{"id":209221,"date":"2011-01-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011"},"modified":"2015-04-27T20:45:58","modified_gmt":"2015-04-27T15:15:58","slug":"mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 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\/2010\/002843\/10341Penalty\n                                                                   Appeal No.CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002843\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                            :       Mr. Vivek Garg\n                                             18\/1, GF, Shakti Nagar,\n                                             Delhi-110007\n\nRespondent                           :       Mr. V.P. Dahiya,\n                                             Deemed PIO & EE(M-IV),\n                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                             Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,\n                                             Delhi;\n\nRTI application filed on             :       06\/05\/2010\nPIO replied                          :       21\/05\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                :       25\/05\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order      :       02\/08\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on            :       07\/10\/2010\n\nInformation Sought:\n<\/pre>\n
The Appellant sought information relating to Mr. Satish, Junior Engineer(Building), Civil Lines Zone,
\nMCD, Delhi- his appointment, tenure, his assets list of demolition orders issued against various illegal
\nauthorities, other departmental action, etc.<\/p>\n
Reply of the Public Information Officer:\n<\/p>\n
The PIO provided in his reply vide letter dated 21\/05\/2010 that some of the information asked for by the
\nAppellant can be obtained by depositing necessary charges. Whereas some of the queries did not relate to
\ntheir Department or the record was not available.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Dissatisfactory information provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
The First Appellate Authority in its order agreed with the information provided by the PIO and asked the
\nAppellant to deposit the necessary charges for providing the information. But the Appellant was not ready
\nfor the same.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on December 7, 2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant : Absent;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Mr. J. S. Yadav, EE(B) on behalf of Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE;\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO did not indicate the number of pages for which the Appellant should have deposited the
\nadditional fees. Similarly for query-1 the PIO had only stated that the information was not available with
\nthe Building Department (Civil Lines Zone). In this the PIO should have either sought assistance under<\/p>\n
                                                                                                Page 1 of 5<\/span>
\n Section-5(4) or transferred the RTI Application under Section 6(3). The Appellant had sought information
\nwhich does not appear to be voluminous. Section 7(3) of the RTI Act states, “Where a decision is taken to
\nprovide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information,
\nCentral Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an
\nintimation to the person making the request, giving-\n<\/p>\n
   (a)     the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by
\n           him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee
\n           prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period
\n           intervening between the despatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded
\n           for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section;”.
\nThe PIO did not inform the Appellant about the number of pages and the amount of fee to be paid by the
\nAppellant to obtain the information.\n<\/p>\n
The Respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information was the then EE(B)
\nMr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed PIO.”\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated December 7, 2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      “The Commission directs Mr. J. S. Yadav to provide the complete information
\navailable on the records to the Appellant before 25 December 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the then
\nEE(B) Mr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
\nFrom the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as
\nper the requirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause
\nnotice is 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
The then EE(B) Mr. V.P. Dahiya Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above
\naddress on 06 January 2011 at 12.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
\nshould not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also send the information
\nsent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the
\ninformation to the appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on January 6, 2011:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Respondents: Mr. V.P. Dahiya, the then EE(B) Civil Lines Zone & Deemed PIO presently EE(M-IV),
\n              Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi; and Mr. A. K. Mittal, AE (B).\n<\/p>\n
       The Commission observed that further to its order dated 07\/12\/2010, certain information was sent
\nto the Appellant vide letter dated 14\/12\/2010. The information provided does not appear to be complete
\nand should have been provided specifically point- wise.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. J. S. Yadav, JE (B) is hereby directed to provide specific point- wise information on each of the
\nqueries of the RTI application dated 06\/05\/2010 to the Appellant before January 24, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 2 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Mr. V. P. Dahiya stated that on receipt of the RTI application, the PIO & SE sought his assistance under
\nSection 5(4) of the RTI Act. A reply was furnished initially by Mr. Dahiya on 21\/05\/2010, which was
\ninadequate and unsatisfactory. On perusal of the reply dated 21\/05\/2010, the Commission noted that some
\nof the information sought did not pertain to the Building Department, MCD (CLZ). The Deemed PIO Mr.
\nV. P. Dahiya’s answer to most queries was that “This information is not available in the building
\ndepartment CLZ”, and in other cases it has been stated that no copies available. On questioning the
\nDeemed PIO Mr. Dahiya it is evident that he was aware where the information would have been available.
