{"id":89534,"date":"2011-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-06-24T16:48:10","modified_gmt":"2016-06-24T11:18:10","slug":"mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011<\/div>\n
                            In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0\n                                                         at\n                                                    New\u00a0Delhi\n\n                                                                              File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000118\n\n\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0hearing\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a015,\u00a02011\nDate\u00a0of\u00a0Decision\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a0\u00a020,\u00a02011\n\n\n\nParties:\n                    Complainant\u00a0\n                    Mr.\u00a0Ravinder\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Malik\u00a0\n                    S\/o\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Malik,\u00a0\n                    R\/o\u00a0F\u00ad243\/124\u00adC,\n                    Katwaria\u00a0Sarai,\u00a0\n                    Behind\u00a0Mother\u00a0Dairy,\u00a0Main\u00a0Road,\n                    New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0-\u00a0110\u00a0016\n\n\n\n                    Respondent\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n             \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission,\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,\n             \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place,\n                        New\u00a0Delhi.\n\nRepresented\u00a0by\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Ms.\u00a0Anita\u00a0Gpta\u00a0:\u00a0Additional\u00a0Secretary\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mr.\u00a0Pankaj\u00a0\u00a0Shreyaskar:\u00a0\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Secretary\u00a0cum\u00a0CPIO\u00a0\n\n             Information\u00a0Commissioner(s)      :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit\n\n\n                                                   Decision\u00a0Notice\n\n\nIn\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission \u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0on\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0papers\u00a0as\u00a0\n\nsought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0upon\u00a0payment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0requisite\u00a0fees\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0prescribed\u00a0Rules.\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\n      \u00a0\u00a0                   \u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0\n\n                                                                         at\n                                                                 New\u00a0Delhi\n\n                                                                                                         \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000118\n\n\n\n                                                                      ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     Background<\/p>\n
     1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0instant\u00a0case\u00a0arises\u00a0out\u00a0of\u00a0an\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a002.06.2010\u00a0whereby\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0sought\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
               form\u00a0of\u00a0inspection\u00a0and\u00a0Certified\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0comprising\u00a0\u00a0584\u00a0pages\u00a0out\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0files\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0various\u00a0<\/p>\n
               cases\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0filed\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission.\u00a0The\u00a0certified\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0were\u00a0<\/p>\n
               sought\u00a0in\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0pages\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0eight\u00a0cases\u00a0in\u00a0total\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0CIC.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0was\u00a0informed\u00a0by\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
               letter\u00a0dated\u00a029.06.2010\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission,\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0cases\u00a0in\u00a0question\u00a0were\u00a0transferred\u00a0<\/p>\n
               from \u00a0 the \u00a0 registry \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Information \u00a0 Commissioner \u00a0 (Mrs \u00a0 Sushma \u00a0 Singh) \u00a0 to \u00a0 that \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 Chief \u00a0 Information\u00a0<\/p>\n
               Commissioner\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0request\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0vide\u00a0letter\u00a0dated\u00a011.06.2010.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
          13. The \u00a0 CPIO \u00a0 in \u00a0 his \u00a0 response \u00a0 dated \u00a0 09.07.2010 \u00a0 \u00a0 requested \u00a0 the \u00a0 Applicant \u00a0 to \u00a0 visit \u00a0 the \u00a0 Central \u00a0 Information\u00a0
