{"id":270759,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-04T18:28:45","modified_gmt":"2019-01-04T12:58:45","slug":"mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
                          CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                              Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                            Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                   Tel: +91-11-26161796\n                                                         Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002183\/9684Penalty\n                                                                       Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002183\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                            :      Mr. Pawan Kumar\n                                            A-288 Weavers Colony\n                                            Ashok Vihar, Phase -IV\n                                            Delhi-110052\n\nRespondent                           :      Mr. V.P. Dahiya,\n                                            Deemed PIO & EE(M-IV),\n                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                            Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar,\n                                            Delhi;\n\nRTI application filed on              :      22\/03\/2010\nPIO replied                           :      15\/04\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                 :      ----------------\nFirst Appellate Authority order       :      22\/05\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on             :      28\/07\/2010\nInformation sought\n<\/pre>\n
Information was sought about an order of 15\/12\/2008 by no. 31\/B\/SEAL\/CLZ\/08 under Section 345A of
\nDMC Act passed by Dy. Commissioner (CLZ) regarding H. NO. 247B, Village Rajpura, Delhi 110007:\n<\/p>\n
    1. Certified or authenticated Copy of document providing the information whether any complaint was
\n        made regarding house no. 247 B , Village Rajpura ,Delhi -110007, alleged illegal construction to any
\n        office of the MCD by any one.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2. Certified or authenticated copy of the document providing the information that any enquiry into the
\n        complaint was made by the MCD or only on the basis of the complaint the order to erase the
\n        construction was passed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    3. Certified copy of the order dated 15.12.2008.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Reply of the Public Information Officer\n<\/p>\n
   1. No such record is available\n<\/p>\n
   2. No such record is available\n<\/p>\n
   3. Reply enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Unsatisfactory and incomplete information furnished by the public information officer.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
“The appellant was not satisfied by the information furnished by the PlO. The Executive Engineer
\n[Bldg.]\/APIO appeared for PlO explained the case in detail. During the course of hearing the appellant
\nrequested to provide certified copies of the sealing file to him. EE (Bldg.)\/APIO is directed to provide the
\nsame to the appellant through PIO\/SE (C.L. Zone) with in two weeks.”\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Incomplete and misleading information provided by the PIO and non compliance of the orders passed by the
\nFAA.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant facts that emerged during the hearing on 07 October 2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Pawan Kumar;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. R. Prasad, Public information officer & SE;\n<\/p>\n
       “The respondent admits that after the order of the FAA no information was provided to the appellant.
\nThe respondent claims that no sealing file available. The respondent should have informed the appellant
\naccordingly in which case the second appeal would have been unnecessary.
\nThe FAA had given the order to Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) Civil Lines zone who was present and the order of
\nthe FAA also mentions that the information was to be provided by EE(B).”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 07 October 2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        “The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant that there is no sealing
\nfile in existence before 20 October 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the deemed
\nPIO Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per
\nthe requirement of the RTI Act<\/a>. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises
\na reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has
\nclearly ordered the information to be given.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20<\/a> (1). A showcause notice is
\nbeing issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should
\nnot be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 29 November
\n2010 at 4.00pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him
\nas mandated under Section 20<\/a> (1). He will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this
\ndecision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during showcause hearing on 29 November 2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Pawan Kumar;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. V.P. Dahiya, the then EE(B) Civil Lines Zone & Deemed PIO presently EE(M-IV),
\n              Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi; Mr. A. K. Mittal, AE;\n<\/p>\n
        The Appellant had in his RTI application on 22\/03\/2010 sought information on 03 queries and the PIO
\nhad replied on 15\/04\/2010 that no such record is available with respect to query- 01 & 02 and had provided
\nthe information with respect to query-03. The FAA had in his order directed that the sealing file which would
\nbe related to query-01 & 02 should be provided to the Appellant within two weeks. It is significant that Mr. V.
\nP. Dahiya, EE(B) was present during the hearing before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA’s
\norder was issued on 22\/05\/2010 and the information should have been provided to the Appellant before
\n07\/06\/2010. Instead Mr. V. P. Dahiya provided no information to the Appellant, infact he sent no
\ncommunication whatsoever. When Mr. R. Prasad, PIO & SE appeared before the Commission he had
\nadmitted that no information had been provided to the Appellant inspite of the order of the FAA and claimed
\nthat no sealing file was available. If this was indeed true the Appellant could have been informed by Mr.
