{"id":7206,"date":"2011-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-13T18:17:55","modified_gmt":"2016-03-13T12:47:55","slug":"mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                          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\/003042\/10561Penalty\n                                                                       Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003042\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<pre>Appellant                             :       Mr. Ram Gopal Singh\n                                              538, Pocket-7, Sector A-10\n                                              Narela, Delhi-40\n\nRespondent                            :       Mr. Hetesh Saxena,\n                                              Dy. Director (SUR) &amp; PIO,\n                                              Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board,\n                                              Government of NCT of Delhi\n                                              D-Block Room no.3, Vikas Kuteer, IP Estate,\n                                              New Delhi;\n\nRTI application filed on           :      04\/08\/2010\nPIO replied                        :     01\/09\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on              :     01\/09\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order    :     11\/10\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on          :     27\/10\/2010\n<\/pre>\n<p>The appellant had sought information regarding the segregation records.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Sr.                  Information Sought                               Reply Of PIO and Director (SUR)\n1. The names and the records of all the survey no. and        The survey is not available when looked for the\n    the juggi no. destroyed in the year 2000 near Shaheed     records. The survey documents cannot be provided.\n    Park. The amount deposited for the slum account.\n2. Those who are allotted the plots and are staying           This information is not available in this branch.\n<\/pre>\n<p>    there, are not provided with amount of Rs. 7000.          Delhi Govt. directs with policy matters. Only if the<br \/>\n    Details of when the amount would be provided to           Delhi government directs, any such of information<br \/>\n    them.                                                     would be given for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The details for the allotment of original documents or     In accordance with the Delhi high court and the<br \/>\n    if the time-period is extended for the same. The          Delhi Govt. the service policies are provided. Thus,<br \/>\n    details of the original documents provided by the         no information is provided for those who have been<br \/>\n    government, and if the time-limit is finished, then the   allotted the plots for almost 10 years.<br \/>\n    remedy for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds of First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Unsatisfactory and incomplete information provided by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    &#8220;PlO informed that the work relating to segregation is under process and it is likely to take time and<br \/>\n      no time frame can be given in this regard, but they are expediting the matter and process of the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                     Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n        computerization of the segregated record is under process under the Delhi Urban Shelter<br \/>\n       improvement Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     Since this is a policy matter as per information provided by PlO any action in this regard will be<br \/>\n       initiated after receipt of directions from Delhi Govt. since the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement<br \/>\n       Board is a Nodal Agency on behalf of the Govt.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     A copy of the order of Hon&#8217;ble Court in the matter of Okhla lndl. Area and Wazir Pur Indl. Area<br \/>\n       may be provided to the appellant which was desired by the Appellant.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>Incomplete information provided by the PIO and the FAA.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 22 December 2010:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant : Mr. Ram Gopal Singh;\n<\/p>\n<p>Respondent : Mr. Harish Vats, Public Information Officer &amp; Dy. Director (SUR);\n<\/p>\n<p>       &#8220;The Commission records with distress the fact that Mr. Harish Vats PIO who was supposed to<br \/>\ncome to the Commission at 10.00Am for the hearing has arrived only at 10.40AM when the hearing was<br \/>\nalready started. The Commission directs to the Director, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board to mark<br \/>\nMr. Harish Vats absent for half a day for today.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant states that he has not received the order of the Court which the First Appellate Authority had<br \/>\nordered to be provided to the Appellant. It has been given to the Appellant before the Commission. The<br \/>\nAppellant has sought a copy of a survey reportedly made in 2001 of the Jhuggies which were demolished<br \/>\nnear India Express Building at Saheed Park. The PIO states that the copy of the survey report is not<br \/>\ntraceable. It is surprising how such crucial reports are not kept properly by Public Authority. By such<br \/>\nactions of having reports untraceable a lot of arbitrariness and corruption thrives.\n<\/p>\n<p>The PIO is also directed to provide a copy of any letter\/order if available for not to take deposits from<br \/>\nJhuggi Dwellers. If no such letter\/order is available this should be stated.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Commission&#8217;s Decision dated 22 December 2010 :\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The PIO will provide the attested photocopy of the survey report to the Appellant before 10 January<br \/>\n2011. In case the survey report is not located a police complaint will be filed for the theft\/loss of the survey<br \/>\nreport naming the officers who last handled it. The Copy of the FIR will be provided to the Appellant and<br \/>\nthe Commission before 10 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO<br \/>\nwithin 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within<br \/>\nthe time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement<br \/>\nof the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable<br \/>\ndoubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered<br \/>\nthe information to be given. It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1).