\n               Commission\u00a0 on\u00a0 any\u00a0 mutually \u00a0 convenient\u00a0 date\u00a0 and\u00a0 time\u00a0 for\u00a0 inspection\u00a0 of\u00a0 the\u00a0 files.\u00a0 He\u00a0 further\u00a0 apprised\u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
               Applicant\u00a0that\u00a0documents\u00a0as\u00a0sought\u00a0under\u00a0points\u00a0C\u00a0and\u00a0G\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0had\u00a0not\u00a0been\u00a0received\u00a0till\u00a0then\u00a0<\/p>\n
               by\u00a0the\u00a0registry\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Chief\u00a0Information\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0they\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0called\u00a0for\u00a0immediately.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0<\/p>\n
               denied\u00a0\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0photocopies\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0petition\u00a0submitted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0himself,\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0<\/p>\n
               himself\u00a0was\u00a0the\u00a0originator\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0document\u00a0concerned,\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0is\u00a0neither\u00a0held\u00a0nor\u00a0under\u00a0the\u00a0control\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
               Commission\u00a0as\u00a0defined\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a02\u00a0(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a02005.\u00a0The\u00a0PIO\u00a0reasoned\u00a0that\u00a0information\u00a0lay\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
               Applicant\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0already\u00a0had\u00a0complete\u00a0control\u00a0over\u00a0the\u00a0said\u00a0information.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
3.             Being\u00a0thus\u00a0denied\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0information,\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0preferred\u00a0a\u00a0First\u00a0Appeal\u00a0contending\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0can\u00a0deny\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
     information\u00a0only\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a08\u00a0&\u00a09\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a02005\u00a0with\u00a0specific\u00a0reasons\u00a0for\u00a0such\u00a0denial.\u00a0Moreover\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0<\/p>\n
     also\u00a0challenged\u00a0the\u00a0argument\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0that\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0originated\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0therefore\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0<\/p>\n
     would\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0available\u00a0as\u00a0information\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a02\u00a0(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a02005\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission.\u00a0<\/p>\n
     The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0decided\u00a0the\u00a0Appeal\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0order\u00a0dated\u00a008.09.2010\u00a0relying\u00a0upon\u00a0another\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0First\u00a0<\/p>\n
     Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0no.\u00a0CIC\/AA\/A\/2009\/143\u00a0dated\u00a025.03.2010\u00a0as\u00a0quoted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0and\u00a0directed\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
     PIO \u00a0 to \u00a0 provide \u00a0 certified \u00a0 copies \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 documents \u00a0 generated \u00a0 by \u00a0 the \u00a0 Commission \u00a0 and \u00a0 attested \u00a0 copies \u00a0 of \u00a0 remaining\u00a0<\/p>\n
     documents\u00a0which\u00a0are\u00a0on\u00a0file,\u00a0in\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0paper\u00a0considering\u00a0the\u00a0request\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0was\u00a0allowed\u00a0<\/p>\n
     inspection\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0AA,\u00a0and\u00a0any\u00a0extract\u00a0was\u00a0allowed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0prescribed\u00a0‘Fee\u00a0Cost\u00a0Rules’.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
 4.              The\u00a0Appellant\u00a0filed\u00a0an\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a017.09.2010\u00a0seeking\u00a0modification\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0AA’s\u00a0decision\u00a0in\u00a0as\u00a0much\u00a0as\u00a0he\u00a0<\/p>\n
     claimed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0be\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0complete\u00a0information\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost\u00a0in\u00a0terms\u00a0of\u00a0Section\u00a07\u00a0(6)\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0had\u00a0<\/p>\n
     failed\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0information\u00a0within\u00a030\u00a0days.\u00a0Meanwhile,\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0also\u00a0sought\u00a0review\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0AA\u00a0by\u00a0his \u00a0<\/p>\n
     application\u00a0dated\u00a029.09.2010\u00a0stating\u00a0that\u00a0in\u00a0some\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0files\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0the\u00a0documents,\u00a0petitions\u00a0etc.\u00a0had\u00a0<\/p>\n
