{"id":84185,"date":"2011-05-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-28T10:11:11","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T04:41:11","slug":"mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                            Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                          Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                 Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                       Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002410+002443\/9761\/Adjunct-II\n                                                        Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002410+002443\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n
 emerging from the Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
Appellant                               :       Mr. Sachhin Sapra\n                                                F-18 Back Lane\n                                                Rajouri Garden\n\nRespondent                      (1)     :       Mr. Naurang Singh\n                                                PIO & Superintending Engineer-I\n                                                Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                                West Zone, Rajouri Garden,\n                                                New Delhi.\n\n                                (2)     :       Mr. S. S. Rana\n                                                PIO & ADC(Engineering)\n                                                Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                                Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,\n                                                Delhi - 110006\n\n                                (3)             Mr. Bharat Bhushan\n                                                PIO & Dy. Town Planner\n                                                Town Planning Department\n                                                Municipal Corporation of Delhi\n                                                13th floor, Civic Centre, JLN Marg,\n                                                New Delhi-110002\n\nRTI application filed on                :       03\/06\/2010\nPIO replied                             :      -------------\nFirst appeal filed on                   :      07\/07\/2010\nFirst Appellate Authority order         :      13\/08\/2010\nSecond Appeal received on               :      30\/08\/2010\n\n S. No                   Information Sought                                    Reply of the PIO\n1.       In the Minutes of meeting held was recorded that       No such record available in the office. A file\n<\/pre>\n
         submitted that notices had been issued to all the 11   regarding the property was pending in the
\n         shops.                                                 Monitoring Committee.\n<\/p>\n
2.       Provide the copy of replies in response to the above   Same as above.\n<\/p>\n
         notices issued.\n<\/p>\n
3.       Provide the copy of sealing orders for the shops.      .As per the records available in the office. The
\n                                                                property was sealed due to misuse.\n<\/p>\n
4.       On 26\/11\/2008 a letter was written accordingly         Same as answer 1
\n         provide the details of the action.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                               Page 1 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
 5.       Copy of the re-sealing order for above shops         No need for any order in resealing the property.\n<\/p>\n
6.       What action taken by the MCD in response to the No action had been taken on it till date.\n<\/p>\n
         letter that building regularization of F19 by the
\n         owner.\n<\/p>\n
7.       How many shops have been allowed to be de-sealed No.
\n         by monitoring committee at basement
\n         and ground floor ofFI9 Rajouri Garden.\n<\/p>\n
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):\n<\/p>\n
The PIO was directed to send the reply within a week’s time.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant Facts emerging during the hearing held on 13\/10\/2010:
\nThe following were present
\nAppellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & Superintending Engineer-I;\n<\/p>\n
       “The PIO has given information after the order of the FAA but is now directed to give the
\nfollowing information:\n<\/p>\n
    1- Query-3: All the pages will be attested and the covering note will give the number of pages
\n       from the file are given.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2- Query-7: The PIO will inform the appellant that all the shops have been de-sealed.
\n    3- Query-11: The appellant had asked for a detailed road survey report on the basis of which
\n       certain roads were notified for commercial use under MPD-2001. The PIO has stated that this
\n       report has been sent to Chief Town Planner(CTP) but CTP has stated that they do not have this
\n       report and that since the zonal office has conducted the survey they should be able to provide
\n       the information. Thus neither the zone nor CTP admit that they have the report nor are they
\n       willing to certify that it is not available with MCD. In view of this ADC(Engineering) is
\n       directed to either provide the report to the appellant or certify that the report is not available in
\n       MCD.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    4- Query-12 (b) & (c): The information will be provided by the PIO.
\n    5- Query-13 (c): The query has been shunted from the zone to CTP which in turn shunted it to
\n       SE(Planning) which has again sent it back to the zone. Since no body has the information
\n       ADC(Engineering) is directed to provide the information to the appellant.
\n    6- Query-16: The PIO will provide the information to the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The PIO has taken the assistance of Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) who is responsible for the delay in
\nproviding the information.”\n<\/p>\n
Decision dated 13\/10\/2010:\n<\/p>\n
The Appeal was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      “The PIO Mr. V. R. Bansal is directed to give the information on queries 1, 2, 4
\n& 6 as mentioned above to the appellant before 30 October 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission also directed ADC (Engineering) to provide the information on
\nqueries -3 & 5 as mentioned above to the appellant before 05 November 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
\ndeemed PIO Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I) within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                 Page 2 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
 From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing
\ninformation within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30
\ndays, as per the requirement of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is
\nbeing issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty
\nshould not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Jagdish Kumar, EE(B-I)will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
\n06 December 2010 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty
\nshould not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1).”\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on December 6, 2010:
\nAppellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Kumar, the then deemed PIO & EE(B), MCD (WZ).\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant stated that he received certain information from Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE- I.
