{"id":204432,"date":"2011-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2"},"modified":"2016-05-12T18:44:24","modified_gmt":"2016-05-12T13:14:24","slug":"shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                         Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,\n                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.\n                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                        Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001647\/SG\/14709\n                                                                Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001647\/SG\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                                    :      Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar,\n                                                    B - 6, Panchratna Housing Society,\n                                                    13, Sheela Vihar Colony,\n                                                    Pune - 411038\n\nRespondent                                   :      Mr. K. R. Joshi,\n                                                    PIO &amp; Section Officer,\n                                                    Debts Recovery Tribunal,\n                                                    Ministry of Financial Services,\n                                                    PMT Commercial Building - 1,\n                                                    Shankarsheth Road, Swargate,\n                                                    Pune - 411042\n\nRTI application filed on                     :      22\/03\/2010\nPIO replied on                               :      16\/04\/2010\nFirst Appeal filed on                        :      28\/09\/2010\nOrder of FAA                                 :      Not enclosed\nSecond Appeal received on                    :      03\/11\/2010\n\nInformation sought:\n   1. The orders issued by the PO, DRT, Pune for enquiry into the relevant matter.\n   2. The orders issued against the recovery officer for the mentioned misappropriation and non-\n   submission of accounts.\n   3. Accounts submitted by the Recovery Officer every quarter from the date of first recovery from the\n   garnishee in the mentioned matter till the end of recovery from the said garnishee M\/s Kirloskar Oil\n   Engines Pvt Limited as per Regulation No 58(24).\n   4. The particulars of the amount deposited by the garnishee with the recovery officer, DRT Pune and\n   its Subsequent Disposal such as passing on to the IDBI\/SASF and to any third party, if any.\n\nReply of Public Information Officer (PIO):\nSince DRT was a court, there was already a provision in law for taking inspection, asking certified copies,\netc. The requisite information could be obtained by following due process of law. The Appellant was\nrequested to apply under RDDBI Act for inspection and to obtain the required information.\n\nNote: There appear to be various communications between the Appellant and the PIO regarding the\napplicability of the RTI Act to the Respondent- public authority and the requisite fees for First Appeal.\n\nGrounds for First Appeal:\nNo information was provided by the PIO.\n\n\n\n                                                                                               Page 1 of 4\n Order of the First Appellate Authority:\nNot enclosed.\n\nHowever on perusal of the documents received by the Commission, it appears that the First Appeal was\nreturned by the FAA vide letter dated 19\/10\/2010 on account of procedural inadequacies.\n\nGrounds for Second Appeal:\nDissatisfied with the reply of the PIO and no order passed by the FAA.\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging during Hearing held on September 16, 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmakar via video conference from NIC Studio &#8211; Pune;<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. K. R. Joshi, PIO &amp; Section Officer via video conference from NIC Studio &#8211; Pune.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO has denied the information on the basis that information must be sought under the DRT Rules.<br \/>\nThe PIO relied on the decision of the Commission in Ajay v. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal<br \/>\nCIC\/SM\/A\/2009\/000990+1506 dated 05\/05\/2010 in support of his contention. On the other hand, the<br \/>\nAppellant has contended that as per the DRT Rules, only litigants can obtain information. Since he was<br \/>\nnot a litigant in the relevant matter, he would not be able to obtain the information. The Appellant relied<br \/>\non the Commission&#8217;s decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1139431\/\">R. S. Misra v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India<br \/>\nCIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000237\/SG\/12351<\/a> dated 11\/05\/2011 in support of his argument. The PIO stated that<br \/>\neven non- litigants can obtain information under the DRT Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>The order was reserved at the hearing held on 16\/09\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision announced on 20 September 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>Based on the contentions of the parties, the main issue which arises for determination before this Bench is<br \/>\nwhere there are methods of obtaining information from a public authority in existence before the RTI Act,<br \/>\ncan a citizen insist on obtaining the information under the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens of India. This has been clearly recognised<br \/>\nby the Supreme Court of India in several decisions and subsequently, codified by the Parliament in 2005.<br \/>\nThe RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to information giving<br \/>\ncitizens the right to information. It lays down the substantive right to information of the citizens and the<br \/>\npractical mechanism to enforce the said right. Section 3 of the RTI Act lays down that subject to the<br \/>\nprovisions of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. The RTI Act is a crisp<br \/>\nlegislation comprising of 31 Sections, which confer upon citizens, the right to information accessible<br \/>\nunder the RTI Act, which is held by or under the control of a public authority. The scheme of the RTI Act<br \/>\nstipulates inter alia that information sought shall be provided within the prescribed period, formulation of<br \/>\na proper appellate mechanism and invoking of stringent penalty where the PIO fails to provide the<br \/>\ninformation within the mandated period without reasonable cause. The RTI Act is premised on disclosure<br \/>\nbeing the norm, and refusal, the exception. It is legally established that information requested for under<br \/>\nthe RTI Act may be exempted from disclosure in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 only and no other<br \/>\nexemptions can be claimed while rejecting a demand for disclosure.