{"id":213345,"date":"2009-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-08T18:57:13","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T13:27:13","slug":"shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009<\/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\n                                                         Decision No.4047\/IC(A)\/2009\n\n                                                         F. No.CIC\/MA\/C\/2009\/000045\n\n                                                           Dated, the 11th June, 2009\n\n\nName of the Appellant:                Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan\n\nName of the Public Authority:         Airports Authority of India (AAI)\n\n         i\nFacts:\n\n1.      The complainant, an ex-serviceman, has submitted a complaint petition\ndated 14.1.09 against the respondent stating that the CPIO has not replied to his\nRTI application dated 1.12.08 even after the lapse of the mandatory period of\nthirty days.\n\n2.    Both the parties were heard on 20\/3\/2009 and 28\/5\/2009. The following\nwere present:\n\nOn 20\/3\/2009:\n\nAppellant: 1. Sh. Mohd. Ismail Khan\n\nRespondents:1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM (ATM); 2. Smt. Usha Dhingra, SM (P);\n            3. Sh. Harish Mehta, MGR (P); 4. Sh.. Anil Kumar, Sup. (O).\n\nOn 28\/5\/2009:\n\nAppellant: 1. Sh. Mohd. Ismail Khan\n\nRespondents:1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM (ATM); 2. Sh. V.K. Sharma, Jt.G.M\n            3. Smt. Roselind Joseph, Sr.Mgr; 4. Sh. Anil Kumar,Supervisor(P)\n\n                 i\n                     \"If you don't ask, you don't get.\" - Mahatma Gandhi\n\n\n                                             1\n                 5. Sh. J.S. Bedi, AGM (Com.) ;       6. Sh. J.W. Ahlawat, SDA\n\n3.     The appellant has alleged irregularities in the process of recruitment for\nthe post of Manager (Fire Services) for which he was also a candidate. He has\nstated that his name has not been short-listed along with other candidates, who\nhave been selected for written test and interview.\n\n4.     In response to an advertisement No.2\/2007 of Employment News dated 8\n- 14 December 2007 for the post of Manager (Fire Services), the appellant\nsubmitted his application for appointment to the above post. A list of select\ncandidates for written test was displayed on the notice board of the respondent.\nWhen the appellant came to know that his name was not short-listed for written\ntest, he submitted a representation dated October 23, 2008 addressed to the\nExecutive Director, AAI, stating that he was professionally qualified to be called\nfor the written test. He, therefore, pleaded that his name be included in the list of\ncandidates called for the written test. But, he did not receive any reply from the\nOffice of the Executive Director of the respondent. Subsequently, after about a\nmonth, he submitted his RTI application on December 1, 2008 and sought for\ncertain information relating to the process of selection of candidates for written\ntest, mainly the grounds on the basis of which some candidates were allowed to\nappear for the written test.\n\n5.      The CPIO, Shri. B.K. Verma, too did not reply within the stipulated period\nof thirty days. The complainant, therefore, submitted his complaint dated 14.1.09\nto the Commission, in response to which the Commission issued notices for\nhearing in the matter and fixed the date of hearing on 20.3.09 vide its notice\ndated 16.2.09. In the meantime, the CPIO replied vide his letter dated 13th\nMarch 2009, whereby he supplied partial information, as under, which was\nreceived from the concerned office, about a month earlier, vide internal memo\ndated 13.2.09:\n\n\"Subject: Information under RTI Act-2005-PIO-1512 (Md. Ismail Khan)\n\nReference your letter No.A.600011\/41\/2009-RTI-Pers. Dated 11\/02\/09, on the\nsubject cited above.\n\nThe points with their reply as per record available in HR Cell are indicated below:\n\nS.      Question                             Reply\nNo.\n1.      Are (1) Shri Naresh Canjewar         Roll Nos 546002, 516001, 516009\n        (Roll No.546002), (2) shri           have fulfilled the qualification criteria\n        Mahesh        Warbhe     (Roll       and 516007 does not meet the\n        No.516001), (3) Shri Prashant        required qualification.       It is also\n        Patil (Roll No.516009) and (4)       pertinent to mention here that the final\n        Shri P.K. Deshmukh (Roll             scrutiny is to be done at the time of\n\n\n\n                                         2\n        No.516007) in possession of interview and those who do not\n       1st       class       degree      in meet the eligibility criteria are not\n       Graduation?                          