\nHowever, the information provided in relation to query 3 and 16 was incomplete. Further, the ADC
\n(Engineering) has not provided any information to the Appellant. The Commission received a letter
\ndated 02\/11\/2010 from the ADC (Engineering) stating that the information sought in query 11
\npertained to the PIO & SE- I and the information on query 13(c) pertained to either the PIO & Senior
\nTown Planner or the PIO & SE- I.\n<\/p>\n
The Appellant stated that no information on points 3 & 5, as mentioned in the Commission’s order
\ndated 13\/10\/2010 has been provided by the ADC (Engineering). The Appellant also stated that the
\nPIO & SE- I, MCD (WZ) has given certain information but not provided information on the following
\npoints:\n<\/p>\n
    1-      The Appellant has sought information about the date on which the resurvey was carried
\n            out. The PIO has not provided this.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2-      The Appellant had sought information on whether FAR was allowable under MPD-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2001\/2021. The PIO has replied that FAR is not allowable under MPD-2021 but has not
\n            stated whether it is allowable or not under MPD-2001.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE- I, MCD (West Zone) is hereby directed to provide the information on
\nthe two points mentioned above to the Appellant before December 20, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
The PIO & ADC (Engineering) is summoned to appear before the Commission with the information
\non points 3 & 5, mentioned in the Commission’s order dated 13\/10\/2010 alongwith his explanation
\nshowing cause as to why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on him
\nfor not supplying the information within the prescribed time limit. The PIO & ADC (Engineering) is
\ndirected to appear before the Commission on January 5, 2011 at 03:00 pm.<\/p>\n
Note: The Commission on 06 December 2010 penalized Mr. Jagdish Kumar, Deemed PIO under Section
\n20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of `250\/- per day of delay for 08 days i.e. `250\/- X 08 days = `2000\/-;\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                   Page 3 of 6<\/span><\/p>\n
 Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 05 January 2011:
\nAppellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. S. S. Rana, PIO & ADC (Engineering-HQ); Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE(WZ);\n<\/p>\n
        “Mr. Bansal has provided the information on point 02 as admitted by the Appellant. However,
\non point-01 mentioned above Mr. Bansal informed the Appellant that the date of survey is not
\navailable on the records. However, Mr. Bansal informed the Appellant that resurvey has been done
\nafter 15\/12\/2008. The Appellant wants to know the basis on which this date of 15\/12\/2008 has been
\narrived at and the date on which the resurvey report was sent by the Zone. Mr. V. R. Bansal will give
\nthis information to the Appellant before 15 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. S. S. Rana, ADC(Engineering) states that he does not have the information on the queries 11 &
\n13(c) of the Appellant which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Query-11: Please provide a copy of detailed road survey report (property wise count) on the basis
\n               of which stretch of RING RD from Rajdhani College-Raja Garden to Rama Read
\n               crossing was notified for commercial use under MPD-2031 in September 2006.
\nQuery-13(c): Whether compliance with MPD –2021 clause 15.12.3(iii) was done? If answer to any
\n               of the above is yes then please provide copy of such details. If answer to any of the
\n               above is no then please provide reasons for the same.”\n<\/p>\n
The ADC(Engineering) has stated that the information should be with Sr. Town Planner and that the
\nPIO\/SE-I(WZ) Mr. V. R. Bansal should also have a copy of the survey report sought in query-11.
\nDiscussions revealed that the matter was referred to the Chief Engineer & FAA who in his wisdom
\nhas stated that the information on these queries shall be available with Sr. Town Planner and
\nPIO\/SE-I(WZ). PIO\/SE-I Mr. Bansal states that though the survey report was made by the zone the
\ncopy was not kept and hence this survey report should only be with the Sr. Town Planner.\n<\/p>\n
The Sr. Town Planner on 08\/09\/2010 has informed the Appellant that the survey report is not
\navailable with him. Thus after months of labouring and playing passing the paper game
\nPIO\/SE-I(WZ), ADC(Engineering), Chief Engineer and Sr. Town Planner have come to the
\nconclusion that some one else should know about this and they do not have the survey report. It is
\nimportant to understand that this survey report was the basis on which roads have been notified as
\ncommercial and mixed use purposes. The Commission wonders whether this survey report exists
\nanywhere. Since various officers are not able to decide about this the Commission directs the
\nMunicipal Commissioner to find out if the information sought by the Appellant in query-11 & 13(c)
\nas listed above is available anywhere in MCD. If the information can be provided the Municipal
\nCommissioner will provide the information to the appellant or alternately state that this information is
\nnot available anywhere in MCD.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission realizes that the Appellant has been tossed about for information which should be of
\nconsiderable public importance since MCD officers do not seem to have any coordination to provide
\ninformation. If this survey report based on which road uses have been defined is missing, or has never
\nbeen done, the implications are very serious. It appears to the Commission that these implications
\nhave escaped the Senior Officers amongst whom the RTI application was being passed around in a
\ngame of ring-a-ring-roses. The Appellant has certainly been made to suffer by coming to the
\nCommission on multiple occasions to get this information.\n<\/p>\n
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It
\nmay harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive
\nand prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling<\/p>\n
                                                                                            Page 4 of 6<\/span>
\n of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of
\nundesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation
\nfor harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but
\nhelps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the
\noutlook.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission under its powers under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act awards the compensation of
\nRs.5000\/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing this RTI application
\nand multiple appearance before the Commission.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision dated 05 January 2011:\n<\/p>\n
“The Municipal Commissioner is directed to provide the information on query-11 & 13(c) of the
\nAppellant. The Municipal Commissioner will send this information to the Commission and the
\nAppellant as directed above before 30 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V. R. Bansal PIO\/SE-I(WZ) is directed to inform the Appellant the basis on which the date of
\n15\/12\/2008 has been arrived at and the date on which the resurvey report was sent by the Zone. Mr.
