{"id":84733,"date":"2009-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-26T17:16:16","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T11:46:16","slug":"mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009<\/div>\n
                        CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01644 dated 8.12.2007\n                            Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19\n\n\nAppellant       -          Mr. Milap Choraria\nRespondent          -       Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
     By an application of 9.7.07 Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi applied to
\nShri K. L. Ahuja, CPIO and Director, CVC seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
          “Under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 I want
\n         certified copy of the letter forwarded by CVC to CVO, CBDT, for
\n         necessary action as was reported through Memo Letter No.
\n         17837\/07\/60048 dated 21st June 2007 to me and file noting from
\n         relating files on my representation dated 26th March, 2007, jointly
\n         addressed to Mr. Pratush (sic) Sinha, Chief Vigilance
\n         Commissioner, Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Vigilance Commissioner and
\n         Smt. Ranjana Kumar, Vigilance Commissioner of the Central
\n         Vigilance Commission.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
To this he received a response on 25.3.07, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Copy of the Commission’s OM No. 17837\/07\/60049 dated
\n         21.6.2007, addressed to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Board
\n         of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, as enclosed. You are requested to
\n         deposit an amount of RS. 2\/- (two only) in cash against proper
\n         receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal
\n         Order payable to the Section Officer, Central Vigilance Commission
\n         at New Delhi towards photocopying charges in terms of RTI
\n         (Regulation of Fee &Cost) Rules.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Subsequent to your representation dated 26.3.2007, which was
\n         addressed jointly to the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the
\n         Vigilance Commissioners, the Commission has forwarded a copy of
\n         the complaint received by it under the ‘Public Interest Disclosure
\n         Resolution’ to the Additional Member (Vigilance), Railway Board,
\n         New Delhi for a factual report in the matter, including the views of
\n         the Ministry of Railways along with the policy on the issue. The
\n         reply from the Railway Board is awaited. Copies of the internal
\n         notes in this regard are denied under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI
\n         Act as the matter is under investigation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
      Aggrieved with the withholding of part of the information Shri Milap Choraria
\nmoved his first appeal on 7.8.07 before the Appellate Authority Shri V. Kannan,
\nAddl. Secretary, CVC, pleading as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “The Central Vigilance Commission is not an Investigating Agency,
\n      therefore, not empowered to conduct directly any Investigation,
\n      thus not entitled to refuse any Information on the pretext of Section
\n      8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      However, the aforesaid representation was relating to function of an
\n      Important Institution like Central Vigilance Commission, thus was
\n      very much relates to larger public interests. Therefore, relating
\n      Information sought by the Appellant cannot be denied on the wrong
\n      pretext of Section 8 (1) (h) of RTI Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     However, by his order of 19.9.07 Shri V. Kanan dismissed the appeal in the
\nfollowing words:\n<\/p>\n
      “I have perused the relevant record and I uphold the decision of the
\n      CPIO denying you information in respect of your representation
\n      dated 26.3.2007 u\/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as the matter is under
\n      investigation. The CIC in the recent appeals no. 243\/ICPB\/2006
\n      and 244\/ICPB\/2006 dated 27.12.2006 on the appeal of Shri
\n      Sarvesh Kaushal has observed that the term investigation would
\n      include inquiries\/ search\/ scrutiny which would be either
\n      departmental or criminal and, therefore, when a departmental
\n      inquiry is on, the information sought in relation to such an inquiry
\n      can be denied in terms of Section 8 (1) (h) of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellant’s prayer before us in his second appeal is as below:\n<\/p>\n
      “Hon’ble Information Commission should admit the complaint
\n      under section 18 of the RTI Act, 2006 and pass the following
\n      directions;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      a)     Upon the Respondents to ensure supply of the
\n             information sought by the appellant at free of charges in
