{"id":21613,"date":"2008-09-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-20T01:54:20","modified_gmt":"2016-05-19T20:24:20","slug":"shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00607 dated 27.2.2008\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant        -          Shri Hari Ram Gupta\nRespondent           -      Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi.\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 16.7.07 Shri Hari Ram Gupta of Bhogal, New Delhi
\napplied to Shri R. K. Nagpal, MOUD on behalf of Food Grain and Kirana
\nMerchants Association, Samman Bazar, Bhogal, seeking the following
\ninformation:\n<\/p>\n
         “Please provide us the following detailed information as being
\n         sought on the basis of a letter received by this Association from its
\n         member dealers and other traders who are doing business since
\n         much before 1962 i.e. before the first Master Plan of 1962 came
\n         into existence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (i)        What type of proof of documents is required to be
\n                produced about the business before 1962? If no document
\n                is available with any trader whether or not Affidavit to this
\n                effect would suffice the purpose?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)       As advertised in a number of newspapers that the
\n                commercial use should be continuous; what proof is required
\n                in this connection?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iii)      Whether there is no objection in the change of the
\n                business i.e. from Kirana Store to cloth shop or sanitary
\n                shop & vice versa during this long period over 45 or 50 years
\n                or so.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iv)       Whether the change of constitution of ownership of the
\n                business is allowed?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (v)        Whether or not such person engaged in business
\n                activities before 1962 are exempt from the Payment of
\n                annual conversion charges\/ mixed use charges and\/ or
\n                Parking charging recently announced by the MCD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (vi)       Kindly give information to whom the supportive
\n                information being in existence regarding commercial
\n                activities before 1962 is to be submitted?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (vii)      Please provide the Association the detailed guidelines for
\n                persons engaged in commercial activities before 1962 for
\n                compliance by our traders.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
      This application was transferred by Shri P. K. Santra, Under Secretary &
\nCPIO, MoUD on 17.7.07 to the Vice Chairman, DDA & Commissioner, MCD.
\nThe Vice Chairman, DDA in his turn transferred the application to Shri Yash Pal
\nGarg Director CL on 25.7.07, to Shri Prahalad Singh, Director LD on 30.7.07 and
\nto the Commissioner, MCD on 7.8.07. This application, therefore, seems to have
\ndone the round till appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta got a response on 22.8.07
\nfrom PIO and Director Horticulture, MCD stating that “the said RTI does not
\npertain to Horticulture Department, MCD.”\n<\/p>\n
     Shri H.R. Gupta, therefore, moved his first appeal before Ms. Sujata
\nChaturvedi, Director, MOUD pleading that “The information asked for is related\/
\nconnected to the Ministry of Urban Development as per Master Plan 2021.”\n<\/p>\n
In this appeal he also traced the routing of his application as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “That Shri P. K. Santra forwarded the said application:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       1. The Vice Chairman
\n       Delhi Development Authority,
\n       Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2. The Commissioner
\n       Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
\n       Town Hall, Delhi- 110 006<\/p>\n
       On 17.7.07 (Annexure ‘C’ Page 5) itself u\/s 6 (3) of RTI Act, 2005
\n       as the information sought are more closely related to these two
\n       public authorities.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       That Senior RO (RTI) at DDA Vikas Sadan first sent it to the
\n       Director Shri Yash Pal Garg and then to another Director Shri
\n       Prahlad Singh vide letters dated 25.7.07 and 30.7.07, endorsing
\n       copies to the applicant and Shri P. K. Santra of your Ministry
\n       (Copies enclosed as Annexure D page 6 and E page 7). That the
\n       said RO (RTI) again transferred this application to the
\n       Commissioner, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi stating the requested
\n       information does not fall within the jurisdiction of their Dep’t.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       That the Commissioner MCD might have sent this application dated
\n       16.7.07 of the applicant to this Deputy Commissioner Central Zone,
\n       Lajpat Nagar of which there is no intimation or endorsement to the<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span>
\n       applicant. That the Deputy Commissioner Central Zone transferred
\n      it to CTP, Nigam Bhawan, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in the printed form
