{"id":142421,"date":"2011-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-21T05:52:41","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T00:22:41","slug":"mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                         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\/2011\/000095\/11518Penalty\n                                                                    Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000095\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant                            :       Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari\n                                             116 Shiv Shankar, Purana Kapra Market,\n                                              Pul Qutub Road, Sadar Bazaar,\n                                              Delhi-110006.\n\nRespondent                           :       Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar\n                                             Asstt. Commissioner &amp; PIO\n                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                             O\/o Asstt. Commissioner,\n                                             Shahdara (North Zone), Keshav Chowk,\n                                             Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara,\n                                             Delhi-110093.\n\nRTI application filed on             :       22\/08\/2010\nPIO replied                          :       27\/11\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                :       30\/11\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order      :       Not ordered\nSecond Appeal received on            :       10\/01\/2011\n\n Sr.No.              Information sought                                Reply of PIO\n1.          Ward wise details of Tehbazari fee    The information was not sought from the Shahdara North\n            due as on 31\/03\/2011 on the           Zone, however, 181 PCO booths measuring 6\"*4\" was at\n            tehabazari holder having different    Loni Road, 31 at Mochi Market, G T Road, Shahdara and 24\n            size of tehbazari in north Zone.      PCO booths measuring 7\"*5\" was in Shahdara North Zone.\n\nFirst Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory response received from the PIO.\n\nOrder of the FAA:\nNot ordered.\n\nGround of the Second Appeal:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Unsatisfactory response received from the PIO and no action taken by FAA.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17 March 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, AC &amp; PIO; Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk;\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The Appellant shows that he had sent the first appeal by speed post no. ED198046877IN on<br \/>\n30\/11\/2010 but no order has been issued by the FAA. The First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq<br \/>\nappears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        The First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq is directed to present himself before the<br \/>\nCommission with his explanation on 07 April 2011 at 4.00pm to showcause why the Commission<br \/>\nshould not recommend disciplinary action against him for dereliction of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has provided the completely irrelevant and irresponsible reply to the RTI query. The appellant<br \/>\nsought details of balance Tehbazari dues and there is no mention of Tehbazari dues in the information.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Commission&#8217;s Decision dated 17 March 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as sought by the Appellant<br \/>\nbefore 05 April 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission also directs the FAA Mr. Azimul Huq to appear before the Commission<br \/>\non 07 April 2011 at 04.00PM.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO<br \/>\nwithin 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information<br \/>\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the<br \/>\nrequirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).<br \/>\nA showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show<br \/>\ncause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 07 April 2011 at 04.00pm<br \/>\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated<br \/>\nunder Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 17 March 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk; Mr. B. S. Mankotia, AO on behalf of Mr. Ravideep Singh<br \/>\n              Chahar, PIO &amp; Assistant Commissioner ; Mr. Kapil Sharma, LDC;\n<\/p>\n<p>        First Appellate Authority Mr. Azimul Huq has not sent any explanation why he did nto pass an<br \/>\norder in discharge of his duty as First Appellate Authority. The Commission gives him on more<br \/>\nopportunity to present him before the Commission on 06 May 2011 at 04.00PM with his explanation. If<br \/>\nhe does not appear or send any written submission it would be assumed that he has no explanation<br \/>\nto offer and the Commission will decide on the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Appellant has received the information which was sent by the PIO on 05 April 2011 and states<br \/>\nthat he is satisfied with this. The PIO has not come but has sent his explanation in writing vide letter no.<br \/>\nAC\/SHAH(N)\/2011\/6692 of 05\/04\/2011. He has stated that the Appellant had filed the RTI Application<br \/>\non 21\/08\/2010 seeking information regarding Tehbazari Fees. He has stated that the application was not<br \/>\nproperly examined by the dealing assistant and a part reply was sent to the Appellant by mistake. He has<br \/>\nstated that a concerned dealing assistant has been issued a showcause and warned. The explanation given<br \/>\nby the PIO Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar is completely inadequate. The Appellant had only sought the<br \/>\namount of dues from Tehbazaries. The information that has been provided stated that there were certain<br \/>\nnumber of Tehbazari booths and PCOs. This can by no stretch of imagination can be considered a part<br \/>\nreply to the Appellant&#8217;s request for information.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Where the Central Information Commission or the State<br \/>\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not<br \/>\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the<br \/>\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed<br \/>\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the<br \/>\ninformation, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received<br \/>\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five<br \/>\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:<br \/>\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central<br \/>\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must<br \/>\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 &#8211; 30<br \/>\n       days.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or<br \/>\n       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n<p>4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the above are prefaced by the infraction, &#8216; without reasonable cause&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a<br \/>\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty<br \/>\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable<br \/>\ncause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the<br \/>\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was<br \/>\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The RTI application had been filed on 22\/08\/2010 and the information should have been provided to the<br \/>\nAppellant before 22\/09\/2010. Instead the information has been provided to the Appellant only on<br \/>\n05\/04\/2011 i.e. after the order of the Information Commission. No reasonable cause has been advanced by<br \/>\nthe PIO for not providing the information within the 30 day period to the Appellant. In view of this the<br \/>\nCommission imposes a penalty on the PIO Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, PIO &amp; Assistant Commissioner<br \/>\nunder Section-20(1) of the RTI Act. Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100<br \/>\ndays the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000\/- under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>           As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission<br \/>\nfinds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, PIO &amp; Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner. Since the delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the<br \/>\nCommission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar\u00a0`25000\/ which is<br \/>\nthe maximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `25000\/- from the salary of Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar and remit the same by<br \/>\na demand draft or a Banker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT,<br \/>\npayable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint<br \/>\nRegistrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor,<br \/>\nAugust Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of<br \/>\n`5000\/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar and<br \/>\nremitted by the 10th of every month starting from May 2011. The total amount of<br \/>\n`25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th of September, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                      Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                   07 April 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AK)<\/p>\n<p>CC:<\/p>\n<pre>\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\n3-        Mr. Azimul Huq, Frist Appellate Authority through Mr. Raman Kumar, RTI Clerk;\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                     Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000095\/11518Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000095 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari 116 Shiv Shankar, Purana Kapra Market, Pul Qutub [&hellip;]<\/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-142421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-21T00:22:41+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=\"8 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-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T00:22:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1416,\"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-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T00:22:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-21T00:22:41+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T00:22:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011"},"wordCount":1416,"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-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011","name":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T00:22:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-murlidhar-tiwari-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-7-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 7 April, 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:\/\/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\/142421","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=142421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}