{"id":212106,"date":"2010-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-29T13:05:03","modified_gmt":"2016-06-29T07:35:03","slug":"shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010<\/div>\n
              Central Information Commission\n                          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066\n                              Website: www.cic.gov.in\n\n           (Adjunct to Decision No.5478\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 24\/5\/2010)\n\n                                                         Decision No.5687\/IC(A)\/2010\n                                                         F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2010\/000133\n                                                             Dated, the 30th July, 2010\n\nName of the Appellant:                Shri. Rafique Ansari\n\nName of the Public Authority:         Damodar Valley Corporation\n\n                                       Decision: i\n\n1.    In our Decision Notice No.5478\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 24\/5\/2010 the following\nobservations were made:\n\n       \"Decision Notice:\n\n       7.     The     appellant     re-iterated    in pains that   had     the\n       respondent\/Government not acquired his productive agricultural land of<\/pre>\n
       over 20 acres, he would not have been marginalized to the extent of his
\n       small family falling below the poverty line.\n<\/p>\n
     8.       The evidence on record show that:\n<\/p>\n
     (i)    The CPIO has not replied within the stipulated period of 30 days. He
\n            has thus violated section 7(1) of the Act. The CPIO, Sh. A.K.
\n            Sharma replied on 4th November 2009 only after the first appeal
\n            dated 24\/10\/2009 was submitted to the first appellate authority of the
\n            respondent. And, the CPIO did not provide complete information as
\n            asked for. The deemed PIO, Sh. M. Das has stated that certain
\n            information are available at the headquarters where the CPIO’s office
\n            is located. Yet, the CPIO did not bother to collect and compile the
\n            information from his own office for onward transmission to the
\n            appellant. Rather, he has hastily replied after receipt of the first
\n            appeal petition by the respondent. Thus, the CPIO has neither
\n            replied within the stipulated period of 30 days nor he has made any<\/p>\n
                 i
\n                     “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n
                                             1<\/span>
\n        sincere attempts to provide complete and correct information as
\n       asked for by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)   The Appellate Authority has not passed any order on the appeal
\n       dated 24\/10\/2009. He seems to have simply advised his CPIO to
\n       reply to the appellant without taking due cognizance of the
\n       inadequacies in the response given by the CPIO. Nor any effort has
\n       been made to provide complete information after obtaining the same
\n       at the Headquarters level, where the offices of the CPIO and the
\n       Appellate Authority are located.\n<\/p>\n
9.        Clearly, the CPIO, including the other custodians of information as
\nwell as the Appellate Authority have not acted as per the requirements of
\nthe provisions of the RTI Act, of which they are fully aware. In view of what
\nthe appellant has said about denial of his rights to work and seek
\ninformation, it seems that the respondents are surely hiding more than what
\nthey are revealing, without any reasonable cause in order to cover up lack
\nof accountability towards a physically challenged land oustee, who has
\nslipped below the defined poverty line due to lackadaisical attitude of the
\nofficials of the respondents. On the present reckoning, it is unthinkable that
\nan owner and farmer of over 20 acres, would be categorized under BPL. Is
\nit not the respondent, as an instrument of state, responsible for throwing the
\nappellant into the quagmire of poverty? More than the Almighty God, we
\nalone are responsible for making our people’s life miserable. The
\nappellant’s case is an example of deliberate misdeeds of public action.\n<\/p>\n
10.      The CPIO, Sh. A.K. Sharma and the deemed PIO, Sh. M. Das, are
\ntherefore held responsible for denial of information. They are directed to
\nshow cause as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000\/ (Rupees twenty
\nfive thousand only) each, u\/s 20(1) of the Act, should not be imposed on
\nthem for deemed refusal of information without any reasonable cause.
