{"id":72977,"date":"2010-12-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-04-25T22:37:52","modified_gmt":"2015-04-25T17:07:52","slug":"mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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\/002345\/9612Penalty\n                                                                  Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002345\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                           :      Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma\n                                           9561, Azad Market,\n                                           Library Road, Delhi - 110006.\n\nRespondent                          :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar,\n                                           Deemed PIO & Record Keeper\n                                           Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                           Shahdara North Zone,\n                                           Near Keshav Chowk, Shahdra, Delhi.\n\nRTI application filed on                   :      22\/03\/2010\nPIO replied                                :      04\/05\/2010\nFirst appeal filed on                      :      14\/05\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order            :      16\/06\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on                  :      20\/08\/2010\n\n<\/pre>\n
Information requires regarding construction of building in hold Shahdara North Zone for each and
\nevery ward for the period January 2009 to March 2010.\n<\/p>\n
 Sl.              Information Sought                                 Reply of the PIO\n<\/p>\n
1.    List of upto date sanctioned building plans 313 building plan for the period of Jan, 2009 to March,
\n      along with property no. and address of the 2010 had been sanctioned by the department. List could
\n      owner.                                      be obtained from the department on any working day.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Number of building which had been 317 building had been booked for unauthorized
\n      booked.                                     construction by building department, Shah South Zone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  List could be obtained from the department on any
\n                                                  working day.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Number of buildings which had been 25 properties had been sealed against unauthorized
\n      sealed.                                     construction by building department, Shah South Zone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  List could be obtained from the department on any
\n                                                  working day.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Number of buildings which had been 442 properties had been sealed against unauthorized
\n      demolished.                                 construction by building department, Shah South Zone.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  List could be obtained from the department on any
\n                                                  working day.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Details of action taken in accordance with Action will be taken as per MCD Act.\n<\/p>\n
      the     Commissioner’s      order     dated
\n      15\/05\/2010 vide circular no. D\/172\/Addl.\n<\/p>\n
      Commissioner(E)\/2000 on the booked
\n      properties.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Photocopies of all FIR registered by the As described ion point no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
      MCD against the booked properties
\n                                                                                           Page 1 of 5<\/span>
\n       according to the said Commissioner’s
\n      order.\n<\/p>\n
7.    If no FIR has been registered then the       Action will be taken as per MCD Act.\n<\/p>\n
      name of the person responsible for the
\n      same.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Whether it was a violation of the            As described ion point no. 2.\n<\/p>\n
      Commissioner’s order.<\/p>\n
\n9.    Request to allow inspection of files         The Appellant could inspect the record available in\n      related to booked, sealed and demolished     building Deptt., Shah North Zone, on any working day\n      properties.                                  after fixing time with EE(Bldg.).\n10.   Request to allow inspection Misal Band       As above.\n      register.\n11.   Request to all D. C. Diary Register.         Did not pertain to Building Deptt., Shah. North Zone.\n\nFirst Appeal:\n<\/pre>\n
Incomplete and unsatisfactory information received from the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n
The FAA in its order noted that the information had been provided however, copy of the documents
\ndesired by the Appellant, which ran into 300 pages, had not been provided to him. He further asked the
\nPIO to give the photocopies of the documents to the Appellant free of cost as the information had been
\nprovided to him after 30 days. The FAA directed the PIO to give inspection of the records by the
\nAppellant on any mutual agreed date within 2 weeks.\n<\/p>\n
Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Non-compliance of the FAA’s order by the PIO.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing held on 05\/10\/2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent : Mr. Tejvir Singh, EE(B-II) on behalf of Mr. Surender Singh, Executive Engineer (B-II);\n<\/p>\n
       “The photocopies of the missal band register and sealing register should have been provided by the
\nPIO which he failed to do. As far as list of sanctioned building plans are concerned the public authority
\nmaintains the register which is of a large size and there is no reason why the photocopy of the register
\ncould not have been offered to the appellant. It is evident that PIOs are being completely careless and not
\nproviding information which could be easily provided. In this manner there is a loss of the revenue of
\nadditional fees which could be charged under RTI and this also results in unnecessary appeals coming
\nbefore the Commission. The respondent states that the person responsible for this was Mr. Surender
\nSingh, Executive Engineer (B-II) who was transferred out in the first week of August.”\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated 05\/10\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      “The PIO is directed to provide attested photocopies of the missal band register,
\nsealing register and the sanctioned building plans register for the period January 2009 to
\nMarch 2010 to the appellant before 25 October 2010. The PIO will also give a statement to
\nthe appellant that during this period no action has been taken under Section 466 and 467 of
\nthe DMC Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 2 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
 The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
\ndeemed PIO Mr. Surender Singh the then Executive Engineer (B-II)within 30 days as required by the
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information
\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the
\nrequirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of
\nSection 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the
\nCommission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Surender Singh the then Executive Engineer (B-II) will present himself before the Commission at the
\nabove address on 26 November 2010 at 2.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
\npenalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also bring the
\ninformation sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of
\nhaving sent the information to the appellant.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging during the hearing held on 26\/11\/2010:
\nAppellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
\nRespondent: Mr. Surinder Singh, Deemed PIO & the then EE(B)-II<\/p>\n
        “The then EE(B)-II Mr. Surinder Singh has stated that the FAA’s order dated 16\/06\/2010 was
\nnever communicated to him, however it was only marked to the PIO & SE-I Mr. C.B. Singh and EE(B)-I
\nMr. B.M.N. Rao. Mr. Surinder Singh has also stated that the OI(B) Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who is the
\ncustodian of all the records of the Building Department is working jointly under the control of the EE(B)-I
\nand EE(B)-II. Mr. Surinder Singh was transferred to Shahdara South zone vide office order dated
\n26\/07\/2010. Mr. Singh has stated that in compliance of the Commission’s order the information had been
\nsent to the Appellant by the EE(B)-I Mr. B.M.N. Rao through speed post on 23\/10\/2010. Mr. Singh also
