{"id":180439,"date":"2011-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011"},"modified":"2016-09-30T02:02:39","modified_gmt":"2016-09-29T20:32:39","slug":"mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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\/002429\/9791Penalty\n                                                                    Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002429\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n
Appellant                             :      Mr. Chirag Saini
\n                                             4447, Arya Pura,
\n                                             Sabzi Mandi, Clock Tower,
\n                                             Delhi-7<\/p>\n
Respondent                            :      Mr. Jag Mohan Singh
\n                                             APIO & Survey Officer
\n                                             Municipal Corporation f Delhi
\n                                             Land & Estate Department.\n<\/p>\n
                                             7th Floor, Civic Center,
\n                                             Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
\n                                             New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
RTI application filed on              :      21\/06\/2010\nPIO replied                           :      22\/06\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                 :      30\/07\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order       :      01\/09\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on             :      31\/08\/2010\n\nInformation Sought\n<\/pre>\n
   1. What is area of land was given to Tonga Stand on Roshnara Road Delhi-1?\n<\/p>\n
   2. Whether this land now been allotted to Government or private authority.\n<\/p>\n
   3. On what basis this land was allotted.\n<\/p>\n
   4. If court is pending against this land give name of the judge and court number alongwith next date
\n      of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
   5. Whether there are any case between Tonga Stand allottees and MCD.\n<\/p>\n
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)\n<\/p>\n
   1. In year 2002 the Veterinary department came into existence.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The Veterinary department did not have the documents\/records.\n<\/p>\n
   3. The department did not have any mentioned allotted land.\n<\/p>\n
   4. The document was not present.\n<\/p>\n
   5. With reference to the department there was no information.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the First Appeal:.\n<\/p>\n
Unsatisfactory information by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
The PIO is directed to send the reply with respect to query raised by the appellant within 30 days.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                Page 1 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information from the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 15 October 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Chirag Saini;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Jag Mohan Singh, APIO & Survey Officer;\n<\/p>\n
        “The appellant has been given the information only about query-1 and information about query-2,
\n3, 4 & 5 has not been provided to the appellant inspite of the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
\nThe respondent states that the RTI application was transferred to his department on 01\/09\/2010 and he
\nsought the assistance of AO & APIO, Land & Estate Mr. Mahavir Singh for query 2 & 3 and assistance
\nfrom ALO Mr. Manto, Land & Estate. He states that he did not get information from both of these though
\nhe has asked for the assistance on 01\/09\/2010 and again reminded on 26\/09\/2010.”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 15 October 2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      “The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 10 November
\n2010.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by AO &
\nAPIO, Land & Estate Mr. Mahavir Singh and ALO Mr. Manto, Land & Estate within 30 days as
\nrequired by the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIOs are guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as
\nper the requirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice
\nis being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why
\npenalty should not be levied on them.\n<\/p>\n
AO & APIO, Land & Estate Mr. Mahavir Singh and ALO, Mr. Manto, Land & Estate will present
\nthemselves before the Commission at the above address on 06 December 2010 at 04.00PM alongwith
\ntheir written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under
\nSection 20 (1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and
\nsubmit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
\nIf there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant they
\nare directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the
\nCommission with them.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerged during the Hearing held on 06 December 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Chirag Saini;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Mahavir Singh, Superintendent O\/o the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, 5, Shyam
\nNath Marg, Delhi; Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Assistant Law Officer, MCD, 7th Floor, Civic Center,
\nJawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
       “Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, ALO Land & Estate Department has given a written submission in
\nwhich he has stated that his assistance was not sought for query-02 & 03 by any authority with respect to
\nthis RTI application based on this statement it appears that Mr. Jag Mohan Singh, APIO & Survey Officer
\nhas misled the Information Commission. Mr. Mahavir Singh, AO Land & Estate Department presently
\nposted at O\/o the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, 5, Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi states that the RTI
\napplication had been sent to him for assistance on 13\/09\/2010 and he had informed the survey department
\non 22\/09\/2010 that “As per record there is no file of Tonga Stand.” The file noting shows that the survey
\n                                                                                                Page 2 of 5<\/span>
\n office has the record in the Immovable Property Register, CM no. 83 at page 47. Thus it appears that Mr.
\nJagmohan Singh and Mr. Mahavir Singh could not have provided the information. If the entry of the
\nTonga Stand is in the immovable property register held by the Survey Department, the information should
\nhave been provided by them. The Respondents also shows that the file notings show that the survey office
\nhad on 28\/09\/2010 asked the Naib Tehsildar to give the reply to the Appellant. Based on this it appears
\nthat the information should be available with the survey office and Mr. Jagmohan Singh has probably
\nmisled the Commission during the hearing on 15 October 2010.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision dated 06\/12\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
      “The Commission directs Mr. Jag Mohan Singh, APIO & Survey Officer, Mr.
