{"id":219070,"date":"2009-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-26T04:09:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T22:39:32","slug":"shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 2009<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01561 dated 27.11.2007\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -          Shri Arun Tiwari\nRespondent          -      Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)\n                                     Decision Announced 31`.7.'09\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         By an application of 22.6.07 addressed to Shri K. L. Ahuja, CPIO, CVC,
\nShri Arun Tiwari of Ranchi, Jharkhand sought the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.   Photocopy of the report by the CVO in regard to Complaint
\n               No. 402\/06\/6.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2.    Photocopy of the official notes made by the dealing
\n               personnel and onward notices thereon the authorities
\n               concerned on the report of the CVO received on 1.2.07 in
\n               above complaint.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.    Photocopy of the final order\/ finding of the Commission
\n               advisory closure of the case vide order dated 21.2.07.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         To this he received a response on 17.8.07 with the following information
\nprovided free of charge, as it was overdue:\n<\/p>\n
         “A copy each of the following documents is enclosed:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (i)   The Ministry of Coal’s UO No. 13027\/4\/2006-vig dated
\n               23.11.2006 (Seven pages);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)  Commission’s OM No. 006\/COL\/025-49057 dated 21.2.2007
\n               (one page) and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iii) A copy of each of the Commission’s notes dated 4\/7.12.2006
\n               and dated 6\/15.2.2007 (two pages).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The above documents are provided free of charge in terms of Sec.
\n         7(6) of the RTI Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         However, on the basis of an objection, as third party, by the CCL, a
\n         copy of the CCL’s letter No. CCL\/Vig\/06-07\/3499 dated 25.1.2007
\n         is denied under Section 8 (1) (d) read with Section 11 of the RTI
\n         Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
       Shri Tiwari then moved an appeal on 20.9.2007 before Shri V. Kannan,
\nAddl. Secretary, CVC on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
      “10.   That the opposite party has failed to appreciate that
\n             information\/ document sought for the appellant relates to the
\n             complain alleging serious financial irregularities causing
\n             huge loss to the CCL & BCCL which are public sector
\n             company. Hence it is in public interest that enquiry report
\n             submitted by the CVO in this regard on the complaint of the
\n             appellant should be disclosed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.    That the Opposite Party has also failed to appreciate that
\n             public sector organizations like CCL & BCCL should function
\n             in a transparent manner in public interest and if the
\n             documents sought for is denied, particularly in the matter of
\n             complaint alleging financial loss to the company due to
\n             irregularities committed by the officers of the company,
\n             public interest at large will suffer.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Upon this Appellate Authority Shri V. Kannan in his order of 12.10.2007
\npassed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
      “I uphold the decision of the CPIO, denying you part information u\/s
\n      8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The appeal was heard by video conference on 1.6.09. The
\nfollowing were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant at NIC Studio, Ranchi, Jharkhand
\n      Shri Arun Tiwari
\n      Shri P. N. Prasad
\nRespondents at CIC, New Delhi
\n      Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Director, CVC<\/p>\n
      Ms. Jyoti Mehta, Director, CVC submitted that the CCL was a third party in
\nthis matter and the report of CCL was submitted to CIL, which was the party that
\nsubmitted this report to the CVC. Because the CCL objected to disclosure of the
\ninformation after reference to it by the CPIO, CVC u\/s 11, the information has
\nbeen denied to appellant Shri Arun Tiwari. We, therefore, examined the file. We
\nfind there is a letter of CVO, CCL of 26.7.07 at page No. 37\/38-C addressed to
\nCVO, CIL in File No. 006\/COL\/025 entitled “Complaint against Shri R.P. Ritolia,
\nCMD, an Officer of CCL” in which this matter is examined. Although there is a<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span>
\n reference to CCL’s policy of E-auction and facts related to price of coal, the
\ndetails of that policy are not discussed.\n<\/p>\n
       Ms. Jyoti Mehta also explained the reasons why the transfer of this case
\nu\/s 6(3)(1) has taken more than five days the permissible period mandated under
\nsub sec. (1) of Sec. 6(3). This was because this letter was transferred to CIL and
\nMinistry of Coal on 7.7.07 and a reply from CCL was received on 26.7.07 and
\nfrom the Ministry on 9.8.07.      Hence the formal transfer took place only on
\n17.8.07. This issue has also not been pressed by appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       In an interim decision we held that the delay in transferring the application
