{"id":52843,"date":"2009-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-10T15:20:25","modified_gmt":"2016-10-10T09:50:25","slug":"shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                 Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00809 dated 18-8-2007\n                   Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\nAppellant:           Shri Mahaveer Singhvi\nRespondent:                Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) New Delhi\n\n\nFACTS<\/pre>\n<p>       By an application of 18-7-2006 Shri Mahaveer Singhvi of Kasturba<br \/>\nGandhi Marg, New Delhi applied to the DCP, New Delhi District seeking the<br \/>\nfollowing information:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;Vide letter dated 422\/DIC-NDD dated 11.7.2006 of your office,<br \/>\n       it has been stated that an inquiry was conducted which revealed<br \/>\n       that the allegations were not substantiated and no cognizable<br \/>\n       offence was made out, therefore, FIR was not lodged and the<br \/>\n       complaint was filed. In respect of the aforesaid, you are<br \/>\n       requested to provide me the following information: &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       1. Name and rank of the officer who conducted the inquiry on<br \/>\n           my complaint dated 16.2.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       2. Certified copy of the inquiry report submitted by the said<br \/>\n           inquiry officer on my complaint dated 16.2.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       3. Whether the inquiry report as submitted by the said inquiry<br \/>\n           officer was accepted by you and if so the reasons thereof or<br \/>\n           you may provide a certified copy of the file notes\/ documents<br \/>\n           containing the reasons for the said inquiry report being<br \/>\n           accepted by you.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       4. Inspection of the file pertaining to the aforesaid complaint<br \/>\n           dated 16.2.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       5. A certified copy of the aforesaid complaint dated 16.2.2006<br \/>\n           received by you.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       To this he received a response from Shri Vijay Kumar, ACP on<br \/>\n10.8.2006 as follows: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;1.    An enquiry was got conducted by SI Ram Babu of P. S.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>              Parliament Street, New Delhi District, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       2&amp;3. The certified copy of enquiry report as well as file note\/<br \/>\n            document cannot be provided to you being restricted<br \/>\n            under section 8 (1) (e) and (h) of Right to Information Act,<br \/>\n            2005. It is also pertinent to mentioned here that the<br \/>\n            enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer EO) was<br \/>\n            accepted by Addl. DCP\/NDD and filed due to nothing was<br \/>\n            found cognizable offence in the enquiry report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       4.   You can inspect the file (under the provision of Act)<br \/>\n            pertinent to aforesaid complaint by paying appropriate fee<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      1<\/span><br \/>\n                as per rule under Right to Information Act, 2005 in the<br \/>\n               presence of ACP\/ Parliament Street\/ NDD on any working<br \/>\n               day from 10 AM to 5 PM.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       5.      Certified copy of your complaint dated 16.2.06 is<br \/>\n               enclosed herewith as desired.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>       Not satisfied Shri Mahaveer Singhvi through his letter of 27.8.2006<br \/>\nappealed to the Appellate Authority, JCP Shri Alok Kumar Verma, New Delhi<br \/>\nRange basing his appeal on the following contention: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;The information sought by me vide my application dated<br \/>\n       18.7.2006 vide Para 2 and 3 are neither restricted under section<br \/>\n       8 (1) (e) nor under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. it is<br \/>\n       submitted that the alleged inquiry report has been prepared by<br \/>\n       the enquiry officer and then submitted to his departmental<br \/>\n       superiors in discharge of his public duties and official work.<br \/>\n       There is no fiduciary relationship involved in the same as<br \/>\n       provided under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Secondly,<br \/>\n       as per the information provided to me itself, the alleged inquiry<br \/>\n       has been completed on my complaint and the inquiry report has<br \/>\n       been filed as no cognizable offence according to the police<br \/>\n       officer who dealt with the complaint has been made out. This<br \/>\n       rules out the application of section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act,<br \/>\n       2005.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       JCP Shri Alok Kumar Verma, in his order of 28.9.2006 however, found<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       &#8220;The appellant was heard in person on 22.9.2006. All the<br \/>\n       relevant records have been examined. I, agree with the<br \/>\n       contentions of the appellant and found that sections 8 (1) (e) &amp;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 are not applicable to appellant&#8217;s case.<br \/>\n       However, the documents asked for have rightly been denied as<br \/>\n       the same are exempted from disclosure of information u\/s 8 (1)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (g). The appellant was given an opportunity to inspect the file,<br \/>\n       but he did not avail the opportunity. The appellant has the<br \/>\n       liberty to inspect the relevant portion of the concerned file at the<br \/>\n       office of PIO\/ NDD on any working day. The appeal is<br \/>\n       accordingly disposed off.(sic)&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       Shri Mahaveer Singhvi initially through a letter of 7.10.2006, sought<br \/>\nreview of this order on the ground that JCP was not authorised to find fresh<br \/>\ngrounds for refusal other than those taken by the PIO. Upon this Shri Alok<br \/>\nKumar Verma rightly took the view that the appellate authority under the RTI<br \/>\nAct had no authority to review a decision. Thereupon Shri Mahaveer Singhvi<br \/>\nmoved his second appeal before us with the following prayer:-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;(a)   Set aside\/ quash Order No. 3723\/ Appeal\/ RIA\/C-NDR,<br \/>\n              dated 28.9.2007 and Order No. 4328\/Appeal\/ RTIA\/C-<br \/>\n              NDR dated 26.10.2006 of Shri Alok Kumar Verma,<br \/>\n              Joint Commissioner of Police and Appellate<br \/>\n              Authority, Delhi Police, Police HQ, I. P. Estate, New<br \/>\n              Delhi.