{"id":16788,"date":"2009-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-19T14:19:45","modified_gmt":"2016-11-19T08:49:45","slug":"mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>             Central Information Commission\n\n                                                     CIC\/OK\/A\/08\/00893-AD\n\n                                                           Dated May 15, 2009\n\n\nName of the Applicant               :   Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal\n\nName of the Public Authority        :   Southern Railway, Chennai\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.   The Applicant filed his RTI application dated 21.04.08 with the CPIO,<br \/>\n     Southern Railways, Chennai requesting for the following documents:\n<\/p>\n<p>     i)    Report sent by the Southern Railway Vigilance to the Board for<br \/>\n           obtaining the first stage advice of the CVC &#8211; Ref &#8211; Charge memo<br \/>\n           vide No. P (G)CON\/1\/17\/2205 dated 15.4.05.\n<\/p>\n<p>     ii)   Copy in full &#8211; the 1st stage advice of the CVC in above case.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The CPIO replied on 02.05.2008 denying the information &#8220;&#8230;. since the<br \/>\n     D&amp;AR process is yet to come to finality, u\/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005&#8230;.&#8221;<br \/>\n     The information was also denied on the ground that the same could not be<br \/>\n     parted with due to the embargo created under provisions of u\/s 8(1)(e) of<br \/>\n     the RTI Act 2005 since the report sought by the Applicant          contained<br \/>\n     information on the other officers and officials other than the Applicant.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Being denied information, the Applicant filed a First Appeal on 09.05.2008<br \/>\n     with the Appellate Authority reiterating the contents of his RTI request.<br \/>\n     Among the various arguments and submissions made by the Appellant the<br \/>\n     following are the primary ones:     i) The Appellant contended in his Appeal<br \/>\n     the inapplicability of both the exemptions as sought by the CPIO under<br \/>\n     provisions of Section 8(1) (e) and Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005 in<br \/>\n     the instant case.     ii) Reliance was also placed by the Appellant on the<br \/>\n     judgment passed by the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of<br \/>\n     Bhagat Singh Vs. Central Information Commission, followed by the<br \/>\n     decision passed by the Hon&#8217;ble Chief Information Commissioner in the<br \/>\n     matter of Dhirendra Krishna vs. CBI in Case No. CIC\/WB\/2008\/00964, as<br \/>\n     well as couple of other decisions passed by the Commission.        iii) In the<br \/>\n      Appeal the Appellant also referred to the letter of the Adviser Vigilance,<br \/>\n     Railway Board, Ministry of Railways addressed to the General Manager,<br \/>\n     Southern Railway stating inter alia that although clauses 8(1) (g), (h) and\n<\/p>\n<p>     (j) of the RTI Act 2005, exempts the Vigilance Department from divulging<br \/>\n     any information while investigations are in progress, the same protection<br \/>\n     ceases to exist after the completion of the enquiry. The Appellant states<br \/>\n     that since in his case the investigation (enquiry) was completed long back<br \/>\n     and even the chargesheet was issued to him, hence the exemption as<br \/>\n     sought by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005 is not<br \/>\n     applicable in view of the clear position of law which is reaffirmed in the<br \/>\n     letter of the Adviser Vigilance, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways.       iv)<br \/>\n     The Appellant also challenged the act of non application of the provisions<br \/>\n     of the Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 by the CPIO while dealing with the<br \/>\n     Appellant&#8217;s request for information even if it is considered that the<br \/>\n     information sought contained information about some other officers apart<br \/>\n     from the Appellant.      The Appellate Authority replied vide the letter dated<br \/>\n     03.06.2008       reiterating   the   CPIO&#8217;s   arguments   while   denying   the<br \/>\n     information and upholding the decision of the CPIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Being thus aggrieved by constant denial of information, the Appellant filed<br \/>\n     an Appeal before the Central Information Commission on 09.06.2008. The<br \/>\n     Appellant reiterated the entire facts of the case in his contentions and<br \/>\n     addressed arguments on the following key issues:\n<\/p>\n<p>     i) the First Appeal was disposed off by the CPIO instead of the Appellate<br \/>\n     Authority which is the proper course of law, as has also been held in a<br \/>\n     decision    of    the   Commission      being   CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00080       dated<br \/>\n     04.07.2007;\n<\/p>\n<p>     