{"id":49095,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-18T20:01:37","modified_gmt":"2019-03-18T14:31:37","slug":"mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>             Central Information Commission\n                                                           CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001339\n                                                           Dated 28th October, 2009\n\nName of the Applicant                   :   MR. S. N. PANDITA\n\n\nName of the Public Authority            :   DOT\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The Applicant filed his RTI request on 26.06.09 with the CPIO \/ DOT, Delhi<br \/>\n      requesting for information against 17 points related to the promotion TES Group<br \/>\n      B officers. The CPIO replied on 21.08.09 providing point wise information. On<br \/>\n      not satisfying with reply, the Appellant filed his First Appeal on 30.07.09 stating<br \/>\n      that desired information has not been provided and the Appellate Authority to<br \/>\n      arrange to provide the same. On not receiving any reply from the Appellate<br \/>\n      Authority, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the CIC requesting for the<br \/>\n      information.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the<br \/>\n      hearing for 28th October, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Mr. R.R. Tiwari represented the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The Applicant was present during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>5.    The Respondent in his written as well as oral submissions stated that the The<br \/>\n      Appellant vide Sl.No.1 of the application dated 26\/06\/2009 had sought the<br \/>\n      number of officers, who had opted for retention in Government service after<br \/>\n      formation of BSNL. Accordingly, the information regarding number of TES<br \/>\n      Group-B officers, who had given option for retention in govt. service, was<br \/>\n      intimated to the Appellant as per the available records. He stated that        the<br \/>\n      Appellant&#8217;s averment that the number of only in-service officers were intimated<br \/>\n      to him is based on assumption, which he has made without obtaining the<br \/>\n      documents\/list. He added that the Appellant in Sl.No.2 of the application had<br \/>\n      sought number of officers with reference to information sought vide Sl.No.1.<br \/>\n      Further, the information sought against point No.1 was relating to position<br \/>\n      emerging after absorption of Group-B officers in BSNL\/MTNL. Accordingly, the<br \/>\n      Appellant was asked to deposit the requisite amount for obtaining the<br \/>\n     promotion order issued after finalization of absorption.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   As for the   Sl.No.5 of the application, the Respondent stated that the factual<br \/>\n     position was intimated as the orders for promotion were issued in respect of the<br \/>\n     eligible officers as per the instruction \/ guidelines on the subject. The position<br \/>\n     indicated against Sl.No.10 and 13 of the application are as per records and<br \/>\n     congruous. As indicated against Sl.No.10 no vacancy was taken as unfilled on<br \/>\n     account of empanelment of retired\/voluntarily retired officers for considering<br \/>\n     further promotion against these vacancies. Further, as intimated against<br \/>\n     Sl.No.13 of the application none of the vacancies, which remained unfilled on<br \/>\n     account of retirement\/VR, were carried forward. He stated that in this<br \/>\n     connection the Appellant was also given opportunity for inspection of relevant<br \/>\n     files. However, he has not inspected the file. As such the contention of the<br \/>\n     appellant that he did not avail the opportunity. According to the     Respondent<br \/>\n     the position as available in the records has been furnished to the Appellant in<br \/>\n     response to Sl.No.14-15 of his application under RTI Act.        The information<br \/>\n     furnished against Sl.16-17 is also based on factual position, as there is no<br \/>\n     information available regarding crucial date for determining vacancies. He<br \/>\n     further clarified that information furnished vide letter dated 28\/07\/09 to Shri<br \/>\n     Mangat Singh under RTI Act regarding the crucial date as 1st January of the<br \/>\n     vacancy year is for determining the eligibility for consideration for promotion by<br \/>\n     the DPC as stipulated in DoP&amp;T OM No.22011\/9\/98-Estt.(D) dated 08\/09\/98.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The Appellant, however, refuted the contentions of the Respondent. He stated<br \/>\n     that the CPIO had furnished the number of in-service TES Group B officers as on<br \/>\n     finalization of options formalized in n2005 instead of the number and list of TES<br \/>\n     Group B officers who opted for their retention in Government Service after the<br \/>\n     formation of BSNL ie. 1.10.2000. He alleged that there is total discrimination<br \/>\n     and dispute about the number of vacancies for promotion in the cadre,<br \/>\n     subsisting only 154 TES Group B officers who have opted for retention in the<br \/>\n     Government service on finalization as against many fold number who opted for<br \/>\n     retention in the Government service but since have retired in the intervening<br \/>\n     period, prior to finalization of options, this fact having a direct bearing on the<br \/>\n     number of actual vacancies available for promotion. He further stated that at<br \/>\n     point no. 2 , he had sought the number of officers selected for promotion as JTS<br \/>\n     after the formation of BSNL while the CPIO has yet again provided the copy of<br \/>\n     promotion orders issues after the finalization of options , which he had not<br \/>\n      sought. He further pointed out that at point no. 5 of the RTI application, he had<br \/>\n     sought whether promotion orders have been issued against all vacancies as<br \/>\n     disclosed by CPIO against point no. 3       to which the CPIO had replied that<br \/>\n     promotions were issued to eligible officers, thereby providing misleading<br \/>\n     information. The Appellant&#8217;s contention was that number of vacancies does not<br \/>\n     imply eligible officers.   