{"id":185874,"date":"2009-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009"},"modified":"2017-03-04T08:35:29","modified_gmt":"2017-03-04T03:05:29","slug":"shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                              .....\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                       F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00912<br \/>\n                                    Dated, the 03rd February, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p> Appellant      : Shri Kuldeep Sood<\/p>\n<p> Respondents : Directorate of Enforcement<\/p>\n<p>      This matter came up for hearing on 02.02.2009. Appellant was present in<br \/>\nperson. Respondents were represented by Shri R.K. Rawal, Assistant Director<br \/>\nand Shri V.P. Gogia, Assistant Director (HQ).\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    This appeal originated in appellant&#8217;s RTI-application dated 27.11.2007<br \/>\ncomprising the following query:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;The above named person (Shri Ravi Singhal S\/o Sh.Vivek Singhal R\/o 2,<br \/>\n      Palam Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi) was arrested by FERA authorities<br \/>\n      on 13.4.1993 under section 9. The following information and copies of<br \/>\n      documents may be supplied to me for the purpose of filing in the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\n      High Court of Delhi \/ Bombay&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      There were 10 sub-queries to the main query as quoted above.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>3.      CPIO, through his communication dated 20.12.2007, informed appellant<br \/>\nthat as the respondents herein, viz. the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) were an<br \/>\nexempted organization under Section 24 read with Second Schedule of the RTI<br \/>\nAct, they were not obliged to furnish information to the appellant to his<br \/>\nRTI-application dated 27.11.2007. There were some correspondence between<br \/>\nthe appellant and the First Appellate Authority, the latter claiming that the<br \/>\nfirst-appeal was never filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Appellant has challenged this conclusion of the respondents claiming that<br \/>\nas he had brought up allegations of corruption against the respondents in the<br \/>\ndetermination of a penalty of Rs.3.3408 crores in a FERA case, he was covered<br \/>\nby the exception to the rule in Section 24 of the RTI Act, which provided that<br \/>\ninformation can be disclosed in respect of the exempted organizations if there<br \/>\nwere allegations of corruption, or human rights violations, against the exempted<br \/>\npublic authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    During the hearing, respondents stated that he has challenged the above<br \/>\norder of the respondents in the Appellate Tribunal and has also taken up the<\/p>\n<p>AT-03022009-05.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                      Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n matter before the High Court. It is the appellant&#8217;s allegation that this heavy<br \/>\npenalty under FERA has been imposed on him by the Directorate of Enforcement<br \/>\nin order to &#8220;let off the real culprit, namely said Shri Ravi Singhal who is a<br \/>\npolitically influential person, and the information sought by the appellant and its<br \/>\nrefusal and the illegal levy of the above said penalty of more than Rupees three<br \/>\ncrore on the appellant is the violation of the human rights of the appellant&#8221;.<br \/>\nHe further urged that &#8220;the above information and documents were required by<br \/>\nthe appellant for the purpose of filing an appropriate petition in the Bombay &amp;<br \/>\nthe Delhi High Courts to expose the corrupt practices of the Enforcement<br \/>\nDirectorate in illegally exonerating the real culprit, i.e. said Shri Ravi Singhal<br \/>\nand by implicating illegally the appellant in the above stated case&#8221;. He claims<br \/>\nthat the records and the documents requested by him through his RTI-petition<br \/>\nwere needed &#8220;for the purpose of seeking justice from the Hon&#8217;ble Courts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     Respondents have countered the appellant&#8217;s plea by stating that the fact of<br \/>\nallegations of corruption is nothing more than afterthoughts by the appellant.<br \/>\nNowhere in his RTI-application did the appellant mention that there were any<br \/>\nallegations of corruption against human rights violation against the respondents.<br \/>\nOn becoming aware that disclosure of information in respect of exempted<br \/>\norganizations can be authorized by the Commission in the face of allegations of<br \/>\ncorruption, appellant has used this ploy to force the respondents to provide him<br \/>\ninformation knowing full well that Section 24 exempted the Enforcement<br \/>\nDirectorate \u23af the respondents \u23af from disclosure obligation.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     When this was put to the appellant, he stated that he raised this point only<br \/>\nwhen he became aware that RTI Act contained such a provision. He said that<br \/>\nmere fact that he had not raised a plea about corruption, or human rights<br \/>\nviolation, earlier than the second-appeal could not be held against him in denying<br \/>\nto him his right to receive the requested information.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     As regards the appellant&#8217;s contention that the heavy three-crore-rupees<br \/>\npenalty on him was imposed by the respondents in order to take the heat away<br \/>\nfrom the real culprit, one Shri Ravi Singhal, respondents stated that appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nallegation was entirely baseless. The penalty on the appellant was imposed on<br \/>\nhim after considering the evidence in that specific case and the public authority&#8217;s<br \/>\nadjudication order contains the details of the case as well as the reasons for<br \/>\nimposing the penalty. This order is entirely justiciable. They further pointed out<br \/>\nthat how wrong is the appellant in charging the respondents for allegedly<br \/>\nfavouring Shri Ravi Singhal, whom appellant describes as the real culprit, is<br \/>\nobvious from the fact that the Enforcement Directorate&#8217;s case against Shri Ravi<br \/>\nSinghal is presently in progress. It was, therefore, entirely disingenuous on part<br \/>\nof the appellant to say that respondents had allowed to let off Shri Ravi Singhal<br \/>\nin order to wrongly implicate the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>AT-03022009-05.