{"id":74324,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-08T05:59:40","modified_gmt":"2015-08-08T00:29:40","slug":"shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n
              Central Information Commission\n                          2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,\n                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066\n                              Website: www.cic.gov.in\n\n          (Adjunct to Decision No.5622\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 16\/7\/2010)\n\n                                                         Decision No.5817\/IC(A)\/2010\n                                                         F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2010\/000283\n                                                         Dated, the 30th August, 2010\n\nName of the Appellant:                Shri. Mohammed Kutty\n\nName of the Public Authority:         Indian Oil Corporation Limited\n\n\n                                       Decision: i\n\n1.    In our Decision No.5622\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 16\/7\/2010, the following\nobservations were made:\n\n      \"Decision:\n\n      8.      The averments made during the hearing and the evidences on\n      record clearly indicate contradictory responses by the officials of the\n      respondents. First, the CPIO refused to provide the information u\/s 8(1)(j)<\/pre>\n
      of the Act. The FAA of the respondent rejected and reversed the decision
\n      of the CPIO and ordered for disclosure of information. The order of FAA
\n      has not been complied with, however. Second, in his submission before
\n      the Commission, the CPIO who earlier rejected the appellant’s application
\n      for information u\/s 8(1)(j) of the Act has now stated that “perhaps the list
\n      was destroyed”, which is questionable. If the relevant information was not
\n      maintained, why was it not reported or mentioned in the initial response of
\n      the CPIO to the appellant? Even the FAA has not made a mention of this
\n      point as to whether the information in question has been destroyed or not.
\n      The FAA has rejected the contention of the CPIO and order for providing
\n      the information. There is, therefore, no ground to believe that the
\n      information is not maintained or available. The CPIO has indeed lied or
\n      mis-informed with a view to suppressing the information relating to the
\n      recruitment process and merit list of selected candidates.\n<\/p>\n
                 i
\n                     “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n
                                             1<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 9.     It also emerged during the hearing that as many as five persons
\nwere appointed out of the list of 18 candidates, whose names were
\nsupplied to the respondent by the Employment Exchange. There are
\nreasons to believe that the concerned list of appointees may be available
\nin the concerned file of the candidates who were appointed by the
\nSelection Committee on the above mentioned date. The fact that the FAA
\nhas also ordered for disclosure of the information makes us believe that
\nthe relevant information are available with the respondents. The CPIO
\nhas deliberately chosen to withhold the information on the pretext of non-
\navailability of information, which is not acceptable. The CPIO is,
\ntherefore, directed to furnish the information asked for, as per the
\norder of the FAA, at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
10.    In view of the above, the CPIO is also held responsible for violation
\nof section 7(1) of the Act as he has not furnished the information even
\nafter a lapse of over six months of the passage of the order of the FAA.
\nHe should, therefore, explain as to why a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000\/-
\n(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) should not be imposed on him u\/s
\n20(1) of the Act, for deemed refusal of information without any reasonable
\ncause. He should submit his explanation at the earliest and also appear
\nfor a personal hearing on 26th August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which
\nthe above amount of penalty would be imposed on him.\n<\/p>\n
11.     The CPIO has failed to carry out the directions of his superior
\nofficer, the FAA. This tantamounts to insubordination, and is unbecoming
\nof an officer holding the charge of the CPIO also. The respondent’s
\nChairman is directed u\/s 20(2) of the Act, to take appropriate action, under
\nthe service rules, against the CPIO, who has failed to implement the
\ndecision of the FAA dated 11\/12\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
12.     The Commission also holds that the appellant has unnecessarily
\nsuffered all kinds of harassment in pursuing his RTI applications, including
\nfiling of 1st and 2nd appeals. Had he been given the information, as per the
\norder of the FAA, he would not have filed the second appeal before the
\nCommission and traveled a long distance for attending the hearings in the
\nCommission, for accessing information that are directly connected with
\nright to work and earn for living. It is due to lack of both transparency in
\nthe selection process and responsiveness of the officials of the
\nrespondent to the information seekers that the appellant has
\nunnecessarily suffered and wasted time and resources for obtaining
\ninformation from the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
13.    The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee, should therefore explain as
\nto why an amount of Rs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only)
\nshould not be awarded, u\/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, as compensation to the
\nappellant for detriment suffered by him in seeking information from the<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span>
\n       respondent. The Chairman, IOCL, or his nominee should submit an
\n      explanation at the earliest and also appear for a personal hearing on 26th
\n      August 2010 at 12.45 p.m. failing which the above amount of
\n      compensation would be awarded to the appellant on account of all kinds
\n      of losses suffered by him. The appellant may also be present in the
\n      hearing.”\n<\/p>\n
2.    In response to the show-cause notice, as above, the parties were heard
