{"id":171263,"date":"2011-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-19T14:40:32","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T09:10:32","slug":"mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011<\/div>\n
                   CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n   Complaint No.CIC\/SS\/C\/2010\/000594 , 000595 & CIC\/SS\/C\/2011\/000006 Dated\n                                    07.03.2011\n                    Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18\n\nPARTIES TO THE CASE:\n\nComplainant           :      Mr. Hatim Ali\n\n                             Shri Gaurav Tripathi\n\nRespondent            :      Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited\n\nDate of Decision      :      15.04.2011\n\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n
 OF THE CASE:\n<\/p>\n
   1. This complaint by Mr. Hatim Ali and Shri Gaurav Tripathi (hereinafter “the<\/p>\n
       Complainants”) is against the reply\/letter tendered to them on behalf of the<\/p>\n
       Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited (MDFVPL) (hereinafter “the<\/p>\n
       Respondent”) dated 29.09.2010 wherein the information as sought by the<\/p>\n
       Complainants vide their RTI Applications dated 30.07.2010 & 23.09.2010 was<\/p>\n
       categorically denied. The ground taken by the Respondent for denying the<\/p>\n
       information was that MDFVPL is not a public authority and therefore the<\/p>\n
       provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 do not apply to it.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The Complainants filed complaints dated 15.10.2010, 27.10.2010 and 03.01.2011<\/p>\n
       respectively before us under Section 18\/19 of the RTI Act. The CIC issued<\/p>\n
       notices dated 02.12.2010 to the MDFVPL to appear before it on 20.12.2010 but<\/p>\n
       the matter was re-listed on 31.01.2011. In between, the Respondent had sent a<\/p>\n
       latter MDFVL: RTI: 46\/10 dated 06.01.2011 to the Complainant wherein it re-<\/p>\n
       conveyed that it is not a public authority under the RTI Act. However, the
\n        Respondent, with a view to effectuate smooth access to information and greater<\/p>\n
       transparency, took the initiative to provide that information to the Complainants<\/p>\n
       as were sought by them through their original RTI Applications.<\/p>\n
  3. The Respondent filed an affidavit before us on 31.01.2011 attaching the letter<\/p>\n
       dated 06.01.2011and thereafter; the matter was listed on 07.03.2011 for final<\/p>\n
       hearing.\n<\/p>\n
  4. The Respondent has already presented his written submissions before the<\/p>\n
       Commission and has relied on catena of decisions to substantiate his pleadings.<\/p>\n
       The hearing of the present case was attended by all the parties to the present case.<\/p>\n
CORE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED<\/p>\n
  5.   The core issue which arises out of the present appeal before me is as follows:<\/p>\n
       Whether the Respondent qualifies as a “public authority” within the expression as<\/p>\n
       defined under clause (i) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act?<\/p>\n
DECISION NOTICE:\n<\/p>\n
  6. We have carefully considered all the material and records present before us and<\/p>\n
       have the benefit of File No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/01018 wherin the same point was<\/p>\n
       raised but the appellants in that case and respondents in the present case did not<\/p>\n
       agitate the matter beyond hearing on 29.12.2008. Viewed in totality, we have no<\/p>\n
       hesitation in answering the question as framed in the preceding paragraph in the<\/p>\n
       affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
  7. But before conclusively resting our decision upon the pillar of legal reasoning, I<\/p>\n
       consider it necessary to have a brief look into the history of the Respondent<\/p>\n
       Company as that is apposite for the purpose of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 8. National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) is a body corporate constituted by<\/p>\n
   the Parliament under the National Dairy Development Board Act, 1987 and is a<\/p>\n
   Public Authority within the meaning of the RTI Act. MDFVPL was found in<\/p>\n
   April 2000 and is a fully owned subsidiary of the NDDB. All of the fully paid up<\/p>\n
   equity shares of MDFVPL, as on 31.03.2010, are held by the NDDB and its<\/p>\n
   nominees. It is worth appreciating that the Director of Department of Animal<\/p>\n
   Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India had<\/p>\n
   communicated to the then Chairperson of NDDB vide its letter No.18-4\/99-<\/p>\n
   Admn.IV dated 13.12.1999 :\n<\/p>\n
          “Subject:- Approval of the Central Govt. for creation of a separate wholly<\/p>\n
          owned Private Limited Company to take over the functioning of the<\/p>\n
          Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable project Delhi.<\/p>\n
\n
          Sir,<\/p>\n
                 I am directed to refer to your letter No.DEL:EO:MD dated the 17th<\/p>\n
          February 1999 on the subject cited above and to convey the approval of<\/p>\n
          the Central Government on the same terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
          Resolution passed by the NDDB, Board of Directors in its 51st meeting<\/p>\n
          held on 11.02.1999.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
9. The above communication which has been sent on behalf of the Government of<\/p>\n
