{"id":143925,"date":"2009-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-04T18:03:05","modified_gmt":"2016-12-04T12:33:05","slug":"mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                         Club Building, Old JNU Campus,\n                    Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi - 110067.\n                              Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                             Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/000619\/4212Penalty\n                                                           Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/000619\nSHOW CAUSE HEARING\n\nAppellant                             :      Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal\n                                             1, Hari Nagar, Ashram,\n                                             Near Shalimar Cinema, New Delhi 110014\n\nRespondent                            :      Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager and deemed PIO\n                                             Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.\n                                             Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,\n                                             Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi\n\nRTI application filed on              :      19\/12\/2008\nPIO replied                           :      09\/01\/2009\nFirst appeal filed on                 :      17\/01\/2009\nFirst Appellate Authority order       :      19\/02\/2009\nSecond Appeal received on             :      27\/03\/2009\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant had sought following information:\n<\/p>\n<p>   1. Whether it is a fact that Prior to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara (Amendment) Act issued vide<br \/>\n       Delhi Gazettee notification dated 15th September, 2008, the election of the Executive<br \/>\n       Board of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee were due to be held every<br \/>\n       year under Section 16 of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971?\n<\/p>\n<p>   2. Whether it is true that the after Gurdwara Elections held in January, 2007, the Elections<br \/>\n       of the Executive Board were held on 9th February, 2007 and the next elections of the<br \/>\n       Executive Board was due on or before 9th February, 2008?\n<\/p>\n<p>   3. Reasons for non-holding of elections of the Executive Board of DSGMC till date may be<br \/>\n       intimated?\n<\/p>\n<p>   4. Whether it is true that non-holding of elections of the Executive Board in February, 2008<br \/>\n       was a clear violation of the provisions of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971?\n<\/p>\n<p>   5. Whether court cases have been filed in the Hon&#8217;ble Courts in Delhi to hold such<br \/>\n       elections? If yes, details of such cases filed w.e.f. 9\/2\/2008 till date be intimated in the<br \/>\n       format:<\/p>\n<pre>\n   Title of Case Name         of Name         of Advocate-        Advocate-       Present\n                   Court           advocates       wise      fee wise fee yet status of the\n                                   contesting      paid by the to be paid by case\n                                   on behalf of DSGMC             DSGMC\n                                   DSGMC\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   Page no. 1 of 4\n Reply of PIO:\n<\/pre>\n<p>       &#8220;In this connection it is stated that the information asked for therein being Sub-Judice<br \/>\ncan&#8217;t be supplied as the Suit No. 613\/08 on the subject is pending in the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of<br \/>\nDelhi for which next date of hearing has been fixed on 16\/01\/2009.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The reply of the PIO dated 9\/1\/2009 is completely vague, irrelevant &amp; misleadin<br \/>\nbecause the information required in our RTI application is not to such extent that it could not be<br \/>\nsupplied as the matter being sub-judice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the First Appellate Authority:\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;After careful consideration of the contents of the appeal application and the order of the<br \/>\nPIO, I am of the considered opinion that the order PIO is not vague, irrelevant and misleading.<br \/>\nWhen a case is pending in the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Delhi, it is not prudent to provide any<br \/>\ninformation except before the court. Accordingly, I concur with the order of the PIO and the<br \/>\nappeal application is disposed of accordingly. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds for Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The PIO (Appeal) being the Respondent No. 1 also failed to furnish complete<br \/>\ninformation within the mandatory period of 30 days which expired on 16\/02\/2009. Only<br \/>\nirrelevant &amp; misleading reply was given by him vide his Appeal Order dated 19\/02\/2009.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Commission&#8217;s order dated 22 July 2009:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission decided that the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee was a public<br \/>\nauthority under the RTI Act. The Commission observed that part of the information had been<br \/>\ngiven to the Complainant, the PIO was directed to ensure that the complete information is given<br \/>\nto the Complainant. The Respondent stated that he wanted 30 days to provide the information in<br \/>\nthis matter. The Commission did not accept this contention since the RTI Act expects the<br \/>\ninformation to be provided within 30 days from the filling of the RTI Application. The<br \/>\nComplaint was allowed. The information was directed to be provided to the Complainant before<br \/>\n5 August 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>Brief Facts leading to the show cause hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission received a letter dated 11\/08\/2009 from the Complainant stating that no<br \/>\ninformation had been provided to the PIO and he was asked to present himself on 04\/09\/2009<br \/>\nand show cause why penalty under Section 20 (1) should not be levied on him, for failure to<br \/>\nprovide the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 4 September 2009:<br \/>\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Inder Mohan Singh<br \/>\nRespondent: N.S. Bandhan, PIO<br \/>\nIt has been submitted that no information has been received till date. The PIO has brought<br \/>\nwritten submissions wherein he has stated the information sought by the Appellant is with Mr.<br \/>\nRam Singh, General Manager of DSGMC. He has sought assistance from Mr. Ram Singh under<br \/>\nSection 5(4) vide letter dated 25\/07\/2009 and reminders have been sent on 12\/08\/2009 and<br \/>\n26\/08\/2009. However he has not received any response to his letters from the GM. It appears that<br \/>\nthe PIO was not responsible for the non-compliance of the Commission&#8217;s order. The show cause<br \/>\nproceedings against him are hereby dropped. It is decided that a show cause notice will be sent to<br \/>\nthe GM of the Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                 Page no. 2 of 4<br \/>\n Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 22 September 2009:<br \/>\n&#8220;The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal<br \/>\nRespondent: Shamsher Singh on behalf of Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager;<br \/>\nMr. Shamsher Singh states that he has come on behalf of the General Manager Mr. Ram Singh.<br \/>\nThe Appellant contests this submission made by Mr. Shamsher Singh stating that he does not<br \/>\nhave a letter of authority. A show cause hearing will be held on 16\/10\/2009 at 2 pm. If Mr. Ram<br \/>\nSingh does not appear before the Commission, the Commission will impose penalty and consider<br \/>\nissuing a summons to Mr. Ram Singh to present himself before the Commission with the<br \/>\ninformation. The Appellant state that he has not received any information till date.