{"id":14295,"date":"2011-08-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-11T05:26:34","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T23:56:34","slug":"mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011<\/div>\n
                                                          Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404\n\n\n\n                  CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                            D- Wing, 2nd Floor,\n                  August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place,\n                             New Delhi - 110066\n\n\n                                               Appeal No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404\n\nPARTIES TO THE CASE:\n\nAppellant          :     Shri Santosh Jaiman\n\nRespondents        :     Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice,\n                         Department of Legal Affairs, Implementation Cell, New\n                         Delhi\n\nDate of Hearing    :     16\/06\/2011\n\n\nBACKGROUND<\/pre>\n
 OF THE CASE:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  1. The present matter was scheduled for hearing before the Commission on<\/p>\n
     16\/06\/2011 at 1445 hours. The Appellant, Shri Santosh Jaiman was present<\/p>\n
     in person. The Respondent Ministry was represented by Shri Nirmal Singh,<\/p>\n
     CPIO, Shri O.P. Bangre (DLA & CAPIO) and Shri Jagdish Kumar, Section<\/p>\n
     Officer who were present during the said hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  2. The Appellant vide her RTI Application dated 02\/12\/2010 had sought<\/p>\n
     certain information about one Shri Nathmal Sharma, registered as Notary<\/p>\n
     (Reg. No: 310 dated 20\/12\/1989) under the Notaries Act, 1952. The<\/p>\n
     information pertains to (1) the Application (along with complete annexures)
\n                                                           Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
  filed by Shri Nathmal Sharma for obtaining the authorization certificate for<\/p>\n
  practice under the Notaries Act; (2) letter of appointment and letter of proof<\/p>\n
  of occupation issued by the Respondent Ministry in regard to the said<\/p>\n
  Application; (3) specimens of Shri Nathmal Sharma’s signature and official<\/p>\n
  seal as submitted to the Respondent Ministry; (4) copy of various<\/p>\n
  Applications (along with complete annexures) filed by Shri Nathmal Sharma<\/p>\n
  subsequently at the expiry of every 5 (five) years to the Respondent Ministry<\/p>\n
  for renewal of his certificate of practice as a Notary; and (5) specimens of<\/p>\n
  Shri Nathmal Sharma’s signature and official seal as submitted to the<\/p>\n
  Respondent Ministry at the time of each application of renewal.<\/p>\n
3. The CPIO vide his Order dated 31\/12\/2010 had denied the information on<\/p>\n
  Question Nos. (1) and (4) by invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act. On<\/p>\n
  Question No. (2), it was held that there were no letters as such; however the<\/p>\n
  copies of certain letters forwarding the Certificates of Practice for the years<\/p>\n
  1989, 1996 and 2002 respectively were provided to the Appellant. On<\/p>\n
  Question Nos. (3) and (5), the CPIO held that no specimen signatures and<\/p>\n
  seal of Shri Nathmal Sharma were available in the Notary Cell and that at<\/p>\n
  the time of renewal of his Certificate of practice, Shri Nathmal Sharma had<\/p>\n
  merely made a simple request for renewal and had not submitted any seal or<\/p>\n
  signature with the Notary Cell.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
  4. The FAA of the Respondent Ministry had simply upheld the said Order of<\/p>\n
    the CPIO vide its own Order dated 25\/01\/2011. Aggrieved by the same, the<\/p>\n
    Appellant has preferred second appeal dated 07\/02\/2011 before the<\/p>\n
    Commission under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
\nDECISION NOTICE:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  5. The Commission has carefully perused through the material placed on<\/p>\n
    record, the legal authorities relied upon by the Appellant vide his written<\/p>\n
    submissions and has considered the submissions made by all the parties<\/p>\n
    present during the scheduled hearing.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  6. The overall information sought by the Appellant through his RTI<\/p>\n
    Application largely pertains to one Shri Nathmal Sharma whose registration<\/p>\n
    no: as a Notary under the Notaries Act has also been produced before us by<\/p>\n
    the Appellant. The Applications referred to in Question Nos. (1) and (4)<\/p>\n
    were submitted by Shri Nathmal Sharma to the Respondent Ministry and in<\/p>\n
    the present appeal, they clearly constitute Third-Party Information under<\/p>\n
    Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, it is the case of the Appellant that the<\/p>\n
    Respondent Ministry did not act in conformity with the requirements<\/p>\n
    prescribed under Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act. This is alleged on the ground<\/p>\n
    that the Respondent Ministry never gave a written notice inviting the Third
\n                                                            Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma) to make submissions in writing or orally,<\/p>\n
   regarding whether such information should be disclosed or not.<\/p>\n
7. There are 3 (three) pre-requisites for Section 11 (1) of the RTI Act to come<\/p>\n
   into operation. Firstly, there must be some information related to Third-<\/p>\n
   Party which the CPIO intends to disclose; Secondly, such information must<\/p>\n
   have been treated as confidential by that Third-Party; and Thirdly, before<\/p>\n
   proceeding to provide such information, the CPIO must give written notice<\/p>\n
   to such Third-Party to make oral or written submissions as to whether such<\/p>\n
   information may be disclosed or not.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8. Now clearly, if the CPIO of the Respondent Ministry ‘intended to disclose’<\/p>\n
   the information sought under Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the RTI<\/p>\n
   Application, he was there onwards under a statutory duty to give an<\/p>\n
   opportunity of being heard to the Third Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma) in<\/p>\n
   this regard. But it appears that the CPIO never intended to disclose the said<\/p>\n
   information in the first place.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9. The CPIO in the present case has not given a written notice under Section 11<\/p>\n
   (1) of the RTI Act to the Third-Party, i.e. Shri Nathmal Sharma and has<\/p>\n
   straight away denied information to the Appellant. It is still the stand of the<\/p>\n
   CPIO before the Commission that he does not intend to disclose the said
\n                                                             Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   information. Thus, clearly the CPIO never intended to furnish such<\/p>\n
   information in the first place and thus, didn’t consider it necessary to give<\/p>\n
   written notice to Shri Nathmal Sharma. The limited extent to which the<\/p>\n
   CPIO has erred is that he has not been careful enough to invoke the proper<\/p>\n
   provision under the RTI Act while denying information. However, such<\/p>\n
   error is not a gross one and lack of lucidity or clarity in interpreting the RTI<\/p>\n
   Act cannot account for malafide or ill motive on the part of the CPIO.<\/p>\n
10. It appears to the Commission that such an error in interpretation of law can<\/p>\n
   be corrected at this appellate stage by understanding the underlying intention<\/p>\n
   of the CPIO’s Order. Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act prohibits disclosure of<\/p>\n
   information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which<\/p>\n
   has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause<\/p>\n
   unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the CPIO or the<\/p>\n
   FAA, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies<\/p>\n
   the disclosure of such information. It is not difficult to assimilate that the<\/p>\n
   CPIO of the Respondent while denying information under Question Nos. (1)<\/p>\n
   and (4) as ‘third party information’ was implicitly referring to Section 8 (1)<\/p>\n
   (j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO should have been more careful and vigilant in<\/p>\n
   expressly invoking Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act rather than to deny<\/p>\n
   information under Section 11 of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
11. Thus, it now poses the question before the Commission as to whether the<\/p>\n
   disclosure of information as sought under Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the<\/p>\n
   RTI Application is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act or not.<\/p>\n
   The answer to this question lies in the affirmative for the following reasons.<\/p>\n
12. The procedure for filing an Application for appointment as a Notary has<\/p>\n
   been prescribed under Rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956. The Application<\/p>\n
   has to be made in the form of a Memorial whose format is enlaid in Form-I<\/p>\n
   and Form-II of the Notaries Rules. The Memorial contains information such<\/p>\n
   as Applicant’s Name, Father’s name, DOB, Category (Gen\/SC\/ST\/OBC),<\/p>\n
   Address (Off. and Res.), Telephone, Fax, E-mail, educational qualifications,<\/p>\n
   Income Tax Assessee status, Bar Enrollment Number, Intended area of<\/p>\n
   practice as a Notary, Date of joining Government service and date of<\/p>\n
