{"id":6341,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-08T02:17:17","modified_gmt":"2017-05-07T20:47:17","slug":"mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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\n                                                       Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001883\/8617Penalty\n                                                                     Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001883\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                            :      Mr. Harish Kumar,\n                                            628\/3, Shivaji Road,\n                                            Pul Mithai, Delhi - 110006\n\nRespondent                           :      Mr. S. L. Meena,\n                                            JE (B) & Deemed PIO\n                                            Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n                                            Deputy Commissioner's Office,\n                                            Idgah Road, Near Police Station,\n                                            Sadar Bazaar, Delhi 110006\n\nRTI application filed on             :      02\/02\/2010\nPIO replied on                       :      No reply\nFirst appeal filed on                :      05\/03\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order of   :      23\/04\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on            :      07\/07\/2010\n\nInformation Sought:\nThe Appellant sought information regarding -\n<\/pre>\n
   \u2022 Certified copies of all the applications of constructions that have been rejected, accepted or are
\n      pending with the Building Department from 01\/01\/2007 to 02\/02\/2010 along with ward number, date
\n      of the application, file number, property number, property details, names of the officers responsible
\n      for the same, etc.
\n   \u2022 Have these construction applications been accepted according to Performa 5, Clause 6.71, Section
\n      336 of the DMC Act? If yes, then provide copies of the annexure of Performa 5, names of all
\n      landowners whose application has been accepted under the DMC Act and have been issued a
\n      certificate, names and details of officers who issued the same and the list and details of all the
\n      landowners who have been using the land even though they have not been issued a certificate.
\n   \u2022 Furnish details pertaining to all the construction applications that have been accepted from
\n      01\/01\/2007 to 02\/02\/2010 by the Building Department along with the building regularized plan,
\n      building revised plan number, property name and number and other such details. Further, the names
\n      and details of the officers involved in this procedure according to the different wards must be
\n      mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
   \u2022 Provide information in relation to the number of building plans that have been received or revised by
\n      the Building Department from 01\/01\/2007 to 02\/02\/2010, details of the owner of these buildings,
\n      map number, property number, etc along with the department involved with the names and details of
\n      the officials involved and the status of the applications received.\n<\/p>\n
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):\n<\/p>\n
No information was provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 1 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Grounds for the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
No information was provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
The FAA ordered the PIO to furnish the information to the Appellant within 10 working days.\n<\/p>\n
Grounds for the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
No information provided by the PIO and non- compliance of the FAA’s order.\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated July 20, 2010:\n<\/p>\n
“The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has given a clear order
\ndated 23\/04\/2010 directing the PIO\/ SE\/ SPZ to provide the Appellant with the requisite information
\navailable on record per the RTI Act within 10 working days. The Appellant has not been provided with the
\ninformation requested for despite the order of the FAA. The Commission therefore directs the PIO\/ SE\/ SPZ
\nto provide the information requested for by the Appellant. Denial of information to an Appellant under the
\nRTI Act can only be done if what is sought is not “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI
\nAct or it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO\/SE\/SPZ has neither claimed that it is not
\n“information” nor has he claimed that it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.”\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed. “The PIO\/ SE\/ SPZ is directed to provide the information requested by the
\nAppellant before August 10, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO\/ SE\/ SPZ is guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under Section 7(1) by not replying within 30 days per the requirement
\nof the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable doubt that
\nthe denial of information may also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given. It
\nappears that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. A show