\nV. R. Bansal will give this information to the Appellant before 15 January 2011.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V. R. Bansal will also ensure that a cheque of Rs.5000\/- as compensation is sent to the Appellant
\nbefore 10 February 2011.”\n<\/p>\n
Facts leading to non-compliance hearing on 25\/05\/2011:\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission received a letter dated 10\/02\/2011 from the Appellant alleging that the PIO,
\nTown Planning Department vide its letter dated 28\/01\/2011 has provided ‘Re-verification\/Survey
\nReport’ instead of “original survey report”. The Appellant has also alleged that he has not received
\nthe cheque of Rs.5000\/- as compensation till date. However, the Commission received a copy of letter
\ndated 10\/02\/2011 from the EE(Bldg.), West Zone informing that the said cheque is being sent to the
\nAppellant alongwith this letter in compliance of the Commission’s order dated 05\/01\/2011. In view of
\nthis, the Commission has decided to schedule a hearing in this matter on 25\/05\/2011 at 04:00 p.m. to
\ndecide whether there has been non-compliance of the order of the Commission and directed PIO
\nTown Planning Department, PIO\/SE-I (West Zone) and the Appellant to appear.\n<\/p>\n
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on 25 May 2011:
\nAppellant: Mr. Sachin Sapra;\n<\/p>\n
Respondent: Mr. Vipin Kumar, EE(B-I) WZ and Mr. P. Dinesh, Dy. Town Planner Town Planning
\n               Department;\n<\/p>\n
        The Appellant confirms that he has received a cheque for compensation of Rs.5000\/-. The
\nbone of contention has been that the Appellant has been seeking a property wise detailed survey
\nreport based on which stretch of Ring Road between Rajdhani College and Rama Road Crossing was
\nnotified for commercial use under master plan in September 2006. This query was talked about
\nbetween different departments of MCD and at some point in time a single page in which at Sr. no. 44
\nRing Road is mentioned and ROW of 60 meters, Length 1.50KM, Extent of commercialization C-5,
\nWard no. 23 & 124, category-D, type of colony U\/R, RPD has been mentioned. The Appellant has
\ncontended that this cannot be called a survey report since it gives no basis for any of the details
\nmentioned therein. A resurvey report made in 30\/06\/2008 has been provided to the Appellant while he
\nis consistently been asking for the survey report based on which the stretch of road mentioned by him
\nwas notified for commercial use under Master Plan in September 2006. The had ordered the MCD
\nCommissioner to provide the survey report to the Appellant by its adjunct order of 05 January 2011
\nand presumably on the instructions of the Commissioner the PIO and Dy. Town Planner (G) Mr.
\n                                                                                           Page 5 of 6<\/span>
\n Bharat Bhushan has without applying his mind provided the resurvey report of 2008. The Respondent
\nMr. P. Dinesh was questioned about this and he states with great innocence that he will have to check.\n<\/p>\n
The Commission has realized that this casual and careless approach of MCD officers is leading to
\nenormous wastage of public money and time which they appear to be not bothered about. The
\nCommission is now issuing a direction to Mr. P. Dinesh, Dy. Town planner to either provide a survey
\nreport which would give the basis for the notification in September 2006 giving details of findings of
\nthe survey report. If this is not available he will clearly state that, “no survey report or details based on
\nwhich extent of commercialization was decided is available in MCD.”\n<\/p>\n
Adjunct Decision:\n<\/p>\n
      The Commission directs Mr. P. Dinesh, Dy. Town Planner to either provide the
\nsurvey report or inform the appellant that “no survey report or details based on which
\nextent of commercialization was decided is available in MCD.” He will provide this
\ninformation to the Appellant before 20 June 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                                                                                                      25 May 2011
\n(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(KJ)<\/p>\n
                                                                                                              Page 6 of 6<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002410+002443\/9761\/Adjunct-II Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2010\/002410+002443 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal: Appellant : Mr. Sachhin Sapra F-18 Back Lane Rajouri Garden Respondent (1) : […]<\/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-84185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T04:41:11+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=\"13 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-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T04:41:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2516,\"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-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T04:41:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T04:41:11+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T04:41:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011"},"wordCount":2516,"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-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011","name":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T04:41:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-sachhin-sapra-vs-mcd-gnct-delhi-on-25-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Sachhin Sapra vs Mcd, Gnct Delhi on 25 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84185","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=84185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}