   retirement, post held at the time of retirement, signature inter alia.<\/p>\n
13. The Commission is of the view that the disclosure of such information<\/p>\n
   which relates to personal information of a Third Party (i.e. Shri Nathmal<\/p>\n
   Sharma), has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would<\/p>\n
   cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of Shri Nathmal Sharma. In any<\/p>\n
   case, under Section 4 (1) of the Notaries Act, the Central Government and<\/p>\n
   every State Government shall maintain, in such form as may be prescribed, a<\/p>\n
   Register of the notaries appointed by that Government, who are entitled to
\n                                                           Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   practice as such under the Notaries Act. Under Section 4 (2) of the Notaries<\/p>\n
   Act, every such Register shall include the following particulars about the<\/p>\n
   notary whose name is entered therein, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                (a)   his full name, date of birth, residential and professional
\n                      address;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b)   the date on which his name is entered in the Register;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (c)   his qualifications; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (d)   any other particulars which may be prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
   The Commission sees no reason why the information sought under Question<\/p>\n
   Nos. (1) and (4) shall at all be provided under the RTI Act especially when<\/p>\n
   the Notaries Act itself prescribes the maintenance of a Register containing<\/p>\n
   relevant particulars of an appointed Notary. Thus, the Applications (along<\/p>\n
   with annexures) for obtaining fresh Certificate of practice as a Notary or for<\/p>\n
   obtaining renewal thereof cannot be disclosed under Section 8 (1) (j) of the<\/p>\n
   RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
14. With respect to Question No. (2) of the RTI Application, the Respondent<\/p>\n
   Ministry has submitted that there is no letter of appointment or letter of<\/p>\n
   proof of occupation as such with respect to registered Notaries. There is<\/p>\n
   merit in this submission when viewed in light of Rule 8 of Notaries Rules
\n                                                           Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   which is titled as ‘Appointment of a Notary’. As per Rules 8 (1) and 8 (2) of<\/p>\n
   the said Rules, the appropriate Government has to pass requisite Order while<\/p>\n
   rejecting or allowing an Application for appointment of any person as a<\/p>\n
   Notary and has to communicate the same to the Applicant. As per Rule 8(4)<\/p>\n
   of the said Rules, where    the application is allowed, the appropriate<\/p>\n
   Government shall appoint the applicant as a notary and direct his name to<\/p>\n
   be entered in the Register of Notaries maintained by that Government<\/p>\n
   under Section 4 of the Act and issue to him a certificate on payment of<\/p>\n
   prescribed fees authorizing him to practice as a notary for a period of five<\/p>\n
   years from the date on which the certificate is issued to him.<\/p>\n
15. Thus, there are no letter of appointment and letter of proof of occupation<\/p>\n
   issued by the Respondent Ministry as such when a Notary is appointed. The<\/p>\n
   only statutory obligation on the Government is to pass an Order on the<\/p>\n
   Application and to maintain the Register containing particulars of thereby<\/p>\n
   appointed Notaries as prescribed by Section 4 of the Notaries Act.<\/p>\n
16. The Respondent Ministry neither holds nor maintains any such information<\/p>\n
   as sought under Question No. (2) of the RTI Application. Thus, the reply of<\/p>\n
   the CPIO is upheld.\n<\/p>\n
17. The Commission now proceeds to Question Nos. (3) and (5) of the RTI<\/p>\n
   Application. According to Section 7 of the Notaries Act, every notary shall
\n                                                             Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   have and use, as occasion may arise, a seal of such form and design as may<\/p>\n
   be prescribed. As per Rule 12 of the Notaries Rules, every notary shall use a<\/p>\n
   plain circular seal of a diameter of 5 cm bearing his name, the name of the<\/p>\n
   areas within which he has been appointed to exercise his functions, the<\/p>\n
   registration number and the circumscription “NOTARY”, and the name of<\/p>\n
   the Government which appointed him.\n<\/p>\n
18. There is no mandate on the Respondent Ministry under the Notaries Act or<\/p>\n
   the Notaries Rules to obtain or call for the official seal of the Notary to be<\/p>\n
   submitted – either at the time of fresh application or at the time of renewal of<\/p>\n