\ncause notice is being issued to him and he is directed to give his reasons to the Commission to show cause
\nwhy penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on August 18, 2010 at 2:30 pm along
\nwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under
\nSection 20(1) of the RTI Act. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant and for not
\ncomplying with the order of the FAA, the PIO\/ SE\/ SPZ is directed to inform such persons of the show
\ncause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at show cause hearing held on August 18, 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE, MCD (SPZ).\n<\/p>\n
“Mr. N. K. Gupta stated that the RTI application dated 02\/02\/2010 was sent to the office of the then deemed
\nPIO & EE (B), Mr. A. K. Singh on 09\/02\/2010. Thereafter, various reminder letters were sent to the EE (B)
\nby Mr. Gupta on 17\/02\/2010, 02\/03\/2010, 19\/03\/2010, 31\/03\/2010, 15\/04\/2010, 05\/05\/2010, 01\/06\/2010,
\n09\/06\/2010 and 05\/07\/2010. Further the order of the FAA passed on 23\/04\/2010 was forwarded to the EE
\n(B) on 26\/04\/2010 followed by reminder letters dated 12\/05\/2010, 09\/06\/2010 and 07\/07\/2010. Mr. Gupta
\nstated that at present Mr. A. K. Singh is posted at the office of EE- I (B), MCD, Shahdara South Zone.\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the order of the Commission dated 20\/07\/2010, information was provided to the Appellant by
\nletter dated 04\/08\/2010. However, the Appellant stated that information provided in respect of query 2 of the<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  Page 2 of 5<\/span>
\n RTI application was incomplete. The Commission is satisfied with the submissions of the Appellant. During
\nthe show cause hearing, the Appellant and the PIO agreed to a joint inspection of the relevant records
\npertaining to query 2 of the RTI application dated 02\/02\/2010 at the office of the Respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision announced on August 19, 2010:\n<\/p>\n
“The PIO & SE, MCD (SPZ) Mr. N. K. Gupta is directed to facilitate an inspection of the records relevant
\nto query 2 of the RTI application dated 02\/02\/2010 to the Appellant before September 14, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission further directs Mr. A. K. Singh, the then deemed PIO & EE (B), MCD (SPZ) to appear
\nbefore the Commission on September 30, 2010 at 12:00 pm along with his written submissions to show
\ncause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Mr. A. K. Singh is
\ndirected to produce before the Commission any relevant document that he may have relied on in his written
\nsubmissions. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not
\nbeen included in this show cause notice, Mr. A. K. Singh is directed to serve this show cause to them and
\ndirect them to appear before the Commission on 30\/09\/2010 along with him.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on September 30, 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO\/SE, Mr. A. K. Singh, the then deemed PIO\/EE(B) and Mr. Inderjeet
\nSingh, EE(B).\n<\/p>\n
        “The Appellant stated that further to the Commission’s order dated 19\/08\/2010, he went for an
\ninspection at the office of the Executive Engineer on 07\/09\/2010 to obtain information in relation to query 2
\nof the RTI application dated 02\/02\/2010. However, the information sought pertained to construction
\nbuilding watch registers, which were not available at the office of the Executive Engineer. In this regard,
\nMr. N. K. Gupta submitted a letter dated 28\/09\/2010 from the EE (B) addressed to all AEs\/JEs, which stated
\nthat various verbal directions were given to them to maintain building construction watch registers.
\nHowever, the said directions were not adhered to. The AEs\/JEs were therefore directed to maintain building
\nconstruction watch registers and put the same before the EE (B) for further directions within two days. Mr.
\nN. K. Gupta certified the same as correct.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. A. K. Singh submitted a copy of the relevant page of the movement register to the Commission. On
\nperusal of the same, it was observed that the RTI application dated 02\/02\/2010 was transferred to Mr. S. L.
\nMeena on 05\/03\/2010, who forwarded the same to OI (B) on 15\/04\/2010 i.e. after 40 days. Further, the RTI
\napplication dated 02\/02\/2010 was ultimately transferred to Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AE (B) on 30\/04\/2010.
\nFurthermore, the FAA passed an order on 23\/04\/2010. Mr. Singh stated that he was on medical leave from
\n26\/04\/2010 till 10\/05\/2010 and was not aware of the order of the FAA. Mr. Singh stated that Mr. S. R.
\nLakhan was in charge of the office of EE(B) during the said period.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision announced on October 1, 2010:\n<\/p>\n
        “In view of the aforesaid, the Commission directs Mr. S. R. Lakhan, AE (B), MCD (S. P. Zone), Mr.
\nS. L. Meena, JE (B) and Mr. Shailesh Kumar, AE (Project), MCD (West Zone) to appear before the
\nCommission on November 19, 2010 at 12:00 pm along with their written submissions to show cause why
\npenalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20 of the RTI Act. They are directed to produce
\nbefore the Commission any relevant document(s) that they may have relied on in their written submissions.
