{"id":182984,"date":"2009-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-15T18:40:44","modified_gmt":"2017-01-15T13:10:44","slug":"mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Club Building, Old JNU Campus,\n                         Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067.\n                                 Tel: +91 11 26161796\n\n                                                Decision No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2009\/000702\/4128Adjunct\n                                                           Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2009\/000702\n\nSHOW CAUSE HEARING\n\nComplainant                         :      Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg,\n                                           Chamber No. 412, Delhi High Court,\n                                           New Delhi - 110003\n\nRespondent                          :      Mr. Raj Kumar Sah<\/pre>\n
                                           PIO
\n                                           Registrar of Companies & CAPIO
\n                                           NCT Delhi and Haryana,
\n                                           4th Floor, IFCI Tower,
\n                                           Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110003<\/p>\n
RTI application filed on            :      28\/05\/2009
\nPIO replied                         :      Not mentioned
\nFirst Appeal filed on               :      Not mentioned
\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :      Not mentioned
\nComplaint filed on                  :      02\/06\/2009<\/p>\n
Information Sought:\n<\/p>\n
The Complainant had sought information from PIO regarding M\/s Bloom Financial Services Limited
\nthrough following queries:\n<\/p>\n
    1-     Who are the directors of this company? Please provide their name, address date of
\n           appointment and copies of consent filed at ROC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2-     After incorporation of above company, how many times directors were changed? Please
\n           provide the details of documents files and copies of Form 32 filed at ROC.
\n    3-     Please provide the copied of Annual Returns filed at ROC since incorporation to 1998.
\n    4-     On what ground prosecution has been filed please provide the details of prosecution and
\n           persons included for prosecution. Please provide the copies of Order Sheets and related
\n           documents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5-     On what ground the name of Dharmender Kumar Garg has been included for prosecution?
\n    6-     Please provide the copies of Form no.5 and other documents filed for increase of capital?
\n    7-     How much fee was paid for increase of Capital of above company? Please provide the
\n           details of payment of fee at ROC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8-     Please provide the copies of Statutory Report and SLP filed at ROC.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
PIO’s Reply:\n<\/p>\n
Not mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority:\n<\/p>\n
Not mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
 Relevant facts emerging during hearing 1 July 2009:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Complainant: Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg
\nRespondent: Mr. Raj Kumar Sah, PIO and Mr. Atma Sah
\nThe respondent states that the information is available under the Section 610 of the Companies Act on
\npayment of the prescribed fee. The respondent is also relying on the department circular of Ministry of
\nCompany Affairs dated 24\/01\/2006, a decision of the Commission CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/00016 dated 29
\nMarch 2006 and CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00112 dated 12 April 2007 (particularly paras 8, 12 and 13).\n<\/p>\n
The Complainant states, “their web site was inspected on 06 May 2009 on payment of Rs.50\/- but no
\ninformation was available. Thereafter after getting the reply under RTI, I went to Manesar office
\n(Gurgaon) and file was inspected. It was mentioned in the file that past records had been weeded out.
\nOnly three four documents were available, I took the copies on payment of more than Rs.1200\/- even
\nthen the information could not be collected from the record. The files are totally incomplete.”\n<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s contention therefore is that prosecution has been launched against him inspite of
\nthe fact that the records are not up-to-date. The respondent’s main contention is that since they offer
\ninspection under Section 610 of the Companies Act on payment of the prescribed fee, they need not
\ngive information under the Right to Information Act.\n<\/p>\n
The decision was reserved during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
Decision announced on 14 July 2009:\n<\/p>\n
The Commission had heard both the parties. The Respondent had submitted the following arguments
\nbefore the Commission to deny the information:\n<\/p>\n
   1.      Once the information is available in the public domain accessible to the citizens, the
\n           information is automatically excluded from purview of the RTI Act as held by Hon’ble
\n           Information Commissioner Shri A.N. Tiwari in the case of CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00112\n<\/p>\n
   2.       Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that any person may inspect any
\n           document kept by ROC and obtain copy of any document from the ROC concerned on
\n           payment of prescribed fee. Therefore, the Complainant need not seek information under
\n           RTI Act. This was held by Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri M.M. Ansari in the
\n           case of CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/0016.\n<\/p>\n
For the first argument the Respondent relied on order number CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00112 where it was
\nheld by the Hon’ble Commission while interpreting Section 2(j) of the RTI Act that “…unless an
\ninformation is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to
\nbe an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain
\ninformation is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a
\npre-determined price that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of the public
\nauthority’ and thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act…” I would
\nrespectfully beg to differ from this decision. Even if the information is in public domain, an applicant
\ncan still ask a public authority to grant him the information if it is held by it. Even if some information
\nis available at various places, it is the Citizen’s choice from where he wishes to access it. The only
\nexemptions from disclosure of information available in the RTI Act are provided under Section 8 and\n<\/p>\n
9. The Commission would like to clarify that Section 2 of the RTI Act is the definitional provision and
\ntherefore Section 2(j) is not an exemption clause under RTI Act. It merely defines the ‘right to
\ninformation’. So the exemption from disclosing the information cannot be sought under Section 2(j). It
\nis also the basic tenet of the law of statutory interpretation that no section should be interpreted in such
\na manner which would violate the basic objective of the statute. The basic objective of the Right to
\nInformation Act, 2005 is to provide the information sought by the Applicant from a public authority
\n and therefore the sections of the same act should be interpreted to further the objective of this Act.