\nsubmitted the copy of the speed post receipt alongwith the covering letter dated 21\/10\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
        The Appellant has stated that he has still not received the information.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision on 26\/11\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
        “In view of the above stated facts, the Commission has decided to schedule another showcause
\nhearing on 30\/12\/2010 at 11:00 am. The Commission directs the EE(B)-I Mr. B.M.N. Rao to appear
\nbefore the Commission on 30\/12\/2010 at 11:00 am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why
\npenalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) for not complying with the
\nFAA’s order dated 16\/06\/2010. He will also bring the copy of information with him as per the
\nCommission’s direction dated 05\/10\/2010.”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 30\/12\/2010:
\nAppellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. B.M.N. Rao, the then EE(B-I) Shahdara North presently EE(DEMS), O\/o of the
\nDirector-in-Chief, Ambedkar Stadium, Delhi Gate, Delhi and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record
\nKeeper; Mr. Umed Singh, the then AE(B) Shahdara North Zone presently AE(B) at Rohini Zone,
\nDivision-I, Sector-5, Rohini Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
        The then EE(B-I) Mr. B.M.N. Rao has submitted that he was on leave since 03\/06\/2010 to
\n24\/06\/2010. The FAA’s order dated 16\/06\/2010 was received on 18\/06\/2010 by the then officiating EE(B-
\nI) Mr. Umed Singh, who had forwarded the same to the Deemed PIO & Record Keeper Mr. Rakesh
\nKumar on 18\/06\/2010. The deemed PIO Mr. Rakesh Kumar has submitted a copy of the relevant page of
\nReceipt Register stating that he had received the FAA’s order only on 20\/08\/2010. Mr. Rakesh has
\nclaimed that the information had been provided to the Appellant on 23\/10\/2010 through speed post i.e.
\nafter the Commission’s order dated 05\/10\/2010. However, the Appellant claimed that no information had
\nbeen provided to him.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 3 of 5<\/span><\/p>\n
        Despite of the Commission’s order Mr. B.M.N. Rao has brought a copy of covering letter dated
\n21\/10\/2010 without enclosures alongwith him. The FAA had clearly directed the PIO to provide an
\nopportunity of inspection to the Appellant within a period of two weeks as per mutual convenience.
\nHowever, no opportunity has been given to the Appellant till date. The Appellant states that he does not
\nneed to inspect the records any longer since he has received the information.\n<\/p>\n
 The information has been sent to the Appellant only after the order of the Commission on 23\/10\/2010.
\nThe order of the FAA is claimed to have been sent by Mr. Umed Singh on 18\/06\/2010 to Mr. Rakesh
\nKumar who claims he received it only on 20\/08\/2010. Thus there is an unexplained gap of 62 days when it
\nis not known where the FAA’s order was lying. Mr. Rakesh Kumar however admits that he received the
\nFAA’s order on 20\/08\/2010 and did not provide the information until the reminder from the Information
\nCommission. After receiving the FAA’s order on 20\/08\/2010 the information was provided only on
\n23\/10\/2010 after a delay of 62 days.\n<\/p>\n
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
\nInformation Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
\nopinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
\nmay be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not
\nfurnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
\nrequest for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
\ninformation which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
\ninformation, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received
\nor information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five
\nthousand rupees;\n<\/p>\n
Provided 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
\nimpose penalty:\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\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.
\nAll 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
\ndenial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
\nInformation Officer, 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
\ncause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the
\nlaw gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was
\njustified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission asked Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper to give reasons for the delay
\nof 62 days in providing the information. He states that he was over worked and looks after two divisions
\nall alone and hence was not able to provide the information. There is only one law in which there is a
\npersonal liability of `250\/- per day when an officer does not do his duty. It is unlikely that an officer does
\n                                                                                                  Page 4 of 5<\/span>
\n all other works but neglects the work in which he is likely to suffer a personal penalty of `250\/- per day
\nfor not doing his work. Since Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper has been offered to no
\nreasonable cause for the delay in providing the information after receiving the order of the FAA the
\nCommission imposes a penalty on him as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250\/- per day of
\ndelay for 62 days i.e. `15500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Decision:\n<\/p>\n
       As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
\nfit case for levying penalty on Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Deemed PIO & Record Keeper. Since
\nthe delay in providing the correct information has been of 62 days, the Commission is
\npassing an order penalizing Mr. Rakesh Kumar `15,500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the
\namount of `15,500\/- from the salary of Mr. Rakesh Kumar and remit the same by a
\ndemand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT,
\npayable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar
\nand Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti
\nBhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `3875\/ per
\nmonth every month from the salary of Mr. Rakesh Kumar and remitted by the 10th of every
\nmonth starting from February 2011. The total amount of `15,500\/- will be remitted by 10th
\nof May, 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                                                                                                              30 December 2010
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)<\/p>\n
CC:<\/p>\n
\n\nTo,\n\n1-        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\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                     Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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\/002345\/9612Penalty Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002345 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma 9561, Azad Market, Library Road, Delhi […]<\/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-72977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-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=\"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-25T17:07:52+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=\"12 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-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T17:07:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2253,\"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-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-25T17:07:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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:\\\/\\\/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.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-25T17:07:52+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T17:07:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010"},"wordCount":2253,"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-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010","name":"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-25T17:07:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sunil-kumar-sharma-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-30-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 30 December, 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:\/\/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\/72977","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=72977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72977\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}