     been \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 in \u00a0 A4 \u00a0 size \u00a0 papers \u00a0 while \u00a0 some \u00a0 documents \u00a0 were \u00a0 on \u00a0 legal \u00a0 size \u00a0 papers. \u00a0 While \u00a0 providing \u00a0 legal \u00a0 size\u00a0<\/p>\n
     photocopies\u00a0of\u00a0those\u00a0documents\u00a0which\u00a0had\u00a0been\u00a0submitted\u00a0in\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0pages\u00a0was\u00a0not\u00a0opposed\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0PIO,\u00a0the\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
     copies\u00a0on\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0paper\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0documents\u00a0which\u00a0were\u00a0submitted\u00a0in\u00a0A4\u00a0size\u00a0pages\u00a0were\u00a0sought\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0reviewed\u00a0stating\u00a0<\/p>\n
     that\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0would\u00a0result\u00a0in\u00a0creation\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0other\u00a0than\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0as\u00a0prescribed\u00a0under\u00a0law.\u00a0While\u00a0elaborating\u00a0his\u00a0<\/p>\n
     contention,\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0relied\u00a0 \u00a0upon\u00a0Sections\u00a02(f)\u00a0and\u00a07(9)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RT\u00a0Act.\u00a0He\u00a0pointed\u00a0out\u00a0that \u00a0“information”\u00a0means\u00a0any \u00a0<\/p>\n
     material\u00a0in\u00a0any\u00a0form……..\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0\u00a0,\u00a0“An\u00a0information\u00a0should\u00a0ordinarily\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0sought”\u00a0\u00a0while\u00a0<\/p>\n
     contending\u00a0that\u00a0what\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0is\u00a0seeking\u00a0\u00a0is\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0certain\u00a0specified\u00a0“format”\u00a0\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0<\/p>\n
     of\u00a0the\u00a0paper\u00a0and\u00a0not\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0‘form’\u00a0(physical\u00a0appearance)\u00a0in\u00a0which\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0is\u00a0existing\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0<\/p>\n
     PIO\u00a0therefore\u00a0\u00a0was\u00a0ready\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0form\u00a0as\u00a0held\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority\u00a0(CIC)\u00a0\u00a0on\u00a0payment\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
     requisite\u00a0fees.\u00a0The\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0rejected\u00a0the\u00a0applications\u00a0received\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0as\u00a0well\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0stating\u00a0<\/p>\n
     that\u00a0neither\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0has\u00a0the\u00a0power\u00a0to\u00a0review\u00a0nor\u00a0a\u00a0factual\u00a0mistake\u00a0had\u00a0occurred\u00a0to\u00a0give\u00a0rise\u00a0to\u00a0such\u00a0a\u00a0<\/p>\n
     review.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          13. Feeling\u00a0 aggrieved\u00a0 by\u00a0 the\u00a0 order\/s\u00a0 of \u00a0the\u00a0Public\u00a0Authority,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0approached\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0
\n                Commission\u00a0by\u00a0filing\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0appeal\u00a0on\u00a015.12.2010\u00a0reiterating\u00a0each\u00a0sequential\u00a0detail\u00a0leading\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0filing\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
                the\u00a0Second\u00a0Appeal.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
     \u00a0\u00a0Decision<\/p>\n
     6.         During \u00a0 the \u00a0 hearing, \u00a0 each \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 parties \u00a0 reiterated \u00a0 their \u00a0 contentions \u00a0 as \u00a0 already \u00a0 submitted \u00a0 in \u00a0 the \u00a0 form \u00a0 of\u00a0<\/p>\n
                documents.\u00a0Upon\u00a0enquiry,\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0contended\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0has\u00a0sought\u00a0the\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0for\u00a0filing\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
                same\u00a0in\u00a0a\u00a0case\u00a0pending\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0High\u00a0Court\u00a0of\u00a0Delhi,\u00a0where\u00a0only\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0papers\u00a0are\u00a0admissible\u00a0for\u00a0placing\u00a0<\/p>\n
                any\u00a0document\u00a0on\u00a0Court\u00a0records.\u00a0He\u00a0pleaded\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0him\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0form.\u00a0 \u00a0He\u00a0also\u00a0<\/p>\n
                reiterated\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0CPIO\u00a0had\u00a0obstructed\u00a0the\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0\u00a0although\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0is\u00a0available\u00a0with\u00a0CIC.<\/p>\n