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (b)    Direct the Respondents to provide to the appellant<br \/>\n              the certified copy of the inquiry report sought by the<br \/>\n              appellant vide point 2 of his application dated<br \/>\n              18.7.2006 under the RTI Act, 2005 and certified copy<br \/>\n              of the file\/ notes\/ documents containing the reasons<br \/>\n              for the said inquiry report being accepted by the<br \/>\n              DCP\/ NDD as requested vide point 3 of the his<br \/>\n              aforesaid application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (c)    Levy appropriate penalty and direct disciplinary<br \/>\n              action to be taken against the Respondents No. 1 and<br \/>\n              2 for illegally denying the information to the applicant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       (d)    Direct the respondents to pay to the appellant heavy<br \/>\n              cost and compensation for causing undue<br \/>\n              harassment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The appeal was heard on 9-3-2009. The following are present.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Appellant<br \/>\n      Shri Mahaveer Singhvi.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Respondents<br \/>\n      Shri V. S. Joon, ACP\/ HQ.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Shri Vijay Singh, SHO, Parliament Street.<br \/>\n      Smt. Usha Chopra, W\/SI.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Respondent Shri V. S. Joon, ACP, HQ submitted that appellant Shri<br \/>\nMahaveer Singhvi has been given the opportunity to inspect the complete file<br \/>\nwhich he has not taken. Such an inspection would have covered inspecting<br \/>\nthe inquiry report also which is placed on the file.\n<\/p>\n<p>                               DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n<p>       We cannot accept simply the citing of a particular sub-section of<br \/>\nsection 8 (1) as sufficient ground for providing exemption from disclosure<br \/>\nunder the RTI Act, 2005. As the Delhi High Court has held in WP 3114\/<br \/>\n2007- Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner &amp; Ors, the right<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         3<\/span><br \/>\n to information is the law where the exemption is only the exception as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       13. Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule<br \/>\n       and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being<br \/>\n       a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be<br \/>\n       strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to<br \/>\n       shadow the very right self. Under Section 8,exemption from<br \/>\n       releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of<br \/>\n       investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the<br \/>\n       information, the authority withholding information must show<br \/>\n       satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information<br \/>\n       would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should<br \/>\n       be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered<br \/>\n       should be reasonable and based on some material<\/p>\n<p>       Besides the above, Appellate Authority Shri Alok Kumar Verma in his,<br \/>\notherwise reasoned order has contradicted himself, on the one hand stating<br \/>\nthat &#8220;documents asked for, have rightly been denied as the same are<br \/>\nexempted from disclosure of information u\/s 8 (1) (g)&#8221; but at the same time<br \/>\ndirecting that the &#8220;appellant has the liberty to inspect the relevant portion of<br \/>\nthe concerned file at the office of PIO\/ NDD&#8221;. Under section 7 (9) of the RTI<br \/>\nAct information is expected to be provided &#8220;in the form in which it is sought&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The reasons for digressing from this principle under certain circumstances are<br \/>\nalso laid down in the same clause of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Besides the above, we cannot see why as a general principle the Delhi<br \/>\nPolice does not adopt the practice of conveying to a complainant the result of<br \/>\nany enquiry conducted by them on his \/ her complaint unless there are<br \/>\nspecific reasons warranting exemption drawing directly from the exemptions<br \/>\ngranted under section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. This will surely help buttress public<br \/>\nconfidence in the police apart from making information readily accessible to<br \/>\nthe citizens.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We hereby direct that the CPIO, DCP, New Delhi District will supply a<br \/>\ncertified copy of the final inquiry report submitted by SI Shri Ram Babu of<br \/>\nPolice Station, Parliament Street, New Delhi together with the reasons for<br \/>\naccepting\/ rejecting the same by the appropriate authority in the form of any<br \/>\nfile note\/document in which recorded to appellant Shri Mahaveer Singhvi<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       4<\/span><br \/>\n within 10 working days of the date of issue of this decision notice. This Appeal<br \/>\nis thus allowed. But because the decisions have been taken within the time<br \/>\nlimits mandated by the Act, and within their understanding of the law as the<br \/>\nrespondents have been used to, there will be no cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost<br \/>\nto the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Wajahat Habibullah)<br \/>\nChief Information Commissioner<br \/>\n9-3-2009<\/p>\n<p>Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against<br \/>\napplication and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO<br \/>\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)<br \/>\nJoint Registrar<br \/>\n9-3-2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/00809 dated 18-8-2007 Right to Information Act 2005 &#8211; Section 19 Appellant: Shri Mahaveer Singhvi Respondent: Deputy Commissioner Police, (DCP) New Delhi FACTS By an application of 18-7-2006 Shri Mahaveer Singhvi of Kasturba Gandhi Marg, [&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-52843","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>Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 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\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-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=\"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-10T09:50:25+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T09:50:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1458,\"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\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-10T09:50:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 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":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 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\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-10T09:50:25+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T09:50:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009"},"wordCount":1458,"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\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009","name":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, ... on 9 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-10T09:50:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mahaveer-singhvi-vs-deputy-commissioner-police-on-9-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Mahaveer Singhvi vs Deputy Commissioner Police, &#8230; on 9 March, 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\/52843","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=52843"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52843\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52843"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52843"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52843"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}