{"id":20154,"date":"2011-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-03T21:13:51","modified_gmt":"2018-03-03T15:43:51","slug":"dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011<\/div>\n
                    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\/2011\/000106\/11541Penalty\n                                                        Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000106\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                           :    Dr. M .M Mittal\n                                         B 2\/4, Model Town\n                                         Delhi-110009\n\nRespondent                   (1)    :    Mr. A. K. Mittal\n                                         the then AE (CLZ)\n                                         presently AE(Pr-I),\n                                         Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                         South Zone, Under Sevanagar Flyover,\n                                         New Delhi-11\n\n                             (2)    :    Mr. V. P. Dahiya\n                                         the then EE(B)\n                                         presently EE(M-VI)\n                                         Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                         Central Zone, Andrews Ganj,\n                                         New Delhi;\n\n                              (3)   :    Mr. R. Prasad\n                                         Public Information Officer & SE\n                                         Office of Superintending Engineer\n                                         Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                         Civil Lines Zone, 16 Rajpur Road,\n                                         New Delhi\n\n                             (4)    :    Mr. J. S. Yadav,\n                                         EE (B) & Deemed PIO\n                                         Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                         South Zone, Green Park,\n                                         New Delhi - 110016\n\nRTI application filed on            :    12\/08\/2010\nPIO replied                         :    10\/11\/2010.\nFirst appeal filed on               :    22\/09\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :    01\/11\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on           :    11\/01\/2011\n\nS.No         Information sought by the appellant                    Reply of the PIO\n1.   Provide Photostat copies of the notes on the file\n     whereby you have informed the appellant that \"after\n     the order of FAA no inspection of the house has been\n     carried out\" and reasons for non compliance of order\n     of FAA.\n                                                                                Page 1 of 7<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
 2.     Provide photocopy of the sanction plan of the building Property was regularized on 24\/5\/2007
\n       no B2\/3A, Model Town, Delhi                            in the name of Ramesh Modi and
\n                                                              Shyama Modi<\/p>\n
First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Reply was not provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n
On inquiring from the office of the PIO\/SE(CLZ) it has been revealed that the requisite
\ninformation has not been sent to the Appellant will date. The PIO is directed to furnish the
\ninformation from his records to the Appellant within a period of 10 working days.\n<\/p>\n
PIO replied on 16\/11\/2010 that ” It is to inform that property in question was regularized on
\n24\/05\/07 in the names of Shri Ramesh Modi and Smt. Shyama Modi as per records.”\n<\/p>\n
Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Reply to the question asked was not provided.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 18 March 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant : Dr. M .M Mittal;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Absent;\n<\/p>\n
       “The appellant states that the information sought by him was not provided by the PIO even
\non 10\/11\/2010. A perusal of the information shows very clearly that information has not been
\nprovided. The Appellant shows that some more information had been sent to him by the PIO on
\n28\/01\/2011 which shows that after the order of the FAA no action had been taken until the
\nCommission had given an order in another matter. The Appellant also states that in the
\ninformation sent to him he has been given a sanction plan of 1990. The Appellant claims that a
\nnew building has been constructed after 2004. He wants a copy of the plan which was sanctioned
\nfor construction of building after 2004. If no such sanction plan exists this should be stated.”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 18 March 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
“The PIO is directed to provide the sanction plan of the building after 2004 to the
\nAppellant before 05 April 2011. If no such plan exist this should be stated.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
\nthe PIO within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
\ndays, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt
\nthat the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly
\nordered the information to be given.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice
\nis being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why
\npenalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 11 April 2011 at 4.30pm
\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
\nmandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to
\nthe appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                   Page 2 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 11 April 2011:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant: Absent;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Yadav, AE on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;\n<\/p>\n
       “The Respondent shows that he has provided the information to the Appellant on
\n30\/03\/2011. The RTI application had been filed on 12\/08\/2010 and the information should have
\nbeen provided before 12\/09\/2010. The Appellant had sought information only on two simple
\nqueries. Yet the first reply was given to the Appellant only on 10\/11\/2010 i.e. after the order of the
\nFAA. This reply also did not provide information that has been sought by the Appellant.