     7.         The\u00a0PIO\u00a0argued\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0being\u00a0the\u00a0originator\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0document,\u00a0“held”\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0and\u00a0“was\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n
                control\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0information”\u00a0as\u00a0understood\u00a0under\u00a0Section\u00a02\u00a0(j)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Act,\u00a0therefore,\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0was\u00a0justly\u00a0<\/p>\n
                denied\u00a0to\u00a0him(Appellant).\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.         The\u00a0Commission\u00a0 \u00a0noted\u00a0 \u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO’s\u00a0oral\u00a0 \u00a0submission\u00a0during\u00a0the\u00a0hearing\u00a0 \u00a0that\u00a0as\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0he(CPIO)\u00a0 \u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
                concerned\u00a0\u00a0this\u00a0position\u00a0\u00a0(\u00a0as\u00a0mentioned\u00a0in\u00a0para\u00a07\u00a0hereinabove),\u00a0has\u00a0already\u00a0been\u00a0settled\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0<\/p>\n
                Commission\u00a0in\u00a0File\u00a0No.\u00a0CIC\/AT\/A\/2006\/00411\u00a0dated\u00a05.12.06\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0therefore\u00a0denied\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0
\n       while\u00a0relying\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0same.\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0Commission\u00a0finds\u00a0no\u00a0inadequacy\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0argument\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0therefore\u00a0<\/p>\n
      holds\u00a0this\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0a\u00a0reasonable\u00a0cause\u00a0for\u00a0denial\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0by\u00a0him\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0first\u00a0instance.\u00a0It\u00a0was\u00a0also\u00a0noted\u00a0that\u00a0<\/p>\n
      the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0had\u00a0ordered\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0and\u00a0had\u00a0even\u00a0turned\u00a0down\u00a0a\u00a0request\u00a0for\u00a0review\u00a0of\u00a0<\/p>\n
      her\u00a0Order\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO.\u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0undersigned\u00a0does\u00a0not\u00a0wish\u00a0to\u00a0interfere\u00a0with\u00a0this\u00a0 \u00a0decision\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0AA,\u00a0who\u00a0has\u00a0<\/p>\n
      decided\u00a0to\u00a0disclose\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0since\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0she\u00a0who\u00a0is\u00a0closest\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0.\u00a0<\/p>\n
9.    The\u00a0\u00a0CPIO’s\u00a0argument\u00a0with\u00a0respect\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0form\u00a0as\u00a0is\u00a0available\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0files\u00a0<\/p>\n
      of\u00a0the\u00a0CIC\u00a0(ie.\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0form\u00a0as\u00a0submitted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0as\u00a0given\u00a0in\u00a0para\u00a04\u00a0hereinabove)\u00a0\u00a0is\u00a0also\u00a0found\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0<\/p>\n
      justified.\u00a0\u00a0Going\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0argument\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO,\u00a0supply\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0information\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0submitted\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0<\/p>\n
      in\u00a0A\u00ad4\u00a0size,\u00a0back\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0legal\u00adsize\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0can\u00a0indeed\u00a0be\u00a0termed\u00a0as\u00a0creation\u00a0of\u00a0new\u00a0information\u00a0since\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      ‘form’\u00a0would\u00a0have\u00a0been\u00a0changed.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   On\u00a0careful\u00a0consideration\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0facts\u00a0and\u00a0circumstances\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0case,\u00a0\u00a0and\u00a0in\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0delay\u00a0which\u00a0has\u00a0<\/p>\n
      already \u00a0 taken \u00a0 place \u00a0 as \u00a0 also \u00a0 the \u00a0 \u00a0 decision \u00a0 of \u00a0 the \u00a0 First \u00a0 Appellate \u00a0 Authority \u00a0 to \u00a0 provide \u00a0 the \u00a0 information, \u00a0 the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      Commission\u00a0takes\u00a0a\u00a0lenient\u00a0view\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0matter\u00a0and\u00a0has\u00a0\u00a0decided\u00a0while\u00a0adopting\u00a0a\u00a0benevolent\u00a0approach\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0<\/p>\n
      keeping\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0spirit\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0welfare\u00a0legislation\u00a0that\u00a0\u00a0all\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0on\u00a0legal\u00a0<\/p>\n
