{"id":219998,"date":"2009-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-17T07:20:16","modified_gmt":"2015-05-17T01:50:16","slug":"shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                    Central Information Commission\n                                                                        CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001462\n                                                                       Dated November 18, 2009\n\n\nName of the Applicant                        :   Shri S.S.Upadhyaya\n\nName of the Public Authority                 :   ITDC\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The applicant filed an RTI application dt.25.6.09 with the CPIO, ITDC requesting for<br \/>\n      following information:\n<\/p>\n<p>      i)      Payment off telephone bills at residence\/mobile bills and all other expenses such as<br \/>\n      salary including all allowances of Shri Rajeev Makin, Mrs.Anita Bimal, Shri S.Saxena and<br \/>\n      Shri Anchit Raj.\n<\/p>\n<p>      ii)     Total bills paid to Ashoka Florist from Hyderabad House from Jan.2004 to May 2009<br \/>\n      and the copy of the procedure adopted for purchasing the flower.\n<\/p>\n<p>      iii)    Photocopy of the P.F.challan along with salary bill of the employee working in<br \/>\n      Hyderabad House through M\/s.Keepers Services contractor house keeping.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Anita Bimal, Executive Manager replied on 22.7.09 as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>      i)      The requisite information sought is exempted from disclosure in terms of the<br \/>\n      provision of the section 8(1)(j) as it is personal in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>      ii)     The information asked is third party information. The concerned party was asked<br \/>\n      to make submissions as to whether the information should be provided or not. The party<br \/>\n      has intimated not to disclose their information. Moreover, the information asked for is of<br \/>\n      commercial confidence and trade secret covered u\/s 8(1)(d).\n<\/p>\n<p>      iii)    The information sought is not specific, hence unable to provide the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.24.8.09 with the Appellate<br \/>\n      Authority reiterating his request for the information.     The Appellate Authority replied on<br \/>\n      17.9.09 upholding the decision of the CPIO. Being aggrieved with the reply, the Applicant<br \/>\n      filed a second appeal dt.22.10.09 before CIC.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for<br \/>\n      November 18, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Shri Rajiv Makin, Appellate Authority and Shri Karunesh Tandon, Advocate representing the<br \/>\n      CPIO,    represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Applicant was not present during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>5.    The Respondents submitted that the appeal is not maintainable since only a citizen of India<br \/>\n      can seek information whereas in the instant case, it was the contention of the Respondent<br \/>\n      Public Authority that the Appellant sought information on behalf of an association. In this<br \/>\n      regard it is important to deal with the well settled law as per various decisions of the<br \/>\n     Commission. In the Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00336 dated 9\/5\/2006 titled as Shri<br \/>\n     D.N.Sahu versus Land &amp; Development Office, the Commission had held &#8220;&#8230;..appellant has<br \/>\n     submitted the application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in his<br \/>\n     individual capacity, signing no doubt as President of his association, but not for a<br \/>\n     separate entity&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; Although the Act guarantees right to information only to a citizen, in<br \/>\n     the instant case, the appellant is seeking information on behalf of other members of the<br \/>\n     Association, or simply a group of citizens, not a body corporate. The basic objective of the<br \/>\n     Act is to give information, rather than to withhold or deny a right&#8230;&#8221;. While deciding the<br \/>\n     Appeal Nos.CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00590, 639, 677, 754 to 758 dated 16.05.07 titled Shri<br \/>\n     Deepak Gupta vs. M. C. D. it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8230;&#8230;.. all superior Courts have been admitting applications in exercise of their<br \/>\n     extraordinary jurisdiction from Companies, Societies and Associations under<br \/>\n     Article 19 and very few petitions have been rejected on the ground that the<br \/>\n     applicants\/ petitioners are corporate bodies or Companies or Associations and, as<br \/>\n     such, not &#8220;Citizens&#8221;. The Commission also has been receiving a number of such<br \/>\n     applications from such entities. If the Courts could give relief to such entities, I think, the<br \/>\n     Commission also should not throw them out on mere technical ground that the applicant<br \/>\n     \/appellant happens to be a legal person and not a citizen&#8230;&#8230;..generally an office bearer<br \/>\n     who submits an application on behalf of such a society is submitting the<br \/>\n     application\/ appeal on behalf of its members and normally it is for common<br \/>\n     benefit of the members who are citizens.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The application\/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a Hindu<br \/>\n     Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituting as a body<br \/>\n     or otherwise is to be accepted and allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On another occasion while deciding the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1050822\/\">Shri J.C. Talukdar vs C.E. (E), CPWD,<br \/>\n     Kolkata<\/a> being Complaint Nos.CIC\/WB\/C\/2007\/00104 &amp; 105 both dated 30.3.2007 it was<br \/>\n     held that an application\/ appeal from an Association or a Partnership Firm or a<br \/>\n     Hindu Undivided Family or from some other group of individuals constituted as a<br \/>\n     body or otherwise should be accepted and allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Yet again while deciding the case of CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001926 dated 29.09.09 stated that<br \/>\n     &#8220;&#8230;.The fact that the name of the citizen could be clearly identified should have been<br \/>\n     adequate for the information to have been supplied. The Commission warns the PIO not to<br \/>\n     deny information on such grounds &#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   The   Respondent    Public   Authority   has   placed   reliance   on   the   decision   in   Case<br \/>\n     No.CIC\/AT\/A\/2007\/00410 dated 03.03.2008 titled as The Secretary, The Cuttack Tax Bar<br \/>\n     Association versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-VII &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;The application was signed by<br \/>\n     the Secretary, Shri Gopinath Padhi whose name as an individual can