   his certificate – with the Notary Cell of the Respondent Ministry. The<\/p>\n
   signatures submitted by the Applicant at the time of making an Application<\/p>\n
   for obtaining certificate of practice are nevertheless Third-Party Information<\/p>\n
   and are exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. This has already<\/p>\n
   been discussed above while dealing with Question Nos. (1) and (4) of the<\/p>\n
   RTI Application in the foregoing paragraphs and need not be repeated for<\/p>\n
   the sake of brevity.\n<\/p>\n
19. Now, Rule 8B of the Notaries Rules deals with renewal of certificates of<\/p>\n
   practice. As per the said rule, the certificate of practice issued under Rule 8<\/p>\n
   (4) may be renewed for a further period of five years on payment of<\/p>\n
   prescribed fee. An application for renewal of Certificate of Practice shall be
\n                                                              Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
   submitted to the appropriate Government before three months from the date<\/p>\n
   of expiry of its period of validity. Under Section 5 (2) of the Notaries Act,<\/p>\n
   the Government appointing the notary may on receipt of an application and<\/p>\n
   the prescribed fee, renew the certificate of practice of any notary for a period<\/p>\n
   of five years at a time.\n<\/p>\n
20. Thus clearly again, there is no requirement of submitting the specimen of<\/p>\n
   official seal or signatures even at the time of renewal of certificate of<\/p>\n
   practice by an appointed notary. Hence, the reply of the CPIO to Question<\/p>\n
   Nos. (3) and (5) of the RTI Application is also upheld.<\/p>\n
21. With the above observations and findings, the present Appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                                  Sushma Singh
\n                                                      Information Commissioner
\n                                                                    04.08.2011<\/p>\n
   Authenticated True Copies<\/p>\n
   K.K. Sharma
\n   OSD & Deputy Registrar
\n                                                 Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404<\/p>\n
Name\u00a0&\u00a0Address\u00a0of\u00a0Parties:\u00ad<\/p>\n
Sh.\u00a0Santosh\u00a0Jaiman,\u00a0
\n43\u00ad54\/7,\u00a0Ist\u00a0Floor,\u00a0Subhash\u00a0Lane,\u00a0
\nVarun\u00a0Path,\u00a0Mansarover,\u00a0Jaipur\u00a0–\u00a0302\u00a0001<\/p>\n
The\u00a0CPIO\/PIO,\u00a0
\nMinistry\u00a0of\u00a0Law\u00a0&\u00a0Justice,\u00a0
\nDepartment\u00a0of\u00a0Legal\u00a0Affairs,\u00a0
\nImplementation\u00a0Cell,\u00a0Shastri\u00a0Bhavan,\u00a0
\nNew\u00a0Delhi<\/p>\n
The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0&\u00a0Joint\u00a0Secretary,\u00a0
\nMinistry\u00a0of\u00a0Law\u00a0&\u00a0Justice,\u00a0
\nDepartment\u00a0of\u00a0Legal\u00a0Affairs,\u00a0Shastri\u00a0Bhavan,\u00a0
\nNew\u00a0Delhi\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011 Appeal\u00a0No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION D- Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110066 Appeal No.CIC\/SS\/A\/2011\/000404 PARTIES TO THE CASE: Appellant : Shri Santosh Jaiman Respondents : Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department […]<\/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-14295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 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-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-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=\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-10T23:56:34+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=\"11 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-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T23:56:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2132,\"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-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T23:56:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 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.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 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-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-10T23:56:34+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T23:56:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011"},"wordCount":2132,"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-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011","name":"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T23:56:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-santosh-jaiman-vs-ministry-of-law-and-justice-on-4-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Santosh Jaiman vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 4 August, 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\/14295","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=14295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}