{"id":202362,"date":"2011-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-04T15:12:30","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T09:42:30","slug":"mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 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\/2011\/002028\/14363Penalty\n                                                                     Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/002028\n\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                            :       Mr. Sanjay Maurya,\n                                             9817\/8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj,\n                                             New Delhi-110055\n\nRespondent                           :       Dr. R. K. Rawat\n                                             PIO &amp; DHO,\n                                             Health Department,\n                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n                                             Sadar-Paharganj Zone,\n                                             Idgah Road, Paharganj, Delhi.\n\nRTI application filed on             :       25-05-2011\nPIO replied on                       :       03-06-2011\nFirst Appeal filed on                :       24-05-2011\nFirst Appellate Authority order of   :       ----- ----- --.\nSecond Appeal received on            :       25-07-2011\n\nInformation Sought:\nThat an order was issued from the Dy. MHO Office to the all zones, in which the officials who are\nemployed since 12 years as Assistant Public Health Inspector was given duty to serve as Public Health\nInspector.\nProvide information about names of the APHI who are working in present in Sadar-Paharganj Zone. Also\ninform that in accordance to which date they get order to get promotion Give photocopy of that order.\n2. If the said order was issued under your zone then give the photocopies of chalan book. And also inform\nabout the laws under which these chalan are not issued\/given.\n3. Give information about the legal\/lawful actions taken against the officers who do not work\/take action\non the said order.\n4. That the current APHI are not promoted as PHI and it is like a insult for them. Please provide\ninformation about if the department took any action against the guilty officers.\n5. If any institution wants to complaint against the guilty officers, give information about the procedure.\n6. Give details about the Name and post of all the officers who do not work on the order issued.\n\nThe PIO Reply:\nQuestion 1 to 6 do not come under the Purview of RTI Act, 2005.\n\nGrounds for the First Appeal:\nNo reply was given to the appellant by the PIO.\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n\"Not received any order.\"\n\n\n                                                                                               Page 1 of 4\n Ground of the Second Appeal:\nUnsatisfactory and incomplete information had been provided by the PIO.\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging during the hearing held on 30\/08\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. Sanjay Maurya;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Dr. R. K. Rawat, PIO &amp; DHO;\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The respondent has not provided the information available as per records. Without any<br \/>\napplication of mind the PIO refused to give the information saying that the information sought does not<br \/>\ncome in the purview of the RTI Act. The PIO admits that some of the information was available. The<br \/>\nCommission asked the PIO the basis on which he stated that the queries do not come under the purview of<br \/>\nthe RTI Act. The Respondent is able to offer no explanation for this.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision dated 30\/08\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant as per available<br \/>\nrecords before 10 September 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO<br \/>\nwithin 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>From 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. 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 23 September 2011 at 11.30am<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.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 23\/09\/2011:<br \/>\nAppellant: Mr. Sanjay Maurya;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Mr. R.K. Rawat, PIO &amp; DHO;\n<\/p>\n<p>          The Appellant has submitted that in compliance of the Commission&#8217;s order he received some<br \/>\ninformation form the PIO vide letter dated 19\/09\/2011. The information with regard to query no. 2, 5 &amp; 6<br \/>\nis still incomplete. The PIO &amp; DHO Mr. R.K. Rawat has offered no reasonable cause for no providing the<br \/>\ninformation even after the Commission&#8217;s order dated 30\/08\/2011. For query no. 2 the PIO Mr. Rawat is<br \/>\nclaiming that the information pertains to the Law Department but he neither sought any assistance from<br \/>\nthe said department nor transferred the RTI application to the concern department.\n<\/p>\n<p>The respondent has sent the information on 19\/09\/2011 providing information which has the following<br \/>\ndeficiencies:\n<\/p>\n<p>   1-      Information has not been provided on queries 2, 5 &amp; 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO Mr. Rawat is directed to provide this information to the Appellant before<br \/>\n30 September 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                 Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The PIO was asked why he has not provided the information when the RTI application was filed. The PIO<br \/>\nclaims that he could not understand the information which was sought by the Appellant. However, the<br \/>\nPIO&#8217;s reply sent on 03\/06\/2011 states that &#8220;question 1 to 6 do not come under the purview of the RTI Act<br \/>\n2005.&#8221; It does not state anywhere that the PIO did not understand the queries. The RTI application had<br \/>\nbeen filed on 25\/05\/2011 hence the information should have been provided to the Appellant before<br \/>\n25\/06\/2011 instead the information was provided to the Appellant only on 19\/09\/2011 i.e. after a delay of<br \/>\n84 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;\n<\/p>\n<p>A 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>Since no reasonable cause has been offered for delay of 84 days in providing the information the<br \/>\nCommission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. R.K.<br \/>\nRawat, PIO &amp; DHO. The Commission imposes a penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI act on Mr.<br \/>\nRawat at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 84 days i.e. `250\/- X 84 days = `21000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a<br \/>\nfit case for levying penalty on Mr. R.K. Rawat, PIO &amp; DHO. Since the delay in providing<br \/>\nthe correct information has been of 84 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing<br \/>\nMr. R.K. Rawat `21,00\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `21000\/- from the salary of Mr. R.K. Rawat 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 `4200\/ per<br \/>\nmonth every month from the salary of Mr. R.K. Rawat and remitted by the 10th of every<br \/>\nmonth starting from November 2011. The total amount of `21,000\/- 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.\n<\/p>\n<p>Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                      Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                            Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                   23 September 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ved)<\/p>\n<p>Copies to:\n<\/p>\n<pre>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<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 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\/002028\/14363Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/002028 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Maurya, 9817\/8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 Respondent : [&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-202362","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.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-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=\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-04T09:42:30+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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T09:42:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1269,\"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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T09:42:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 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:\/\/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.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-04T09:42:30+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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T09:42:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011"},"wordCount":1269,"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-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011","name":"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T09:42:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sanjay-maurya-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-23-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sanjay Maurya vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 23 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:\/\/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\/202362","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=202362"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202362\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}