{"id":22060,"date":"2011-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-11T15:59:17","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T10:29:17","slug":"mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000948\/12817Penalty\n                                                                Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000946\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n<p>Appellant                            :       Mr. Sumit Gupta<br \/>\n                                             Chamber no. 402<br \/>\n                                             Western wing, Tishazari courts<br \/>\n                                             Delhi-l 10054<\/p>\n<p>Respondent                           :       Mr. B. M. Sharma,<br \/>\n                                             JE (Civil) &amp; Deemed PIO;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             Municipal Corporation of Delhi<br \/>\n                                             South Zone, Zonal Office Building,<br \/>\n                                             Green Park, Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<pre>RTI application filed on             :       24-12-2010\nPIO replied                          :       not replied\nFirst appeal filed on                :       31-01-2011\nFirst Appellate Authority order      :       09-02-2011\nSecond Appeal received on            :       06-04-2011\n\nInformation Sought by Appellant:\n<\/pre>\n<p>   1. Copy of the measurement book of the work awarded vide work order no. 154 dated 13\/10\/2008<br \/>\n      in MA-II Gulmohar Park.\n<\/p>\n<p>   2. Copy of the sample records of all the samples tested for the work.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds of the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>No information provided<\/p>\n<p>Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n<p>Present : Mr. Dilip Ramnani, SE-I\/PIO is present. Appellant is not present.<br \/>\nContents of the appeal were examined. The appellant was aggrieved by non reply from PI0\/SE-I.<br \/>\nPI0\/SE-I stated that the reply\/Information to the appellant could not be given to the appellant as the<br \/>\nrequisite information has not been received from the concerned APIO i.e. EE (MS-II). Decision:<br \/>\nSubmissions PlO. Appellant&#8217;s written queries have been examined. P10\/SE-I- is directed to supply the<br \/>\ninformation to the appellant within next 2 weeks. PlO is directed to provide the information within two<br \/>\nweeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>FAA order not followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on June 10, 2011:<br \/>\nThe following were present<br \/>\nAppellant: Mr. Shalabh Gupta representing Mr. Sumit Gupta;<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE and Mr. Deepak Kapila, AE on behalf of Mr. Dilip Ramnani,<br \/>\n              Public Information Officer &amp; SE-I(South zone);\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;Mr. B. M. Sharma states that the measurement book was missing and Mr. Dilip Ramnani<br \/>\nPIO\/SE-I was informed about this when he went for the First Appellate hearing. It is surprising that the<br \/>\nPIO does not appear to have informed the FAA about this. Subsequently on 02\/05\/2011 the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n information has been sent to the appellant. The respondent has also stated that the measurement book<br \/>\nwas missing and hence there was a delay in providing the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>Regarding this the Appellant claims that he has been only given five numbers of sample reports<br \/>\nwhereas he believes there should be more. The respondent states that there are only five sample reports<br \/>\non the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. B. M. Sharma states that he was responsible for providing the information and states that since the<br \/>\nmeasurement book was not available he did not provide the information.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision dated June 10, 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      &#8220;The information appears to have been provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the<br \/>\ndeemed PIO Mr. B. M. Sharma PIO within 30 days as required by the law.<br \/>\nFrom the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing<br \/>\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30<br \/>\ndays, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior<br \/>\nofficer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First<br \/>\nAppellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions<br \/>\nattract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is<br \/>\ndirected give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE &amp; Deemed PIO will present himself before the Commission at the above<br \/>\naddress on 01 July 2011 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty<br \/>\nshould not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of<br \/>\nhaving given the information to the appellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on July 1, 2011:<br \/>\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE (Civil) &amp; Deemed PIO;\n<\/p>\n<p>       As per the order of the FAA dated 09\/02\/2011, information was required to be provided within<br \/>\ntwo weeks. The respondent has submitted written submission and the Commission has perused this.<br \/>\nThe Respondent stated that copies of the sample records were being carried by the concerned<br \/>\nRespondents during the hearing held before the FAA. Since the Appellant was not present, the said<br \/>\nsamples could not be provided. The measurement book was missing and therefore, it could not be<br \/>\nprovided to the Appellant within the time stipulated by the FAA. The Respondent submitted that since<br \/>\nonly part information was available, he did not send the samples instantly to the Appellant after the<br \/>\norder of the FAA. Once the measurement book was found in the records of the Respondent, he<br \/>\nprovided the same along with the samples to the Appellant on 02\/05\/2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Commission has perused the submissions of the respondent and also heard his explanations. Mr.