\nThey should submit their explanations at the earliest and also appear for a
\npersonal hearing on July 19, 2010 at 12.30 p.m., failing which penalty
\nwould be imposed on them. The appellant may also be present in the
\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n
11.      The CPIO is also directed to furnish complete information free of
\ncost as per section 7(6) of the Act, as asked for by the appellant, at the
\nearliest. Moreover, u\/s 4(1)(d) of the Act, every public authority is required
\nto provide grounds for any administrative or quasi judicial decision to the
\naffected persons. Accordingly, the respondents should provide the reasons
\ntogether with supporting documents, as to why the appellant, a physically
\nchallenged land oustee, could not be provided alternative avenues for
\nincome generation.\n<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
 12.       The appellant has indeed suffered all kinds of harassment including
\nloss of wages in pursuing his RTI application at the level of CPIO and
\nAppellate Authority and the Commission as well. Had he been provided
\ncomplete and correct information as asked for, his oft repeated requests to
\nthe CPIO and the Appellate Authority and attending hearings at the
\nCommissions level could have been avoided. The respondents have
\nneither shown any interest in implementation of the provisions of the Act nor
\npaid due regard to the Right to Information exercised by the citizens like the
\nappellant, who has not been provided critical information relating to his
\nrights to work and earn for his sustenance. The Respondent’s Chairman,
\nDVC, or his nominee is, therefore, directed to show cause as to why an
\namount of Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) should not be
\nawarded to the appellant under section 19 (8)(b) of the Act for all kinds of
\ndetriments suffered by him in seeking information, which are closely related
\nto violation of human rights such as right to work and to live with dignity.\n<\/p>\n
13.      The respondent’s Chairman, DVC or his nominee, should submit
\nhis explanation at the earliest and also appear for a hearing on the date and
\ntime mentioned above, failing which the above amount of compensation
\nwould be awarded to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
14.       Under the scheme of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), all the
\nEnterprises are expected to design and implement such socio economic
\nprogrammes as may be required for empowerment of people who live in the
\nvicinity of the Companies. Had the respondents done the needful,
\nparticularly to augment opportunities for learning and earning, such cases
\nas above would not have arisen. And, our people would not have
\naggressively agitated against the Government’s action to acquire private
\nagricultural lands which are the main source of income of farmers. In view
\nof this, the socio-economic conditions of affected population ought to be
\nevaluated so as to make positive interventions for their upliftments. The
\nRespondent’s Chairman, DVC is therefore directed to undertake a
\ncomprehensive assessment of all the cases of re-habilitation arising from
\nacquisition of lands of the families whose sole source of the earning was
\nthe lands, which are in possession of the respondent now. A report in this
\nregard should be submitted to the Commission within one month from the
\ndate of receipt of this decision, with a view to examining the quality of public
\naction in response to the nature of dis-contentments among the people,
\nwho are seeking transparency in the working of the respondent in respect of
\nCSR activities and related issues.\n<\/p>\n
15.       The appeal would be heard again on 19th July 2010 at 12.30 p.m. in
\nthe light of the parties’ responses to the directions passed above.”\n<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
 2.     In response to the above show cause notice, the following were present
\nduring the hearing on 19\/7\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant     :      Shri. Rafique Ansari<\/p>\n
      Respondent :         Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO & Dy. Secretary,
\n                           Shri Mahendra Das, PIO & Jt. D.P.\n<\/p>\n
                           Shri. S.P. Kunwar, Sr. Addl. Director (Law)<\/p>\n
3.   During the hearing, Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO and Shri. Mahendra Das,
\ndeemed PIO, stated that:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)     Delay in providing the information was caused due to involvement
\n              of various officials in collection and compilation of documents from
\n              different units of the respondent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)    A lot of time was also wasted in communication with the offices of
\n              the respondent located at Maithon and Kolkota.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)   The appellant did not submit his BPL card on time for providing the
\n              information; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (iv)    Because of lack of cooperation from the appellant, his grievances
\n              regarding rehabilitation could not be redressed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.     The information sought for relate to the grounds for denial of appellant’s
\nrights to secure an opportunity to work and earn for living, in lieu of
\ndispossession of his lands for power projects. Neither the respondent’s
\nrehabilitation schemes nor the programmes under CSR have been able to
\naddress the concerns of the appellant. On such pretext as non-submission of
\nBPL card or non-cooperation of different parties, the information asked for have
\nbeen either suppressed or destroyed by the respondents. The explanations
\nsubmitted by the respondents are therefore not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Therefore, for obstructing the flow of information and for providing
\nincomplete and misleading information for malafied reasons, penalty u\/s 20(1) of
\nthe Act, as under, is imposed on the following officials, who are responsible for
\ndenial of information without any reasonable cause.\n<\/p>\n
      i)      An amount of Rs.15,000\/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) is
\n              imposed on Shri. A.K. Sharma, Dy. Secretary & CPIO, who could
\n              not effectively co-ordinate with the concerned officials for providing
\n              complete information within the stipulated period of thirty days. Nor
\n              he could arrange to provide complete information in respect of
\n              various points raised by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
       ii)    An amount of Rs.10,000\/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) is imposed
\n             on Shri. Mahendra Das, Jt. D.P. & deemed PIO, who did not care
\n             to provide complete information as asked for by the appellant.