\nConsequently he filed the second appeal before the Commission and reply has been provided to
\nthe Appellant on 30\/03\/2011 i.e. after the order of the Information Commission. The Commission
\nasked the Respondent for explanation for this delay. He states that he believes all the information
\nhas been given to the Appellant in earlier RTI application.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent has given a letter from the PIO in which he states that on 16\/08\/2010 assistance
\nhas been sought from Mr. A. K. Mittal, EE(B) who did not act on it until 16\/11\/2010. The
\nsubmission states that the FAA’s order to provide information within 10 days was sent to Mr. V.
\nP. Dahiya the then EE(B). He therefore states that Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya are
\nresponsible for the delay.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision on 11 April 2011:\n<\/p>\n
       “The Commission directs the then Executive Engineers (B) Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P.
\nDahiya to appear before the Commission on 16 May 2011 at 04.00PM to showcause why penalty
\nunder Section-20(1) should not be imposed on them for not providing the information within the
\ntime mandated under RTI Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Facts leading to the showcause hearing on 14 September 2011:\n<\/p>\n
      “In the above referred matter, the Commission had passed an order on 11 April 2011
\ndirecting the deemed PIOs Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya to present themselves before the
\nCommission on 16\/05\/2011 at 04:00PM. The Commission had also directed the PIO Mr. R. Prasad
\nto serve the showcause notice to Mr. Mittal and Mr. Dahiya.\n<\/p>\n
     However the Commission has not received any written explanations from the deemed PIOs
\nMr. Mittal and Mr. Dahiya for not presenting themselves before the Commission on 16\/05\/2011. It
\nappears that they are malafidely and consistently defying the orders of the Commission and there
\nseems to be no valid ground of denying information to the Appellant. Therefore the Commission
\nhereby summons Mr. A. K. Mittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya to present themselves before the
\nCommission on 14\/09\/2011 at 04.30PM alongwith their written submissions to showcause why
\npenalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and disciplinary action should not be
\nrecommended under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission also directs Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE to ensure the presence of Mr. A. K.
\nMittal and Mr. V. P. Dahiya on 14\/09\/2011 at 04.30PM. Mr. R. Prasad will serve this notice to
\nMr. Dahiya and Mr. Mittal and direct them to appear before the Commission alongwith their
\nwritten submissions to show cause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed and
\ndisciplinary action should not be recommended against them for defying the orders of the
\ncommission and failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 on 14\/09\/2011 at
\n04.30PM.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                          Page 3 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 14 September 2011:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant : Dr. M .M Mittal;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ) presently AE(Pr-I), South Zone, Under
\nSevanagar Flyover, New Delhi-11 and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B) presently EE(M-VI)
\nCentral Zone, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
       When the RTI Application was filed on 12\/08\/2010, Mr. A. K. Mittal was the deemed PIO
\nwhose assistance has been sought to provide the information. He made no effort to provide the
\ninformation. On 01\/09\/2010 Mr. V. P. Dahiya took charge and has again made no effort to
\nprovide the information. Even as on today the information has not been supplied to the Appellant
\nand there appears to be some reasons why the information has not been supplied.\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission therefore directs the Present PIO Mr. R. Prasad to personally ensure that
\nthe following information is provided clearly to the Appellant:\n<\/p>\n
      1-            Photocopies of the notes on the file whereby you have informed the appellant
\n                    that “after the order of FAA no inspection of the house has been carried out”
\n                    and reasons for non compliance of order of FAA. If there are no notes this
\n                    must be stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2-            Photocopy of the sanction building plan of the building no B2\/3A, Model
\n                    Town, Delhi after 2004. If no building plan has been sanctioned after 2004
\n                    this should be clearly stated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Commission will hold Mr. R. Prasad personally responsible to provide the
\ninformation to the Appellant on the two points as described above before
\n30 September 2011, failing which the Commission will take action under
\nSection 20(1) and 20(2) against him.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case the Commission notes that two deemed PIOs Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE and
\nMr. A. K. Mittal the then AE are clearly responsible jointly for not providing the information to
\nthe appellant. Consequent to which no information has been provided to the Appellant until now.
