{"id":176246,"date":"2011-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-01T06:09:43","modified_gmt":"2017-05-01T00:39:43","slug":"miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                            Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                   Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001807\/9076Adjunct-I\n                                                                   Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001807\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n
Appellant                           :       Ms. Pushpa Rani,
\n                                            ANM (Residential),
\n                                            Maternity and Child Welfare Centre (MCD),
\n                                            Guru Ram Dass Nagar,
\n                                            Delhi- 110092<\/p>\n
Respondent                          :       Dr. Sushma Goel,
\n                                            Public Information Officer & Deputy DHA,
\n                                            (Health Administration) (M & CW),
\n                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi (HQ),
\n                                            18th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,
\n                                            JLN Marg, New Delhi- 110002<\/p>\n
RTI application filed on            :       23\/04\/2010
\nPIO replied                         :       05\/05\/2010
\nFirst appeal filed on               :       12\/05\/2010
\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :       Not enclosed
\nSecond Appeal received on           :       30\/06\/2010<\/p>\n
Sl.            Information Sought                    Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)\n<\/p>\n
1. Supply me the certified copies of ‘Staff     These involve interest of third party (Other staff working
\n    Movements Register’ for the period 1st      at Guru Ram Dass Nagar) Mrs. Pushpa Rani ANM, is
\n    January, 2006 to till date.                 also working as ANM at the same place.\n<\/p>\n
2. Supply me the certified copies of the        These are official record of the Centre under charge of
\n    ‘Fridge Temperature Records’ for the        MOI\/C and involve the interest of third party (Other
\n    period starting from 1st January, 2000 to   Staff).\n<\/p>\n
    till date.\n<\/p>\n
3. Supply me the certified copies of the        As above.\n    \"Staff Attendance Register\/Signature's\n    Register' from 1st January, 2009 to till\n    date.\n\n\nGrounds for the First Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory information provided by the PIO\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\nNo order passed by the FAA.\n\nGrounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/pre>\n
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on August 20, 2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Darshan Lal representing Mr. Pushpa Rani;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, Public Information Officer & Dy. DHA; Dr. Renu Chopra, Additional
\nDHA & FAA; Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO & Medical Officer-incharge, Laxmi Nagar;\n<\/p>\n
       “The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Dr. Renu Chopra has failed to give any order in the matter.
\nShe contends that she had given a date of hearing but since the appellant did not appear she did not pass
\nany order. The appellant claims that he had no intimation has been received for the FAA’s hearing. The
\nCommission warns the FAA that if orders are not issued as required under the RTI Act the Commission
\nwould consider recommending disciplinary actions against her.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant admits that he has received the information sent by the PIO on 01\/07\/2010. The appellant
\nstates that he feels that the photocopies of page numbers 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102
\nand 104 of the staff movement register are not complete and the bottom appears to be partial. He feels that
\nthe photocopy of page number 110 of the fridge temperature register is not visible since the attestation
\nrubber stamp covers some of the data.\n<\/p>\n
        The appellant has paid Rs.244\/- as additional fee for information which has been supplied late
\n(after 30 days) to him.”\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated August 20, 2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO is directed to give an inspection to the appellant of the staff movement
\nregister and the fridge temperature register to the appellant on 25 August 2010 at 10.00AM
\nto verify if any of the information has been cutoff partially. If that is the case fresh attested
\nphotocopies will be provided to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO will also refund Rs.244\/- additional wrongly charged form the appellant before
\n02 September 2010.”\n<\/p>\n
Facts leading to hearing held on January 5, 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Commission received a letter dated 24\/11\/2010 from the Appellant alleging that the order of the
\nCommission had not been complied with. In view of the same, the Commission, vide notice dated
\n06\/12\/2010 scheduled a hearing in this matter on 05\/01\/2011 to decide whether there had been non-
\ncompliance of the order of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on January 5, 2011:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA and Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO.\n<\/p>\n
        The Commission noted that the additional fee of Rs. 244\/- had not been refunded to the Appellant.
