{"id":193754,"date":"2011-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-06T09:53:24","modified_gmt":"2016-01-06T04:23:24","slug":"mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 2011<\/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\/A\/2010\/000643\/11027\n                                                                  Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/000643\n\nRelevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                            :     Mr. Rajesh Gouhari,\n                                           A-1\/107, Janak Puri,\n                                           New Delhi- 110058\n\nRespondent                           :     Mr. U. S. Gaikwad,\n                                           Public Information Officer &amp;\n                                           Deputy General Manager (HR),\n                                           EdCIL (India) Ltd.,\n                                           Ministry of HRD,\n                                           18A, Sector- 16A, Noida-201301\n\nRTI application filed on             :     12\/09\/2009\nPIO replied on                       :     15\/10\/2009 and 22\/01\/2010;\nFirst Appeal filed on                :     18\/12\/2009\nFirst Appellate Authority order of   :     No order\nNotice of Hearing sent on            :     22\/12\/2010\nHearing held on                      :     15\/01\/2011\n\nS. No.                   Information Sought                   Final Reply of the Public Information\n                                                                           Officer (PIO)\n  1.     Copy of agenda items having been discussed in the Information cannot be provided as these\n         117th board meeting.                                 are not accessible as placed on website\n                                                              under Sections 4(1)(b)(viii) and 8(1)(d).\n                                    th\n  2.     Copy of the minutes of 117 board meeting.            Same as above.\n  3.     Names of directors who attended 117th board meeting. Mr. A. K. Anand;\n                                                              Mr. P. R. Dassgupta; and\n                                                              Mrs. Anju Banerjee, CMD.\n  4.     Copy of file noting relating to issue of office No file notings exist.\n         memorandum no. 11(181)\/96- Admin dated\n         03\/08\/2009.\n  5.     Copy of file noting relating to issue of office Same as above.\n         memorandum no. 11(181)\/96-Admin dated 28\/08\/2009.\n  6.     Copy of ACR for 2008-09 in which remarks were made ACR cannot be provided under Section\n         vide office memorandum no. 11(181)\/96- Admin dated 8(1)(j).\n         03\/08\/2009.\n  7.     Copy of ACR for 2008-09 in which adverse remarks Same as above.\n         were made vide office Memorandum no. 11(181)\/96-\n         Admin dated 28\/08\/2009.\n  8.     Copy of rules with regard to submission of self- Same would be provided after payment\n         appraisal and writing of ACR.                        of Rs. 24.\n Grounds for First Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\nNot order appears to have been passed by the FAA\n\nGrounds for Second Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory information provided by the PIO and inaction on the part of the FAA.\n\nRelevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on January 15, 2011:\nThe following were present:\nAppellant: Mr. Rajesh Gouhari;\nRespondent: Mr. U. S. Gaikwad, PIO &amp; Deputy General Manager (HR).\n\nThe Respondent relied on Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act, which states as follows:\n\n   \"4. Obligations of public authorities.- (1) Every public authority shall-\n   ...\n<\/pre>\n<p>   (b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-<br \/>\n   &#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>       (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two<br \/>\n       or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether<br \/>\n       meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public,<br \/>\n       or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent argued that Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act envisages that minutes of meetings<br \/>\nmentioned therein may or may not be accessible to the public. The Respondent claimed that in case of the<br \/>\nEDCIL, such minutes would not be accessible as disclosure of the same would harm the competitive<br \/>\nposition of the public authority and hence was exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Thus the<br \/>\nrespondent claimed exemption for all minutes of meetings as a class based on this. The Appellant stated<br \/>\nthat the minutes of the meeting of a public authority must necessarily be in the public domain. Further,<br \/>\ninformation on queries 6 and 7 had been denied to the Appellant wherein the latter had sought a copy of<br \/>\nhis own ACR. The Respondent claimed that he had provided the contents of the ACR. The Respondent<br \/>\nargued that he had denied the copies of the ACR based on Sections 8(1)(j) and (g) of the RTI Act. In this<br \/>\nregard, the Respondent relied on a decision of the Commission in CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/00053 dated<br \/>\n31\/03\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>The decision was reserved during the hearing held on 15\/01\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision announced on January 18, 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the Respondent has relied on Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act and contended that a<br \/>\npublic authority has the power to determine whether its board minutes shall be open or accessible to the<br \/>\npublic and publish the same. The Respondent has argued that under Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act,<br \/>\nit has determined that minutes of its board meetings shall not be open or accessible to the public and<br \/>\ntherefore, is a basis for denial of the information sought by the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission observed that Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act confers power on a public authority to<br \/>\ndetermine whether minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees and other bodies are open or<br \/>\naccessible to the public and publish the same. This power of the public authority to determine whether<br \/>\n minutes of meetings of its board, councils, committees and other bodies shall be open or accessible to the<br \/>\npublic is solely for the purposes of suo moto disclosures by the public authority, as mandated under<br \/>\nSection 4 of the RTI Act. Further, Section 7(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that on receipt of a RTI<br \/>\napplication, the PIO shall either provide the information within 30 days or reject the request for<br \/>\ninformation on the basis of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the High<br \/>\nCourt of Delhi in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal W. P. (C) No. 188\/2009 