   India clearly places the MDFVPL within the scope of clause (d) of Section 2(h) of<\/p>\n
   the RTI Act since it is nothing but “notification issued or order made by the
\n    Appropriate Government.” The expression “Appropriate Government” has been<\/p>\n
   defined in Section 2(a) as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “(a) “appropriate Government” means in relation to a public authority<\/p>\n
           which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially<\/p>\n
           financed by funds provided directly or indirectly–<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (i) by the Central Government or the Union territory<\/p>\n
                   administration, the Central Government;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii) by the State Government, the State Government;”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
   The notification cum order issued by the Central Government (supra) makes it the<\/p>\n
   “Appropriate Government” for the purpose of MDFVPL vis-\u00e0-vis Section 2(a)(i)<\/p>\n
   of the RTI Act. The very existence of the Respondent in this case is based not on<\/p>\n
   the Resolution passed by the NDDB board of Directors but solely on the<\/p>\n
   subsequent approval which has been tendered by the Government of India to give<\/p>\n
   effect to that Resolution. That should be sufficient to settle the case but we feel it<\/p>\n
   necessary to settle the core issue on all four squares so as to avoid further<\/p>\n
   confusion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
10. The latter part of Section 2(h)(d), which defines “Public Authority” is inclusive in<\/p>\n
   definition and is couched in the following language:<\/p>\n
           ” […] and   includes any–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,<\/p>\n
           directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    A conjoint reading of Section 2(h) and Section 2(a) respectively will surely yield<\/p>\n
   the result that the words “directly or indirectly by funds provided” are appended<\/p>\n
   only to the words “substantially financed” and not to the words “owned” or<\/p>\n
   “controlled”; and thus, the Legislature deliberately intended to include those<\/p>\n
   bodies which are substantially financed “indirectly” by the Central Government<\/p>\n
   into the ambit of “public authority”. And on that note, few of the many channels<\/p>\n
   deployed by the Government of India for “indirect” funding can be contemplated<\/p>\n
   as equity shareholding in a Company, loan disbursal with sovereign guarantee or<\/p>\n
   at concessional rates or participation of the Government through special purpose<\/p>\n
   vehicles (SPVs) created or in existence.\n<\/p>\n
11. The thrust of the argument forwarded by the Respondent is that MDFVPL,<\/p>\n
   without any external support from the Government, has received funding in the<\/p>\n
   through equity shares, loans etc through the NDDB and that the Central<\/p>\n
   Government did not delegate it upon the NDDB expressly to establish MDFVPL<\/p>\n
   as such. It is contended by the Respondent that the control and financing which is<\/p>\n
   enjoyed by the NDDB in MDFVPL does not amount to any control or financing<\/p>\n
   on the part of Central Government. We find no merit in such contention because<\/p>\n
   of the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs. The Central Government’s<\/p>\n
   approval to the Resolution passed by the NDDB Board of Directors is itself<\/p>\n
   evident of the fact that the creation of MDFVPL was not an act committed only<\/p>\n
   by the management of NDDB but in truest sense, it was a preliminary action<\/p>\n
   which was finally effectuated by the Central Government’s approval. It leaves us<\/p>\n
   with no room for doubt on the fact that NDDB was used as a Special Purpose
\n    Vehicle by the Central Government to create a wholly owned Pvt. Ltd. company<\/p>\n
   in the form of MDFVPL so as to take over the functioning of the Mother Dairy<\/p>\n
   project in Delhi. Had it not been for the role of Central Government in giving the<\/p>\n
   green flag to the formation of MDFVPL, perhaps it would be difficult to assail<\/p>\n
   how else the Respondent would have got vending shops all over the NCR region<\/p>\n
   at such concessional rates. The preferential treatment per se speaks of the Central<\/p>\n
   Government’s role in the formation of MDFVPL.\n<\/p>\n
12. The role of the Central Government is further two-fold – financing wise as well as<\/p>\n
   control wise. We shall deal with both these aspects now one each at a time. We<\/p>\n
   have already settled that the Respondent did receive indirect funding from the<\/p>\n
   Central Government, which deliberately deployed the NDDB as a channel to fund<\/p>\n
   and run the MDFVPL. The question remains that of “substantial financing” for<\/p>\n
   the purpose of clause (i) of Section 2(h). All the 100% equity paid up shares of<\/p>\n
   MDFVPL are owned by NDDB. There is a secured loan of Rs.7,53,018 and an<\/p>\n
   unsecured loan of Rs.11,12,983 both taken from the NDDB out of a total loan of<\/p>\n
   Rs.1,02,69,978 taken by MDFVPL, which amounts to approximately 18%. The<\/p>\n
   word “substantial” cannot be made to fit into a straight-jacketed formula but its<\/p>\n
   construction surely varies with the factual matrix of each case. For instance, 1%<\/p>\n
   of a Billion would clearly outweigh 90% of a 1000, simply because the<\/p>\n
   percentage above at most can be solid indicia for an avid mathematician but may<\/p>\n
   fail to indicate the essence of a transaction to a reasonable prudent man.<\/p>\n
