{"id":53026,"date":"2011-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011"},"modified":"2015-10-22T22:53:40","modified_gmt":"2015-10-22T17:23:40","slug":"mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 2011<\/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\/2011\/000403\/12071Penalty\n                                                                             Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000403\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                               :       Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma\n                                                C-25, Bhagat Singh Colony,\n                                                New Usmaan pur, Delhi-110053.\n\nRespondent                              :       Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh\n                                                The then FSO (C-02) & Deemed PIO\n                                                (Presently FSO(C-68))\n                                                Food and Supplies Department, GNCTD\n                                                DC (North East) Office Complex,\n                                                Weavers Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi ;\n\nRTI application filed on                :       22\/07\/2010\nPIO replied                             :       27\/08\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                   :       09\/11\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order         :       08\/12\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on               :       02\/02\/2011\n\n      Sl.                                      Information Sought About\n<\/pre>\n
 1.         Please provide photocopy of Master Card Register regarding of tel. no. (5506) and printout of
\n            Master Card Register from the circle (55) .\n<\/p>\n
 2.         Please provide the photocopy and printout of Sales Register from tel. no. (5506) and Circle (55)
\n            of May-June.\n<\/p>\n
 3.         How many cards gets stamps? How many cards are renewed by Tel. No. (5506)? Give the serial
\n            numbers.\n<\/p>\n
 4.          a) Please provide the attested receipts of …………………………………\n<\/p>\n
PIO Reply:\n<\/p>\n
Not attached with the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds of the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant is not satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n
“Appellant is satisfied with the reply furnished by PIO(North) on point no. 1, 2, 5 & 7. he stated that the PIO has
\nasked to deposit Rs. 900\/- in response to point no. 4 &5 for providing photocopies of Master Card register and Sales
\nRegister. Accordingly, Rs 900\/- deposited vide TR receipt no. 25558 dated 07\/09\/2010. However, the appellant had
\nnot received photocopy of documents despite of several visits to the office of Asst. Commissioner (North) and
\nCircle office. The required photocopies of documents were not provided to him the stipulated time frame despite of
\ndepositing the requisite amount, therefore, the same must but available to him free of cost.”\n<\/p>\n
Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
The appellant was not satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       Page 1 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 April 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The following were present
\nAppellant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Mr. H. P. Meena, PIO & AC (North); Mr. Shashi Kant, FSO(C-02);\n<\/p>\n
     “The PIO had demanded additional fee of Rs.900\/- which the Appellant had paid on 07\/09\/2010. The RTI
\napplication has been made on 22\/07\/2010 and the demand for additional fee was sent 27\/08\/2010, which was an
\nillegal demand. The Appellant paid Rs.900\/- on 07\/09\/2010 yet no information was provided to the Appellant. Only
\nafter the order of the FAA information was sent to the Appellant on 25\/01\/2011. This information is also
\nincomplete and the PIO is directed to send the following information to the Appellant:\n<\/p>\n
     1-     It has been claimed that all records of the ration shop FPS 4136 (5506) were stolen on 11\/01\/2009 and a
\n            compliant was made about this to the police on 18\/03\/2009. However, records from 11\/01\/2009 upto
\n            10\/04\/2010 which should be available have not been provided to the Appellant. The Rs.900\/- wrongly
\n            taken from the Appellant has been refunded to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Respondent states that the person responsible for not providing the information to the Appellant was Mr. K. P.