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                        Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     On the basis of what the appellant has submitted, I am not persuaded that<br \/>\nhe has made out a case to deny to the respondents the exemption granted to them<br \/>\nunder Section 24 of the RTI Act. The respondents are a public institution<br \/>\ncharged with the responsibility of combating a certain type of foreign exchange<br \/>\nviolations. They perform this task as a quasi-judicial authority \u23af a fact not<br \/>\ndenied even by the Counsel of the appellant \u23af and the orders which they pass<br \/>\nare subject to appellate scrutiny. In fact, appellant has already embarked on the<br \/>\nappellate route to challenge the imposition of penalty on him by the Enforcement<br \/>\nDirectorate. To deduce from the fact that the penalty has been imposed on the<br \/>\nappellant and not someone else \u23af who the appellant beliefs to be the real culprit<br \/>\n\u23af cannot be a reason to draw a conclusion about that penalty having been<br \/>\nimposed due to corruption, or in violation of the appellant&#8217;s human rights. Such<br \/>\na deduction would be entirely far-fetched.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.    Apart from the above, the word &#8216;allegation&#8217; used before the terms<br \/>\ncorruption and violation of human rights in Section 24 of the RTI Act, cannot be<br \/>\nconstrued to mean that anyone who utters the word corruption becomes entitled<br \/>\nto get information despite the exemption granted to the public authorities.<br \/>\nCommission in its decision dated 16.07.2008 (in Kalu Ram Jain Vs. Directorate<br \/>\nof Enforcement; Appeal No. CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/01260) on the subject of the<br \/>\ninterpretation of the word &#8216;allegation&#8217; occurring in this section had stated as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;14. Allegation of corruption and human rights violation in the context<br \/>\n      of this Section should be construed to mean &#8216;verifiable allegations&#8217;, that is<br \/>\n      to say, not mere charge of corruption or human rights violation, but<br \/>\n      supporting material that such charge in terms of its evidentiary value had<br \/>\n      strength. Whether the allegations have evidentiary support is to be<br \/>\n      determined by the circumstances of those allegations and evidence<br \/>\n      produced by a party. It is, therefore, the Commission&#8217;s view that<br \/>\n      allegation of corruption and human rights violation should be construed<br \/>\n      not merely in terms of whether somebody has chosen to make those<br \/>\n      allegations, but in terms of prima-facie evidence that such allegations<br \/>\n      would lead to a reasonable conclusion that there was a possibility of these<br \/>\n      allegations being true. For that, not only the allegations but also the<br \/>\n      surrounding evidence needed to be examined.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>11.   In the light of the above, the appellant merely calling the quasi-judicial<br \/>\ndetermination of penalty against him as being motivated by corrupt motive<br \/>\ncannot be given much credence. There have to be weighty and verifiable<br \/>\ngrounds before the Commission in order to persuade the Commission to deny to<br \/>\nAT-03022009-05.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                        Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n a public authority listed in Second Schedule to the benefit of exemption under<br \/>\nsection 24 of the RTI Act. I&#8217;m afraid in the present case, these do not exist.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  I&#8217;m, therefore, in agreement with the respondents that no ground has been<br \/>\nmade by the appellant to entitle him to the requested information revoking the<br \/>\nexemption enjoyed by the respondents under Section 24 of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   Appeal disallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                          ( A.N. TIWARI )<br \/>\n                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n<p>AT-03022009-05.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                    Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &#8230;.. F.No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/00912 Dated, the 03rd February, 2009. Appellant : Shri Kuldeep Sood Respondents : Directorate of Enforcement This matter came up for hearing on 02.02.2009. Appellant was present in person. Respondents were represented by Shri R.K. Rawal, Assistant [&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-185874","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - 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\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-04T03:05:29+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T03:05:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1357,\"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\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-04T03:05:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 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":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - 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\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-04T03:05:29+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T03:05:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009"},"wordCount":1357,"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\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009","name":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-04T03:05:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-kuldeep-sood-vs-directorate-of-enforcement-on-3-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Kuldeep Sood vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 February, 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\/185874","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=185874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185874\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}