\n             Rather, he simply endorsed the documents as obtained from his
\n             office without ascertaining the fulfillment of information needs of the
\n             appellant.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The Chairman, DVC, is directed to deduct the above amount of money
\nfrom the monthly salary of the above mentioned officials in equal installments of
\nRs.5,000\/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with effect from September 2010, and
\ndeposit the same by way of Bankers cheque drawn in favour of PAO, CAT,
\npayable at New Delhi to the PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1,
\nHutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi, under intimation to the Registrar, Central
\nInformation Commission.\n<\/p>\n
7.      Shri. S.P. Kunwar, the nominee of the Chairman, DVC, could not explain
\nas to why the procedure for providing information has not been streamlined to
\nfurnish the information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Due to
\nlackadaisical attitude of the officials, the appellant has not only wasted time and
\nresources in accessing information, but also could not obtain complete and
\ncorrect information with regard to his rehabilitation, due mainly to suppression of
\nfacts in the matter. For the detriments suffered by the appellant, in terms of time
\nand resources in pursuing the matter, including mental harassment, an amount of
\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) is awarded to the appellant,
\nShri. Rafique Ansari, u\/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, to compensate for all kinds of
\ndetriments suffered by him, as an information seeker from the BPL category, who
\nhas contributed to the establishment of the respondents projects, while he
\nhimself and his family lives the life of destitute.\n<\/p>\n
8.     The Chairman, DVC is, therefore, directed to arrange to pay an amount of
\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the
\nappellant, Shri. Rafique Ansari, through a bank draft on or before 31st August,
\n2010, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be applicable.\n<\/p>\n
9.     Unfortunately, the respondents, as an instrument of State, is responsible
\nfor acquiring the appellant’s lands, worth several lakhs, and dragging him in the
\nBPL category. Under Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, every public authority is required
\nto “provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the
\naffected persons”. Accordingly, the respondent’s Chairman, DVC, should
\nindicate as to why the appellant, a land oustee, physically challenged person and
\na BPL card holder, cannot be rehabilitated in spite of appellant’s oft-repeated
\nprayers to fulfill the promises made to him for providing alternate employment
\nand earning opportunities.\n<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
 10.    A compliance report in respect of the above directions should also be
\nsubmitted to the Commission, within one month from the date of receipt of this
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
11.   The appeal is thus disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
\n                                                     Central Information Commissionerii<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n
(M.C. Sharma)
\nDeputy Registrar<\/p>\n
Name & address of Parties:\n<\/p>\n
1.    Shri. Rafique Ansari, Vill: Pakdih, PO: Bena, Dist: Jamtara (Jharkhand)<\/p>\n
2.    Shri. A.K. Sharma, CPIO, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
\n      Road, Kolkata – 700 054.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Shri. Mahendra Das, Deemed PIO & Jt. Director (Personnel), Damodar
\n      Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road, Kolkata – 700 054.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The Appellate Authority, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP
\n      Road, Kolkata – 700 054.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The Chairman, Damodar Valley Corporation, DVC Tower, VIP Road,
\n      Kolkata – 700 054.\n<\/p>\n
                   ii
\n                        “All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle<\/p>\n
                                              6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010 Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066 Website: www.cic.gov.in (Adjunct to Decision No.5478\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 24\/5\/2010) Decision No.5687\/IC(A)\/2010 F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2010\/000133 Dated, the 30th July, 2010 Name of the Appellant: Shri. Rafique Ansari Name […]<\/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-212106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 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-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-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=\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-29T07:35:03+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=\"10 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-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-29T07:35:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1989,\"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-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-29T07:35:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 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. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 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-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-29T07:35:03+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-29T07:35:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010"},"wordCount":1989,"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-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010","name":"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-29T07:35:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-rafique-ansari-vs-damodhar-valley-corp-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri. Rafique Ansari vs Damodhar Valley Corp. on 30 July, 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\/212106","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=212106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}