{"id":247389,"date":"2009-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-20T14:37:16","modified_gmt":"2016-01-20T09:07:16","slug":"sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                     Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,\n                      Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 067.\n                               Tel: + 91 11 26161796\n\n                                           Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001440\/4155penalty\n                                                         Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001440\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\"> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">Appellant                           :      Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik\n                                           S\/o Late Sh.Laxmi chand\n                                           R\/o D-191, Karam Pura,\n                                           NEW DELHI- 110015\n\nRespondent                          :      Mr. V.P.Dahiya\n                                           Deemed PIO,\n                                           Executive Engineer, West Zone,\n                                           MWZ-5, Rajouri Garden,\n                                           Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n                                           New Delhi-110015\n\nRTI application filed on            :      02\/02\/2009\nPIO replied                         :      19\/2\/2009; 24\/04\/2009\nFirst appeal filed on               :      Not Mentioned\nFirst Appellate Authority order     :      21\/05\/2009\nSecond Appeal filed on              :      08\/06\/2009\n\nInformation sought:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">The Appellant is not satisfied about the development work done in ward C-130 for the period<br \/>\nfrom 10.12.2007 to10.1.2009. In this regard the Appellant require the following document.<br \/>\nPhotocopies of\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">   1. Work order with schedule\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">   2. Passed bill vouchers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">Reply of PIO:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">On 19\/2\/2009- The PIO asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 750 as additional fee for the work<br \/>\norders and Rs. 1000 for thecopies of vouchers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">On 24\/04\/2009- The PIO replied that the Information which appellant has asked is nearly about<br \/>\n2yrs document .So the process will take time. The information sought will be delivered.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">Grounds for First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">Appellant paid Rs. 1750 as demanded vide receipt no. 919351 but information was not received.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">The First Appellate Authority ordered:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\"> The PIO\/SE is directed to provide the detailed information to the appellant within 10 days<br \/>\npositively under intimation to this office.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">Grounds for Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Unsatisfactory information.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">Appellant: Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. V.K.Sinha on behalf of Mr. V.P. Dahiya-EE &amp; Deemed PIO<br \/>\nThe Appellants&#8217; RTI Application was received by the PIO on 02\/02\/2009 by his own admission.<br \/>\nHe sent a letter on 19\/02\/2009 asking the Appellant to deposit Rs. 1750\/- for 875 pages of<br \/>\ninformation. Thus the demand for additional fees was made after 17 days. The Appellant paid the<br \/>\namount of Rs.1750\/- on 05\/03\/2009 and therefore should have received the information within<br \/>\n13 days i.e. 19\/03\/2009. The information was provided to the Appellant on 15\/06\/2009. The PIO<br \/>\nwas asked for explanation for this delay of 87 days in supplying the information.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">The information has been provided but Rs.1750\/- has been taken from the Appellant wrongly<br \/>\nwhich needs to be refunded. The Commission directs the Present PIO Mr. K.P.Singh &#8211; SE to<br \/>\nensure that the Appellant is given the refund of Rs. 1750\/- before 05 August 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">The issue before the Commission was of not supplying the complete, required information<br \/>\nby the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">From the facts before the Commission it was apparent that the Mr. V.P. Dahiya-EE &amp; Deemed<br \/>\nPIO was guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of<br \/>\nSection 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the <a href=\"\/doc\/671631\/\" id=\"a_1\">RTI Act<\/a>. He had further<br \/>\nrefused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raised a reasonable doubt that the denial<br \/>\nof information might have been malafide. The First Appellate Authority had clearly ordered the<br \/>\ninformation to be given.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">It appeared that the PIO&#8217;s actions attracted the penal provisions of <a href=\"\/doc\/1369783\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 20<\/a> (1). A showcause<br \/>\nnotice was issued to him, and he was directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show<br \/>\ncause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">He was asked to present himself before the Commission on 18 August 2009 at 4.00pm alongwith<br \/>\nhis written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1369783\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 20<\/a> (1).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">He presented himself on 18 August 2009. PIO submitted proof that additional fee has been<br \/>\nrefunded to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">Relevant Facts Arising During The Hearing on 11 September 2009:<br \/>\nPersons Present<br \/>\n Appellant: Absent<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. V.P.Dahiya<\/p>\n<p>02\/02\/2009- RTI Application received<br \/>\n19\/02\/2009- Appellant was asked to deposit additional fee of Rs. 1,750\/-<br \/>\n05\/03\/2009- Additional fee was deposited by the Appellant<br \/>\n24\/04\/2009- PIO informed the Appellant the information sought was voluminous and therefore<br \/>\nhe was asked to bear with the delay in providing information<br \/>\n09\/06\/2009- Appellant requested to come and collect information from the office<\/p>\n<p>The PIO stated that on 19\/02\/2009 they were able to give a rough estimate of the amount that<br \/>\nneeds to be deposited but they were not able to gauge at that time the volume of files that would<br \/>\nhave be perused to collect the information. On being asked, the PIO stated that there were<br \/>\napproximately around 2000 vouchers in the relevant time period which were perused before<br \/>\ngiving information to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">When asked why <a href=\"\/doc\/1322680\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 7(9)<\/a> was not invoked, the PIO stated that the office was trying its best<br \/>\nto collect the information.