\n             compliance of the Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act 2005;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      b)     Impose penalty upon the Respondents for the delayed
\n             period per day Rs. 250\/- per day with the maximum limit
\n             of Rs. 25,000\/-;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      c)     Pass any other order as may be deem fit and necessary
\n             for the ends of justice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
      In response to the appeal notice Shri K. L. Ahuja, in his letter of 9.5.08
\nrecounted the processing of this RTI application and concluded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Shri Choraria has now made a complaint to the CIC against the
\n      CPIO and the first appellate authority stating that he wanted the
\n      information to know whether CVC had acted in accordance with the
\n      law and that the denial of information was in violation of the
\n      ‘fundamental right to know’ as flown from Article 19 (1) (a) of the
\n      Constitution of India. The grounds of appeal, as above, are
\n      irrelevant to the subject matter. The application was made to this
\n      public authority under the RTI Act and denial of information was in
\n      accordance with the provisions of that Act. Whether the provisions
\n      of the Act are in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of
\n      India, or not, is the matter to be debated by the Parliament and to
\n      be decided by the judiciary. Denial of information by this public
\n      authority was in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
\n      Thus, the complaint made by Shri Choraria to the CIC is not
\n      maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In his rejoinder of 16.5.08, however, Shri Milap Choraria has concluded
\nwith the following comments:\n<\/p>\n
      “If the Central Agencies like CVC, CBI are allowed to sit on the
\n      matters for uncertain period under the alleged claim, that disclosure
\n      of information may impede the alleged process of investigation,
\n      then this would be complete injustice to the respective
\n      complainants, on the basis of whose respective complaints, the
\n      alleged investigation either started, or false claim of the
\n      Investigation are made.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appeal was heard on 17.4.2009. The following are present:\n<\/p>\n
      Appellant
\n            Shri Milap Choraria
\n      Respondent
\n            Ms. Parwinder Kaur, Advisor, CVC \/ CPIO<\/p>\n
     Ms. Parwinder Kaur, Advisor, CVC and present CPIO submitted that in this
\ncase a report had been sought from the Ministry of Railways, which has now
\nbeen received. This report was in any case not in the possession of the CVC
\nand the matter was under investigation. Therefore, no such report could have
\nbeen provided to appellant Shri Choraria.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
        Appellant Shri Choraria on the other hand submitted that what he had
\nsought was the file noting from related files on his representation of 26.3.07 as
\nexisted at that time which has not been supplied.\n<\/p>\n
       We, therefore, inspected the CVC file No. Conf.\/15\/04, which is the file
\ndealing with the complaint of appellant Shri Milap Choraria. The file noting in this
\nmatter deals only with his representation, its review by the Steering Committee
\nand appellant’s meetings with the Secretary and other Office bearers of the CVC
\nexplaining his case, which appears to have been treated as a PIDR case by the
\nCVC.\n<\/p>\n
                                DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       We agree that an investigation being held at the level of CVC is an
\ninvestigation that will fall u\/s 8(1) sub sec. (h) of the RTI Act. We cannot agree
\nwith appellant that CVC has no authority to apply exemption u\/s 8 (1) (h) to a
\ncase being investigated by it However, refusal of information on grounds that it
\nwill impede such an investigation is governed by the decision of the Delhi High
\nCourt in Writ Petition No. 3114\/2007 Bhagat Singh vs. CIC & Ors, in which
\nHon’ble Ravinder Bhat J. has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “11. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
\n        United Nations in 1948, assured by Article 19, everyone the right
\n        “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
\n        media, regardless of frontiers”. In Secretary Ministry of Information
\n        and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association
\n        of Bengal and others<\/a> (1995 (2) SCC 161) the Supreme Court
\n        remarket about this right in the following terms:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        “The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to
\n        receive and impart information. For ensuring the free speech right
\n        of the citizens of this country, it is necessary that the citizens have
\n        the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions on all public
\n        issues. A successful democracy posits an “aware” citizenry.