\nDr. Sushma Goel stated that vide letters dated 30\/08\/2010, 20\/09\/2010, 29\/09\/2010 and 30\/12\/2010, the
\nAppellant was requested to submit the original receipt so that refund of the additional fees could be
\nprocessed. Mr. Darshal Lal stated that a copy of the original receipt was submitted to the Respondent on
\nreceipt of the letter dated 30\/08\/2010 itself. Dr. Goel stated that as per the office procedure, payment
\ncould be facilitated only on production of the original receipt. The Commission was not satisfied with the
\nsubmissions of Dr. Goel. The Commission, vide its order dated 20\/08\/2010, had clearly directed Dr. Goel
\nto refund the additional fees wrongly charged from the Appellant before 02\/09\/2010, which was not<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n complied with. The order of the Commission, having the force of law, was required to be complied by the
\nPIO. Refund of the additional fees could not be denied by the PIO merely on the basis of certain internal\/
\noffice procedures.\n<\/p>\n
Further, the Respondents stated that the staff movement registers and the fridge temperature register were
\ninspected by the Appellant on 25\/08\/2010 in the presence of Dr. Tiwari, Additional DHA and Mrs.
\nMohini, APIO. Duly certified copies of the relevant pages were provided to the Appellant. In this regard,
\nthe Respondents produced notings contained on the same page stating ‘Inspection done by Darshan Lal
\nand necessary information has been given to him as provided by Deemed PIO’ and ‘Received fresh
\ncertified photocopies of the Pages Nos. 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102, 104 (Staff
\nMovement Register) and Page No. 110 (Fridge Temperature Register)’ and signed by the concerned
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
At the hearing held before the Commission on 20\/08\/2010, Mr. Darshan Lal had contended that the copies
\nof page numbers 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102 and 104 of the staff movement register
\nwere not complete and the bottom appeared to be partial. Mr. Darshan Lal had also contended that the
\ncopy of page number 110 of the fridge temperature register was not visible since the attestation rubber
\nstamp covered some of the data. On this basis, the Commission, vide its order dated 20\/08\/2010, had
\ndirected that an inspection of the relevant registers be facilitated to the Appellant on 25\/08\/2010.
\nHowever, at the hearing held before the Commission on 05\/01\/2011, Mr. Darshan Lal contended that no
\ninspection of the staff movement registers and the fridge temperature register was facilitated to him on
\n25\/08\/2010. He alleged that these registers were not being maintained by the Respondent department and
\nthat he was provided certified copies of the attested photocopies of the original registers.\n<\/p>\n
In order to ascertain the veracity of the statements made by both parties, the Commission directed Mr.
\nDarshal Lal and the Respondents to appear before the Commission once again on January 6, 2011 at
\n11:00 am. The Respondents were directed to produce the original registers before the Commission on
\n06\/01\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on January 6, 2011:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Dr. Tiwari, Additional DHA, Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA, Dr. Manju Mittal,
\n                Deemed PIO and Mrs. Mohini, APIO.\n<\/p>\n
        “The Respondents produced the staff movement register and the fridge temperature register before
\nthe Commission. Copy of each page provided to Mr. Darshan Lal was cross- checked with the relevant
\npage of the original register\/ attested copy of the original register produced by the Respondents. The
\nRespondents stated that as per office rules, one of the staff movement registers was weeded out and
\ntherefore only attested copies of the said register was available. The Commission observed that certified
\ncopy of the relevant pages was provided to Mr. Darshan Lal. The Commission further observed that the
\ncertified copies of the relevant pages were complete.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Tiwari stated that Mr. Darshan Lal had inspected the staff movement registers and the fridge
\nmovement registers on 25\/08\/2010 in his and Mrs. Mohini’s presence. It is interesting to note that at the
\nhearing held on 06\/01\/2011, Mr. Darshan Lal did not allege that the inspection had not been carried out.
