however, that if
\ninformation is to be provided year wise it will be possible to provide
\ninformation for the year 2008 by ending May 2009.\n<\/p>\n
                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
There are three issues before us in this appeal. These are decided as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   i)       Appellate Authority Shri M.S. Upadhye, Addl. CP Traffic has
\n            directed part of the information to be provided to appellant Rakesh
\n            Agarwal within seven working days of the date of decision, yet the
\n            first response was only sent on 5.8.’07 i.e. 34 days after the issue of
\n            orders of the 1st Appellate Authority and the second instalment only
\n            on 26-3-09 i.e. in response to the notice for hearing of the second
\n            appeal. Since this is a violation of the order of the 1st Appellate
\n            Authority, Addl. CP (Traffic) will now enquire into the reasons
\n            for the delay, identify the errant officials and report to us those<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\n               meriting imposition of penalty u\/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act by 14th
\n              of May 2009.\n<\/p>\n
   ii)        Respondents have taken the plea of Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act in
\n              refusing the detailed information on challans sought by appellant
\n              Shri Rakesh Agarwal.       However, they have admitted that such
\n              information belongs in the public domain in light of the dictates of
\n              the RTI Act 2005 and are taking pains to so place it. Whereas this
\n              is commendable Section 7 (9) does not allow exemption from
\n              disclosure but only the disclosure in a form different to the manner
\n              in which it has been sought in certain cases. DCP (Traffic) has
\n              agreed that the complete information will be compiled and
\n              placed on the website of the Traffic Department within six
\n              months of the date of receipt of this decision notice. However,
\n              with regard to information for the year 2008 this will be provided to
\n              appellant ending May 2009. Subsequently, appellant Shri Ramesh
\n              Agarwal will receive a list for each year every month till the entire
\n              information for the full five years is available in the public domain.\n<\/p>\n
   iii)       It has been clarified in the hearing by PIO, Shri Prabhakar in
\n              response to appellant Shri Agarwal’s contention that the answer
\n              received to questions 12, 13 is vague since it did not cite the legal
\n              basis for the action taken, that the legal basis is Section 206 (1) on
\n              the application of which in such cases no trial court has objected<\/p>\n
          The Appeal is thus allowed in part. There will be no costs.\n<\/p>\n
          Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n24-4-2009<\/p>\n
                                            6<\/span>
\n Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n24-4-2009<\/p>\n
                                      7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00871 dated 19-8-2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri Rakesh Agarwal Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police (DCP) Traffic (Hq.) FACTS By an application of 20-4-07 Shri Rakesh Agarwal asked the Addl. […]<\/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-121200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - 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\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-30T15:31:35+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\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T15:31:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2065,\"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\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T15:31:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - 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\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-30T15:31:35+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\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T15:31:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009"},"wordCount":2065,"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\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009","name":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) ... on 24 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T15:31:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rakesh-agarwal-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-dcp-on-24-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Rakesh Agarwal vs Deputy Commissioner Police (Dcp) … on 24 April, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/121200","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=121200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}