ii) despite specific request of the Appellant, the First Appeal was disposed<br \/>\n     off by the CPIO [not even the Appellate Authority] without granting any<br \/>\n     hearing to the Appellant, which is against the spirit of law as also held by<br \/>\n     the   CIC   in   decisions     CIC\/OK\/A\/2007\/01453   dated   09.04.2008     and<br \/>\n     CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00072 dated 31.05.2006;\n<\/p>\n<p>     iii) the CPIO has failed to address with the specific issues raised in the<br \/>\n     First Appeal while disposing off the Appeal vide the non speaking order<br \/>\n     dated 03.06.2008;\n<\/p>\n<p>      iv) inapplicability of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005<br \/>\n     in the instant case specially in view of the Central Vigilance Commission&#8217;s<br \/>\n     letter no. 99\/VGL\/66 dated 28.09.2000 directing all Ministries to supply its<br \/>\n     first stage advice and second stage advice to the concerned Charged<br \/>\n     Official in keeping with the principles of natural justice and fair play.<br \/>\n     Furthermore reliance was also placed on the CIC decision no. 1323\/IC<br \/>\n     (A)\/2007 dated 10.10.2007 deciding similar issues in favor of disclosure of<br \/>\n     information;\n<\/p>\n<p>     v) inapplicability of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005<br \/>\n     while placing reliance on CIC decisions on this issue as also the decision of<br \/>\n     the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC<br \/>\n     deciding the scope of applicability of the Section 8 (1)(h) of the RTI Act<br \/>\n     2005;\n<\/p>\n<p>     vi) deliberate non application of the provisions of Section 11 of the RTI Act<br \/>\n     2005 by the Respondent Public Authority;\n<\/p>\n<p>     vii) insufficiency of the partial information supplied etc.<\/p>\n<p>5.   The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled<br \/>\n     the hearing for May 15, 2009 and a communication dated 29.04.2009 was<br \/>\n     accordingly sent to the parties intimating the date of hearing of the<br \/>\n     appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Mrs. K. Bhuvaneshwari, PIO &amp; Dy. CVO\/A, Mr. A.P. Mishra, Appellate<br \/>\n     Authority &amp; AGM and Mr. B Nageshwara Rao, APIO &amp; JD\/PG represented<br \/>\n     the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The Applicant was not present during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>8.   The Respondent Public Authority submitted their reply to the Appeal<br \/>\n     vide a communication dated 12.05.2009. However the rebuttal was<br \/>\n     neither too specific nor directly answering the contentions raised by<br \/>\n     the Appellant. While dealing with the exemption sought by The<br \/>\n     Respondent on the ground of Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005,<br \/>\n     it is noted that the Respondent has submitted that relevant portion<br \/>\n      of the CVC&#8217;S 1st stage advice has been provided as per CVC circular<br \/>\n     No. 99\/VGL\/66 dated 28.09.2000. However, perusal of the facts of<br \/>\n     the case clearly indicates that the investigation in the case is already<br \/>\n     over and the Appellant has been chargesheeted already, hence<br \/>\n     there can be no apprehension so as to seek exemption from<br \/>\n     disclosure of information under provisions of Section 8 (1) (h) of the<br \/>\n     RTI Act 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Moreover even natural justice demands that the information<br \/>\n     relevant to the accused should be disclosed in order that the accused be<br \/>\n     granted opportunity to prove his innocence.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   The    Commission,    while        considering   the   second   argument    of   the<br \/>\n     Respondent with respect to Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act 2005 about<br \/>\n     denial of disclosure of information since the same is held in fiduciary<br \/>\n     capacity; the meaning of the word &#8220;fiduciary relationship&#8221; was analysed<br \/>\n     from various perspectives and the following connotations could                   be<br \/>\n     summarised:\n<\/p>\n<p>     \u2022     Various   decisions     of     the   Commission    indicate   that   fiduciary<br \/>\n           relationship is a relationship of trust which may also be between an<br \/>\n           individual and a juristic person such as Government, University or a<br \/>\n           Bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The word &#8220;fiduciary&#8221; is derived from the Latin fiducia meaning &#8220;trust&#8221;, a<br \/>\n     person (including a juristic person such as Government, University or<br \/>\n     Bank) who has the power and obligation to act for another under<br \/>\n     circumstances which require total trust, good faith and honesty.