\n        Diversity of opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to
\n        enable the citizen to arrive at informed judgment on all issues
\n        touching them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
 This right to information, was explicitly held to be our fundamental
\nright under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India for the first
\ntime by Justice K. K. Mathew in the State of UP vs. Raj Narain,
\n(1975) (4) SCC 428. This view was followed by the Supreme Court
\non a number of decisions and after public demand, the Right to
\nInformation Act, 2005 was enacted and brought into force.\n<\/p>\n
12.    The Act is an effectuation of the Right to freedom of speech
\nand expression. In an increasingly knowledge based society,
\ninformation and access to information holds the key to resources,
\nbenefits and distribution of powers. Information, more than any
\nother element, is of critical importance participatory democracy. By
\none fell stroke, under the Act, the make of procedures and official
\nbarriers that had previously impeded information, has been swept
\naside. The citizen and information seekers have, subject to a few
\nexceptions, an overriding right to be given information on matters in
\nthe possession of the state and public agencies that are covered by
\nthe Act.     As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the
\nenactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to
\nhold the government’s and its instrumentalities accountable to the
\ngoverned. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while
\nconstruing the provisions contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Access to information under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule
\nand exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a
\nrestriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly
\nconstrued. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the
\nvery right self. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing
\ninformation is granted if it would impede the process of
\ninvestigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the
\ninformation, the authority withholding information must show
\nsatisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information
\nwould hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be
\ngermane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should
\nbe reasonable and based on some material.                  Sans this
\nconsideration, section 8(1) (h) and other such provisions would
\nbecome the haven for dodging demands for information.\n<\/p>\n
14.    A rights based enactment is akin to a welfare measure, like
\nthe Act, should receive a liberal interpretation. The Contextual
\nbackground and history of the Act is such that the exemptions,
\noutlined in Section 8, relieving the authorities from the obligation to
\nprovide information, constitute restrictions on the exercise of the
\nrights provided by it. Therefore, such exemption provisions have to
\nbe construed in their terms, there is some authority supporting this<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span>
\n          view (See Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> 2005 (2) SCC201, B.
\n         R. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> 2001 (7) SCC 231 and V.
\n         Tulasamma vs. Sesha Reddy<\/a> 1977 (3) SCC 99). Adopting a
\n         different approach would result in narrowing the rights and
\n         approving a judicially mandated class of restrictions on the rights
\n         under the Act, which is unwarranted.”\n<\/p>\n
     S Ravinder Bhat J specifically notes, “As held in the preceding part of the
\njudgment, without a disclosure as to how the investigation process would be
\nhampered by sharing the materials collected till the notices were issued to the
\nassessee, the respondents could not have rejected the request for granting
\ninformation.”\n<\/p>\n
     It is, therefore, clear that information cannot be refused simply because the
\nmatter is under investigation unless it is established that such disclosure would
\nimpede such investigation.      At the present stage, the report of the Railway
\nMinistry has been received and there is no question of the investigation now
\nbeing impeded.      However, even at the earlier stage, it is clear to us after
\nexamination that there is no part of the file noting which could in any way have
\nimpeded any part of the investigation. A copy of the file noting from file No.
\nConf.\/15\/04 will now, therefore, be provided to appellant Shri Milap Choraria
\nwithin ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. The
\nappeal is hence allowed<\/p>\n
     However, there has been no delay in responding to the RTI application by
\nthe CPIO (although there has been a delay in responding by Shri V. Kanan Addl.
\nSecretary and First Appellate Authority who received the application on 13.8.07
\nbut responded only on 19.9.07) and the decision has been earlier given on the
\nbasis of an interpretation by CPIO, albeit misplaced, of the application of
\nexemption u\/s 8(1) sub sec. (h). There will therefore be no penalty and no
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
       Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n17.4.2009<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n17.4.2009<\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No.CIC\/WB\/A\/2007\/01644 dated 8.12.2007 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant – Mr. Milap Choraria Respondent – Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Facts : By an application of 9.7.07 Shri Milap Choraria of Rohini, Delhi applied […]<\/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-84733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - 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-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T11:46:16+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=\"10 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-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T11:46:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2086,\"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-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T11:46:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - 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-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T11:46:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T11:46:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009"},"wordCount":2086,"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-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009","name":"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission ... on 17 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T11:46:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-milap-choraria-vs-central-vigilance-commission-on-17-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Milap Choraria vs Central Vigilance Commission … on 17 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/84733","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=84733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}