{"id":201004,"date":"2011-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011"},"modified":"2016-11-08T17:41:40","modified_gmt":"2016-11-08T12:11:40","slug":"mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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                                                    Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/002244\/14950Penalty\n                                                                   Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/002244\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                            :       Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jawa,\n                                             J-105, Jhandewalan Road,\n                                             Near Hari Mandir School,\n                                             Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055.\n\nRespondent                           :       Mr. Bal Kishan,\n                                             Deemed PIO &amp; SS;\n                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                             O\/o The Asstt. Commissioner,\n                                             Rohini Zone, Sector-5,\n                                             Rohini, Delhi-110085\n\nRTI application filed on             :       21\/03\/2011\nPIO replied on                       :       15\/04\/2011\nFirst Appeal filed on                :       18\/05\/2011\nFirst Appellate Authority order of   :       01\/08\/2011\nSecond Appeal received on            :       16\/08\/2011\n\nInformation Sought:\n   1. From the date 01\/04\/1994 to March 1996 there are total 7009 temporary Safai Karamcharies\n      promoted as permanent. Provide information about when the amount- left be paid.\n   2. Permanent Safai Karamchari, Rohini Zone had not received arrear of 10% D.A. since 01\/04\/1994\n      to March 1996, provide information along with ward no.\n   3. Give reason on why there been The Bhavishya Nidhi not allotted to the permanent Safai\n      Karamchari, Rohini Zone, since 01\/04\/1994 to March 1996.\n   4. There is a increment in the salaries of the Daily Wager Substitute employees. In which ward\n      (Rohini Zone) the arrear been paid and in which ward it is not been paid till date,\n\nThe PIO reply:\n   1. It is a policy matter.\n   2. It is related to the Safai Superintendent\/Rohini Zone, and Accounts Department\/Rohini Zone.\n   3. This matter relates to the Rohini Zone.\n   4. This matter relates to the Rohini Zone.\n\nGrounds for the First Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n\"It has been observed, PIO, City Zone has taken 17 days to transfer the application to the Custodian of\nInformation that too was done in a wrong manner because the application itself shows that the information\nwas pertaining to Rohini Zone for which the application was transferred to Ac. (DMES) instead of\nsending it to A.C. (Rohini) which could have avoided unwanted delay. A.C. (DEMS) has provided partial\ninformation vide his letter dated 19\/04\/2011 and transferred the application to A.C. (Rohini) for supply of\n                                                                                               Page 1 of 4\n the remaining information vide letter No. 491\/AC-I\/DEMS\/HQs\/RTI\/2011 dated 11\/04\/2011 with a copy\nto the Appellant. Appellant has not received any information from Rohini Zone and he has filed an appeal\nbefore First Appellate Authority. As per the Notification appointing first Appellate Authority and, PIOs,\nDy. Commissioner (Rohini Zone) is First Appellate Authority for Astt. Commissioner (Rohini Zone).\nHowever, since the matter was pertaining to Department of EMS, the appeal was heard on 28\/07\/2011 by\nundersigned considering the true spirit of Right to Information. During the course of hearing, Shri Sanjeev\nKumar Jawa, Appellant and Shri Balkishan who is the Custodian of Information attended the hearing. It is\na matter of great concern that though a period of more than two months has lapsed, SS (Rohini Zone) has\nnot bothered to provide information to the Appellant. He is, therefore directed to provide the information\nfree of cost to the appellant within 10 working days.\"\n\nGround of the Second Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory information had been provided by the PIO.\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging during the hearing held on 29\/09\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jawa<br \/>\nRespondent : Mr. Balkishan, Sanitation Superintendent, MCD, Rohini Zone<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has sent the information on 16\/08\/2011 after the order of the First Appellate Authority. The<br \/>\nAppellant admits that he has received information. The Respondent admits that after transfer the RTI<br \/>\nApplication was received on 21\/04\/2011. The RTI Application filed by the Appellant on 21\/03\/2011 was<br \/>\ntransferred in a lazy and inefficient manner to the relevant PIO on 21\/04\/2011. The PIO has sent the<br \/>\ninformation only on 16\/08\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision dated 29\/09\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The information has been provided to the appellant on 16\/08\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO<br \/>\nMr. Vasudev Sharma, Assistant Commissioner, within 30 days as required by the law.<br \/>\nFrom the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information<br \/>\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the<br \/>\nrequirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).<br \/>\nA showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show<br \/>\ncause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 20th October 2011 at 10.30am<br \/>\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated<br \/>\nunder Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.<br \/>\nIf there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant<br \/>\nthe PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear<br \/>\nbefore the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked<br \/>\nto the showcause hearing, it will be presumed that PIO is the responsible person.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerging during show cause hearing on 20\/10\/2011:<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. Vasdev Sharma, PIO &amp; AC and Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO &amp; SS;\n<\/p>\n<p>       The PIO &amp; AC Mr. Vasdev Sharma has submitted his written submissions, wherein it is<br \/>\nmentioned that the RTI application dated 21\/03\/2011 was received in PIO&#8217;s office on 19\/04\/2011,<br \/>\nhowever he joined as the PIO &amp; AC only on 29\/04\/2011. He has stated that the said RTI application was<br \/>\nforwarded to the Deemed PIO &amp; SS Mr. Bal Kishan vide office letter dated 20\/04\/2011. Subsequently<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                               Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n during the hearing before the FAA held on 28\/07\/2011, Mr. Bal Kishan was present. The information was<br \/>\nfurnished to the Appellant only on 16\/08\/2011 i.e. after the FAA&#8217;s order dated 28\/07\/2011. Deemed PIO<br \/>\nMr. Bal Kishan has submitted his written submissions stating that the delay in providing the information<br \/>\nwas caused due to his work load.