<br \/>\n     \u2022     The fiduciary relationship can also be one of moral or personal<br \/>\n           responsibility due to the superior knowledge and training of the<br \/>\n           fiduciary as compared to the one whose affairs the fiduciary is<br \/>\n           handling. In short, it is a relationship wherein one person places<br \/>\n           complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or<br \/>\n           one&#8217;s general affairs of business.\n<\/p>\n<p>     \u2022     In Fiduciary Relationship, a person with the legal duty to act primarily<br \/>\n           for another&#8217;s benefit enjoys a position of trust, good faith and<br \/>\n           responsibility. Thus the word &#8220;Fiduciary&#8221; is often used as an<br \/>\n           alternative term for &#8220;trustee&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In the instant case, no such relationship emerges or exists giving rise to<br \/>\n      &#8220;Fiduciary relationship&#8221;.   Hence, the Commission has arrived at the<br \/>\n      conclusion that CVC was not holding any document in confidence, but<br \/>\n      inquired into the whole incident and prepared an Inquiry Report and<br \/>\n      handed it over to Southern Railways. Therefore, the instant case does not<br \/>\n      fall within any of the categories of the definitions as stated hereinabove.<br \/>\n      Hence the plea of the Respondent Public Authority seeking exemption<br \/>\n      under the garb of &#8220;fiduciary relation&#8221; is incongruous. Accordingly, the<br \/>\n      Commission decides that since the documents have not been held in a<br \/>\n      fiduciary capacity since no &#8220;fiduciary relationship&#8221; existed, hence the<br \/>\n      denial of the Public Authority to furnish the information sought by the<br \/>\n      Appellant under the garb of the Section 8 (1) (e) is completely ruled out.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   In the light of the settled law as mentioned hereinabove and in view of the<br \/>\n      peculiar facts of this case, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent<br \/>\n      to disclose the information asked for by the Appellant by 10th June 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Appeal is disposed off accordingly in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                               (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                       Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G.Subramanian)<br \/>\nAsst. Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Mr.Sunil Kumar Bansal<br \/>\n      Deputy Chief Engineer\/Works<br \/>\n      O\/o General Manager<br \/>\n      Southern Railway<br \/>\n      Headquarters Office<br \/>\n      2nd Floor, Park Town<br \/>\n      Chennai 600 003<\/p>\n<p>2.    The CPIO<br \/>\n      Southern Railway<br \/>\n      Headquarters Office<br \/>\n      Vigilance Branch<br \/>\n      Chennai 600 003<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      Southern Railway<br \/>\n      Headquarters Office<br \/>\n      Vigilance Branch<br \/>\n      Chennai 600 003<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer in charge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/OK\/A\/08\/00893-AD Dated May 15, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal Name of the Public Authority : Southern Railway, Chennai Background 1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dated 21.04.08 with the CPIO, Southern [&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-16788","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. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 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-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-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=\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-19T08:49:45+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=\"8 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-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T08:49:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1508,\"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-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-19T08:49:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 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. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 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-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-19T08:49:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T08:49:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009"},"wordCount":1508,"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-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009","name":"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-19T08:49:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-bansal-vs-southern-railway-chennai-on-15-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Sunil Kumar Bansal vs Southern Railway, Chennai on 15 May, 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\/16788","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=16788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}