held that the<br \/>\nRTI Act was premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception. According to the RTI<br \/>\nAct, information may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 only and no other<br \/>\nexemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure. In other words, Section 4(1)(b)(viii)<br \/>\nof the RTI Act cannot be used as an exemption for denying any information sought under Section 7(1) of<br \/>\nthe RTI Act. Therefore, the argument of the Respondent that the information sought by the Appellant may<br \/>\nbe denied on the basis of Section 4(1)(b)(viii) of the RTI Act is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Respondent has contended that disclosure of the minutes of its board meeting would<br \/>\nharm the competitive position of the Respondent public authority and hence was exempted from<br \/>\ndisclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. From a plain reading of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act<br \/>\nit follows that the PIO is exempted from furnishing information, the disclosure of which would harm the<br \/>\ncompetitive position of a third party. Therefore, in order to come within the exemption under Section<br \/>\n8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the critical test to be applied is whether the disclosure of the information sought<br \/>\nwould harm the competitive position of a third party.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case, the Respondent has failed to produce any cogent documents\/ evidence to establish<br \/>\nbefore this Commission how disclosure of minutes of its board meeting shall harm the competitive<br \/>\ninterest of the Respondent public authority or a third party. The Respondent has failed to discharge its<br \/>\nburden of proving that the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act is applicable to the instant<br \/>\ncase. The Respondent has claimed that the public authority has decided not to disclose suo moto all<br \/>\nminutes of board meetings since some of them may contain discussions which would be of commercial<br \/>\nconfidence. Hence, the Respondent claims such information is also exempted from disclosure under<br \/>\nSection 7(1) of the RTI Act. Such a class exemption cannot be carved out to claim that information<br \/>\nwhich may not have been disclosed under Section 4 would automatically be exempt. Therefore, the<br \/>\ncontention of the Respondent that the information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, information on queries 6 and 7 has been denied to the Appellant wherein the latter had sought a<br \/>\ncopy of his own ACR. The Respondent claimed that he had provided the contents of the ACR. The<br \/>\nRespondent argued that he had denied the copies of the ACR based on Sections 8(1)(j) and (g) of the RTI<br \/>\nAct. In this regard, the Respondent relied on a decision of the Commission in CIC\/MA\/A\/2008\/00053<br \/>\ndated 31\/03\/2008 wherein copy of the ACR of an individual was denied to him on the basis of Section<br \/>\n8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This bench respectfully disagrees with the ruling of the then Information<br \/>\nCommissioner on the basis that no individual can intrude on his own privacy.\n<\/p>\n<p>As far as exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act is concerned, for any company to claim that its<br \/>\nemployees are capable of physically harming its senior officers is an extremely poor reflection on the<br \/>\ncompany. It appears that Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act has been claimed by the Respondent evidently to<br \/>\nrefuse the information sought by the Appellant. If an organization really believes that its employees are<br \/>\ncapable of &#8216;endangering the life or physical safety&#8217; of its senior officers, it should take steps to remove<br \/>\nsuch officers. The Supreme Court of India has clearly enunciated the principle that a person must be<br \/>\nshown his ACR. If the annual report, which evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of an officer and his<br \/>\nperformance, is not being shown to the person evaluated, it displays a lack of understanding of the<br \/>\nfundamentals of how to run any organization. The purpose of such evaluation is to improve the working<br \/>\n of all officers in an organization. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that information sought in<br \/>\nqueries 6 and 7 was exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and (j) of the RTI Act is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed. The Commission hereby directs Mr. U. S. Gaikwad, PIO &amp; Deputy General<br \/>\nManager (HR) to provide the complete information on queries 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 to the Appellant before<br \/>\nFebruary 15, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>This decision is announced in open chamber.\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 the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                                       Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                                January 18, 2011<\/p>\n<p>(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/000643\/11027 Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/000643 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Gouhari, A-1\/107, Janak Puri, New Delhi- 110058 [&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-193754","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - 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-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-06T04:23:24+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=\"8 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-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T04:23:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1292,\"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-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-06T04:23:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 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. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - 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-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-06T04:23:24+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T04:23:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011"},"wordCount":1292,"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-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011","name":"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India ... on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-06T04:23:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-rajesh-gauhari-vs-educational-consultants-india-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Rajesh Gauhari vs Educational Consultants India &#8230; on 18 January, 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\/193754","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=193754"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193754\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}