\nMr. V. P. Dahiya and Mr. A. K. Mittal are offering no reasons for not having provided the
\ninformation to the Appellant. They have informed the Commission that after 15\/11\/2010 Mr. J. S.
\nYadav, EE had taken charge and therefore he was the deemed PIO for providing the information.
\nThe Commission issues a showcause notice to Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE & Deemed PIO under Section
\n20(1) of the RTI Act to showcause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing
\nthe information despite the order of the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE & Deemed PIO is directed to appear before the
\nCommission alongwith his written explanation on 12 September 2011 from
\n04.30PM onwards to showcause why penalty under Section 20(1) should not be
\nimposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act states as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” 20. Penalties.- (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
\nCommission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion
\nthat the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or
\nhas not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or
\nmalafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
\nmisleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or
\nobstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred
\nand fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the
\n                                                                                       Page 4 of 7<\/span>
\n total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as
\nthe case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is
\nimposed on him:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the
\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act mandates the Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO where he
\nhas, without reasonable cause:\n<\/p>\n
1)     Refused to receive a RTI application;\n2)     Not furnished information within the time specified under Section 7(1) of the RTI\n       Act i.e. 30 days;\n3)     Malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n
       misleading information, or destroyed information which was the subject of the request;\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
The main purpose of the RTI Act is to provide the complete information within the time
\nprescribed under the RTI Act. At the time of deciding an Appeal or Complaint, if there is a delay
\nin providing the complete information within the time stipulated under the RTI Act, the
\nCommission can ascertain whether there is a reasonable cause for such delay. Where the
\nCommission determines that there is no reasonable explanation for the delay, it shall impose a
\npenalty on the PIO in the manner prescribed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act i.e. Rs. 250 per
\nday of delay till the RTI application is received or the complete information is furnished, subject
\nto a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000.\n<\/p>\n
The quantum of penalty to be imposed by the Commission is not discretionary in nature and is
\nbased strictly on the methodology prescribed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The burden of
\nproving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as
\nper Section 19(5) of the RTI Act which stipulates that, “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to
\nprove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or
\nState Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request”.\n<\/p>\n
Under the RTI Act, every public authority is required to designate as many officers as PIO in all
\nadministrative offices or units under it, as may be necessary, to provide information to persons
\nrequesting for information under the RTI Act. Therefore, a duty is cast upon the PIO to uphold the
\ncitizens’ fundamental right to information by providing the complete information sought within
\nthe prescribed time period. However, where the PIO fails to discharge this obligation, he is liable
\nto be penalised in accordance with Section 20(1) of the RTI Act i.e. Rs. 250 per day of delay till
\nthe RTI application is received or the complete information is furnished, subject to a maximum
\npenalty of Rs. 25,000. It follows that Section 20(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that the PIO shall be
\npersonally liable in the event he fails to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act where the
\nmaximum penalty imposed on him shall not exceed Rs. 25,000. An upper limit of Rs. 25,000 has
\nbeen placed on the amount of penalty that may be imposed on the PIO to ensure that the penalty
\nimposed on an individual officer is not excessive and is in consonance with his pecuniary means.
