{"id":25339,"date":"2011-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-30T03:05:24","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T21:35:24","slug":"mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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\/001385\/13348Penalty\n                                                                Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001385\n\nRelevant facts emerging from the Appeal:\n\nAppellant                            : Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish\n                                       14\/173, Kalyan Puri\n                                       Delhi-91\n\nRespondent                           : Mr. S.R. Sharma,\n                                       Deemed PIO &amp; SS\n                                       Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n                                       Shahdara North Zone,\n                                       Keshav Chowk, Welcome Metro Station,\n                                       Shahdara, Delhi- 110032\n\nRTI application filed on             :       25-11-2010\nPIO replied on                       :       -----------\nFirst Appeal filed on                :       08-03-2011\nFirst Appellate Authority order of   :       29-04-2011\nSecond Appeal received on            :       24-05-2011\n\nSl.                           Information Sought                              Reply of PIO\n1. Information regarding the missing service book of the appellant who is an Not replied\n    employee of MCD.\n\nGrounds for the First Appeal:\nThe PIO did not reply.\n\nOrder of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\nThe FAA had noted that Mr. Nawal Kishore, ZS and Mr. Sita Ram, SS were present at the hearing.\nFAA has directed the PIO to investigate into the matter and provide a suitable\/satisfactory reply to the\nappellant within a period of 10 days from the date of issue of this letter.\n\nGround of the Second Appeal:\nThe PIO didn't reply.\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging during the hearing held on 09\/07\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present:\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant: Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Absent;\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The Appellant is working as Safai Karmachari with MCD and states that his service file has<br \/>\nnot been located since some years. He therefore filed the RTI application for which no reply was<br \/>\ngiven. Even after the order of the FAA no information has been provided to the Appellant. The<br \/>\nAppellant is understandably worried since if his service book is not located it will have grave<br \/>\nimplications in the future.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision dated 09\/07\/2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;The PIO is directed to provide the information about the location of the Appellant&#8217;s service<br \/>\nfile before 30 July 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the<br \/>\nPIO within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information<br \/>\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the<br \/>\nrequirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which<br \/>\nraises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority has clearly ordered the information to be given.\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is<br \/>\nbeing issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty<br \/>\nshould not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 09 August 2011 at 10.30am<br \/>\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as<br \/>\nmandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the<br \/>\nappellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 09\/08\/2011:<br \/>\nAppellant: Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent: Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar, PIO &amp; AC; Mr. S.R. Sharma, Deemed PIO &amp; SS and Mr.<br \/>\n                 Raman Kumar;\n<\/p>\n<p>         The PIO &amp; AC Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar has submitted his written submissions, wherein it<br \/>\nis mentioned that the RTI application dated 25\/11\/2010 was forwarded to the Deemed PIO &amp; SS Mr.<br \/>\nS.R. Sharma on 30\/11\/2010 and a reminder letter was also sent to the Deemed PIO on 30\/12\/2010.<br \/>\nSubsequently, during the hearing held on 26\/04\/2011 before the FAA the deemed PIO Mr. S.R.<br \/>\nSharma was appeared and the FAA&#8217;s order dated 29\/04\/2011 was also forwarded to him on<br \/>\n04\/05\/2011. No information was furnished by the deemed PIO Mr. S.R. Sharma. The PIO Mr. Chahar<br \/>\nhas stated that after the Commission&#8217;s order dated 09\/07\/2011, it has been ascertained that the service<br \/>\nfile is not traceable and a request for lodging the FIR has been sent to the SHO, Welcome vide letter<br \/>\ndated 20\/07\/2011. A request has also been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for granting the<br \/>\npermission to reconstruct the said file. A reply with this regard has been sent to the Appellant through<br \/>\nspeed post on 08\/08\/2011. The PIO states that his service book is not being re-constructed and<br \/>\nreconstructed service book will be available before 30 August 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Deemed PIO Mr. S.R. Sharma has stated that the responsible person for this delay is the LDC<br \/>\nMr. M.K. Gupta, who is suffering from cancer. The Commission cannot understand why Mr. S. R.<br \/>\nSharma could not have come to the conclusion initially that the service book was not available<br \/>\nanywhere. The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. S. R. Sharma and it was his responsibility to<br \/>\nprovide the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>Under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act only the PIO has been given the power to seek assistance from any<br \/>\nother officer to provide information. From a reading of Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, it appears that the<br \/>\nofficer whose assistance is sought shall be treated as the PIO only for the purpose of Section 20 of the RTI<br \/>\nAct and not for the purpose of Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the officer whose assistance is<br \/>\nsought cannot transfer the liability of providing the information to another officer. Even if he did seek<br \/>\nassistance, he would be the person responsible to provide the information on time and in case of default be<br \/>\nliable for penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Justification for the aforesaid may also be found in<br \/>\nSection 2(j) of the RTI Act which stipulates that information sought by the Appellant must be held by or<br \/>\nbe in control of a public authority. The RTI Act does not name any specific officer who must have custody<br \/>\nof the information sought. There is an administrative responsibility on the part of the PIO and\/ or deemed<br \/>\nPIO seeking further assistance to provide the correct and complete information in a timely manner, which<br \/>\ncannot be shifted to a subordinate officer.