{"id":210644,"date":"2010-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-06T22:38:26","modified_gmt":"2017-03-06T17:08:26","slug":"shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010<\/div>\n
                     CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                            Complaint No. CIC\/Legal\/2010\/033\n                        Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nComplainant -           Shri M. Vasudeva\nRespondent       -      Superintendent of Police, Korba, Chattisgarh\n                               Decision announced: 9.4.2010\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         Through a complaint of 30.3.10 Shri M. Vasudeva, Director General,
\nNational Council for Cement & Building Material, Ballabhgarh (Haryana) applied
\nto this Commission, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Three of our senior officials namely, Dr. M. M. Ali, Joint Director,
\n         Shri R. K. Goswami, General Manager and Dr. U. K. Mandal,
\n         Group Manager have been taken into custody by Korba police
\n         (Chattisgarh) from NCB premises at Ballabgarh during working
\n         hours on 25th March 2010, in connection with the testing work
\n         carried out by NCCBM on the samples of concrete and other
\n         materials handed over by the Korba Police earlier. These samples
\n         were from the collapsed chimney at BALCO, Korba, which resulted
\n         in several deaths in September 2009 and apparently led to public
\n         outcry. NCCBM tested these samples and submitted and test
\n         results to the Korba Police.<\/p>\n
         Subsequently, when a citizen sought the test results under RTI Act,
\n         we provided the same to him as per the provisions of RTI Act. The
\n         Korba police feels that the test results should have been kept
\n         confidential by NCCBM and they were not happy and developed a
\n         grudge on NCCBM for revealing the results to a citizen. They have
\n         taken our officials into custody on two allegations that is (1) the
\n         samples were not analysed correctly by the accused officials of
\n         NCCBM, who have analyzed the samples with an intention of
\n         favouring BALCO, who are the principal accused in the Chimney
\n         collapsed case (2) the report was also made available to the
\n         principal accused who have benefited on this account.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         On 25th march 2010, the Korba police took away our three officials
\n         without showing us any documents and after obtaining the transit
\n         remand from the Magistrate’s Court at Faridabad, took them to
\n         Korba. However, the order of the Faridabad, Magistrate on the
\n         application of the Korba Police for transit remand shows that our<\/p>\n
                                            1<\/span>
\n       three officials were taken into custody under section 304\/201 of
\n      IPC. On 27th March 2010, our officials were produced before the
\n      Judicial Magistrate at Korba who ordered them to be lodged in
\n      Korba jail. On 29th March 2010, we have filed a bail application in
\n      the Sessions Court at Korba, which will be heard on 31st March
\n      2010.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      We feel that disclosing such information under RTI is very much in
\n      order and NCCBM is at no fault in revealing this information to a
\n      citizen, particularly when the Chhattisgarh police did not mention in
\n      their request letter for testing the samples that the results should be
\n      kept confidential.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The police orally told us that there is no need to mention
\n      confidentiality because the samples were sent by the police. We
\n      feel that the view of the police is not correct.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Since this complaint involved various issues including jurisdiction of this
\nCommission to adjudicate upon an issue concerning a Department of the State
\nGovernment namely the Office of the S.S.P., Korba in Orissa, the matter was
\nreferred to a Full Bench of the Commission and notice served on 1.4.10 on Shri
\nRattan Lal Dangi, SP, Korba Distt. Chhattisgarh State seeking the following :\n<\/p>\n
      “It will be appreciated if the comments and comprehensive reports
\n      can be sent to the Commission as soon as possible but not later
\n      than afternoon of 6th April, 2010. The report may be sent either on
\n      Fax or through E-mail given on the tope of the D. O. letter.’<\/p>\n
      Subsequently by a letter of 5.4.10 complainant Shri M. Vasudeva
\nsubmitted a copy of the order of Distt. & Sessions Judge, Korba on the bail
\napplication of the three concerned officers of NCCBM in rejecting which the
\nlearned M.C. Jagdalla, Distt. & Sessions Judge, has held as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “Appellant was heard and circumstances were perused. In the
\n      above case due to fall of Chimney 40 persons died. In relation to
\n      this episode three accused were granted bail by the Hon’ble
\n      Supreme Court of India. In connection with bail, on the basis of
\n      investigation report, case of 201 IPC is also to be instituted
\n      alongwith other case on the respondents. Since the episode is still
\n      under investigation, and seeing the circumstances narrated above,
\n      there does not seem to be any justification for grant of bail to the
\n      accused. Therefore, application for bail No. 202\/2010 dated
\n      29.3.2010 is hereby dismissed. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
           We have also received a letter from Shri Rattan Lal Dangi, SP Korba,
\nChhattisgarh of 5.4.10 attaching a copy of the report submitted to the Home
\nSecretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh on 1.4.’10 reporting among other things as
\nfollows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “In this context, it is recorded that the action being taken against the
\n          concerned individuals is in fact based on non testing of material on
\n          the required standards and not based on disclosing of test
\n          report 1 .”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In the letter addressed to this Commission, Shri Dangi has submitted, as
\nbelow:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “The date of hearing, recorded in the Notice, being very near, it is
\n          not possible to appear on the said date. It is, therefore, requested
\n          that hearing may be fixed for 12.4.2010 so that we can appear on
\n          the said date for hearing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          In a more detailed response to the appeal notice on the same date i.e.
