{"id":144302,"date":"2009-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-20T12:04:10","modified_gmt":"2016-09-20T06:34:10","slug":"mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009<\/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\/2009\/001344\/4054\n                                                              Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001344\n  Relevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>  Appellant                             :      Mr. Sanjay Sharma\n                                               Advocate\n                                               Chamber No. B-42, B. G. S. Block,\n                                               Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi -110054.\n\n  Respondent                            :      Public Information Officer\n                                               Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                               (Assessment &amp; Collection Department)\n                                               Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar,\n                                               New Delhi-110024.\n\n  RTI application filed on              :      10\/09\/2008\n  PIO replied                           :      08\/10\/2008\n  First appeal filed on                 :      17\/12\/2008\n  First Appellate Authority order       :      24\/02\/2009\n  Second Appeal filed on                :      27\/05\/2009\n\nSl.                Information Sought                                      PIO's Reply\n1. Is it correct that Rateable Value has been deleted      It is a question of interpretation, which is\n    on 01.08.2003 and in place of it, Annual Value         not covered under RTI Act.\n<\/pre>\n<p>    has been substituted for operationalising property<br \/>\n    tax system under Unit Area Method?\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Is it also true that Rateable Value System              It is a question of interpretation, which is<br \/>\n    remained limited only for those cases, which           not covered under RTI Act.<br \/>\n    came under the scope of transitory provisions<br \/>\n    under 116G(2)?\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Is it also correct that as per earlier interpretation   It is a question of interpretation, which is<br \/>\n    of MCD, the scope of transitory provisions             not covered under RTI Act.<br \/>\n    included three categories of cases:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        a) Exparte cases,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        b) Remanded cases,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>        c) Pending proposals got time barred on<br \/>\n            31.03.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>4.      a) Is it correct that present Assessors &amp;          This is a hypothetical question as to<br \/>\n            Collector Mr. A. K. Ambasth has                whether Shri A. K. Ambasth has projected<br \/>\n            projected himself as saver of Municipal        himself as a saver of Municipal Revenue.<br \/>\n            revenue? Is it true that he has been the<br \/>\n            major critics of financial loss incurred to<br \/>\n            MCD due to reopening\/settlement of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">            cases as S. No. (a) &amp; (b) of question No. 3<\/span><br \/>\n            under UAM?\n<\/p>\n<p>        b) Is it also true, that he has not decided any<br \/>\n            case under UAM, which could have added<br \/>\n               to financial loss to MCD?                      No.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   Is it correct that since joining in the A&amp;C             The question is of hypothetical.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Department of MCD, he has maintained his pro-<br \/>\n     revenue stand and therefore in every meeting<br \/>\n     with his officers and staff, he disallowed his<br \/>\n     subordinates to take up any cases under UAM? Is<br \/>\n     it also true that even he has file affidavit (April &#8211;<br \/>\n     May2007) in the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and<br \/>\n     High Court showing such type of cases have<br \/>\n     caused heavy financial loss to MCD i.e. in<br \/>\n     crores?\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Is it true that his determination to over come such The question has many parts including<br \/>\n     financial loss to MCD has been instrumental in      question of interpretation. However, as<br \/>\n     bringing       out     office   order\/Circular     of<br \/>\n                                                         regards opinion of CLO, it may be stated,<br \/>\n     Commissioner          dated    12.3.2007,      whichas per available record, the Circular dated<br \/>\n     reinterpreted the pending cases under 116 G(2)      18.03.2004, before issue was vetted by<br \/>\n     and removed the category of experte cases from      CLO. As regards issue of Circular dated<br \/>\n     its sphere? Or whether any opinion was sought       12.03.2007, as per available record, the<br \/>\n     from the chief law officer of the MCD before        same was issued after obtaining opinion of<br \/>\n     issuing the OO\/Circular dated 18.03.2004 and        Law Officer (HQ), endorsed by CLO and<br \/>\n     12.03.2007, if yes, what was opined? Is there any   after discussion, as recorded involving the<br \/>\n     ambiguity in the opinion of the CLO before          Chief Law Officer, took place before<br \/>\n     issuing each of the aforesaid OO\/Circular?          issuing the said Order\/Circular. The<br \/>\n                                                         relevant noting can be inspected on any<br \/>\n                                                         working day after depositing the admissible<br \/>\n                                                         fees.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. Is it also correct that later on remanded cases The question is of interpretation.<br \/>\n    were also taken out of the scope of 116 G(2)<br \/>\n    (which covered transitory provisions) for which<br \/>\n    even affidavit has been filed by Mr. A. K.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Ambasth in Supreme Court (SLP case).\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Is it not correct that the time limit of pending The question is of interpretation.<br \/>\n    proposal got over on 31.03.2007?\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Now, which type of category of cases as per Officers are required to take action as per<br \/>\n    A&amp;C can be considered by him or his DMC Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    subordinates under section 116 G (2) of the<br \/>\n    amended DMC Act? Whether Assessor and<br \/>\n    Collector is empowered to permit his subordinate<br \/>\n    to consider any case of S. No. (a) to (c) of<br \/>\n    Question no. 3 -which have been taken out of<br \/>\n    ambit or transitory provision under 116 G (2)?\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Can A&amp;C is empowered to pass or to give The question is of interpretation.