allowed to attend the interview\n                                            which is yet to be conducted.\n           (i)     If Yes - provide\n                   photo copy of their          (i)   Copy of degree of the other\n                   graduate degree.                   candidates       cannot    be\n           (ii)    If No -                            provided as it is personal\n           (a) Disclose list of all                   information.\n                candidates permitted to\n                appear in written exam          (a) Result yet not declared hence\n                but not possessing 1st              cannot be provided. However,\n                class Academic Degree.              those not possessing 1st class\n           (b) Photo copy\/reference of              degree will not be permitted to\n                corrigendum of post-                attend interview.\n                advertisement                   (b) No         Corrigendum      for\n                change\/modifications in             Change\/Modifications          in\n                qualifications                      qualifications for the post of\n                                                    Manager (Fire Service) was\n                                                    issued.\n5.     What is reason for rejecting my You are not meeting the eligibility\n       application even though I criteria              as      per    Advertisement\n       secured 51% marks in Post No.2\/2007.\n       Graduation          from      UGC\n       recognized              Annamalai\n       University,      with    an     Ex-\n       serviceman              Graduation\n       Degree, meeting age and other\n       all       other        professional\n       requirements vij. Grad IFE\n       Certificate, valid HTV license\n       etc. And that application was\n       submitted in time.\n6.     Provide a photo copy of Copy enclosed.\n       Representation                   for\n       consideration for Manager (Fire\n       Service) post dated 23rd\n       October 2008 that I had\n       submitted to the Executive\n       director (P&A) with his remarks.\n7.     Provide details of opportunities HR Cell is doing Recruitment in only\n       given to Ex-serviceman and group 'B' and above and there is no\n       Minority Class in last 10 years reservation for Minority Class\/Ex-\n       with percentage of total quota       serviceman in Group 'B' and above.\n\nThis issues with the approval of GM (P).\"\n\n\n                                        3\n 6.      In the course of hearing, the appellant stated that:\n\n(i)     He was professionally qualified for inclusion of his name for the written\n        test and interview. But, for the reasons known to the respondents, his\n        name was not included while the persons having comparable\n        qualifications and experience were included in the list of short-listed\n        candidates;\n\n(ii)    The candidates identified in his RTI application do not fulfil the essential\n        qualification, as advertised, yet their names are included in the short-\n        listed candidates.\n\n(iii)   He has a Post-graduate Degree and a technical degree\/qualification from\n        Institute of Fire Engineers, England, and over 22 years of professional\n        experience in fire services, including 15 years in Indian Navy and about\n        five years with the respondent.\n\n(iv)    The information supplied to him, after more than three months is\n        incomplete and misleading; and\n\n(v)     The respondent has proceeded ahead in the conduct of examination,\n        ignoring the irregularities pointed out by him.\n\n\n7.    The CPIO and his colleagues explained the process of selection of the\ncandidates for written test. It was stated that:\n\n        (i)    In response to the RTI application, a point-wise response has been\n        furnished vide his letter dated 13.3.2009.\n\n        (ii)   One of the criteria for selection of candidates for written test was\n        1st class Graduation Degree. Since the appellant has a second class, he\n        could not be included in the short-listed candidate.\n\n        (iii)    There is a candidate, as identified by the appellant, who does not\n        fulfil the essential qualification of having first class graduation degree. The\n        task of scrutiny of application and short-listing of candidates was entrusted\n        to a private body, namely the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi. He\n        was therefore unable to comment as to how the name of a candidate, who\n        did not meet the required qualification, was included in the short-listed\n        candidates;\n\n        (iv)  The written test has already been conducted but the final selection\n        of candidates has not been made as yet.