<br \/>\nSharma states that the measurement books were in a cupboard and the drawers of this table, but he<br \/>\ncould not locate them. He also claims that the copies of the sample reports were with him but he felt he<br \/>\nshould not send these alone until he located the measurement books. The measurement books are very<br \/>\nimportant records since based on these payments are made to contractors. For measurement books to<br \/>\nbe missing has serious implications and the deemed PIO Mr. B. M. Sharma is claiming that though he<br \/>\nknew that they were present in his cupboard or drawers he could not find them. Ultimately he claims<br \/>\nhe found these on 18\/04\/2011 and he submitted the information on 25\/04\/2011 to the PIO to send it to<br \/>\nthe appellant. If the Commission believes the version of the Deemed PIO it has to believe that despite<br \/>\nknowing that every days delay would lead to a personal penalty of `250\/- per day of delay he did not<br \/>\nmanage to find the measurement books which he knew were in his drawers or cupboard. This does not<br \/>\nappear to be a reasonable explanation.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Where the Central Information Commission or the State<br \/>\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the<br \/>\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not<br \/>\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied<br \/>\nthe request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or<br \/>\ndestroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing<br \/>\nthe information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is<br \/>\nreceived or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed<br \/>\ntwenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the<br \/>\ncase may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on<br \/>\nhim:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the<br \/>\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.&#8221;<br \/>\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must<br \/>\nimpose penalty:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 &#8211; 30<br \/>\n       days.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or<br \/>\n       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n<p>4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the above are prefaced by the infraction, &#8216; without reasonable cause&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a<br \/>\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public<br \/>\nInformation Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-<br \/>\nsection (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two<br \/>\nhundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there<br \/>\nwas no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1)<br \/>\nof the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of<br \/>\ninformation by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the<br \/>\nRTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The RTI application was received on 28\/12\/2010 and the information should have been provided to the<br \/>\nAppellant before 28\/01\/2011. Instead Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE (Civil) &amp; Deemed PIO provided the<br \/>\ninformation only on 25\/04\/2011 i.e. after a delay of 84 days. Since no reasonable cause has been<br \/>\noffered by Mr. B. M. Sharma to justify the delay in providing the information the Commission<br \/>\nimposes a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE(Civil) &amp; Deemed PIO<br \/>\nat the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 84 days i.e. `21000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>        As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this<br \/>\na fit case for levying penalty on Mr. B. M. Sharma, JE(Civil) &amp; Deemed PIO. Since the<br \/>\ndelay in providing the information has been of 84 days, the Commission is passing an<br \/>\norder penalizing Mr. B. M. Sharma `21000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `21000\/- from the salary of Mr. B. M. Sharma and remit the same by a<br \/>\ndemand draft or a Banker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT,<br \/>\npayable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint<br \/>\nRegistrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor,<br \/>\nAugust Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate<br \/>\nof `4200\/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. B. M. Sharma and remitted by<br \/>\nthe 10th of every month starting from August 2011. The total amount of `21000\/- will<br \/>\nbe remitted by 10th of December, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                 Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                       Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                    01 July 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)<\/p>\n<p>Copy to:\n<\/p>\n<pre>1-        The Municipal Commissioner\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n          04th Floor, Dr. SPM Civic Center,\n          New Delhi\n\n2.        Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,\n          Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary\n          Central Information Commission,\n          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n          New Delhi - 110066\n\n3-        Mr. Dilip Ramnani\n          Public Information Officer &amp; SE-I(South zone)\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n          South Zone, Zonal Office Building,\n          Green Park, Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                      Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000948\/12817Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000946 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Sumit Gupta Chamber no. 402 Western wing, Tishazari courts Delhi-l [&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-22060","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>Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T10:29:17+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T10:29:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"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\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T10:29:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T10:29:17+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T10:29:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011"},"wordCount":1704,"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\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011","name":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T10:29:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sumit-gupta-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sumit Gupta vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 1 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/22060","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=22060"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22060\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22060"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22060"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22060"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}