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">After demanding Rs 1750\/- it is obvious that the PIO knew that there were 875 pages which he<br \/>\nmust have surely identified. Hence, he should have provided the information within 13 days<br \/>\n(since 17 days had been earlier taken up) from the date on which fee was deposited, i.e.<br \/>\n05\/03\/2009. instead he supplied the information on 09\/06\/2009 instead of supplying it by<br \/>\n19\/03\/2009. There is a delay of 81 days for which there is no explanation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">Mr. V.P.Dahiya&#8217;s written submissions state that he has to perform other duties and that the<br \/>\ninformation was voluminous. He has also stated that he was very busy with the general elections<br \/>\nand hence he did not give information in time. Mr. Dahiya had asked the Appellant to pay Rs<br \/>\n1750 on 19\/02\/2009 but gave the information to the Appellant on 09\/06\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">The PIO is again asked to explain why it took him so long to provide the information after<br \/>\nhaving estimated that the total number of photocopies to be given was 875. he offers no<br \/>\nreasonable cause for this. The Appellant paid the amount of Rs.1750\/- on 05\/03\/2009 and<br \/>\ntherefore should have received the information within 13 days i.e. 19\/03\/2009. The information<br \/>\nwas provided to the Appellant on 15\/06\/2009, i.e. after a delay of 81 days. Since the PIO is<br \/>\noffering no reasonable cause for this delay of 81 days the Commission sees this as a fit case for<br \/>\nlevy of penalty under <a href=\"\/doc\/1369783\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 20<\/a> (1) of the <a href=\"\/doc\/671631\/\" id=\"a_5\">RTI Act<\/a> at the rate of Rs. 250 per day. Thus, the total<br \/>\npenalty payable on Mr. V.P.Dahiya is 81 X 250 = Rs. 20,250\/-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\">       As per the provisions of <a href=\"\/doc\/1369783\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 20<\/a> (1), the Commission finds this a fit case for levying<br \/>\npenalty on Mr. V.P.Dahiya deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information is<br \/>\n81 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO for Rs.<br \/>\n20,250\/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\">       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of<br \/>\nRs.20,250\/- from the salary of Mr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO, and remit the same by a demand<br \/>\n draft or a Banker&#8217;s Cheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New<br \/>\nDelhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of<br \/>\nthe Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066.<br \/>\nThe amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000\/ per month every month from the salary of<br \/>\nMr. V.P.Dahiya, deemed PIO and remitted by the 10th of each month from October to December<br \/>\n2009 and a sum of Rs. 5,250\/- will be remitted before 10th January 2010.<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_2\">\n\n\n                                                                                       Shailesh Gandhi\n                                                                             Information Commissioner\n                                                                                             11\/09\/2009\n\n1-      Commissioner\n        Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n        Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\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\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_32\">(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)<br \/>\n                                                                                  Rnj\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi -110 067. Tel: + 91 11 26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001440\/4155penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2009\/001440 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Sh. Ravi Kumar [&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-247389","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 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\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-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=\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-20T09:07:16+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=\"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\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T09:07:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1145,\"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\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T09:07:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 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":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 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\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-20T09:07:16+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T09:07:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009"},"wordCount":1145,"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\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009","name":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, ... on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T09:07:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-ravi-kumar-kaushik-vs-executive-engineer-west-zone-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh. Ravi Kumar Kaushik vs Executive Engineer, West Zone, &#8230; on 11 September, 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\/247389","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=247389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247389\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}