\non 26.8.2010. The following were present:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant' representatives:         Adv. Jose Abraham\n                                          Sh. K. Padmanabhan\n\n      Respondents                   Sh. K. Manickam, CPIO\n                                    Sh. Dilip Hari, DGM (HR)\n                                    Ms. C. Vishalakshi, DGM (HR)\n                                    Sh. S.K. Khare, DGM (ER)\n                                    Sh. K. Somaiah\n                                    Sh. M.S. Venkatraman, Mgr (ER)\n                                    Ms. Priyanka Yadav, Law Officer.\n\n<\/pre>\n
3.     The representatives of the respondent, IOCL, stated that a committee was
\nconstituted to search and trace the document, mainly the merit list, but of no
\navail. The search committee has observed, as under, in its report dated
\n16\/8\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
      “The Committee also searched in the nearby sections to the Personnel
\n      Section, whether there is any possibility of mix up of files. However, the
\n      confidential file pertaining to selection of Junior Operator (F) at Calicut BP
\n      could not be located. Despite the extensive search made by us from all
\n      possible sources, the committee could not trace the file.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.     If the document in question does not exist due to weeding out processes
\nof confidential files, why was it not informed by the CPIO, who refused to disclose
\ninformation u\/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Or, why did the Appellate Authority ordered for
\ndisclosure of information, when it was non-existent? Even if it is accepted that
\nthe document in question was not traceable or misplaced, as the search
\ncommittee has noted, the respondent IOCL cannot be absolved of the
\nresponsibility of providing correct information. Because of the contradictory
\nresponses, the appellant has had to pursue the matter at different levels,
\nincluding this Commission, in search of truth.\n<\/p>\n
5.     In my opinion, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses in
\nseeking information and pursuing the matter under the provisions of the Act. The
\nappellant has wasted considerable amount of time and resources for accessing
\nthe document, for which he has the right under the Act. The respondents have<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span>
\n given confusing and contradictory responses, which are attributable to malafied
\nintensions. For the detriments suffered by the appellant, an amount of
\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) is therefore awarded, u\/s 19(8)\n<\/p>\n
(b) of the Act, to the appellant, Shri. Mohammed Kutty, to compensate for all
\nkinds of losses, including mental and physical harassment in seeking the
\ninformation.   The respondent, IOCL Chairman is directed to arrange to pay
\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the
\nappellant, Shri. Mohammed Kutty, through a bank draft on or before 30 th
\nSeptember, 2010, failing which penal interest @ 10% per annum would be
\napplicable. A compliance report in this regard should also be submitted to the
\nCommission at the earliest, failing which appropriate action would be initiated.\n<\/p>\n
6.     The CPIO, Shri. K. Manickam, has admitted, with regret, that he has erred
\nin sending the initial response without ascertaining the availability of information
\nfrom the concerned department. In view of what the CPIO has submitted, orally
\nand in writing, we accept his explanation and the penalty proceedings u\/s 20(1)
\nof the Act, is therefore dropped. He ought to be careful and truthful in
\nimplementing the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.    An information, which is non-existent, cannot be furnished. The matter
\nshould thus be closed. However, the respondent IOCL is advised u\/s 25(5) of
\nthe Act to streamline its record management system such that the sharing of
\ninformation becomes easier and faster with a view to promoting free flow of
\ninformation, as per the intent of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.     With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
\n                                                      Central Information Commissionerii<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n
(M.C. Sharma)
\nDeputy Registrar<\/p>\n
Name & address of Parties:\n<\/p>\n
1.     Shri. Mohammed Kutty, Karuvathil House, Padiramanna,                         P.O.\n<\/p>\n
       Puzhakkattiri, Via. Angadippuram, Dist. Malappuram.\n<\/p>\n
                    ii
\n                         “All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle<\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 2.   Shri. K. Manickam, CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing
\n     Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road
\n     (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Shri. P. Rajendran, Appellate Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
\n     Marketing Division, Southern Region, Indianoil Bhavan, 139, Mahatma
\n     Gandhi Road (Nungambakkam High road), Chennai – 600 034.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 3079\/3 J.B. Tito Marg,
\n     Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi – 110 409.\n<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 2010 Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066 Website: www.cic.gov.in (Adjunct to Decision No.5622\/IC(A)\/2010 dated 16\/7\/2010) Decision No.5817\/IC(A)\/2010 F. No.CIC\/MA\/A\/2010\/000283 Dated, the 30th August, 2010 Name of the Appellant: Shri. Mohammed […]<\/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-74324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 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\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-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=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1375,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 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":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 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\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":1375,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010","name":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited ... on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-08T00:29:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-mohammed-kutty-vs-indian-oil-corporation-limited-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri. Mohammed Kutty vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited … on 30 August, 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\/74324","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=74324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}