\nDahiya before 07\/06\/2010 that the sealing file was not available. Mr. V. P. Dahiya now claims that one paper
\nof the sealing file suddenly became available which has been provided to the Appellant. However, the sealing
\nfile has still not being produced in totality and the Appellant claims that he is primarily interested in getting
\nthe copy of the complaint based on which the sealing was carried out. The single paper given to the Appellant
\nmentions letter no. 4813\/SHO\/M.Town dated 13\/12\/2008 and direction of DC\/CLZ. Prima-facie it appears to
\n                                                                                                     Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n the Commission that Mr. V. P. Dahiya is not being truthful in explaining why he did not even inform the
\nAppellant that the sealing file was not available. It is also significant that suddenly one paper of the sealing
\nfile is claimed to have surfaced which claimed to show that on a letter received from SHO(Model Town) dated
\n13\/12\/2008 the JE, EE, SE & DC all approved action under Section 345A<\/a> on the same day i.e. 15\/12\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. R. Prasad PIO& SE who appeared before the Commission on 07\/10\/2010 claimed that no sealing file was
\navailable. Hence the Commission gave an order on 07\/10\/2010 to inform the Appellant before 20\/10\/2010 that
\nthe sealing file was not available. Interestingly this order was also not implemented and on 23\/11\/2010 a letter
\nwas sent to the Appellant by Mr. J. S. Yadav present EE(B) in which it is stated that the record\/file has been
\ntraced in the office and the one page record referred to above was sent to the Appellant. It appears that Mr.
\nDahiya is not telling the truth.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20<\/a> (1) of the RTI Act<\/a> states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
\nCommission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the
\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without
\nany reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within
\nthe time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7<\/a> or malafidely denied the request for information or
\nknowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the
\nsubject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of
\ntwo hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the
\ntotal amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
\nProvided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may
\nbe, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
A plain reading of Section 20<\/a> reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose
\npenalty:\n<\/p>\n
1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of    section 7<\/a> - 30 days.\n3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n
       misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n
4)     Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n
All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ‘ without reasonable cause’.\n<\/p>\n
Section 19<\/a> (5) of the RTI Act<\/a> has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial
\nof a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
\nOfficer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1)
\nof section 7<\/a>, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each
\nday till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for
\ndelay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20<\/a> (1) of the RTI Act<\/a> and the law gives no
\ndiscretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and
\nreasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5)<\/a> of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The FAA had ordered on 22\/05\/2010 to provide the information within two weeks i.e. before 07\/06\/2010. This
\norder was not complied with. Based on the statement by the PIO before the Commission on 07\/10\/2010 the
\nCommission ordered that information be provided to the Appellant that the sealing file was not in existence
\nbefore 20\/10\/2010. This was also not complied with. On 23\/11\/2010 it has been claimed that only one paper is
\navailable from the file. Deemed PIO Mr. V. P. Dahiya has made statements before the Commission claiming<\/p>\n
                                                                                                    Page 3 of 4<\/span>
\n that there is no file as well as claiming that the file exists with just one paper. The Commission sees this as a
\nfit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1)<\/a> of the RTI ACT on Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) & Deemed PIO.
\nVarying statements have been made and Mr. Dahiya has been persistently denying the information inspite of
\nthe order of the FAA and the Commission. Even now he is giving various contradictory statements. Since the
\ndelay in providing the information has been far over 100 days the Commission sees this as a fit case for
\nlevying the maximum penalty of `25000\/- under Section 20(1)<\/a> of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Since Mr. V. P. Dahiya deemed PIO has persistently refused to provide the information without any
\nreasonable cause and appears to be giving untruthful statements the Commission under its power
\nunder Section 20(2)<\/a> of the RTI Act recommends to the Municipal Commissioner of Delhi to take
\ndisciplinary action against him<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
            As per the provisions of Section 20<\/a> (1) of the RTI Act<\/a> 2005, the Commission finds
\nthis a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. V. P. Dahiya, EE(B) & Deemed PIO. Since the delay
\nin providing the information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order
\npenalizing Mr. V. P. Dahiya `25000\/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of
\n`25000\/- from the salary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya and remit the same by a demand draft or a
\nBanker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
\nand send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of
\nthe Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi –
\n110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000\/ per month every month from the
\nsalary of Mr. V. P. Dahiya and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January 2011.
\nThe total amount of `25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th of May, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6)<\/a> of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                               Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                     Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                            29 November 2010
\n(For any further correspondence on this matter, please mention the file number quoted above.) (VK)<\/p>\n
CC:<\/p>\n
\nTo,\n           1-           Commissioner\n                        Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                        Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n\n           2.           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                                                                                                                    Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002183\/9684Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002183 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar A-288 Weavers Colony Ashok Vihar, Phase -IV Delhi-110052 […]<\/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-270759","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-04T12:58:45+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=\"11 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-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T12:58:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1999,\"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-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-04T12:58:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-04T12:58:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T12:58:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1999,"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-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010","name":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-04T12:58:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-pawan-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Pawan Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/270759","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=270759"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270759\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270759"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270759"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270759"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}