\nMahavir Singh, Superintendent and Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Assistant Law Officer to
\nappear before the Commission on 11 January 2011 at 04.30PM to showcause why
\npenalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them.\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission also directs Mr. Jag Mohan Singh to bring the information sought
\nby the Appellant with him on 11 January 2011 at 04.30PM.”\n<\/p>\n
Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 09\/02\/2011:\n<\/p>\n
       Due to unforeseen circumstances, the showcause hearing had been rescheduled on 09\/02\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing on 9th February 2011:
\nRespondent: Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E; Mr. Mahavir Singh, Suptd. And Mr. V.K.
\nMantoo, ALO<\/p>\n
       The Respondent has submitted a copy of letter dated 30\/12\/2010 bearing the noting by the
\nAppellant that ‘He had got the requisite report on 30\/12\/2010 and he is satisfied with the same and also
\nhe does not want any action against the SO\/L&E in the abovesaid matter’<\/p>\n
Mr. V.K. Mantoo, ALO, again reiterates that as he had already stated before the Commission during the
\nshowcause hearing on 6th December 2010, that Mr. Jagmohan Singh had incorrectly stated that assistance
\nhad been sought from him to supply information on queries 2 and 3. The Commission asked Mr.
\nJagmohan Singh for any evidence for having sought assistance from Mr. V.K. Mantoo, ALO. He is not
\nable to produce any evidence to substantiate this.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Mahavir Singh, AO Land & Estate Department presently posted at O\/o the Divisional Commissioner,
\nGNCTD, 5, Shyam Nath Marg, Delhi also reiterates what he had informed the Commission on 6th
\nDecember 2010 that the RTI application had been sent to him for assistance on 13\/09\/2010 and he had
\ninformed the survey department on 22\/09\/2010 that “As per record there is no file of Tonga Stand.” The
\nfile noting shows that the survey office has the record in the Immovable Property Register, CM no. 83 at
\npage 47.\n<\/p>\n
Based on the evidence produced before this Commission, it appears that Mr. Jagmohan Singh had misled
\nthis Commission during the hearing on 15th October 2010. The two officers he had named are clearly not
\nresponsible for the delay in providing the information. As per the order of the FAA on 1\/09\/2010
\ninformation should have been provided within 30 days i.e. before 1\/10\/2010. Instead the information has
\nbeen provided to the Appellant on 30th December 2010 by Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E.
\nHe has also given a letter from the Appellant stating that the information provided to him on 30\/12\/2010
\nwas satisfactory. Thus, Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E Dept, was the deemed PIO in this
\nmatter and he has provided the requisite information to the Appellant ninety (90) days later than
\n1\/10\/2010. It is also very evident that he was responsible for the delay and has tried to mislead this
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                            Page 3 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not
\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
\ninformation, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received
\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five
\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n
1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30\n        days.\n3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n
        misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n
4)      Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section
\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable
\ncause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the
\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Since Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E and deemed PIO has offered no reasonable cause for
\nproviding the information after a delay on 90 days the Commission hereby imposes a penalty on him as
\nper Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act at the rate of ` 250\/- per day of delay, i.e. ` 250 x 90 days = `22500.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
          As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
\nfinds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E
\nand deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the complete information has been for 90
\ndays, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Jagmohan Singh `22500.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                Page 4 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
        The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
\namount of `22500\/- from the salary of Mr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E and
\ndeemed PIO and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of
\nthe Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri
\nPankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central
\nInformation Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The
\namount may be deducted at the rate of `4500\/ per month every month from the salary of
\nMr. Jagmohan Singh, Survey Officer, L&E and deemed PIO and remitted by the 10th of
\nevery month starting from March 2011. The total amount of `22500 \/- will be remitted by
\n10th of July, 2011.\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.
\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                      Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                            Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                            09\/02\/2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AM)<\/p>\n
CC: To,<\/p>\n
1.         The Commissioner
\n           Municipal Corporation of Delhi
\n           Town Hall, Delhi- 110006<\/p>\n
2.         Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
\n           Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
\n           Central Information Commission,
\n           2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
\n           New Delhi – 110066<\/p>\n
                                                                                                              Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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\/002429\/9791Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002429 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Chirag Saini 4447, Arya Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-7 […]<\/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-180439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-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=\"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-29T20:32:39+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=\"11 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-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T20:32:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2094,\"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-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-29T20:32:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-29T20:32:39+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T20:32:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011"},"wordCount":2094,"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-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011","name":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-29T20:32:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 February, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/180439","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=180439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}