<br \/>\n    permission to his junior officers tom<br \/>\n    reopen\/rectify the old exparte cases under UAM<br \/>\n    after 12.03.2007?\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Can A&amp;C himself or permit his juniors to The question is of interpretation. It is not<br \/>\n    reopen\/rectify the exparte cases under old system clear what is the meaning of TV (Perhaps<br \/>\n    or RV when stands deleted on 01.08.2003? Is it RV). The question is not clear. In any case,<br \/>\n    not true that the TV had been operative to a since the question relates to interpretation,<br \/>\n    limited area of transitory provisions only, when hence, does not fall within the ambit of RTI<br \/>\n    all type of cases are no longer fit to be considered Act.<br \/>\n    u\/s 116 G92), then how RV are being touched by<br \/>\n     any of the assessing officer?\n<\/p>\n<p>12. Since all category of cases have come out of the      The question is hypothetical and also<br \/>\n    scope of Section 116 G (2), then how and why          involves interpretation; hence, reply can not<br \/>\n    the A&amp;C and his juniors are still reopening cases     be given. As regards changing of RV by<br \/>\n    under RV system? Is it not a blatant violation of     A&amp;C by carrying rectification, the reply to<br \/>\n    the DMC Act? Is it not a malafide conduct of          question No. 4 refers to.<br \/>\n    officers of A&amp;C Deptt. especially of A&amp;C, who<br \/>\n    himself is charging the RV by carring<br \/>\n    rectifications? Is it not causing financial loss to<br \/>\n    MCD when the officers were not empowered or<br \/>\n    supposed to charge the RVs but to take recovery<br \/>\n    actions but they are reducing\/lowering the RV for<br \/>\n    their selfish interest and what is the duty of the<br \/>\n    HOD\/A&amp;C in such scenario?\n<\/p>\n<p>13. Whether such conduct of MCD officers should           The question has many parts which include<br \/>\n    not be challenged in court of Law? Has any            interpretation\/hypothetical question. As per<br \/>\n    proposal to amend\/delete section 116 G(2) has         available record, no proposal has been<br \/>\n    been moved by Mr. A. K. Ambasth? Is it not            moved to amend\/delete section 116 G (2).<br \/>\n    correct that present Assessor and Collector is<br \/>\n    befooling his superiors by giving wrong<br \/>\n    interpretation of the DMC Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Whether it is true that the OO\/Circular dated         Reply to point no. 14 -As per available<br \/>\n    18.03.2004 was also adopted by the House and          record, on the basis of Note of the ten A&amp;C<br \/>\n    the provisions of the said OO\/Circular was            dated 15.3.2004 indicating, as desired by<br \/>\n    withdrawn by the mere order of the                    the Commissioner, the circular dated<br \/>\n    Commissioner dated 12.03.2007 without putting         18.3.2004, was issued after getting the<br \/>\n    up the same before the House? Is it legally           same vetted from the Chief Law Officer.<br \/>\n    permissible?                                          Further, as per available record, circular<br \/>\n                                                          dated 12.3.2007 was issued under the<br \/>\n                                                          signature of the then commissioner, MCD.\n<\/p>\n<pre>                                                          The       remaining      portion       entails\n                                                          interpretation.\n\n  Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/pre>\n<p>  Non-receipt of desired information from the PIO within the stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Order of the First Appellate Authority<br \/>\n  The FAA in his order said that he found the questions raised in RTI Application of the Appellant<br \/>\n  involved interpretation of DMC Act and circular\/guidelines of A&amp;C Deptt of MCD, hence<br \/>\n  beyond the scope of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Grounds for Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>  Unsatisfactory action by FAA.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p>  The following were present<br \/>\n  Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Sharma<br \/>\n  Respondent:Absent<br \/>\n  The appellant has sought clarifications and interpretations and not information as defined under<br \/>\n  Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>What is sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>This decision is announced in open chamber.<br \/>\nNotice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.<br \/>\nIf information is not provided in the time stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, it has to be provided free of<br \/>\ncost to the Appellant<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                              Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                    Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                 10 July 2009<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)<br \/>\n                                                                                                                     (GJ)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office), Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001344\/4054 Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001344 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Sharma Advocate Chamber No. B-42, B. G. [&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-144302","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. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 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-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-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=\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-20T06:34:10+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=\"7 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-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T06:34:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1271,\"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-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-20T06:34:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 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. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 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-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-20T06:34:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T06:34:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009"},"wordCount":1271,"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-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009","name":"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-20T06:34:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-10-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Sanjay Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 10 July, 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\/144302","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=144302"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144302\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}