\n      Annexure-VIII dated 16.8.07 (Annexure ‘G’ page 9) without
\n      endorsing any copy to Shri P. K. Santra and also without filling any
\n      column of the proforma whether the information does not fall in his
\n      jurisdiction etc.<\/p>\n
      That the applicant received letter dated 22.8.07 (Annexure H page\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      10) from the Director Horticulture PIO, MCD stating that the
\n      information sought does not pertain to Horticulture Department
\n      MCD. The said PIO neither informed that he is sending the said
\n      application dated 16.7.07 to any other public authority nor endorsed
\n      a copy to Shri A. K. Santra of UD Ministry for his information.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This appeal was heard by Ms. Sujata Chaturvedi who in her order of
\n28.9.07 has advised as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “The appellant informed the undersigned that he has received
\n      details regarding the information sought by him from Chief Town
\n      Planner, MCD on 14th September, 2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appellant was informed that the decision of the CPIO to
\n      transfer the application dated 16.7.2007 under section 6 (3) (ii) to
\n      DDA and MCD was correct and that in case the appellant is not
\n      satisfied with the action taken by the concerned public authorities,
\n      i.e. DDA and MCD on his application, then he is required to
\n      approach the concerned appellate authorizes in these
\n      organizations. It was also explained to the appellant that sine he
\n      has now received the information, no action as requested by him in
\n      Para 11 of his appeal dated 3.9.2007 is called for. In view of this,
\n      the appeal stands disposed of.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the meantime, appellant appears to have received information from the
\nChief Town Planner dated 14.9.07 and moved a first appeal before Addl.
\nCommissioner (Engg.) on 12.10.07.      In information received from Shri V. K.
\nBugga, Chief Town Planner dated 14.9.07; the following were the answers to
\neach of his questions:\n<\/p>\n
          1. “Trade License required. Affidavit will not serve the purpose.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          2. Proof should be in the form of documentary evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3. There is no objection in the change of the business.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
          4. There is no objection in the change of the Ownership.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         5. Mixed use charge and parking charge are levied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         6. You may contact concerned zonal office of MCD in this
\n            regard.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         7. There is no such list in the record available with this
\n            Department.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In this context appellant’s grounds of appeal with regard to each of the
\nquestion answers were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Information asked     for Information\/     reply   Comments\/     Grounds     of
\n(Page (7) (1)             received (Page 21)       appeal (3)
\n                          (2)<\/span>
\nPara (1) What type of Trade             licence  Trade license would be
\nProof is required about required.      Affidavit rarely available with the
\nthe business activities would not serve the      traders for the said period.<\/p>\n
\nbefore 1962.      If no purpose.                 As per Para 5.1 Pre 1962\/\ndocument is available                            MPD-1962:         Commercial\nwith any trader, whether                         activities existing from prior\nor not affidavit would                           to 1962 in Residential areas\nsuffice.                                         are also permitted subject to\n                                                 documentary proof thereof.\n                                                 If the dealer has any\n                                                 document of Sales Tax\n                                                 Dep't., Income Tax Dep't.,\n                                                 or of any other Govt. Dep't.,\n                                                 of that period that may also\n                                                 serve the purpose. Even\n                                                 appellant authority's own\n                                                 statement as appearing in\n                                                 Hindi Navbharat Times\n                                                 dated 28.6.07.\nPara (2) as advertised in Proof should be in the What       is     meant    by\na number of newspapers    form of documentary documentary evidence of\nthat the Commercial use   evidence.              continuity for a trader is\nshould be continuous.                            ambiguous.\nWhat proof is required in\nthis connection\n<\/pre>\n
Para (3) whether there is There is no objection Perfectly clear.\n<\/p>\n