\nHowever, he made no effort to either obtain assistance or transfer the RTI application to the relevant
\ndepartments. Further, in relation to three queries, he has stated that information shall be provided on
\npayment of necessary fees without informing the Appellant of the number of pages and the amount of fees
\nto be paid. It appears that the Deemed PIO Mr. Dahiya made no effort to provide the information but was
\ncarelessly dealing with the RTI application.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission also noted that Mr. Dahiya did not specify the amount of pages or the prescribed fees
\nthat the Appellant was required to pay for the requisite information. Mr. Dahiya submitted that he was
\nmerely the deemed PIO and that the PIO & SE should have sought assistance or transferred the RTI
\napplication to the concerned officer\/ department.\n<\/p>\n
Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act state as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
\n       case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it
\n       necessary for the proper discharge of his or her duties.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-section (4), shall render all
\n       assistance to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as
\n       the case may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any contravention of
\n       the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be treated as a Central Public
\n       Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
From a reading of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, it appears that the PIO has the power to seek assistance
\nfrom any other officer to provide information. Section 5(5) of the RTI Act stipulates that the officer whose
\nassistance is sought under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act shall be treated as the PIO for the purpose of ‘any
\ncontravention;’- Section 20 of the RTI Act. It must be noted that Section 5(5) of the RTI Act does not
\nstipulate that the officer whose assistance is sought shall be treated as the PIO for the purposes of any
\nother provision of the RTI Act except Section 20. Therefore, the law does not envisage that the officer
\nwhose assistance is sought under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act can pass on the liability to any other officer
\nby seeking his assistance. It is implied that the officer whose assistance is sought is then responsible in an
\nadministrative capacity to ensure that the information is gathered and provided.\n<\/p>\n
The RTI application has been made on 06\/05\/2010 and the complete information should have been
\nprovided to the Appellant before 06\/06\/2010. Instead some relevant information has been provided to the
\nappellant on 14\/12\/2010. Thus the delay in providing the information is clearly over 100 days.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
\nopinion that 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 has not
\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
\n                                                                                                Page 3 of 5<\/span>
\n information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received
\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five
\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must
\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n
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
       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section
\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable
\ncause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the
\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The RTI application has been made on 06\/05\/2010 and the complete information should have been
\nprovided to the Appellant before 06\/06\/2010. Instead some relevant information has been provided to the
\nappellant on 14\/12\/2010. Thus the delay in providing the information is clearly over 100 days. Since no
\nreasonable cause has been offered by Mr. V. P. Dahiya, Deemed PIO & the then EE(B) the Commission
\nsees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Since the delay in providing the information has been far over 100 days the Commission sees this as a fit
\ncase for levying the maximum penalty of `25000\/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
          As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
\nfinds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) & Deemed PIO. Since
\nthe delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing
\nan order penalizing Mr. V. P. Dahiya `25000\/ which is the maximum penalty under the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                Page 4 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
        The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
\namount of `25000\/- from the salary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya and remit the same by a demand
\ndraft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at
\nNew Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and
\nDeputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti
\nBhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000\/ per
\nmonth every month from the salary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya and remitted by the 10th of every
\nmonth starting from February 2011. The total amount of `25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th
\nof June, 2011.\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 the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                       Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                                 06 January 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)<\/p>\n
CC:<\/p>\n
\n\nTo,\n            1-          Commissioner\n                        Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                        Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n\n            2.          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            3.          Mr. J. S. Yadav,\n                        JE (B)\n                        Office of the Superintending Engineer,\n                        Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                        Civil Line Zone,\n                        Zonal Office Building,\n                        16, Rajpur Road, New Delhi-110054\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                      Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No.CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002843\/10341Penalty Appeal No.CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002843 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Vivek Garg 18\/1, GF, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007 Respondent : Mr. V.P. […]<\/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-209221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 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\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-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=\"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-27T15:15:58+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=\"11 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-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T15:15:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2109,\"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-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-27T15:15:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 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\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-27T15:15:58+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T15:15:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011"},"wordCount":2109,"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-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011","name":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-27T15:15:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-v-k-garg-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-6-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.V K Garg vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 6 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209221","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=209221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}