\n5.4.10, addressed to the Additional Registrar, CIC, Shri Dangi has outright
\ndenied that the police action has been taken to harass the complainant’s
\nOrganization on grounds of exercising its authority under the RTI Act, as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “It is totally wrong allegation because they have not been made
\n          respondents for providing information under the Right to
\n          Information Act but due to facts and evidences which show that
\n          they have given such test report, for which they were fully aware
\n          and confident that it is false report, and on the basis of which the
\n          accused can save their skin. Based on these documents, in the first
\n          instance, a case u\/s 201 IPC can be instituted against them and
\n          therefore, they have been arrested. In this connection, furnishing of
\n          some information is necessary, which in short is as below:”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          He has gone on to detail the grounds on which this action has been taken
\nwhich are as below:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          “1.       The concrete core dimensions have not been mentioned,
\n                    which is very important for Strength Reporting as per IS:
\n                    516:1959 Lodge No. 2:8 and in absence of it is not possible
\n                    for any Expert to give his remarks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
    Emphasis ours<\/p>\n
                                             3<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 2.   Only one test has been conducted for coarse agreement
\n     sample (10 mm & 20 mm) by the Organization, whereas
\n     duplicate test is binding as per IS 383:1970. In absence of
\n     duplicate test, it is not possible for any Expert to give his
\n     recommendations.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.   Code IS 383:1970 has not been followed while conducted
\n     Sieve analysis of Test for Coarse Agreement sample (20
\n     mm), due to which recommendations by Expert are not
\n     possible.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It is binding under IS Code 383:1970 to conduct duplicate
\n     test under Test for Final Agreement Sample. But this
\n     organization has not done so, due to which
\n     recommendations by Expert are not possible.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Recommendations by Experts were refused on the basis of
\n     reports of above Organization and it was informed that they
\n     only provide data of investigation and for recommendations
\n     they should contact any Expert of Institution for obtaining
\n     recommendations.        Therefore, recommendations were
\n     sought from NIT Raipur, Chhattisgarh, which is a Higher
\n     Technical Education Institute set up by Govt. of India, where
\n     highly qualified Professors and latest testing machines are
\n     available and where training is imparted for conducting such
\n     tests\/analysis, on the basis of test reports presented by
\n     NCCBM, Ballabhgarh, Haryana, which was refused by NIT
\n     Raipur due to non availability of test reports under above IS
\n     Code and they informed that it is not possible to give
\n     recommendations by the Experts due to non-availability of
\n     such test reports. On examining the above code, as
\n     intimated by NIT Raipur, the facts were found to be true and
\n     it became clear that either the tests by NCCBM Ballabhgarh
\n     Haryana were not conducted on the basis of above codes or
\n     these duplicate investigation reports were not presented
\n     intentionally.\n<\/p>\n
6.   On 18.2.10 in the Hon’ble Distt. & Session Courts, Korba the
\n     Advocate for BALCO presented the test report of NCCBM
\n     Ballabhgarh and comments of Associate Professor Dr. J.
\n     Prasad of IIT Roorkee, in which Dr. J. Prasad has informed
\n     that test reports of NCCBM Ballabhgarh are not in
\n     consonance with IS specifications.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Not only copies of sample collection memo, tailbone, FIR
\n     were sent to NCCBM Ballabhgarh, Haryana but it was also
\n     intimated to them on telephone that a case has been
\n     registered in PS BALCO Nagar vide Sr. No. 377\/09 u\/s 304,
\n     34 IPC. U\/s 173 IPC when Police file a final report, all the
\n     documents\/enquiry reports are presented before the Court
\n     and a copy of the same is provided by the Court to the<\/p>\n
                               4<\/span>
\n                     respondents free of cost. Besides, any other person can also
\n                    collect these documents from the court but before filing of
\n                    final report, during investigation all the documents \/
\n                    evidences are treated as part of case diary u\/s 172 IPC and
\n                    no one is allowed to inspect the same except the Court and
\n                    the concerned police officer. It is as per relevant rules.