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The Commission has noted that in the instant case, the PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. S. R. Sharma,<br \/>\nSS &amp; Deemed PIO under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Mr. Sharma forwarded the RTI application to the<br \/>\nUDC Mr. M. K. Gupta who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed<br \/>\ntime limit. The Commission rules that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of<br \/>\nMr. M. K. Gupta, Mr. S. R. Sharma would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI<br \/>\nAct and therefore, would be liable to be penalised.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case it appears that the service book of the appellant had been stolen\/lost and it was the<br \/>\nadministrative responsibly of Mr. S. R. Sharma to have realized this informed the Appellant. Since the<br \/>\nservice book was not reported missing the Appellant could not have got his service book. The Appellant<br \/>\nstates that he was in need of an advance against his GPF for his daughter&#8217;s wedding. Since the service<br \/>\nbook was not being given he could not avail of the advance. The PIO states that the service book is not<br \/>\nrequired for this but admits that service book is an important documents which an employee should be<br \/>\nable to access. Mr. S. R. Sharma has given no reasonable cause for not providing the information to the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/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<pre>1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30\n        days.\n3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n<p>        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><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> The RTI application has been filed on 25\/11\/2010 and the information should have been provided to<br \/>\nthe Appellant before 25\/12\/2010. The PIO has shown that reminders had also been given to the<br \/>\nDeemed PIO Mr. S. R. Sharma yet he did not provide any information. The FAA gave an order on<br \/>\n29\/04\/2011 when Mr. S. R. Sharma was present during the hearing and yet no information was<br \/>\nprovided despite the order of the FAA. Finally the Appellant has been informed on 08\/08\/2011 that his<br \/>\nservice book has been lost. Since the delay in providing the information has been far in excess of 100<br \/>\ndays and no reasonable cause has been advanced for this delay. The Commission imposes the<br \/>\nmaximum penalty of `25000\/- on Mr. S.R. Sharma, Deemed PIO &amp; SS under Section 20(1) of the RTI<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>          As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission<br \/>\nfinds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. S.R. Sharma, Deemed PIO &amp; SS. Since<br \/>\nthe delay in providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is<br \/>\npassing an order penalizing Mr. S.R. Sharma `25000\/ which is the maximum penalty<br \/>\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the<br \/>\namount of `25000\/- from the salary of Mr. S.R. 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 `5000\/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. S.R. Sharma and remitted by<br \/>\nthe 10th of every month starting from September 2011. The total amount of `25000 \/-<br \/>\nwill be remitted by 10th of January, 2012.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                               Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                     Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                09 August 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (S<\/p>\n<p>Copy:\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. Ravideep Singh Chahar\n          PIO &amp; Assistant Commissioner\n          Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n          Shahdara North Zone,\n          Keshav Chowk, Welcome Metro Station,\n          Shahdara, Delhi- 110032\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                    Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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\/001385\/13348Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001385 Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish 14\/173, Kalyan Puri Delhi-91 Respondent [&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-25339","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. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-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=\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T21:35:24+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=\"10 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-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T21:35:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1803,\"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-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T21:35:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T21:35:24+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T21:35:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011"},"wordCount":1803,"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-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011","name":"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T21:35:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-vijay-pal-jagdish-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-9-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Vijay Pal Jagdish vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 9 August, 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\/25339","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=25339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}