\n\n\n\n\n                                           4\n           (v)    The recruitment process was not complete at the time of RTI\n          application. Therefore, no reply could be given to the appellant.\n\n          (vi)   Since the final selection of candidates is yet to be made, the\n          irregularities, as pointed by the complainant, would be rectified in due\n          course to ensure that the selection of candidates is made strictly on the\n          basis of the qualification and experience as advertised in the Employment\n          News.\n\n8.     On the basis of the submissions made by both the parties, the following\nmajor issues emerged for our discussion and examination.\n\n   (i)       Whether there is any reasonable cause for inordinate delay in supply\n             of the requested information for invoking section 20(1) of the Act on the\n             ground of deemed refusal of the information.\n   (ii)      Whether the use of the instrument of RTI is of any assistance to realize\n             the objectives of transparency and fairness in the process of\n             recruitment of candidates, without unduly violating the principles of\n             equity and justice.\n\n\nAnalysis of Facts and Decision Notice:\n\n9.      The appellant has sought to know as to why his name was not included in\nthe list of short-listed candidates. He used the internal mechanisms through his\nrepresentation to the Executive Director, AAI, vide his note dated October 23,\n2008, but there was no response. He was, therefore, constrained to resort to the\nprovision of RTI. His RTI application dated 1.12.08 was replied on 13.3.2009,\nafter the process of hearing was initiated by the Commission. The CPIO is thus\nheld responsible for violation of section 7(1) of the Act, since he did not respond\nwithin the stipulated period of thirty days. The CPIO is, therefore, liable to pay\npenalty @ Rs.250\/- per day, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000\/-, for neglect of his\nmandatory obligations.\n\n10.    It is also observed that the CPIO, Shri. B.K. Verma has sought the\nassistance, u\/s 5(4) of the Act, of the concerned officials, who are deemed PIOs,\nbeing the custodian of information. In this process, partial information was\nprovided by Shri. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.) on 13th February 2009. A point-\nwise reply was also furnished on 13.2.09 by Ms. Usha Dhingra, Sr. Manager\n(HR), which was forwarded, after a lapse of one month, to the appellant on\n13.3.09 by Shri. B.K. Verma. Thus, all the above mentioned officials have,\nwithout any justifiable reasons, violated section 7(1) of the Act, as they provided\nthe information after the lapse of mandatory period of thirty days. They are,\ntherefore, held liable for payment of penalty u\/s 20(1) of the Act. In view of un-\nsatisfactory and, therefore, un-acceptable explanations provided by them during\n\n\n\n\n                                           5\n the hearing, a token amount of penalty, as under, is imposed u\/s 20(1) of the\nAct, on the officials identified herein under:\n\nName of the CPIO\/deemed PIO          Amount of Penalty u\/s 20(1) of the Act\n                                     .\n<\/pre>\n
1. Sh. B.K. Verma, DGM & CPIO        Rs.15,000\/-(Rs. Fifteen thousand only)\n<\/p>\n
2. Sh. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.) Rs.5,000\/- (Rs. Five thousand only)\n<\/p>\n
3. Ms. Usha Dhingra, GM (HR)         Rs.5,000\/- (Rs. Five thousand only)<\/p>\n
11.   The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, is directed to deduct the
\naforementioned amount @ Rs.5,000\/- per month from the monthly salary of
\nAugust 2009 of the above mentioned officers and deposit the same by way
\nof Bankers cheques drawn in favour of PAO, Central Administrative
\nTribunal, payable at New Delhi, to the Registrar, Central Information
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
12.     Our assessment demonstrate that the respondent, i.e. Airports Authority of
\nIndia, is not duly responsive to the demands for openness in its functioning, as
\nrequired under the RTI regime. Neither the complainant’s letter dated 23.10.08 to
\nthe Executive Director, AAI, was replied nor the RTI application dated 1.12.08
\nwas attended to by the CPIO and the concerned officials, till the proceedings u\/s
\n18 of the Act were initiated by the Commission in February 09. In his attempts to
\nseek transparency in the recruitment process and to expose the illegality of
\ndeviation in adhering to the principle of equity and justice, the complainant has
\nsurely suffered harassments of all forms for a period of over six months or so.