\n<\/p>\n<p>The RTI application has been received by the Deemed PIO Mr. Bal Kishan on 20\/04\/2011 and it appears<br \/>\nthat he made no effort to provide the information to the Appellant. Only after the order of the FAA<br \/>\ninformation was provided to the Appellant on 16\/08\/2011. In his written submission he states that since<br \/>\nabout 30 RTI applications are received in his office each month he was unable to provide the information<br \/>\nto the Appellant in time. He also states that though the FAA&#8217;s direction on 28\/07\/2011 was to provide the<br \/>\ninformation within 10 working days he could only comply with it by 16\/08\/2011. The RTI Act expects<br \/>\ninformation to be provided to the Appellant&#8217;s within 30 days of receiving the RTI application by the<br \/>\nPublic Authority. Even if we assume that the respondent deemed PIO Mr. Bal Kishan should have<br \/>\nprovided the information to the Appellant within 30 days of his receiving the RTI application, the<br \/>\ninformation should have been provided before 20\/05\/2011. Instead the information provided to the<br \/>\nAppellant only on 16\/08\/2011 i.e. after a delay of 86 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Where the Central Information Commission or the State<br \/>\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not<br \/>\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the<br \/>\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed<br \/>\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the<br \/>\ninformation, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received<br \/>\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five<br \/>\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:<br \/>\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central<br \/>\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.&#8221;<br \/>\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must<br \/>\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n<pre>1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30\n        days.\n3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n<p>        misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n<p>4)      Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the above are prefaced by the infraction, &#8216; without reasonable cause&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a<br \/>\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty<br \/>\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable<br \/>\ncause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the<br \/>\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was<br \/>\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO &amp; SS for the delay in<br \/>\nproviding the information to the Appellant, the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty<br \/>\nunder Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for the delay of 86 days. The Commission imposes a penalty on Mr.<br \/>\nBal Kishan, Deemed PIO &amp; SS under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay<br \/>\nfor 86 days i.e. `250 X 86 days = `21500\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a<br \/>\nfit case for levying penalty on Mr. Bal Kishan, Deemed PIO &amp; SS Since the delay in<br \/>\nproviding the correct information has been of 86 days, the Commission is passing an order<br \/>\npenalizing Mr. Bal Kishan `21,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `21,500\/- from the salary of Mr. Bal Kishan and remit the same by a demand<br \/>\ndraft or a Banker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at<br \/>\nNew Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and<br \/>\nDeputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti<br \/>\nBhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `4300\/ per<br \/>\nmonth every month from the salary of Mr. Bal Kishan and remitted by the 10th of every<br \/>\nmonth starting from November 2011. The total amount of `21,500\/- will be remitted by<br \/>\n10th of March, 2012.\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.<br \/>\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                        Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                              Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                        20 October 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved<\/p>\n<p>1-        The Municipal Commissioner<br \/>\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi<br \/>\n          04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,<br \/>\n          New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>2.        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,<br \/>\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary<br \/>\n          Central Information Commission,<br \/>\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,<br \/>\n          New Delhi &#8211; 110066<\/p>\n<p>3-        Mr. Vasdev Sharma,<br \/>\n          PIO, O\/o The Asstt. Commissioner,<br \/>\n          MCD Rohini Zone,<br \/>\n          Delhi-110085<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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\/2011\/002244\/14950Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/002244 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jawa, J-105, Jhandewalan Road, Near Hari Mandir [&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-201004","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>Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-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=\"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-08T12:11:40+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=\"10 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-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-08T12:11:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1432,\"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-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-08T12:11:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-08T12:11:40+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-08T12:11:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011"},"wordCount":1432,"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-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011","name":"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-08T12:11:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjeev-kumar-jawa-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-20-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Jawa vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 20 October, 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:\/\/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\/201004","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=201004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}