      size\u00a0papers,\u00a0as\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0him.\u00a0(The\u00a0Commission\u00a0\u00a0feels\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0apt\u00a0to\u00a0mention\u00a0at\u00a0this\u00a0juncture\u00a0that\u00a0\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0<\/p>\n
      the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0has\u00a0adopted\u00a0the\u00a0submitting\u00a0 \u00a0of\u00a0A4\u00a0size\u00a0pages\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0and\u00a0seeking\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0<\/p>\n
      copies\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0same\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0as\u00a0a\u00a0practice.\u00a0It\u00a0is\u00a0clarified\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Commission\u00a0that\u00a0appeals\u00a0in\u00a0this\u00a0<\/p>\n
      regard\u00a0 (seeking\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0copies\u00a0 of\u00a0documents)\u00a0from\u00a0this\u00a0Appellant\u00a0will\u00a0not\u00a0be\u00a0entertained\u00a0henceforth,\u00a0for\u00a0<\/p>\n
      reasons\u00a0explained\u00a0in\u00a0para\u00a04\u00a0above.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   In\u00a0so\u00a0far\u00a0as\u00a0the\u00a0argument\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0about\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0free\u00a0of\u00a0cost\u00a0is\u00a0concerned,\u00a0it\u00a0is\u00a0<\/p>\n
      observed\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0Section\u00a07\u00a0(1)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a02005\u00a0only\u00a0deals\u00a0with\u00a0the\u00a0disposal\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0application,\u00a0and\u00a0that\u00a0it\u00a0<\/p>\n
      does\u00a0not\u00a0relate\u00a0to\u00a0any\u00a0time\u00a0frame\u00a0\u00a0for\u00a0providing\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case\u00a0of\u00a0one\u00a0or\u00a0\u00a0a\u00a0series\u00a0of\u00a0\u00a0transfers\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0<\/p>\n
      RTI\u00a0application.\u00a0 \u00a0This\u00a0 \u00a0aspect\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0touched\u00a0upon\u00a0in\u00a0Section\u00a07(3)\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0RTI\u00a0Act\u00a0which\u00a0talks\u00a0of\u00a0providing\u00a0<\/p>\n
      details\u00a0of\u00a0further\u00a0fees\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0after\u00a0“a\u00a0decision\u00a0is\u00a0taken\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information”\u00a0.<\/p>\n
12.   In\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0case\u00a0a\u00a0decision\u00a0\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0has\u00a0been\u00a0taken\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellate\u00a0Authority\u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0her\u00a0order\u00a0<\/p>\n
      dated \u00a0 08.09.2010 \u00a0 and \u00a0 the \u00a0 PIO \u00a0 as \u00a0 per\u00a0 direction\u00a0 of \u00a0 the\u00a0 AA\u00a0 was\u00a0 agreeable\u00a0 to \u00a0 provide\u00a0 the\u00a0 information\u00a0 upon\u00a0<\/p>\n
      payment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0requisite\u00a0cost\u00a0of\u00a0Rs.\u00a02\u00a0per\u00a0page\u00a0as\u00a0is\u00a0evident\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0PIO’s\u00a0review\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a029.09.2010,\u00a0<\/p>\n
      endorsed\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\u00a0Hence,\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0is\u00a0directed\u00a0to\u00a0be\u00a0provided\u00a0on\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0papers,\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0<\/p>\n
      case\u00a0only\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0,as\u00a0sought\u00a0by\u00a0him,\u00a0\u00a0upon\u00a0payment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0requisite\u00a0fees\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0prescribed\u00a0Rules,\u00a0
\n          which\u00a0will\u00a0be\u00a0intimated\u00a0to\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant\u00a0within\u00a010\u00a0days\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0this\u00a0Order\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0CPIO\u00a0and\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0to\u00a0<\/p>\n
         be\u00a0provided\u00a0within\u00a015\u00a0days\u00a0of\u00a0receipt\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0additional\u00a0fees\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
13.      The\u00a0case\u00a0is\u00a0disposed\u00a0off\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0above\u00a0terms.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n
Decision\u00a0announced\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0\u00a0Chamber\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0Information\u00a0Commissioner,\u00a0Ms.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit\u00a0on\u00a020\u00a0July,\u00a02011.<\/p>\n
                                                                                                         \u00a0(Annapurna\u00a0Dixit)
\n                                                                                                 Information\u00a0Commissioner
\nAuthenticated\u00a0true\u00a0copy:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a0
\n(G.Subramanian)
\nDeputy\u00a0Registrar<\/p>\n
Cc:\n<\/p>\n