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, Section 22 of the RTI Act expressly provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect<br \/>\nnotwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other<br \/>\nlaw for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the RTI<br \/>\nAct. In other words, where there is any inconsistency in a law as regards furnishing of information, such<br \/>\nlaw shall be superseded by the RTI Act. Insertion of a non- obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act<br \/>\nwas a conscious choice of the Parliament to safeguard the citizens&#8217; fundamental right to information from<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n convoluted interpretations of other laws adopted by public authorities to deny information. The presence<br \/>\nof Section 22 of the RTI Act simplifies the process of implementing the right to information both for<br \/>\ncitizens as well the PIO; citizens may seek to enforce their fundamental right to information by simply<br \/>\ninvoking the provisions of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Given the above, two scenarios may be envisaged:\n<\/p>\n<p>   1. An earlier law\/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information and is consistent<br \/>\n   with the RTI Act: Since there is no inconsistency between the law\/ rule and the provisions of the RTI<br \/>\n   Act, the citizen is at liberty to choose whether she will seek information in accordance with the said<br \/>\n   law\/ rule or under the RTI Act. If the PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act,<br \/>\n   the information shall be provided to the citizen as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of<br \/>\n   the same must be in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only; and<\/p>\n<p>   2. An earlier law\/ rule whose provisions pertain to furnishing of information but is inconsistent<br \/>\n   with the RTI Act: Where there is inconsistency between the law\/ rule and the RTI Act in terms of<br \/>\n   access to information, then Section 22 of the RTI Act shall override the said law\/ rule and the PIO<br \/>\n   would be required to furnish the information as per the RTI Act only.\n<\/p>\n<p>The DRT Rules as well as the RTI Act coexist and therefore, it is for the citizen to determine which route<br \/>\nshe would prefer for obtaining the information. The right to information available to the citizens under the<br \/>\nRTI Act cannot be denied where such citizen chooses to exercise such right, as has been done by the PIO<br \/>\nin the instant case. The Commission would like to highlight that just as the DRT Rules put in place by the<br \/>\nrelevant authority are not abrogated, the RTI Act passed by the Parliament also cannot be suspended. If<br \/>\nthe PIO has received a request for information under the RTI Act, the information shall be provided to the<br \/>\napplicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act and any denial of the same must be in accordance with<br \/>\nSections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act only. The Commission has noted that the PIO has rejected the request for<br \/>\ninformation under the RTI Act without taking recourse to Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, which is<br \/>\nclearly against the statutory mandate. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention that the RTI Act, at no place,<br \/>\nstipulates that in the event there is consistency between an earlier law\/rule and the RTI Act, the citizen<br \/>\nshall have to seek information under the former. In the absence of such a provision, there is no<br \/>\nrequirement to read in such an interpretation to the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>At this juncture, the Commission would like to mention certain decisions of the Supreme Court of India in<br \/>\nCIT v. A. Raman &amp; Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), which was upheld in CIT v. Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.<br \/>\n[1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) and subsequently in <a href=\"\/doc\/1504951\/\">UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan<\/a> [2003] 263 ITR 706 (SC), where<br \/>\nShah J., observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>   &#8220;&#8230; Avoiding of tax liability by so arranging commercial affairs that charge of tax is<br \/>\n   distributed is not prohibited. A tax payer may resort to a device to divert the income before it<br \/>\n   accrues or arises to him. Effectiveness of the device depends not upon considerations of<br \/>\n   morality, but on the operation of the Income Tax Act. Legislative injunction in taxing statutes<br \/>\n   may not, except on peril of penalty, be violated, but it may be lawfully circumvented&#8230;&#8221;<br \/>\n   (Emphasis Added)<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, even when the State may lose revenue, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an individual<br \/>\ntax payer has the liberty to arrange her commercial affairs in order to reduce her tax liability, so long as<br \/>\nsuch arrangement is within the operation of tax legislation(s). Drawing an analogy, it certainly stands to<br \/>\nreason that a citizen should be able to decide on the method most convenient and expedient by which she<br \/>\nwould obtain information. In view of the reasons enumerated above, the decision cited by the PIO in Ajay<br \/>\nv. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal CIC\/SM\/A\/2009\/000990+1506 dated 05\/05\/2010 is per incuriam<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                 Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n inasmuch as it was rendered in ignorance of a rule having the force of law laid down by the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt of India and by reading in an interpretation to the RTI Act which was hitherto not stipulated by the<br \/>\nParliament. Given the same, the said decision is not binding on this Bench. It is also important to mention<br \/>\nthat no legal basis has been given by the Information Commissioner for arriving at his conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per records to the<br \/>\nAppellant before 20 October 2011, subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.\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                                                                                                             20 September 2011<\/p>\n<p>(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DIS)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                                     Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067. Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001647\/SG\/14709 Appeal No. CIC\/SM\/A\/2010\/001647\/SG Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Madhav Balwant Karmarkar, B &#8211; 6, Panchratna Housing Society, [&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-204432","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>Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 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\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1444,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 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":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 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\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2"},"wordCount":1444,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2","name":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-12T13:14:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-b-karmakar-vs-banking-division-on-20-september-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri.M B Karmakar vs Banking Division on 20 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\/204432","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=204432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}