{"id":183287,"date":"2010-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-30T13:05:31","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T07:35:31","slug":"mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                         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\/C\/2010\/000192\/7459Adjunct-II\/Penalty\n                                                                Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/000192\n\nComplainant                       :         Mr. Chirag Saini\n                                            4447, Aarya Pura Subzi Mandi\n                                            Ghantaghar, New Delhi-110007\n\nRespondent (1)                :             Mr. Kapil Dev\n                                            Deemed PIO &amp; Junior Engineer (W)\n                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                            Rohini Zone, Zonal Office Building,\n                                            Sector-V, Delhi-110085\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n<p> arising from the Complaint:\n<\/p>\n<p>       Mr. Chirag Saini had filed a RTI application with the PIO, MCD, Sadar Pahar Ganj Zone on<br \/>\n14\/11\/2009 asking for certain information. However on not having received any further information within<br \/>\nthe mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.<br \/>\nOn this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, MCD, SP Zone on 24\/02\/2010 with a direction to<br \/>\nprovide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the<br \/>\ninformation within the mandated time.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The Commission has received a copy of letter dated 18\/03\/2010 of the SE, MCD\/SP Zone vide which<br \/>\nthe Executive Engineer (B), MCD, SP Zone has been directed to provide the requisite information to the<br \/>\nComplainant. Further, the said letter states that O\/o the SE has already given such directions to the EE (B)<br \/>\nvide letters dated 24\/02\/2010 and 03\/03\/2010 as also the Commission&#8217;s notice has been served to the EE (B)<br \/>\nvide a letter dated 05\/03\/2010. However, the Commission has neither further received a copy of the<br \/>\ninformation sent to the Complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the deemed PIO for not<br \/>\nsupplying the information to the Complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be made is that the<br \/>\ndeemed PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the<br \/>\nprovisions of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision dated 14\/04\/2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Complaint was allowed. In view of the aforesaid, the deemed PIO was hereby directed to provide<br \/>\nthe complete information in regard to the RTI Application dated 14\/11\/2009 to the Complainant before<br \/>\n07\/05\/2010 with a copy to the Commission. From the facts before the Commission, it appeared that the<br \/>\ndeemed PIO had not provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and had failed<br \/>\nto comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the deemed PIO&#8217;s part in providing<br \/>\nthe information amounted to willful disobedience of the Commission&#8217;s direction as well and also raised a<br \/>\nreasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The deemed PIO was hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 14\/05\/2010 at<br \/>\n02.30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and<br \/>\ndisciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the<br \/>\ndeemed PIO might serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the<br \/>\ninformation, and might direct them to be present before the Commission along with the deemed PIO on the<br \/>\naforesaid scheduled date and time. If the information had already been supplied to the complainant, bring a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                             Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n copy of the same to the Commission with your written submissions, and also proof of seeking assistance<br \/>\nfrom other person(s), if any.\n<\/p>\n<p>Facts emerged during showcause hearing dated 14\/05\/2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>Complainant: Absent<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, APIO\/EE(B), SPZone, MCD<br \/>\n        The APIO, Mr. A.K. Singh, EE(B), SP Zone has submitted his written submissions with the copy of<br \/>\nthe reply dated 12\/05\/2010 of the RTI application dated 24\/11\/2009 and he has stated that the RTI application<br \/>\nwas marked to the AE(B)\/SPZ, Mr. S.R. Lakhan and JE(B), Mr. Kapil Dev but he has no proof of the said<br \/>\nmarking of the RTI application or the copy of movement register with him. He has also submitted the<br \/>\nforwarding letter dated 10\/05\/2010 of the Commission&#8217;s order to the abovesaid AE(B) &amp; JE(B). He has also<br \/>\nsubmitted a copy of letter dated 22\/03\/2010, according to which the Complainant had received the reply of<br \/>\nthe said RTI application. However, when the Commission has contacted the Complainant over the phone, the<br \/>\nComplainant has denied that he ever received the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. A. K. Singh has claimed that he had sought the assistance of Mr. S. R. Lakhan, AE(B) and Mr. Kapil<br \/>\nDev JE(B) to provide the information. He claims that he had sought the assistance on 04\/12\/2009 from<br \/>\nAE(B) Mr. S. R. Lakhan. He has no brought any documentary evidence to show this the Commission issues a<br \/>\nshowcause notice to Mr. S. R. Lakhan, AE(B), Mr. Kapil Dev JE(B) and Mr. A. K. Singh AE(B) to show<br \/>\ncause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on them for not supplying the information within<br \/>\ntime. Mr. A. K. Singh is directed to bring documentary evidence to show that he has sought the assistance on<br \/>\n04\/12\/2009. All the three deemed PIOs will also get written submissions if they wish to present them. All<br \/>\nthree officers are directed to be present before the Commission on 11 June 2010 at 5.00PM.