\nAlso the information sought by the Complainant here has not been provided on the internet. The
\ninformation asked for is very basic information and records related to this particular information are
\nmissing. This information is very important for the Complainant as he is facing a threat of arrest and
\nneeds the information to prove his innocence. Not granting such information clearly leads to violation
\nof the fundamental right of the Complainant as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
With regard to the second argument of the Respondent about information to be sought only under
\nSection 610 of the Companies Act, the Respondent has relied on order number CIC\/MA\/A\/2006\/0016
\nof the Commission where the Hon’ble Commissioner Shri M.M. Ansari upholding FAA’s order stated
\nthat “There is already a provision for seeking information under Section 610 of The Companies Act,
\n1956. The Complainant may accordingly approach the ROC as advised by the Appellate Authority to
\nobtain the relevant information.” If the Complainant has more than one way of seeking remedy he has
\nthe freedom to opt for the way which is more convenient for him. No claim has been made by the PIO
\nof any exemption under the RTI Act to deny the information. If a Public Authority has a procedure
\nof disclosing certain information which can also be accessed by a Citizen using the Right to
\nInformation Act, it is the Citizen’s prerogative to decide which route he wishes to take. The
\nexistence of another method of accessing information cannot be a justification to deny the Citizen his
\nfreedom to exercise his fundamental right codified under the Right to Information Act. If the
\nParliament wanted to restrict this right, it would have been stated expressly in the Act. Nobody else has
\nthe right to constrain or limit the rights of the Sovereign Citizen.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission observed that there was no provision in the Right to Information Act which
\nrestrained the Citizen’s right to use it if another route to access information has been offered. It was a
\nCitizen’s right to use the most convenient and efficacious means available to him.\n<\/p>\n
It appeared to the Commission that information was being denied to the Complainant without any valid
\ngrounds and this delay had caused mental agony to the Complainant who was living under the constant
\nfear of arrest.\n<\/p>\n
The Complaint was allowed. The Commission directed that complete information was to be given to
\nthe Complainant before 25 July 2009. If records were not available for any of the queries, this would
\nbe stated categorically. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO directing him to give
\nhis written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under
\nSection 20 (1) before 5 August 2009. He was also directed to submit proof of having given the
\ninformation to the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging during hearing on 10\/09\/2009
\nThe following persons were present:\n<\/p>\n
Complainant: Mr. Dharmendra Kumar
\nRespondent: Mr. Raj Kumar Sah, CPIO; Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate
\nThe PIO states that they have approached the Delhi High Court to stay the order of the Commission.
\nThe High Court in WP (C) 11271\/2009 has ordered on 31\/08\/2009 that:
\n“Information will be supplied to the respondent No.1 in terms of the impugned order. Counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner states that the Central Information Commission has initiated the
\nproceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He submits that the earlier
\nview of the central Information Commission was contrary as has been noticed in the impugned order
\nitself. Proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 may continue and final
\norder may be passed out the said final order will not be given effect to till the next date of hearing”.
\nThe next date of hearing has been fixed for 04\/12\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
 Consequent to the order the PIO has supplied to the information to the Complainant on 08\/09\/2009.
\nThere are some additional points that need to be covered since many documents are missing. The PIO
\nis directed to give the following information to the Complainant before 20\/09\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
     1. If there is evidence showing that the documents have been weeded out, copies of the documents
\n        showing the weeding out.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. Copy of the Police Complaint showing theft\/loss of these documents and a certificate from the
\n        Registrar of Companies to this effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The PIO was asked why he should not be penalized for the delay. They have explained that he was
\ndepending on advice from his own organization and also the fact that two orders of the Commission
\nlisted above appeared to support their contention. After the order of the Commission, the public
\nauthority wanted to avail the opportunity of challenging it in the High Court. However, subsequent to
\nthe High Court they have complied with the Commission’s decision.
\nIn view of this the Commission accepts that there was a reasonable cause for the denial of information
\nby the PIO and drops the penalty proceedings.\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
                                                                                             Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                   Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                          10 September 2009<\/p>\n
(In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
\n                                                                                                         (R.K\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building, Old JNU Campus, Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110 067. Tel: +91 11 26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2009\/000702\/4128Adjunct Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2009\/000702 SHOW CAUSE HEARING Complainant : Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg, Chamber No. 412, Delhi High […]<\/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-182984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - 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-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1775,\"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-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - 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-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009"},"wordCount":1775,"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-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009","name":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T13:10:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-dharmender-kumar-garg-vs-nct-delhi-and-haryana-on-10-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Dharmender Kumar Garg vs Nct Delhi And Haryana on 10 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182984","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=182984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}