{"id":165631,"date":"2011-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-13T01:33:20","modified_gmt":"2016-03-12T20:03:20","slug":"mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 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                                                    Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003480\/11048Penalty\n                                                                   Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003480\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant                            :      Mr Rajendra Gupta,\n                                            704 G T Road Shahadra ,\n                                            Delhi-32.\n\nRespondent                           :      Mr. Raj Bir Kundu\n                                            Deemed PIO &amp; AE (West Zone Project-II),\n                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n                                            Under Zakhira Flyover,\n                                            New Delhi;\n\nRTI application filed on             :      25\/06\/2010\nPIO replied                          :      14\/07\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                :      09\/09\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order      :      30\/09\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on            :      10\/12\/2010\n\nS. No.                 Information Sought                                   Reply of the PIO\n  1.   Present situation of plot no. DP 14 and 15 and also    After receiving complaint the plots were\n       the investigation which has been done according to     checked and which illegal constructions were\n       the complaint dated 07\/05\/2010                         investigate under DMC Act.\n  2.   Any Plan passed by the building department for the     The plan is with the housing department.\n       said plots.\n  3.   The construction has been done according to the        The plan is passed and anything against it is\n       plan or more than that,                                investigated under DMC act.\n<\/pre>\n<p>  4.   Copy of the diary maintained by field officers under<br \/>\n       ministry of urban development and poverty<br \/>\n       elevation<\/p>\n<p>First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>The information provided by the PIO was false.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO was ordered to get the photographs of the properties as asked by the appellant and also to furnish<br \/>\nrelevant information for the question no. 4 and supply it to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant is aggrieved that the photographs have not been provided after the payment of the charges<br \/>\nand also the information even after lapse of 40 days has not been given.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                               Page\u00a01\u00a0of\u00a04\u00a0<br \/>\n Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 19 January 2011:<br \/>\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I); Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) &amp; Deemed PIO;\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The PIO has provided certain information but has not provided information on query-03. The<br \/>\nAppellant has sought information on whether the building is being made as per the sanctioned building<br \/>\nplan. The PIO has not provided any answer to this query. The Respondent agrees that this information<br \/>\nshould be in the construction watch register. The PIO is directed to give a copy of construction watch<br \/>\nregister to the Appellant. In case if the construction watch register is not being maintained this should be<br \/>\nstated.\n<\/p>\n<p>The FAA had directed the PIO to provide the copies of the photographs within two weeks. The Appellant<br \/>\nwas asked to deposit Rs.80\/- for this which he has done on 29\/10\/2010. The PIO has however provided<br \/>\nthe photographs only on 05\/01\/2011. Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) admits that the delay in providing the<br \/>\nphotographs has caused because of him. He admits that he has no explanation for the delay.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Commission&#8217;s Decision dated 19\/01\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;Mr. Yogendra Sharma, EE(B-I) is directed to give the information as directed<br \/>\nabove to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. Raj<br \/>\nBir Kundu, AE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing<br \/>\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as<br \/>\nper the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer,<br \/>\nwhich raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the<br \/>\npenal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his<br \/>\nreasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, AE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on<br \/>\n01 February 2011 at 11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not<br \/>\nbe imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the<br \/>\ninformation to the appellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 09 June 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. Raj Bir Kundu failed to appear before the Commission on 01\/02\/2011. Since he did not appear before the<br \/>\nCommission he was against directed by show cause notice dated 21\/04\/2011 to appear before the Commission on<br \/>\n19\/05\/2011 along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under<br \/>\nSection 20 of the RTI Act. However he had not come again and also no communications received from him<br \/>\nexplaining his absence on 01\/02\/2011 and 19\/05\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission again directed Mr. Raj Bir Kundu, Deemed PIO &amp; AE (B) to present himself before the<br \/>\nCommission on June 9, 2011 at 11:00 am along with his written explanations to show cause why penalty should<br \/>\nnot be imposed against him for defying the orders of the Commission and failing to comply with the provisions of<br \/>\nthe RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                     Page\u00a02\u00a0of\u00a04\u00a0<br \/>\n Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 09 June 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone &amp; Deemed PIO presently AE (West Zone<br \/>\nProject-II), MCD, Under Zakhira Flyover, New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n<p>        Mr. Kundu has given a written submission in which he has offered no cause for no having<br \/>\nprovided the information as per the order of the FAA. The FAA had directed on 30\/09\/2010 that &#8220;PIO is<br \/>\ndirected to get digital photographs for the properties as asked by the Appellant and supply the same to the<br \/>\nAppellant after payment of necessary fee.&#8221; The Appellant paid the necessary fee on 29\/10\/2010 but the<br \/>\ninformation was not provided to him. The photographs were provided to him only on 05\/01\/2011. Since<br \/>\nthe additional fee had been paid by the Appellant on 29\/10\/2010 the photographs should have been<br \/>\nprovided to him before 01\/11\/2010. Instead Mr. Raj Bir Kundu has provided it only on 05\/01\/2011 i.e.<br \/>\nafter a delay of 64 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Where the Central Information Commission or the State<br \/>\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not<br \/>\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the<br \/>\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed<br \/>\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the<br \/>\ninformation, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received<br \/>\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five<br \/>\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:<br \/>\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central<br \/>\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.&#8221;<br \/>\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must<br \/>\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 &#8211; 30<br \/>\n       days.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or<br \/>\n       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n<p>4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.<br \/>\nAll the above are prefaced by the infraction, &#8216; without reasonable cause&#8217;.<br \/>\nSection 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a<br \/>\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty<br \/>\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                 Page\u00a03\u00a0of\u00a04\u00a0<br \/>\n cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the<br \/>\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was<br \/>\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Since Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone &amp; Deemed PIO has not offered any reasonable<br \/>\ncause for the delay in providing the information as per the order of the FAA, the Commission is imposing<br \/>\na penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone &amp;<br \/>\nDeemed PIO at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 64 days i.e. `16000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a<br \/>\nfit case for levying penalty on Mr. Raj Bir Kundu the then AE(B) Rohini Zone &amp; Deemed<br \/>\nPIO. Since the delay in providing the information has been of 64 days, the Commission is<br \/>\npassing an order penalizing Mr. Raj Bir Kundu `16,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `16,000\/- from the salary of Mr. Raj Bir Kundu 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<br \/>\nNew Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and<br \/>\nDeputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti<br \/>\nBhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `4000\/ per<br \/>\nmonth every month from the salary of Mr. Raj Bir Kundu and remitted by the 10th of every<br \/>\nmonth starting from July 2011. The total amount of `16,000\/- will be remitted by 10th of<br \/>\nOctober, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                       Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                    09 June 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)<\/p>\n<p>CC To,<br \/>\n1-        Commissioner<br \/>\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi<br \/>\n          Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n<\/p>\n<p>2.        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,<br \/>\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary<br \/>\n          Central Information Commission,<br \/>\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,<br \/>\n          New Delhi &#8211; 110066<br \/>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                       Page\u00a04\u00a0of\u00a04\u00a0\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003480\/11048Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003480 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr Rajendra Gupta, 704 G T Road Shahadra , Delhi-32. Respondent [&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-165631","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.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-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=\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-12T20:03:20+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-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T20:03:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1577,\"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-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T20:03:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-12T20:03:20+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-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T20:03:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011"},"wordCount":1577,"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-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011","name":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T20:03:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajender-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Rajender Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 June, 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\/165631","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=165631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}