\nstands explained. However, on the question of the disclosure of the letter of
\nCVO, CCL to CIL, there is clearly involvement of a third party which has objected
\nto disclosure of the contents of this letter, as requested by appellant Shri Arun
\nTiwari in his application of 22.6.07. Before we can take a decision in the matter,
\ntherefore, it would be necessary to hear the third party. CVO, CCL was ,
\ntherefore, directed to appear before us together with appellant Shri Arun Tiwari
\nthrough video conference on 1.7.2009 at 4.30 P.M. CPIO, CVC having submitted
\nher arguments was told that she need not appear again.\n<\/p>\n
       Accordingly, the matter was heard once more on 22.7.09 through video
\nconference Following on the Interim Decision at page 3-N, the following
\nappeared before us at NIC Studio, Ranchi on 22.7.2009 :\n<\/p>\n
       Appellant           Shri Arun Tiwari\n             Shri B. N. Prasad\n       Respondents\n             Shri Alok Singh, CVO, CCL\n\n<\/pre>\n
       Shri Alok Singh, CVO, CCL submitted that on all three points regarding
\nwhich information was sought by appellant Shri Arun Tiwari in his application of
\n22.6.07, he had been provided the information. However, it was by an error in
\nthe response of CPIO, CVC to appellant Shri Arun Tiwari dated 17.8.07 that he
\nhas informed appellant that “a copy of the CCL’s letter No. CCL\/Vig\/06-07\/3499<\/p>\n
                                            3<\/span>
\n dated 25.1.2007 is denied under Section 8 (1) (d) read with Section 11 of the RTI
\nAct.” This letter, Shri Alok Singh averred, was not a part of information sought in
\nthe application for information submitted by Shri Arun Tiwari. This constituted
\nonly an internal communication, the disclosure of which had been objected to by
\nthe CCL.\n<\/p>\n
       Shri Arun Tiwari submitted, however, that since this letter discussed the
\ncomplaint regarding which information had been sought by him, it constitutes a
\npart of the official noting with which the report of the CVO was concerned.\n<\/p>\n
       It was confirmed by CVO, CCL that this letter is held by the Ministry of
\nCoal. The CPIO, Ministry of Coal was, therefore, directed to present the file
\ncontaining this letter for our inspection on 31.7.09 at 12.30 p.m. to enable us to
\ndecide whether in fact this letter can be deemed to be part of the information
\nasked for by Shri Arun Tiwari in his application of 22.6.07.\n<\/p>\n
       CPIO Shri P.S.S. Reddy, Director, Ministry of Coal then appeared before
\nus on 31.7.2009 and presented a copy of the impugned letter of 25.1.07.
\nReading this letter substantiates the arguments of Shri Alok Singh, CVO CCL
\nthat this letter has been cited by error by CPIO CVC by refusing information on
\nthe grounds that this might disclose commercial interests, since it deals with the
\nprice of coals. Infact the letter has no such component, and only examines the
\ndisposal of the application for information. Shri Reddy himself was of the view
\nthat this letter is not a confidential document and could be disclosed.         He
\nsubmitted a certified copy to this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       In view of the above, it is clear that the information sought by appellant
\nShri Arun Tiwari has in fact been provided. However, to assuage his doubts
\nregarding part of the information constituting file noting having been withheld a<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span>
\n copy of the letter No. CCL\/Vig\/06-07\/3499 dated 25.1.007 is attached together
\nwith this Decision for his information.\n<\/p>\n
       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n31.7.2009<\/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
\n31.7.2009<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01561 dated 27.11.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Shri Arun Tiwari Respondent – Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Decision Announced 31`.7.’09 Facts : By an application of 22.6.07 addressed to Shri K. […]<\/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-219070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 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-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-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=\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T22:39:32+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=\"6 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-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T22:39:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1228,\"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-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T22:39:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 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 Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 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-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T22:39:32+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T22:39:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009"},"wordCount":1228,"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-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009","name":"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T22:39:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-arun-tiwari-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Arun Tiwari vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 31 July, 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\/219070","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=219070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}