\nThe principle of having a maximum prescribed punishment of penalty is provided in legislations
\nwith the intention that an offender should not be penalized more than a certain level for a certain
\noffence. The concept of providing punishment cannot be confused with a loan repayment where
\nthe amount of loan may be shared with the different debaters.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        Page 5 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
 It has been observed that officers in a public authority are transferred frequently and hence, more
\nthan one officer would have held the post of PIO in relation to a given Appeal or Complaint
\nbefore the Commission. In other cases PIO has to seek the assistance under Section 5(4) of the
\nRTI Act of more than one officer. In such cases, if each officer has, without any reasonable cause,
\nfailed to provide the complete information within the prescribed time period, then he is liable to
\nbe penalised under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Similarly, where information sought in a RTI
\napplication pertains to different public authorities, then more than one PIO will be involved in the
\nmatter. In such a situation, it is likely that more than one PIO may fail to furnish the complete
\ninformation within the prescribed time.\n<\/p>\n
In the aforementioned scenarios, each officer who has, without reasonable cause, defaulted in
\nproviding the information shall be liable to be penalised in accordance with Section 20(1) of the
\nRTI Act where the maximum penalty imposed on each officer shall not exceed Rs. 25,000.
\nConsequently, it is likely that the total penalty imposed in each such matter will exceed Rs.
\n25,000. It is pertinent to note that a plain reading of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act does not
\nenvisage the scenarios described above. If Section 20(1) of the RTI Act is to be interpreted to
\nmean that the maximum penalty that can be imposed (in total) in an Appeal or Complaint before
\nthe Commission shall not exceed Rs. 25,000, it shall not be in parity with the actual practices of a
\npublic authority, as described above. Such a restrictive interpretation of Section 20(1) of the RTI
\nAct was neither envisaged by the Parliament nor would be operable in ensuring that all the
\nofficers who are responsible for not discharging their obligations under the RTI Act in a given
\nmatter are penalized.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, Section 20(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that in an Appeal or Complaint before the
\nCommission, an individual officer who, without reasonable cause, has failed to provide the
\ncomplete information within the prescribed time limit shall be penalized where the maximum
\npenalty imposed on each officer shall not exceed Rs. 25,000. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act lays
\ndown in no uncertain terms that the penalty imposed on an individual officer shall be Rs. 250 per
\nday of delay. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act does not envisage any proportionate division of penalty
\nbetween officers responsible for the delay in providing the information. The interpretation given
\nto Section 20(1) of the RTI Act by this Commission appears to meet the words and intent of the
\nlaw makers.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, no reasonable cause has been given for the delay in providing the information
\nto the Appellant. The Commission holds both the officers Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ)
\npresently AE(Pr-I), South Zone, Under Sevanagar Flyover, New Delhi-11 and Mr. V. P. Dahiya
\nthe then EE(B) presently EE(M-VI) Central Zone, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi responsible
\nindividually for the delay of over 100 days in providing the information. Since the delay in
\nproviding the information is for over 100 days the Commission imposes the maximum penalty
\nunder Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for `25000\/- each on both the officers.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
        As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds
\nthis a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V.
\nP. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ). Since the delay in providing the information has
\nbeen over 100 days the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. A. K. Mittal
\nthe then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ) Rs. 25000\/- each
\nwhich is the maximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        Page 6 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n
        The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
\namount of Rs.25000\/- each from the salaries of Mr. A. K. Mittal the then AE (B
\nCLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ) and remit the same by a demand
\ndraft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT,
\npayable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint
\nRegistrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd
\nFloor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted
\nat the rate of Rs 5000\/- per month every month from the salary of Mr. A. K. Mittal
\nthe then AE (CLZ) and Mr. V. P. Dahiya the then EE(B CLZ). The first two
\ncheques of Rs.5000\/- will be sent before 10th of October 2011 and complete amount
\nwill be remitted before 10th February, 2012.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                       Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                              14 September 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AP)<\/p>\n
Copy:\n<\/p>\n
1-        The Municipal Commissioner\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n          04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,\n          New Delhi\n\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                                                                                                        Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000106\/11541Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000106 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Dr. M .M Mittal B 2\/4, Model Town Delhi-110009 Respondent […]<\/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-20154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-03T15:43:51+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T15:43:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3084,\"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\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-03T15:43:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 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":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-03T15:43:51+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T15:43:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011"},"wordCount":3084,"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\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011","name":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-03T15:43:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-m-m-mittal-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-14-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.M M Mittal vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 14 September, 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\/20154","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=20154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}