\n                    NCCBM Balabhgarh Haryana was aware of this fact.
\n                    Besides Korba Police had sent fee alongwith samples for
\n                    testing as a client to this Organization. It is therefore, clear
\n                    that NCCBM was in touch with Korba Police and was aware
\n                    that the matter is under investigation. Therefore, it was moral
\n                    responsibility of this Organization that it should inform the
\n                    person seeking information under Right to Information Act
\n                    that he may collect the information from District Police
\n                    Supdt. Korba \/ Inspector PS BALCO Nagar. But not doing
\n                    so also brings this Organization under doubt 2 . Even then it is
\n                    made clear that all the three officers of this Organization
\n                    have been arrested u\/s 201 IPC on the basis of sufficient
\n                    documents \/ evidences against them. After detailed
\n                    discussions and hearing the learned counsels for the
\n                    accused and Dy. Director (Prosecution) and after inspecting
\n                    case diary and other documents and examining the facts,
\n                    Hon’ble Addl. Distt. Judge Korba found that a case u\/s 201
\n                    IPC exists against respondents and their bail applications
\n                    were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           8.       The respondents have not been arrested under any grudge
\n                    but their arrest and prosecution has been made under the
\n                    relevant rules. This will prevent habit of defying rules and
\n                    giving reports as per their wills, and giving recommendations
\n                    of their choice and not based on test reports and creating
\n                    hindrance in impartial justice, which is in the interest of law
\n                    and the nation.\n<\/p>\n
           9.       Action against accused have been taken as per evidences \/
\n                    documents and under the law. Their claim for undue
\n                    harassment is completely false and baseless.\n<\/p>\n
           10.      It is clear from the facts that NCCBM is trying to save its skin
\n                    from criminal involvements and punishment by giving
\n                    misleading statement to Central Information Commission.\n<\/p>\n
           11.      Commission is investigating the matter and based on
\n                    evidences against accused, Hon’ble Distt. Courts have found
\n                    them guilty under sec. 201 IPC. Therefore, it will be
\n                    appropriate for the Court only to take any decision in the
\n                    matter.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Underlined by us for further reference below<\/p>\n
                                                   5<\/span>
\n       It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint made under the cover of
\n      Right to Information Act 2005 is baseless and false and, therefore,
\n      may be dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal was heard on 6.4.2010. The following are present:
\n      Appellants
\n            Shri M. Vasudeva, DG (Actg)
\n            Shri S. N. Mehrotra, Jt. Dir. \/ CPIO (HRS & FAS)
\n            Dr. S. C. Sharma, Jt. Dir. \/ APIO (Industrial Information.
\n            Dr. S. Harsh, General Manager<\/p>\n
      Complainant Shri Vasudeva submitted a copy of the request of one Shri
\nAnshuman Gargesh of Alaknanda, New Delhi received in the NCCBM on
\n24.12.08 in which the request for information of Shri Gargesh is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       ‘1.   Whether the Government of Chattisgarh, Chattisgarh Police
\n             or any of their departments) are seeking or have sought the
\n             report of National Council of Cement and Building materials,
\n             Ballabgarh on the material used in the Chimney under
\n             construction at the 1200MW power plant project of BALCO
\n             in Chattisgarh?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     A copy of the letter by which the report in Sl. No. 1 above
\n             was sought.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.     What kind of material was sent for testing to National Council
\n             of Cement and Building Materials?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.     Whether representative of National Council of Cement and
\n             Building Materials was present at the site when the material
\n             for testing was collected? If so the name and designation of
\n             the officer(S) who was\/ were present.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.     copy of the letter by which the material was sent for testing
\n             to National Council of Cement and Building Materials.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6.     National Council of Cement and Building Materials of
\n             correspondence exchanged between NCCBM and
\n             Government of Chattisgarh \/ Chattisgarh Police or any of
\n             their departments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.     When was the report of NCCBM on testing of the material
\n             sent to the Government of Chattisgarh\/ Chattisgarh Police or
\n             their department, which sought the report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.     A copy of the report on the material testing as sent to the
\n             Government of Chattisgarh Police or their department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      9.     What is the name of the test and method of testing applied?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
       They also submitted a copy of the order of 25.3.10 of Judicial Magistrate
\nFirst Class Faridabad Shri Sunil Kumar in which the learned Magistrate has
\nallowed transit remand from 25.3.10 till 28.3.10 since the case against the
\naccused was registered in Korba, Chhattisgarh. Together with this report, they
\nhave attached a copy of the transit remand form in which the Korba Police have
\namong other things, pleaded the case that “enquiry report has also been given to
\nthe persons arrested and under prosecution”\n<\/p>\n
      During the hearing, it was made clear to complainants that because of
\nshort notice it had not been possible for respondents to be present personally.