<br \/>\nIf there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Complainant the<br \/>\nPIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the<br \/>\nCommission with him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerged during the hearing dated 11\/06\/2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Complainant: Mr. Chirag Saini<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, the then EE(B), SPZ; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the then JE(B)<br \/>\n        The then EE(B) Mr. A.K. Singh submitted the copy of movement register, in which it was apparent<br \/>\nthat the RTI application dated 14\/11\/2009 was received in the office of the PIO\/SE, SPZ on 03\/12\/2009.<br \/>\nFurther, it was marked to the AE (B), Mr. S.R. Lakhan on 04\/12\/2009 and on 08\/12\/2009 the same was<br \/>\nforwarded to the JE(B) Mr. Rajesh Kumar through Mr. Vijay. Subsequently, as per the movement register the<br \/>\nRTI application was marked to another JE(B) Mr. Kapil Dev on 12\/04\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The deemed PIO &amp; the then JE(B) Mr. Rajesh Kumar stated that he was only the officiating JE(B)<br \/>\nsince 07\/12\/2009 to 31\/12\/2009 in the absence of the then JE(B) Mr. Kapil Dev. He also stated that he had<br \/>\nhanded over all the records related to the RTI application to the then JE (B) Mr. Kapil Dev on 01\/01\/2010.<br \/>\nHe submitted the copy of document which shows the handing over &amp; taking over of the Daks of Ward no.<br \/>\n76, duly signed by Mr. Rajesh Kumar &amp; Mr. Kapil Dev.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The then EE(B) Mr. A.K. Singh also stated that the responsibility for providing information after the<br \/>\norder of the FAA was of Mr. S.R. Lakhan, AE(B) whose assistance was sought on 03\/03\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>        However, Mr. S.R. Lakhan and Mr. Kapil Dev did not appear and the Commission did not receive<br \/>\nany written explanations from them showing cause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be levied on<br \/>\nthem for not supplying the information within time. The Commission also did not receive any<br \/>\ncommunication from them explaining their absence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The information has been provided to the Complainant on 12\/05\/2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>Adjunct decision dated 15\/06\/2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The Commission has decided to schedule another showcause hearing on 12\/07\/2010 at 04:30 p.m.<br \/>\nThe Commission hereby directs Mr. S.R. Lakhan, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Kapil Dev to present<br \/>\nthemselves before the Commission at the abovementioned address on 12 July 2010 at 04:30 pm alongwith<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                              Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under<br \/>\nSection 20 (1).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerged during the hearing dated 12\/07\/2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>Complainant: Mr. Chirag Saini;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, JE(B);\n<\/p>\n<p>        Determining the responsibility for providing the information late it is necessary that Mr. S. R.<br \/>\nLakhan, Mr. Kapil Dev and Mr. Rajesh Kumar present themselves before the Commission together. All three<br \/>\nofficers were directed to present themselves before the Commission on 11\/06\/2010 when Mr. Lakhan and<br \/>\nMr. Kapil Dev did not appear. They were again asked to appear before the Commission on 12\/07\/2010 but<br \/>\nMr. Kapil Dev and Mr. S. R. Lakhan have chosen not to be present again. They have also not sent any<br \/>\nwritten submission to offer any explanation. The Commission under its powers under Section 18(3) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act summons the presence of Mr. S. R. Lakhan, Mr. Kapil Dev and Mr. Rajesh Kumar to present<br \/>\nthemselves the Commission on 30 July 2010 at 4.00PM and showcause whey penalty under Section 20(1)<br \/>\nand disciplinary action under Section 20(2) should not be initiated against them. If any of the three officers<br \/>\nabsent themselves on 30 July 2010 the Commission will assume that they have no explanation to offer and<br \/>\nwill levy appropriate penalty and recommend disciplinary action against them.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerged during the Showcause hearing on 30\/07\/2010:<br \/>\nComplainant: Mr. Chirag Saini<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. S.R. Lakhan Deemed PIO &amp; Assistant Engineer (B) SP Zone ; Mr. Rajesh Kumar<br \/>\nDeemed PIO &amp; present Junior Engineer (B) SP Zone; Mr. Kapil Dev Deemed PIO &amp; the then Junior<br \/>\nEngineer (W) SP Zone;\n<\/p>\n<p>       Mr. S. R. Lakhan states that he joined this position only in March 2010 and was able to give the<br \/>\ninformation by 12\/05\/2010 to the appellant. Mr. Kapil Dev deemed PIO admits that he joined this position in<br \/>\nJanuary 2010 but states that he was not clear what he was supposed to do. The RTI application has only<br \/>\nsought four queries seeking to know the action on a complaint made by the complainant about a dangerous<br \/>\nbuilding and seeking to know what action has been taken, a copy of the complaint sent by him and<br \/>\ndesignation of the officer responsible. Inspite of this very simple query no information was provided to the<br \/>\ncomplainant and he filed a complaint with the Commission on 07\/02\/2010 inspite of the notice being sent<br \/>\ninformation was not provided to the complainant. The PIO had sent a reminder to all the Engineering Staff on<br \/>\n18\/03\/2010 and also issued a showcause on 24\/02\/2010 and 15\/03\/2010 inspite of this information has only<br \/>\nprovided to the complainant on 12\/05\/2010. Mr. Kapil Dev the then Junior was expected to give this<br \/>\ninformation but did not provide the information at all. Mr. Kapil Dev was on this post from 31\/12\/2009 to<br \/>\n23\/04\/2010. The RTI application has been filed by the Complainant on 14\/11\/2009 and the information<br \/>\nshould have been provided to him before 14\/12\/2009. Instead the information has been provided to the<br \/>\nComplainant only on 12\/05\/2010. It is very clear that Mr. Kapil Dev is certainly responsible for the delay in<br \/>\nproviding the information. Mr. Kapil Dev claims that he did no know as to what needs to do with the RTI<br \/>\napplication. Mr. Kapil Dev was asked to explain why he did not provide the information. He claims that he<br \/>\ngave verbal information to EE Mr. A. K.Singh. Mr. Kapil is offering no written evidence to prove his<br \/>\ncontention. He has not been able to offer any reasonable explanation for the delay in providing the<br \/>\ninformation.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days and the responsibility for this is with<br \/>\nMr. Kapil Dev the Commission finds this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.<br \/>\nThe RTI Act under Section 20(1) specifies the penalty of Rs.250\/- per day of delay subject to a maximum of<br \/>\nRs.25000\/- on the PIO or deemed PIO if no reasonable can be ascertain for the delay. The Commission has<br \/>\nno discretion in this matter. In view of this the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of Rs.25000\/- on<br \/>\nMr. Kapil Dev, Deemed PIO &amp; the then Junior Engineer as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                               Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>            As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds<br \/>\nthis a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Kapil Dev deemed PIO &amp; the then Junior Engineer<br \/>\n(W) SP Zone. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days,<br \/>\nthe Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Kapil Dev Rs. 25000\/ which is the<br \/>\nmaximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount<br \/>\nof Rs.25000\/- from the salary of Mr. Kapil Dev and remit the same by a demand draft or a<br \/>\nBanker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi<br \/>\nand send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary<br \/>\nof the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211;<br \/>\n110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000\/ per month every month from<br \/>\nthe salary of Mr. Kapil Dev and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from September<br \/>\n2010. The total amount of Rs. 25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th of January, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n                                                                                                             Shailesh Gandhi\n                                                                                                   Information Commissioner\n                                                                                                                30 July 2010\n1-       Commissioner\n         Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n         Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n\n2.       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\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                                     Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/000192\/7459Adjunct-II\/Penalty Complaint No. CIC\/SG\/C\/2010\/000192 Complainant : Mr. Chirag Saini 4447, Aarya Pura Subzi Mandi Ghantaghar, New Delhi-110007 Respondent (1) : Mr. Kapil Dev [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\" \/>\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 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T07:35:31+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-30-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T07:35:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2089,\"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-30-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T07:35:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010#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 30 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-30T07:35:31+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-30-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T07:35:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010"},"wordCount":2089,"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-30-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010","name":"Mr.Chirag Saini vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T07:35:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-chirag-saini-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-july-2010#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 30 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/183287","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=183287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}