any objection to change for      change       of\nof business i.e. from a business.\n\n\n                                      4<\/span>\n Kirana Shop to Cloth\nbusiness etc.\nPara (4) Whether change        There is no objection Perfectly clear.\nof     constitution      of    for    Change       of\nownership       of     the     ownership.\nbusiness is allowed.\nPara (5) Whether or not        Mix use charge and This appeal to be incorrect,\nsuch person engaged in         parking charge are incomplete & misleading\nbusiness activities before     levied.               information\/ reply as per\n1962 are exempt from                                 Para 5.1 of MPD 2021 says:\npayment      of     annual                           Pre      1962\/    MPD-1962:\nconversion charges\/ mix                              Commercial activity existing\nuse charges and or                                   from prior to 1962 in\nparking    charges      as                           Residential areas are also\nannounced by MCD.                                    permitted. Also as per Para\n                                                     5.3.1     (iii)  Commercial\n                                                     activities prior to 1962 in\n                                                     residential areas subject to\n                                                     documentary proof shall be\n                                                     permitted.        What     is\n                                                     permitted prior to 1962\n                                                     commercial activities, if he\n                                                     has to pay both the annual\n                                                     conversion\/ misuse charges\n                                                     and parking charges? Even\n                                                     appellant authority's own\n                                                     statement as appearing in\n                                                     Hindi Nav Bharat Times\n                                                     dated 28.6.2007. Meaning\n                                                     hereby that they have not to\n                                                     pay the conversion\/ mix use\n                                                     charges.\nPara (6) Kindly give           You may contact Yes the Zonal Offices of\ninformation to whom the        concerned      Zonal MCD are accepting the said\nsupportive information in      Office of MCD in this one time Parking Charges\nexistence       regarding      regard.               and or the annual Mix use\/\nCommercial       activities                          Conversion charges and the\nbefore 1962 is to be                                 supportive information of in\nsubmitted.                                           existence before 1962 is\n                                                     being submitted.\nPara (7) please provide        There is no such list But there were some news\nthe    association      the    in      the   record in some papers about some\ndetailed guidelines for        available with the guidelines to MCD to\npersons    engaged        in   dep't.                process such cases of in\n<\/pre>\n
Commercial       activities                          existence prior to 1962. If
\nbefore 1962.                                         there is no such guideline<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span>
\n                                                         with the Commission MCD
\n                                                        then it is alright.\n<\/p>\n
The orders of Addl. Commissioner (Engg.) of 20.11.07 were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “Information to the points raised by the appellant in his application
\n       has been provided to him. However, if the appellant needs any
\n       further clarification he may contact Chief Town Planner. CTP may
\n       also ensure that grievance of the appellant, if any may be settled as
\n       per rules in force without delay.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Appellant’s prayer before us is basically as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “That the appellant wrote letter dated 28.11.07 (Annexure page\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       35) to the Chief Town Planner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi,
\n       Delhi as advised by the appellant authority, MCD in its order
\n       (Page 2) requesting him to give the undersigned, personal
\n       haring on some convenient date, but there is no response
\n       from the said Chief Town Planner in spite of appellant’s
\n       personal efforts to meet him for desired clarification.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The points which he has raised in his appeal before us are, in his words,
\n“Just similar to what has been taken in the first appeal before the AA MCD”. He
\nconcludes his prayer with the following:\n<\/p>\n
       “That the appellant submitted application for information dated
\n       16.7.2007 to the Ministry of Urban Development, Govt. of India,
\n       New Delhi which was duly forwarded to the Commissioner, MCD
\n       vide letter dated 17.7.2007 (Annexure page 7) within the time
\n       allowed as per proviso to selection 6 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 but the
\n       reply of the Chief Town Planner MCD is dated 14.9.2007\/8 (i.e.