13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in IFCI vs. Ravinder Balwani [WP(C) 4596\/2007]<\/p>\n
   has even held a Government owned\/controlled equity in a corporation to the<\/p>\n
   extent of merely 23.53% as being sufficient for the purpose of clause (i) of
\n    Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, without being misled by the quantum in a strict<\/p>\n
   manner, we are bound to look into the essence of the transaction involved in the<\/p>\n
   present case which leaves us with no doubt that the financing provided by the<\/p>\n
   Central Government in MDFVPL through NDDB is sufficient enough to hold the<\/p>\n
   Respondent as a “Public Authority” under clause (i) of Section 2(h) of the RTI<\/p>\n
   Act.\n<\/p>\n
14. We now turn our focus to the other aspect indicating the extent of role of the<\/p>\n
   Central Government in the MDFVPL, i.e. control wise. The control exercised by<\/p>\n
   the NDDB, which is a statutory body, in the matters and functioning of MDFVPL<\/p>\n
   is exemplary if not less. It is important to understand that the word “control” in<\/p>\n
   clause (i) of Section 2(h) is not appended by any qualification such as “deep,<\/p>\n
   pervasive or majority” so on and so forth. Hence, all that needs to be shown is<\/p>\n
   some degree of control for the purpose of Section 2(h). That “control” which is<\/p>\n
   neither too high like dominant control nor is that feeble so that it shocks the<\/p>\n
   conscience of a reasonable man.\n<\/p>\n
15. A perusal of the Articles of Association of the MDFVPL leaves us with no doubt<\/p>\n
   regarding the control exercised by the Central Government through NDDB in the<\/p>\n
   matters of MDFVPL. Article 9 gives the power to appoint the Chairman of<\/p>\n
   MDFVPL to NDDB. Article 10 (2) states that the Directors shall be appointed by<\/p>\n
   the NDDB and enlists the first five Directors of the Respondent Company<\/p>\n
   beforehand only. All the 5 Directors have close ties with the NDDB and are not<\/p>\n
   Independent Directors. All in all, the control enjoyed by NDDB through its self<\/p>\n
   appointed Board of Directors over MDFVPL is not merely supervisory but in fact<\/p>\n
   complete and dominant in nature.\n<\/p>\n
   16. Thus, to summarize it all, we find no reason why the Respondent does not fall<\/p>\n
     within the net of clause (i) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Though the provision is<\/p>\n
     satisfied even if either control or substantial financing is proven, in the present<\/p>\n
     case, it’s both of these requirements which are satisfied along with the<\/p>\n
     requirement as laid down in clause (d) of Section 2(h).<\/p>\n
  17. We have no doubt that the Respondent Company in the present appeal is a “public<\/p>\n
     authority” under clause (i) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Mother Diary will<\/p>\n
     appoint a CPIO and the Appellate Authority as per the mandate of the RTI Act.<\/p>\n
     Mother Diary will also comply with the requirements of Section 4 within 8 weeks<\/p>\n
     of the receipt of the order.\n<\/p>\n
  18. The Respondents will provide information to the Complainants on the points not<\/p>\n
     covered in earlier replies.\n<\/p>\n
  (Sushma Singh)
\n  Central Information Commissioner<\/p>\n
Authenticated True Copies<\/p>\n
 (S. Padmanabha)
\n  Deputy Registrar
\n         No. CIC\/SS\/C\/2010\/000594 , 000595 & CIC\/SS\/C\/2011\/000006<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
   1. Sh. Hatim Ali
\n      S\/o Late Sh. T. H. Khan
\n      R\/o C-70, 71, Inder Enclave
\n      Phase-II, Kirari Suleman Nagar
\n      Delhi-110086<\/p>\n
   2. Sh. Gaurav Tripathi
\n      Village-Jigina
\n      Post-Hussainpur
\n      Zila Mirzapur
\n      U.P.-243301<\/p>\n
   3. The Public Information Officer
\n      Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
      NDDB House
\n      Safdarjung Enclave
\n      New Delhi-110029\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint No.CIC\/SS\/C\/2010\/000594 , 000595 & CIC\/SS\/C\/2011\/000006 Dated 07.03.2011 Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 18 PARTIES TO THE CASE: Complainant : Mr. Hatim Ali Shri Gaurav Tripathi Respondent : Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Private Limited Date of […]<\/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-171263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-19T09:10:32+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\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T09:10:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1979,\"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-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T09:10:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 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.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-19T09:10:32+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\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T09:10:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011"},"wordCount":1979,"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-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011","name":"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T09:10:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-hatim-ali-vs-ministry-of-agriculture-on-15-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Hatim Ali vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 15 May, 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\/171263","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=171263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}