\nCopies of the response received from Respondents was also handed over to
\nComplainants.   In this context, it was explained that the respondents have
\nclaimed that the action that they are taking stems from Sec. 201 IPC, not from
\nthe RTI Act. In response to a question from the Commission, complainant Shri
\nVasudeva agreed that the CPIO is not among the accused in the FIR No. 377\/09
\nat PS BLACO, Distt. Korba. Sec. 201 IPC reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving
\n      false information to screen offender.–Whoever, knowing or
\n      having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
\n      causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to
\n      disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal
\n      punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting
\n      the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
\n      if a capital offence.– if the offence, which he knows or believes to
\n      have been committed, is punishable with death, be punished with
\n      imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to
\n      seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      if punishable with imprisonment for life.–and if the offence is
\n      punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment, which
\n      may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of
\n      either description for a term, which may extend to three years, and
\n      shall also be liable to fine;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.– and if
\n      the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not
\n      extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the
\n      description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to
\n      one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for
\n      the offence, or with fine, or with both.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
                             DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       In light of the above, the Commission decided that should complainants
\nwish to pursue their complaint of harassment against the office of SP, BALCO,
\nDistt. Korba, a further hearing could be held on 12.4.2010 at 4.30 p.m. by
\nvideoconference to enable respondents to appear.           On the other hand, the
\nCommission is also clear that we have no authority to adjudicate upon whether
\nthe case registered u\/s 304\/201 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC is in keeping with the
\nlaw since the law in that case is the Indian Penal Code and not the Right to
\nInformation Act. The only action that the Commission would be in a position to
\ntake would be if it established that action has been taken by the SP, Korba in
\nviolation of sec. 21 of RTI Act, which reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Sec. 21
\n       No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any
\n       person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be
\n       done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       It is in this context that the plea taken by respondents at Para 7 quoted
\nabove, with the pertinent sentence underlined by us, could be examined..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
However, the Commission has subsequently received a letter from APIO
\nNCCBM Dr. S. C. Sharma dated 7.4.10 in which he has submitted, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “As per the hearing, it appears that there is no Right to Information
\n       (RTI) angle in this case and therefore we would like to matter to be
\n       treated as closed without any further hearing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In light of this, the complaint is hereby dismissed with a word of caution to
\nrespondents in the Office of SP, Korba that they will exercise discretion to ensure
\nthat no harassment arises to the officers of the NCCBM on account of their
\nhaving exercised their authority under the RTI Act, lest this be construed as an
\nattempt to obstruct furnishing of information and thus inviting penalty u\/s 20 (1).
\nFor this purpose, a copy of this Decision Notice will also be endorsed to Chief
\nSecretary, Chattisgarh Shri P Joy Oommen for his information.\n<\/p>\n
                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
       Adjourned in the hearing, this Decision is announced on this ninth day of
\nApril, 2010. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
      Sushma Singh                                             ML Sharma\nInformation Commissioner                                 Information Commissioner\n\n\n\n                               (Wajahat Habibullah)\n                          Chief Information Commissioner\n                                      9.4.2010\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n9.4.2010<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint No. CIC\/Legal\/2010\/033 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Complainant – Shri M. Vasudeva Respondent – Superintendent of Police, Korba, Chattisgarh Decision announced: 9.4.2010 Facts : Through a complaint of 30.3.10 Shri M. Vasudeva, […]<\/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-210644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-06T17:08:26+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=\"15 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-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-06T17:08:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2950,\"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-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-06T17:08:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - 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\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-06T17:08:26+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-06T17:08:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010"},"wordCount":2950,"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-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010","name":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, ... on 9 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-06T17:08:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-m-vasudeva-vs-superintendent-of-police-korba-on-9-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri M. Vasudeva vs Superintendent Of Police, Korba, … on 9 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210644","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=210644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}