\nIf there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not been included
\nin this show cause notice, they are directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear
\nbefore the Commission on 19\/11\/2010 along with them.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Page 3 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on November 19, 2010:
\nThe following were present:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant: Mr. Harish Kumar;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. N. K. Gupta, PIO & SE (B), Mr. S. R. Lakhan, AE (B), Mr. S. L. Meena, JE (B) &
\n              Deemed PIO; Mr. D. K. Taneja, OI (B).\n<\/p>\n
       Mr. S. L. Meena stated that the RTI application was transferred to him on 05\/03\/2010 and he
\nforwarded the same to OI (B) on 15\/04\/2010 i.e. after 40 days. Mr. Meena did not offer any explanation
\nwhatsoever for the delay in forwarding the RTI application. Mr. Shailesh Kumar, the then AE (B), MCD
\n(SP Zone) also informed the Commission over the telephone that the RTI application was marked to him on
\n30\/04\/2010. However, he was transferred to MCD (West Zone) from May 2010. Mr. N. K. Gupta and Mr. S.
\nR. Lakhan have confirmed the same before the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
Further, Mr. S. R. Lakhan submitted a copy of the relevant page of the movement register to the
\nCommission. On perusal of the same, it was observed that the order of the FAA dated 23\/04\/2010 was
\nforwarded to AE (B) on 03\/05\/2010, who transferred the same to OI (B) on 11\/05\/2010. Thereafter, the OI
\n(B) once again transferred it to Mr. Ajay Chowdhry, AE (B) on 14\/05\/2010, who forwarded it to JE (B) on
\n19\/05\/2010. Mr. Lakhan identified Mr. Rajesh Kumar as the then JE(B) and the person responsible for not
\ncomplying with the order of the FAA.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Commission directs Mr. Rajesh Kumar, JE (B) to appear before the Commission on
\nDecember 24, 2010 at 12:30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should
\nnot be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. He is directed to produce before the
\nCommission any relevant document and evidence that he may have relied on in his written
\nsubmissions. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who
\nhave not been included in this show cause notice, he is directed to serve this show cause to them and
\ndirect them to appear before the Commission on 24\/12\/2010 along with him.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission asked Mr. Meena for reasons for keeping the RTI application for 40 days without any
\npurpose. He is able to offer no explanation for this.\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
\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
\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information
\nor knowingly 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,
\nthe total 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
\nmay be, 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.”
\nA 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\ndays.\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
                                                                                                  Page 4 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act 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
\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty
\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause
\nfor delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives
\nno discretion 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) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
There has been a delay in providing the information to the Appellant. It is apparent that a delay of 40 days
\noccurred because of complete carelessness by Mr. S. L. Meena. He has given no reasonable cause for this
\ndelay. In view of this, the Commission finds this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the
\nRTI Act. Hence the Commission levies a penalty of `250 per day of delay on Mr. S. L. Meena, JE(B) &
\nDeemed PIO for a delay of 40 days i.e. `250\/- X 40 days = 10000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for
\nlevying penalty on Mr. S. L. Meena, JE(B) & Deemed PIO. Since the delay in providing the correct
\ninformation has been of 40 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. S. L. Meena `10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `10,000\/-
\nfrom the salary of Mr. S. L. Meena and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name
\nof the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P.
\nShreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor,
\nAugust Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000\/ per month
\nevery month from the salary of Mr. S. L. Meena and remitted by the 10th of January 2011 and 10th February
\n2011. The total amount of `10,000\/- will be remitted by 10th of February, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          Shailesh Gandhi
\n                                                                                                Information Commissioner
\n                                                                                                       November 19, 2010
\nCC:\n<\/p>\n
1-     Commissioner\n       Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n       Town Hall, Delhi- 110006\n\n2.     Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,\n       Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary\n       Central Information Commission,\n       2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n       New Delhi - 110066\n\n3-    Mr. Rajesh Kumar,\n      JE(B), MCD (S. P. Zone),\n      Deputy Commissioner's Office,\n      Idgah Road, Near Police Station,\n      Sadar Bazaar, Delhi 110006\n\n<\/pre>\n
                      (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (YM)
\n                                                                                                               Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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\/001883\/8617Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/001883 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Harish Kumar, 628\/3, Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai, Delhi – 110006 […]<\/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-6341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-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=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-07T20:47:17+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=\"14 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-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T20:47:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2570,\"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-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T20:47:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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:\/\/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.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-07T20:47:17+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T20:47:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":2570,"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-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010","name":"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T20:47:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-kumar-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Harish Kumar vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 19 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:\/\/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\/6341","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=6341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6341\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}