\nThere is no reason as to why the complainant should not be suitably
\ncompensated for the harassment and detriment suffered by him in the process of
\nseeking information and exposing the irregularities in short-listing of candidates,
\nwhich is admitted by the CPIO. Because of the lackadaisical attitude of the
\nofficials towards the implementation of the provisions of the Act, resulting in
\ndeemed refusal of requested information, the complaint was compelled to knock
\nthe doors of this Commission, which could have been avoided had the concerned
\nofficials replied to him on time.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The Chairman, Airports Authority of India is therefore directed u\/s
\n19(8)(b) of the Act to pay, on behalf of the respondent, a token amount of
\nRs.10,000\/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for all forms of
\nlosses suffered by the complainant, including the submission of petitions,
\nattending hearings at the Commission, etc. This payment should be made
\nthrough a Bank Draft in favour of the complainant on or before August 31,
\n2009, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be applicable. A
\ncompliance report should be submitted within one week from the date of
\naction taken in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The instrument of RTI has been effectively used by the citizens for
\nenhancing accountability and performance of public authorities. Transparency in<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\n functioning of the public authorities enables people to provide feedback in
\nrespect of such critical areas as designing of programmes and implementation of
\npublic policies. Identification of problems and issues at the initial stages, through
\nthe inputs from the affected persons help in reducing wastages, ensure cost-
\neffectiveness and, thus, improve the outcomes of public actions as well as the
\ncredibility of organisations. In absence of such inputs from the citizens, efficiency
\nand productivity of organisations are unduly compromised.\n<\/p>\n
15.     In the instant case, the initiative taken by the complainant has led to
\nexposure of the irregularities committed by the officials associated with the
\nrecruitment process. The criteria of short-listing candidate on the basis of 1st
\nclass graduation degree have been violated without any justifiable reason. As
\nper this criteria while the complainant’s name was justly excluded, another
\ncandidate, namely Sh. P.K. Deshmukh (Roll No.516007) was included, though
\nhe was also ineligible like the complainant. The CPIO has admitted that this
\ncandidate “does not meet the required qualification”. It is unfair to say, as
\nstated by the CPIO, that “the final scrutiny is to be made at the time of interview
\nand those who do not meet the eligibility criteria are not allowed to attend the
\ninterview which is yet to be completed”.\n<\/p>\n
16.    In effect, thus, the principles of equity and justice have been violated,
\nwhich could be attributed to malafied reasons, which ought to be investigated.
\nThe Chairman, Airports Authority of India, is, therefore, directed to enquire
\ninto the matter to unearth the facts about the alleged violation of criteria for
\nrecruitment of Manager (Fire Services). He would be free to take appropriate
\naction in the matter of recruitment process, including the disciplinary action
\nagainst the officials responsible for violation of the selection criteria, which was
\nmade public through advertisement in the Employment News. The details of
\naction taken in this regard should also be put in public domain to demonstrate
\nthat the AAI is duly fair and transparent in selecting professionally qualified
\npersons for effective delivery of mandatory services.\n<\/p>\n
17.    The appellant did make a sincere effort to seek redressal of his grievances
\nthrough internal mechanisms by writing to the Executive Director, AAI, vide his
\nrepresentation dated October 23, 2009, but of no avail. It shows that the
\ngrievance redressal mechanism of the respondent is either ineffective or non-
\nexistent. The Chairman, AAI, should consider strengthening the grievance
\nredressal system so that the affected persons do not have to resort to the
\nprovisions of the RTI Act. In effect, thus, considerable time and resources of
\nthe public authority could be saved for attending to priority areas of activities that
\nare handled by all of us.\n<\/p>\n
18.   It may not be out of place to suggest that the respondent should
\nregularly organise education and training programmes for the officials to
\nacquaint them with the provisions of the Act to facilitate the promotion of<\/p>\n
                                          7<\/span>
\n openness in the functioning of the respondent, which is also mandated u\/s
\n26 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
19.   With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
\n                                                        Central Information Commissioner ii<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n
(M.C. Sharma)
\nAssistant Registrar<\/p>\n
Name & address of Parties:\n<\/p>\n
1.    Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan, RZ 125B                      Street No.9\/2, Sadh Nagar,
\n      Palam Colony, New Delhi – 110 045.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Shri. B.K. Verma, CPIO, Airports Authority of India, Regional
\n      Headquarters, Northern Region, Operational Offices, Gurgaon Road, New
\n      Delhi – 110 037.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Shri. Harish Mehta, Manager (Pers.), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv
\n      Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Ms. Usha Dhingra, Sr. Manager (HR), Airports Authority of India, Rajiv
\n      Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
\n      Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi – 110 003.\n<\/p>\n
                      ii
\n                           “All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle<\/p>\n
                                                 8<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066 Website: www.cic.gov.in Decision No.4047\/IC(A)\/2009 F. No.CIC\/MA\/C\/2009\/000045 Dated, the 11th June, 2009 Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan Name of the […]<\/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-213345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - 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-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-08T13:27:13+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=\"13 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-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T13:27:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1067,\"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-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T13:27:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - 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-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-08T13:27:13+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T13:27:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009"},"wordCount":1067,"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-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009","name":"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T13:27:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-ismail-khan-vs-airports-authority-of-india-aai-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri. Mohammed Ismail Khan vs Airports Authority Of India (Aai) on 11 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/213345","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=213345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}