\n       after say 56 or 57 days in contravention of the requirements of
\n       Section 7 of the RTI Act 2005 of which CIC may take due notice
\n       and take action as per the requirement of the RTI Act 2005 besides
\n       directing the concerned authority to provide the necessary
\n       information asked for free of cost as per the requirement of
\n       selection 7 (6) of the said RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Your good self is requested to hear any appeal on the facts stated
\n       above. The appellant may kindly be heard in person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In response to the appeal notice Shri Bugga Chief Town Planner has
\nsubmitted the following questions and answers:\n<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
 S. No.   Question                          Answer\n1.       What type of proof or             As already stated to establish a trade\n         documents is required to be       before 1962, a trade license of pre-62\n         produced         about     the    will be acceptable as proof of\n         business before 1962? If          business. An affidavit is not any\n         no document is available          proof.\n         with any trader whether or\n         not Affidavit to this effect\n         would suffice the purpose?\n2.       As advertised in a number         Any document\/ documents conveying\n         of newspapers that the            the use of the property as commercial\n         commercial use should be          (license\/ lease deed etc) continuously\n         continuous; what proof is         till date is required.\n         required in this connection?\n3.       Whether      there     is   no    There is no objection to change of\n         objection in the change of        business.\n         the business i.e. from\n         Kirana Store to cloth shop\n         or sanitary shop & vice\n         versa during this long period\n         over 45 or 50 years or so.\n4.       Whether the change of             There is no objection to change in the\n         constitution of ownership of      constitution of ownership\/\n         the business is allowed?\n5.       Whether or not such person        Mix use charges to the extent of the\n         engaged        in     business    property was commercial prior to 1962\n         activities before 1962 are        are exempted. Area under use of\n         exempt from the payment of        commercial activity in the property\n         annual charges\/ mixed use         after 1962 is subject to payment of\n         charges and\/ or parking           conversion as well as parking\n         charging               recently   charges.\n         announced by the MCD.\n6.       Kindly give information to        The entire information\/ documentary\n         whom       the      supportive    evidence is to be submitted to the\n         information       being      is   concerned       Municipal     Zonal\n         existence            regarding    Authorities.\n         commercial activities before\n         1962 is to be submitted?\n7.       Please        provide      the    No such information is available on\n         association the detailed          record in the Dep't.\n         guidelines      for    persons\n         engaged in commercial\n         activities before 1962 for\n         compliance by our such\n         traders.\n\n\n\n                                           7<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
       The appeal was heard on 1.9.09. Respondent Shri V. K. Bugga, Chief
\nTown Planner, MCD is present. We have received a fax message from Shri Hari
\nRam Gupta dated 29.8.07 submitting as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “I am opting not to be present and request your good self to
\n       dispose\/ decided of the appeal taking into consideration the
\n       grounds taken in the appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
      We find that all the questions raised by appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta in
\nhis original application have been answered. However, the appeal of appellant
\nclearly states that he seeks further clarifications but that he has been unable to
\nmeet Chief Town Planner, MCD.           Therefore, he will now meet Chief Town
\nPlanner at 12.00 Noon on 8.9.08 upon which the Chief Town Planner will provide
\nto him any further clarifications sought, free of cost.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On the question of the application having traversed considerable ground
\nbefore it finally reached the appropriate official who could provide a reply i.e.
\nChief Town Planner, we note that this is certainly a pathetic commentary on the
\nprocessing of RTI applications in the MoUD and organizations related to it.
\nAdmittedly the reference needed to be made to the CPIO who could provide the
\ninformation sought u\/s 6(3) of the Act. However, it will appear that neither the
\nMoUD nor indeed the DDA and MCD themselves were able to identify the
\nconcerned wing from which the information was to be obtained.           Under the
\ncircumstances, appellant Shri Hari Ram Gupta is indeed entitled to receiving
\ninformation free of cost u\/s 7(6). Any fee paid by him will, therefore, be refunded
\nto him within 10 working days from the date of issue of this notice by the CPIO,
\nMoUD. Besides, CPIO, MOUD will also enquire from both DDA and MCD, the
\nreasons for the lengthy trajectory adopted for reference of this RTI application to
\nthe appropriate official and advise both organizations on the steps necessary to
\nstreamline their functioning. This exercise may be completed within 20 working
\ndays of the date of issue of this Decision Notice.\n<\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
      Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties. A copy may also be sent to Shri S Jaipal Reddy, Minister Urban
\nDevelopment for his information regarding the manner of disposal of the
\napplication of Shri Gupta<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n1.9.2008<\/p>\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 Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n1.9.2008<\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2008\/00607 dated 27.2.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Hari Ram Gupta Respondent – Dy. Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. Of Delhi. Facts : By an application of 16.7.07 Shri Hari Ram […]<\/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-21613","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - 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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-19T20:24:20+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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T20:24:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1793,\"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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-19T20:24:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - 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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-19T20:24:20+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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T20:24:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008"},"wordCount":1793,"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-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008","name":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal ... on 1 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-19T20:24:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hari-ram-gupta-vs-dy-commissioner-municipal-on-1-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Hari Ram Gupta vs Dy. Commissioner, Municipal … on 1 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21613","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=21613"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21613\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21613"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21613"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21613"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}