<br \/>\nA showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show<br \/>\ncause why penalty should not be levied on him. He will present himself before the Commission at the above<br \/>\naddress on 20 January 2011 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty<br \/>\nshould not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                    Page 2 of 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p> Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 20 January 2011:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nRespondent : Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director (SUR)\/PIO, D-Block Room no.3, Vikas Kuteer, IP Estate,<br \/>\n               New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n<p>The Police complaint has been filed regarding the loss of the survey report of the Jhuggi Cluster near<br \/>\nSaheed Park\/Express Building. The PIO claims that after the order of the FAA he sent a letter on<br \/>\n19\/10\/2010 to the Appellant asking him to deposit `4\/- as additional fee for providing 02 pages of the High<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s order as per the order of the FAA. The Commission asked him to show any proof that this letter was<br \/>\never sent. He states he does not have any such proof at the moment. It is also significant that no such claim<br \/>\nhas been made during the hearing at the Commission on 22\/12\/2010. Besides as per Section 7(3) of the RTI<br \/>\nAct information has to be supplied free of cost once the mandated period of 30 days is over and all PIOs<br \/>\nvery well aware of this. The order of the FAA was issued on 11\/10\/2010 to provide the information. The<br \/>\nFAA has not mentioned any time frame for providing the information but the maximum time that can be<br \/>\nallowed would be 30 days. Thus the information should certainly have been provided before 11\/11\/2010.<br \/>\nInstead the information very specific ordered by the FAA was provided to the Appellant during the hearing<br \/>\non 22\/12\/2010 i.e. after a delay of 40 days.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, &#8220;Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information<br \/>\nCommission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the<br \/>\nCentral Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without<br \/>\nany reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information<br \/>\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information<br \/>\nor knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the<br \/>\nsubject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of<br \/>\ntwo hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however,<br \/>\nthe total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;<br \/>\nProvided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case<br \/>\nmay be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:<br \/>\nProvided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central<br \/>\nPublic Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.&#8221;<br \/>\nA plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose<br \/>\npenalty:\n<\/p>\n<pre>1)      Refusal to receive an application for information.\n2)      Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30\n        days.\n3)      Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or\n<\/pre>\n<p>        misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request\n<\/p>\n<p>4)      Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the above are prefaced by the infraction, &#8216; without reasonable cause&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that &#8220;In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial<br \/>\nof a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information<br \/>\nOfficer, as the case may be, who denied the request.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty<br \/>\neach day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause<br \/>\nfor delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                     Page 3 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and<br \/>\nreasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>No reasonable explanation has been offered for the delay of 40 days by Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director<br \/>\n(SUR)\/PIO. Hence the Commission sees this as a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI<br \/>\nAct at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay i.e. `250\/- X 40 days = `10000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>      As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit<br \/>\ncase for levying penalty on Mr. Hetesh Saxena, Dy. Director (SUR)\/PIO. Since the delay in<br \/>\nproviding the correct information has been of 40 days, the Commission is passing an order<br \/>\npenalizing Mr. Hetesh Saxena `10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `10,000\/-<br \/>\nfrom the salary of Mr. Hetesh Saxena and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker&#8217;s<br \/>\nCheque in the name of the Pay &amp; Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send<br \/>\nthe same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the<br \/>\nCentral Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi &#8211; 110066.<br \/>\nThe amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000\/ per month every month from the salary of<br \/>\nMr. Hetesh Saxena and remitted by the 10th February 2011 and 10th March 2011. Hence the<br \/>\ntotal amount of `10,000\/- will be remitted by 10th of March, 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                  Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                        Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                  20 January 2011<br \/>\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)<\/p>\n<p>CC:<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nTo,\n\n1-        The Chief Secretary\n          GNCT of Delhi\n          New Delhi\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\n\n\n\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                       Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003042\/10561Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/003042 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Ram Gopal Singh 538, Pocket-7, Sector A-10 [&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-7206","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>Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-13T12:47:55+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=\"9 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-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T12:47:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1671,\"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-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T12:47:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-13T12:47:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T12:47:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011"},"wordCount":1671,"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-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011","name":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T12:47:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ram-gopal-sing-vs-government-of-nct-of-delhi-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Ram Gopal Sing vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 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:\/\/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\/7206","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=7206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}