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts leading to Showcause:\n<\/p>\n<p>The commission had passed an order of 22\/07\/2009 directing the PIO of DSGMC to provide the<br \/>\ninformation to the Appellant before 05\/08\/2009. It was brought to the notice of the commission<br \/>\nthat the information sought was held by Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager in all three matters i.e.<br \/>\nDecision          nos.       CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/00226\/4219;             CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/00619\/4212;<br \/>\nCIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/00622\/4216. The PIO had informed the Commission that he had sought<br \/>\nassistance form Mr. Ram Singh under Section (4) vide his letter dated 25\/07\/2009 &amp; 28\/07\/2009.<br \/>\nThe PIO had again sent reminder to Mr. Ram Singh on 18\/08\/2009 and 26\/08\/2009 for all three<br \/>\nmatters. Yet no information was provided to the appellant. The Commission directed the deemed<br \/>\nPIO Mr. Ram Singh to appear before the Commission on 22\/09\/2009 to showcause why penalty<br \/>\nunder Section 20(1) should not be imposed on him. Since he came very late the matter was fixed<br \/>\nagain for hearing on 27\/11\/2009 at 4.30pm.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts recorded during hearing on 27 November 2009:<br \/>\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal<br \/>\nRespondent: Shamsher Singh on behalf of Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager;\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Respondent has sent a letter to the Commission in which he claims he has given the<br \/>\ninformation on 15\/10\/2009. In which it is stated that, &#8220;in regard to payment of fees paid to<br \/>\nadvocates the same can&#8217;t be revealed being third party confidential information.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Appellant has informed the Commission that information sought under para-5 was<br \/>\nnot provided and the plea that, &#8220;in regard to payment of fee paid to advocate, the same can&#8217;t be<br \/>\nrevealed being third party information.&#8221; The PIO had not raised any ground for refusing<br \/>\ninformation during the hearing of the matter. It is clear that the deemed PIO has made up his<br \/>\nmind to defy the law. It is significant that he has given no justification under the Act showing<br \/>\nhow this information could be exempt under Section 8(1). Section 11 of the RTI act which refers<br \/>\nto information provided by or relating to a third party. Is merely a procedure provision which<br \/>\ngives a third party an opportunity of hearing. Besides fees paid by a public authority to any one<br \/>\ncannot claim any exemption under any of the sections of Section 8(1). It is extremely regrettable<br \/>\nthat the deemed PIO Mr Ram Singh, General manager has chosen to defy the Commission&#8217;s<br \/>\norders in such a brazen manner and the Commission condemns such defiance of its statutory<br \/>\norder given during a process of law. The information was supposed to be give as per<br \/>\nCommission&#8217;s order to the Appellant by 05\/08\/2009, it is still not been provided to the<br \/>\nAppellant. Thus there is already of over 100 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission sees this as a fit for levy of penalty on Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager for<br \/>\ncomplete defiance of the law and citizens fundamental rights under the RTI Act. He has<br \/>\npersistently refused to obey the directions of the information Commission and even today he has<br \/>\nnot felt it necessary to come and present any view point before the Commission. The<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                 Page no. 3 of 4<br \/>\n Commission penalizes Mr Ram Singh the maximum penalty livable under the RTI Act since the<br \/>\ndelay is already over 100 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying<br \/>\npenalty on Mr. Ram Singh, General Manager and deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the<br \/>\ninformation has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ram<br \/>\nSingh for Rs.25000\/-which is the maximum penalty under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The President, of the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee is directed to recover<br \/>\nthe amount of Rs.25000\/- from the salary of Mr. Ram Singh and remit the same by a demand<br \/>\ndraft or a Banker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New<br \/>\nDelhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of<br \/>\nthe Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066.<br \/>\nThe amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000\/ each month from the salary of Mr. Ram<br \/>\nSingh and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2010. The total amount of<br \/>\nRs.25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Deemed PIO Mr. Ram Singh is again directed to provide the information to the<br \/>\nAppellant before 10 December 2009 failing which action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the<br \/>\nAct would again be initiated against him.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n                                                                                      Shailesh Gandhi\n                                                                            Information Commissioner\n                                                                                   27 November 2009\n\n\n\n\nCC:    1-   President\n            Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee.\n            Guru Gobind Singh Bhawan,\n            Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, New Delhi\n\n       2- 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\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                       Page no. 4 of 4\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building, Old JNU Campus, Opp. Ber Sarai Market, New Delhi &#8211; 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/000619\/4212Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/000619 SHOW CAUSE HEARING Appellant : Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal 1, Hari Nagar, [&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-143925","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - 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-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-04T12:33:05+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=\"9 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-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T12:33:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1574,\"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-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-04T12:33:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 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":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - 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-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-04T12:33:05+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T12:33:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009"},"wordCount":1574,"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-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009","name":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management ... on 27 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-04T12:33:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-jathedar-kuldip-singh-bhogal-vs-delhi-sikh-gurdwara-management-on-27-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management &#8230; on 27 November, 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\/143925","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=143925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/143925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=143925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=143925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=143925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}