\nSingh the then FSO(C-02).\n<\/p>\n
It is clear that the Appellant has been harassed by not providing the information, asking him illegally to pay the
\nadditional fee and even after this not providing the information. In view of this the Commission directs the Food
\nand Supply Department to give a compensation to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him and the
\ndelay in providing the information. The Commission under its powers under Section-19(8)(b) of the RTI Act
\nawards compensation of Rs.3000\/- to the Appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Commission’s Decision dated 20 April 2011:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      “The PIO is directed to provide the provide the information for the period 11\/01\/2009 to
\n10\/04\/2010 to the Appellant free of cost before 10 May 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO is also directed to ensure that a cheque of Rs.3000\/- as compensation is sent from the
\nDepartment to the Appellant before 15 June 2011.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. K. P. Singh
\nthe then FSO(C-02) within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the then PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the
\ntime specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI
\nAct. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial
\nof information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to
\nhim, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. K. P. Singh the then FSO(C-02) will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 18 May
\n2011 at 10.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as
\nmandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 18 May 2011:
\nThe following were present
\nRespondent : Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) presently FSO(C-68) & Deemed PIO, DC (North East)
\n                 Office Complex, Weavers Complex, Nand Nagri, Delhi ;\n<\/p>\n
         The information is being shown as having been sent to the Appellant on 03\/05\/2011 after the order of the
\nCommission. The RTI application was filed on 22\/07\/2010 and the Appellant was asked to deposit additional fee of
\n`900\/- by the PIO vide letter dated 27\/08\/2010. The Appellant deposited the additional fee of `900\/- on 07\/09\/2010
\nbut the information was not sent to him. The respondent and deemed PIO Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO(C-\n<\/p>\n
02) has given written submission and admits that the appellant showed him the receipt of payment in October 2010
\nyet he did not send the information to the Appellant. He also claims that there is no system in the department
\n                                                                                                          Page 2 of 4<\/span>
\n whereby information about payments made of additional fees would be informed to the Deemed PIOs. However, he
\nhas admitted that he was aware that the payment had been made. He has no explanation to offer why the
\ninformation was not dispatched to the Appellant. The Appellant had paid `900\/- and yet did not receive the
\ninformation.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 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 Central
\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable
\ncause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified
\nunder sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
\nincomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed
\nin any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
\napplication is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed
\ntwenty five thousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
\nshall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public
\nInformation Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
A plain reading of Section 20 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 - 30 days.\n3)       Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading\n<\/pre>\n
         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 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a
\nrequest was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
\ncase 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) of
\nsection 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till
\nthe information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to
\nimpose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the
\nmatter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the
\nPIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
Since the appellant had paid the amount on 07\/09\/2010 he should have been given the information immediately.
\nEven if it is assumed that the department is running with no system of informing the PIO or Deemed PIO about the
\npayment of money as additional fee for an RTI application, the Deemed PIO Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO
\n(C-02) has accepted that the Appellant came and showed him proof of paying the additional fee in October 2010.
\nYet he did not send the information to the appellant as per his own admission. The information has finally been
\nprovided to the Appellant only on 03\/05\/2011 after the order of the Commission. The Appellant claims that he was
\ntransferred from his job on 14 November 2010. Since he had not sent the information no one else could have sent
\nthe information to the appellant subsequently. It is clear that Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) is clearly
\nresponsible for the complete delay in providing the information to the appellant. Once an officer responsible for
\nproviding the information fails in his duty it is likely that information would only be provided when the
\nCommission intervenes in the matter. Thus Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) is clear responsible for the
\nentire delay in providing the information to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                       Page 3 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days and no reasonable cause has been offered
\nfor the delay, the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000\/- under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on
\nMr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) & Deemed PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
          As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission
\nfinds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh the then FSO (C-02) &
\nDeemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days,
\nthe Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh `25000\/ which is the
\nmaximum penalty under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `25000\/-
\nfrom the salary of Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh 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
\nSecretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
\nNew Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000\/ per month every
\nmonth from the salary of Mr. Kanwar Pal Singh and remitted by the 10th of every month
\nstarting from June 2011. The total amount of `25000 \/- will be remitted by 10th of
\nOctober, 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) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                      Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                                   18 May 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC)<\/p>\n
CC: To,<\/p>\n
1-       The Chief Secretary
\n         GNCT of Delhi
\n         New Delhi<\/p>\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<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                     Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000403\/12071Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/000403 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma C-25, Bhagat Singh […]<\/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-53026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - 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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-22T17:23:40+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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-22T17:23:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1917,\"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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-22T17:23:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 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.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - 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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-22T17:23:40+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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-22T17:23:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011"},"wordCount":1917,"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-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011","name":"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 18 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-22T17:23:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-umesh-kumar-sharma-vs-consumer-affairs-food-and-civil-on-18-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Umesh Kumar Sharma vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil … on 18 May, 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\/53026","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=53026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}