\nThe Commission observed that complete information has been provided to the Appellant and that the
\norder dated 28\/08\/2010 has been complied with.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision announced on January 7, 2011:\n<\/p>\n
“The Commission hereby directs Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Deputy DHA to refund the additional fee of
\nRs. 244 to the Appellant before January 24, 2011 and a proof of the same must be sent to the
\nCommission before January 31, 2011.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Facts leading to hearing on 27 April 2011:\n<\/p>\n
“The Commission has received letter dated 12\/01\/2011 along with a letter dated 06\/01\/2011 from the
\nAppellant wherein certain concerns in relation to the directions issued by the Commission in its order
\ndated 07\/01\/2011 were raised. Therefore, the Commission has decided to schedule a hearing in the instant
\nmatter on April 27, 2011 at 4:00 pm.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the hearing held on 27 April 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Darshan Lal on behalf of the Appellant;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Dr. Sushma Goel, PIO & Dy. DHA, Dr. Manju Mittal, Deemed PIO & MO Incharge;\n<\/p>\n
        The Appellant claims that he did not do an inspection of the relevant records on 25\/08\/2010. The
\nRespondents state that the Appellant has inspected the relevant records on 25\/08\/2010 in the presence of
\nDr. H. C. Tiwari-ADHA(MCW Section), Mrs. Mohini APIO, Mr. Hanif Clerk, Dr. Sushma Goel PIO and
\nDr. Manju Mittal Deemed PIO. The Appellant states that this is not true. The Respondents have produced
\nbefore the Commission a letter from the Appellant Mrs. Pushpa Rani authorizing her husband Mr. Darshal
\nLal to inspect the records. On this paper Mr. Darshan Lal has made a note “received fresh certified
\nphotocopies of page nos. 60, 61, 63, 66, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 93, 100, 102, 104 (Staff movement register)
\nand page no. 110 (fridge temperature register)”. The Appellant claims that the inspection has not been
\ndone on that day. Subsequently he claims he filed complaint before the Commission on 28\/09\/2010 stating
\nthat the inspection had not been done. He states that he has also given a complaint on 24\/11\/2010 to the
\nCommission stating that inspection had not been done. The Commission held hearings on 05\/01\/2011 and
\n06\/01\/2011 and after looking at all the evidence before it came to the conclusion that all the information
\nhad been provided to the Appellant. The Commission also notes that Mr. Darshan Lal did not state on
\n06\/01\/2011 that he has not been allowed inspection of the relevant records on 25\/08\/2010. The
\nRespondent has stated that as per the weeding out procedure the staff movement registers upto 31\/07\/2006
\nwas weeded out on 01\/11\/2010 and therefore is willing to give an inspection of the register from August
\n2006 onwards and is able to produce only the photocopies of the earlier records. The Appellant alleges
\nthat the PIO should not have destroyed the records since he had filed an appeal about this. The PIO states
\nthat the records were held by the Deemed PIO and were weeded out as per the weeding out procedure.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant alleges that the photocopies of the staff movement register provided to him for the period
\nJanuary to July 2006 have been tampered on page no. 100, 102 & 104. He points out that the last entry on
\npage no. 100 & 102 is identical. The Commission asked the Appellant whether he could point out any
\nspecific reason for the PIO to forge these records. He is not able to give any rational explanation to the
\nCommission to support his contention. The Appellant is also objecting to the fact that some of the
\nsubmission on 05\/01\/2011 and 06\/01\/2011 had been taken by the Legal Consultant of the Commission.
\nThe Commissioner has authorized the Legal Consultant to take the submission and go through the details
\nand papers on behalf of the Commissioner. Considering all the factors before the Commission the
\nCommission comes to the conclusion that all information available has been appropriately provided to the
\nAppellant and the matter is now completely closed.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                       Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                                    27 April 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                      Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001807\/9076Adjunct-I Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001807 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Ms. Pushpa Rani, ANM (Residential), Maternity and Child Welfare Centre (MCD), […]<\/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-176246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMiss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 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\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-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=\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-01T00:39:43+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\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-01T00:39:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1921,\"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\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-01T00:39:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 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":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 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\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-01T00:39:43+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\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-01T00:39:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011"},"wordCount":1921,"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\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011","name":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-01T00:39:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/miss-pushpa-rani-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-27-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Miss.Pushpa Rani vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 27 April, 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\/176246","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=176246"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176246\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}