be ascertained only<br \/>\n     from the Letter Head of the Association and his signature per-se does not signify identity of<br \/>\n     the signatory. The first appeal has also been filed, not in the name of any individual citizen,<br \/>\n     but by the Secretary, Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar Panda<br \/>\n     who seems to have subsequently taken over as Secretary of the Association. Similarly, the<br \/>\n     2nd appeal before this Commission has not been filed in the name of any individual citizen<br \/>\n     but by the Secretary of the Cuttack Bar Association and it has been signed by Shri Natbar<br \/>\n     Panda as Secretary for and on behalf of the Association. From this, it is clear that the<br \/>\n     signatories to the application and the appeal under the R.T.I. Act are two distinct<br \/>\n     individuals&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; However even while dismissing the appeals it was clearly held that &#8220;&#8230;..The<br \/>\n        party will, however, still have the liberty to make a de novo application but in<br \/>\n       such cases it must be an application of one or some of its members, in their<br \/>\n       capacity as citizens&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>       While denying the information to the Appellants in another Appeal No.579\/ICPB\/2007 vide<br \/>\n       order dated June 18, 2007 it was held that &#8220;&#8230;Even though this Commission had earlier<br \/>\n       taken the view that only natural persons could be considered to be &#8220;citizens&#8221; in terms of<br \/>\n       Section 3 of the RTI Act, yet, with the view to ensure that the beneficial provisions of the<br \/>\n       Act should not be denied on technical grounds, presently this Commission has been<br \/>\n       entertaining applications filed on behalf of companies, associations, firms etc provided<br \/>\n       proper authorization of the Board of the company, management committees of Associations<br \/>\n       or the resolution of partners are enclosed with the applications.&#8221; Another case being No.<br \/>\n       CIC\/AT\/A\/2008\/01489 titled as M M Lal versus Customs Department was dismissed vide<br \/>\n       decision dated 24th June 2009, on the ground that the RTI Application &amp; 1st Appeal were<br \/>\n       signed by different individuals on the contention that they represented the same Law Firm<br \/>\n       thereby clearly reconfirming the provisions of law that Every citizen is a person but the<br \/>\n       vice versa of the same is not true. An artificial or juristic person cannot be a citizen.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Detailed study of the aforementioned cases thus reveal that the opinion is divided on<br \/>\n       whether an association of persons is to be considered as &#8220;citizen&#8221; as understood and<br \/>\n       defined under the RTI Act 2005 or not. However the one constant position in all the cases<br \/>\n       where information has been denied on the ground that the information has not been sought<br \/>\n       by a citizen as defined under the RTI Act 2005, is that the signatories have been different<br \/>\n       individuals at different levels of the same case. Also in some cases, the name of the<br \/>\n       signatory has not even been clearly specified. In such cases the inference is obvious that<br \/>\n       the signatory is a mere representative of the Firm\/Association and not seeking information<br \/>\n       in his\/her individual capacity. The position is completely the opposite in the instant case,<br \/>\n       where the Appellant is the same individual who has duly signed the RTI application as also<br \/>\n       the Appeals and pursued the case in his individual capacity at all levels. This is a similar<br \/>\n       position as seen in the aforementioned case of Shri Deepak Gupta vs. M. C. D. being<br \/>\n       Appeal Nos.CIC\/WB\/A\/2006\/00590, 639, 677, 754 to 758. Hence it is observed by the<br \/>\n       Commission that in the instant case, the information is being sought by an individual and in<br \/>\n       the light of the aforementioned decisions of the Commission, the information cannot be<br \/>\n       denied on such a frivolous ground as contended by the Respondent Public Authority. Hence<br \/>\n       the Commission directs that information as sought by the Appellant may be furnished by<br \/>\n       the 15th Dec 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                                        Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G.Subramanian)<br \/>\nAsst. Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Shri S.S.Upadhyay<br \/>\n      All India ITDC Trade Union Federation<br \/>\n      166 Pratap Nagar<br \/>\n      Opp. Mayur Vihar Phase-I<br \/>\n      Pocket-IV<br \/>\n      Delhi<\/p>\n<p>2.    The CPIO<br \/>\n      India Tourism Development Corporation<br \/>\n      (V.V.I.P)<br \/>\n      Hyderabad House<br \/>\n      1, Ashoka road<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      India Tourism Development Corporation<br \/>\n      D(C&amp;M) Office<br \/>\n      6th Floor, SCOPE Complex<br \/>\n      Core-8, Lodhi road<br \/>\n      New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001462 Dated November 18, 2009 Name of the Applicant : Shri S.S.Upadhyaya Name of the Public Authority : ITDC Background 1. The applicant filed an RTI application dt.25.6.09 with the CPIO, ITDC requesting for following information: i) Payment off telephone bills [&hellip;]<\/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-219998","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-17T01:50:16+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=\"8 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-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-17T01:50:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1514,\"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-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-17T01:50:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 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:\/\/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 S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-17T01:50:16+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-17T01:50:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009"},"wordCount":1514,"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-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009","name":"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-17T01:50:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-s-s-upadhyaya-vs-itdc-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri S.S.Upadhyaya vs Itdc on 18 November, 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:\/\/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\/219998","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=219998"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219998\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219998"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219998"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219998"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}