The Appellant further contended that contradictory<br \/>\n     information has been provided against points 10 and 13. With regard to point<br \/>\n     10 the CPIO had stated against that no vacancies in JTS of ITS Group A were<br \/>\n     taken as unfilled whereas against point 13 he had stated that vacancies\/posts<br \/>\n     which remained unfilled for years 1995-96 to 2000-01 have not been carried<br \/>\n     forward.     While arguing further on this subject, the Appellant stated that the<br \/>\n     CPIO had admitted to have provided contradictory information but had refused<br \/>\n     to provide him the ruling in accordance to which the vacancies were not carried<br \/>\n     forward and also information on whether DOPYT OM dated 2.7.97 was followed<br \/>\n     in DOT order dated 19.3.09 in court case CP120\/2009 while considering 33<br \/>\n     vacancies only. According to the Appellant, against points 16 and 17, the CPIO<br \/>\n     had confirmed that no information \/guidelines are available for determining the<br \/>\n     cut off\/ crucial date of vacancies. However, the same CPIO in a separate RTI<br \/>\n     reply had confirmed to the contrary and had even cited an example along with<br \/>\n     his reply.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The Commission, after serious consideration of the submissions from both the<br \/>\n     Appellant and the Respondent, is constrained to observe that there indeed<br \/>\n     seems to be wilful discrimination while furnishing information to various RTI<br \/>\n     applicants    and also that   by his own admission, the CPIO&#8217;s replies to RTI<br \/>\n     queries are contradictory, thereby pointing towards a flippant attitude on the<br \/>\n     part of the CPIO while dealing with RTI matters. The Commission would like to<br \/>\n     point out at this juncture that mere admission of the fact that wrong<br \/>\n     information has been given inadvertently      does not absolve the CPIO of his<br \/>\n     responsibility to provide correct information, as per the RTI Act , and warns him<br \/>\n     that such lapses will not be condoned in future. The Commission directs the<br \/>\n     CPIO to provide information against point 1, 2, 5 &amp; 10 of the RTI request and<br \/>\n     against points 13, 14, 16 &amp; 17 to allow inspection of the files by the Appellant<br \/>\n     and to provide him with certified copies of the documents he requires, free of<br \/>\n     cost. All information to be provided by 25th November, 2009 under intimation to<br \/>\n     the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9.     The appeal is accordingly disposed off.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                 Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G. Subramanian)<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar<\/p>\n<p>Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.     Mr. S.N. Pandita<br \/>\n       154, New Ashiana,<br \/>\n       CGHS, Sector -6, Plot 10,<br \/>\n       Dwarka,<br \/>\n       New Delhi &#8211; 110 075<\/p>\n<p>2.     The PIO<br \/>\n       Department of Telecommunications<br \/>\n       Director (Staff), Room No.419<br \/>\n       Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road<br \/>\n       New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     The Appellate Authority<br \/>\n       Department of Telecommunications<br \/>\n       O\/o the DDG (Estt)<br \/>\n       Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road<br \/>\n       New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     Officer in charge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.     Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/001339 Dated 28th October, 2009 Name of the Applicant : MR. S. N. PANDITA Name of the Public Authority : DOT Background 1. The Applicant filed his RTI request on 26.06.09 with the CPIO \/ DOT, Delhi requesting for [&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-49095","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. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 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\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-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=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-18T14:31:37+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\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T14:31:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1199,\"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-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-18T14:31:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 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\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-18T14:31:37+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\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T14:31:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":1199,"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-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009","name":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-18T14:31:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-n-pandita-vs-dot-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. S. N. Pandita vs Dot on 28 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49095","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=49095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}