{"id":161333,"date":"2011-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-09-27T19:24:17","modified_gmt":"2015-09-27T13:54:17","slug":"shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                       Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                     Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                            Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                              Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001650\/SG\/14711\n                                                      Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001650\/SG\n\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                           :      Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar,\n                                           B - 6, Panchratna Housing Society,\n                                           13, Sheela Vihar Colony,\n                                           Pune - 411038\n\nRespondent                          :      Mr. K. R. Joshi,\n                                           PIO &amp; Section Officer,\n                                           Debts Recovery Tribunal,\n                                           Ministry of Financial Services,\n                                           PMT Commercial Building - 1,\n                                           Shankarsheth Road, Swargate,\n                                           Pune - 411042\n\nRTI application filed on            :      14\/08\/2010\nPIO replied on                      :      06\/09\/2010\nFirst Appeal filed on               :      16\/09\/2010\nOrder of FAA                        :      Not enclosed\nSecond Appeal received on           :      18\/10\/2010\n\nInformation sought:\n\"1. The date on which Shri SG Kulkarni Reported for duty as District Judge 1, Amalner, District\nJalgoan.\n2. The period of medical leave of Shri SG Kulkarni particularly when he was posted as District\nJudge- 1, Amalner, District Jalgoan.\n3. The medical certificate produced by Shri SG Kulkarni for his leave when he was District\nJudge- 1 Amalner, District Jalgaon.\n4. The date on which Shri SG Kulkarni reported back on the expiry of his medical leave to as\nDistrict Judge- 1, Amalner, District Jalgaon.\n5. The copy of the medical fitness certificate when he reported back to Amalner as District\nJudge.\n6. The Application made by Shri SG Kulkarni for his extention of term for a period from\n04\/12\/2006 to 03\/06\/2007 as a presiding Officer DRT Pune.\n7. What public interest was served for over staying as a Presiding Officer DRT Pune?\n8. Whether the Ministry of Finance declared that nobody else could be appointed in place of\nShri SG Kulkarni from 04\/12\/2006 to 03\/06\/2007 and that Shri SG Kulkarni would not have\nbeen taken to his parent department i.e. Maharashtra Judiciary Department.\n9. Whether the Judiciary Department of Govt. of Maharashtra has expressed in writing to the\nMinistry of Finance or DRAT Mumbai or DRT Pune that the judiciary Department of Govt. of\nMaharashtra though Register High Court was not prepared to send Sri SG Kulkarni on\ndeputation to any of the Debts Recovery Tribunal during 04\/12\/2006 to 03\/06\/2007.\n                                                                                    Page 1 of 4\n 10. Copy of medical certificate for fitness of Shri SG Kulkarni when he reported for duty on\n01\/11\/2007 since when he applied for voluntary retirement on medical ground and that when he\napplied for voluntary retirement he was on medical leave.\n11. The representation made by Shri SG Kulkarni when he was posted as District Judge 1 &amp;\nadditional session Judge Khamgoan, Buldana vide order dated 12\/05\/2007\n12. For all the above information this information seeker request that he be granted inspection\nof the above records, file and other papers.\"\n\nReply of Public Information Officer (PIO):\n\"The information sought by the Appellant in connection with Hon'ble Presiding Officer Shri SG\nKulkarni pertains to the period when the officer was not holding the post in this office and does\nnot pertains this office therefore this office is unable to forward any information in this regard.\"\n\nGrounds for First Appeal:\nDissatisfied with the reply of the PIO.\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\nNot Enclosed.\n\nHowever on perusal of the documents received by the Commission, it appears that the First\nAppeal was returned by the FAA vide letter dated 27\/09\/2010 on account of procedural\ninadequacies.\n\nGround for Second Appeal:\nThe Appellant dissatisfied with the illegal and wrongful rejection of his appeal by the FAA.\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging during Hearing held September 16, 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmakar via video conference from NIC Studio &#8211; Pune;<br \/>\nRespondent: : Mr. K. R. Joshi, PIO &amp; Section Officer via video conference from NIC Studio &#8211;<br \/>\nPune.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has contended that the information may be denied on the basis that it must be sought<br \/>\nunder the DRT Rules. The PIO relied on the decision of the Commission in Ajay v. CPIO, Debts<br \/>\nRecovery Tribunal CIC\/SM\/A\/2009\/000990+1506 dated 05\/05\/2010 in support of his contention.<br \/>\nOn the other hand, the Appellant has contended that as per the DRT Rules, only litigants can<br \/>\nobtain information. Since he was not a litigant in the relevant matter, he would not be able to<br \/>\nobtain the information. The Appellant relied on the Commission&#8217;s decision in R. S. Misra v.<br \/>\nCPIO, Supreme Court of India CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000237\/SG\/12351 dated 11\/05\/2011 in support<br \/>\nof his argument. The PIO stated that even non- litigants can obtain information under the DRT<br \/>\nRules.\n<\/p>\n<p>The order was reserved at the hearing held on 16\/09\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision announced on 20 September 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>Based on the contentions of the parties, the main issue which arises for determination before this<br \/>\nBench is where there are methods of obtaining information from a public authority in existence<br \/>\nbefore the RTI Act, can a citizen insist on obtaining the information under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens of India. This has been clearly<br \/>\nrecognised by the Supreme Court of India in several decisions and subsequently, codified by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                    Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n Parliament in 2005. The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access<br \/>\nto information giving citizens the right to information. It lays down the substantive right to<br \/>\ninformation of the citizens and the practical mechanism to enforce the said right. Section 3 of the<br \/>\nRTI Act lays down that subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right<br \/>\nto information. The RTI Act is a crisp legislation comprising of 31 Sections, which confer upon<br \/>\ncitizens, the right to information accessible under the RTI Act, which is held by or under the<br \/>\ncontrol of a public authority. The scheme of the RTI Act stipulates inter alia that information<br \/>\nsought shall be provided within the prescribed period, formulation of a proper appellate<br \/>\nmechanism and invoking of stringent penalty where the PIO fails to provide the information<br \/>\nwithin the mandated period without reasonable cause. The RTI Act is premised on disclosure<br \/>\nbeing the norm, and refusal, the exception. It is legally established that information requested for<br \/>\nunder the RTI Act may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 only<br \/>\nand no other exemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall<br \/>\nhave effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act,<br \/>\n1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue<br \/>\nof any law other than the RTI Act. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as<br \/>\nregards furnishing of information, such law shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a<br \/>\nnon- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act was a conscious choice of the Parliament to<br \/>\nsafeguard the citizens&#8217; fundamental right to information from convoluted interpretations of other<br \/>\nlaws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence of Section 22 of the RTI<br \/>\nAct simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for citizens as well the<br \/>\nPIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply invoking the<br \/>\nprovisions of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Given the above, two scenarios may be envisaged:\n<\/p>\n<p>   1. An earlier law\/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information and is<br \/>\n   consistent with the RTI Act: Since there is no inconsistency between the law\/ rule and the<br \/>\n   provisions of the RTI Act, the citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seek<br \/>\n   information in accordance with the said law\/ rule or under the RTI Act. If the PIO has<br \/>\n   received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the<br \/>\n   citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance<br \/>\n   with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only; and<\/p>\n<p>   2. An earlier law\/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information but is<br \/>\n   inconsistent with the RTI Act: Where there is inconsistency between the law\/ rule and the<br \/>\n   RTI Act in terms of access to information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act shall override the<br \/>\n   said law\/ rule and the PIO would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI Act<br \/>\n   only.\n<\/p>\n<p>The DRT Rules as well as the RTI Act coexist and therefore, it is for the citizen to determine<br \/>\nwhich route she would prefer for obtaining the information. The right to information available to<br \/>\nthe citizens under the RTI Act cannot be denied where such citizen chooses to exercise such<br \/>\nright, as has been done by the PIO in the instant case. The Commission would like to highlight<br \/>\nthat just as the DRT Rules put in place by the relevant authority are not abrogated, the RTI Act<br \/>\npassed by the Parliament also cannot be suspended. If the PIO has received a request for<br \/>\ninformation under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the applicant as per the<br \/>\nprovisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and<br \/>\n9 of the RTI Act only. The Commission has noted that the PIO has rejected the request for<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                      Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n information under the RTI Act without taking recourse to Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, which<br \/>\nis clearly against the statutory mandate. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the RTI Act, at<br \/>\nno place, stipulates that in the event there is consistency between an earlier law\/rule and the RTI<br \/>\nAct, the citizen shall have to seek information under the former. In the absence of such a<br \/>\nprovision, there is no requirement to read in such an interpretation to the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>At this juncture, the Commission would like to mention certain decisions of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nof India in CIT v. A. Raman &amp; Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), which was upheld in CIT v. Calcutta<br \/>\nDiscount Co. Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) and subsequently in <a href=\"\/doc\/1504951\/\">UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan<\/a><br \/>\n[2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), where Shah J., observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;&#8230; Avoiding of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is<br \/>\n     distributed is not prohibited. A tax payer may resort to a device to divert the income<br \/>\n     before it accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon<br \/>\n     considerations of morality, but on the operation of the Income Tax Act. Legislative<br \/>\n     injunction in taxing statutes may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may<br \/>\n     be lawfully circumvented&#8230;&#8221; (Emphasis Added)<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, even when the State may lose revenue, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an<br \/>\nindividual tax payer has the liberty to arrange her commercial affairs in order to reduce her tax<br \/>\nliability, so long as such arrangement is within the operation of tax legislation(s). Drawing an<br \/>\nanalogy, it certainly stands to reason that a citizen should be able to decide on the method most<br \/>\nconvenient and expedient by which she would obtain information. In view of the reasons<br \/>\nenumerated above, the decision cited by the PIO in Ajay v. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal<br \/>\nCIC\/SM\/A\/2009\/000990+1506 dated 05\/05\/2010 is per incuriam inasmuch as it was rendered in<br \/>\nignorance of a rule having the force of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India and by<br \/>\nreading in an interpretation to the RTI Act which was hitherto not stipulated by the Parliament.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Given the same, the said decision is not binding on this Bench. It is also important to mention<br \/>\nthat no legal basis has been given by the Information Commissioner for arriving at his<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as available on<br \/>\nrecords to the Appellant before 20 October 2011, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act. If no<br \/>\nsuch information is available on record, the same shall be stated in writing to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                    Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                          Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                 20 September 2011<\/p>\n<p>(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DIS)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001650\/SG\/14711 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001650\/SG Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar, B &#8211; 6, Panchratna Housing Society, 13, [&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-161333","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>Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1466,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 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":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011"},"wordCount":1466,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011","name":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-27T13:54:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 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\/161333","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=161333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}