1.       Mr.\u00a0Ravinder\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Malik\u00a0
\n         S\/o\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Malik,\u00a0
\n         R\/o\u00a0F\u00ad243\/124\u00adC,
\n         Katwaria\u00a0Sarai,\u00a0
\n         Behind\u00a0Mother\u00a0Dairy,\u00a0Main\u00a0Road,
\n         New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0–\u00a0110\u00a0016<\/p>\n
2.           Mr.\u00a0Pankaj\u00a0Shreyaskar.\n<\/p>\n
             The\u00a0CPIO,
\n             Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission,
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,
\n             Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place,
\n             New\u00a0Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.           Ms.\u00a0Anita\u00a0Gupta
\n             Appellate\u00a0Authority
\n             Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission,
\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan,
\n      Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place,
\n     New\u00a0Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Officer\u00a0in\u00a0Charge,\u00a0NIC\u00a0\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011 In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0 at New\u00a0Delhi File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000118 Date\u00a0of\u00a0hearing\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a015,\u00a02011 Date\u00a0of\u00a0Decision\u00a0\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0July\u00a0\u00a020,\u00a02011 Parties: Complainant\u00a0 Mr.\u00a0Ravinder\u00a0Kumar\u00a0Malik\u00a0 S\/o\u00a0Sh.\u00a0Bhagwan\u00a0Malik,\u00a0 R\/o\u00a0F\u00ad243\/124\u00adC, Katwaria\u00a0Sarai,\u00a0 Behind\u00a0Mother\u00a0Dairy,\u00a0Main\u00a0Road, New\u00a0Delhi\u00a0–\u00a0110\u00a0016 Respondent \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0August\u00a0Kranti\u00a0Bhawan, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Bhikaji\u00a0Cama\u00a0Place, New\u00a0Delhi. Represented\u00a0by\u00a0:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Ms.\u00a0Anita\u00a0Gpta\u00a0:\u00a0Additional\u00a0Secretary \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mr.\u00a0Pankaj\u00a0\u00a0Shreyaskar:\u00a0\u00a0Dy.\u00a0Secretary\u00a0cum\u00a0CPIO\u00a0 Information\u00a0Commissioner(s) :\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Mrs.\u00a0Annapurna\u00a0Dixit Decision\u00a0Notice In\u00a0the\u00a0instant\u00a0case,\u00a0the\u00a0Commission \u00a0directs\u00a0the\u00a0PIO\u00a0to\u00a0provide\u00a0the\u00a0information\u00a0on\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0papers\u00a0as\u00a0 sought\u00a0by\u00a0the\u00a0Appellant,\u00a0upon\u00a0payment\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0requisite\u00a0fees\u00a0as\u00a0per\u00a0the\u00a0prescribed\u00a0Rules.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0In\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission\u00a0 at New\u00a0Delhi \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0File\u00a0No:\u00a0CIC\/SM\/A\/2011\/000118 ORDER Background 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The\u00a0instant\u00a0case\u00a0arises\u00a0out\u00a0of\u00a0an\u00a0RTI\u00a0application\u00a0dated\u00a002.06.2010\u00a0whereby\u00a0the\u00a0Applicant\u00a0sought\u00a0information\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0 form\u00a0of\u00a0inspection\u00a0and\u00a0Certified\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0comprising\u00a0\u00a0584\u00a0pages\u00a0out\u00a0of\u00a0the\u00a0files\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0various\u00a0 cases\u00a0which\u00a0he\u00a0had\u00a0filed\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission.\u00a0The\u00a0certified\u00a0copies\u00a0of\u00a0documents\u00a0were\u00a0 sought\u00a0in\u00a0legal\u00a0size\u00a0pages\u00a0pertaining\u00a0to\u00a0eight\u00a0cases\u00a0in\u00a0total\u00a0before\u00a0the\u00a0CIC.\u00a0The\u00a0Applicant\u00a0was\u00a0informed\u00a0by\u00a0a\u00a0 letter\u00a0dated\u00a029.06.2010\u00a0from\u00a0the\u00a0Central\u00a0Information\u00a0Commission,\u00a0that\u00a0the\u00a0cases\u00a0in\u00a0question\u00a0were\u00a0transferred\u00a0 […]<\/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-89534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nMr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 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-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-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=\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1607,\"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-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 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-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011"},"wordCount":1607,"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-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011","name":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-24T11:18:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-ravinder-kumar-malik-vs-central-information-commission-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Ravinder Kumar Malik vs Central Information Commission on 20 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89534","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=89534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89534\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}