{"id":108047,"date":"2009-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-22T13:34:52","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T08:04:52","slug":"ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                       JODHPUR.\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n\n\n\nEx.Havildar Gulia              v.         Union of India & Ors.\nKailash Singh\n\n\n\n             S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3413\/1998\n             under Article 226 of the Constitution\n             of India.\n\n\n\nDate of Order                 ::            27th February, 2009\n\n\n\n                        P R E S E N T\n\n             HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR\n\n\nMr. S.K.Nanda, for the petitioner.\nMr. V.K.Mathur, for the respondent.\n\n                               ....\n\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
         An order rejecting a petition presented by<\/p>\n
any person aggrieved with findings or sentence of any<\/p>\n
Court Martial, which has been confirmed should contain<\/p>\n
reasons for such rejection or not, is the main issue<\/p>\n
requires adjudication in this petition for writ.<\/p>\n
         The factual matrix of the case is that the<\/p>\n
petitioner    joined   the    Indian     Army   on   18.6.1984   in<\/p>\n
capacity of a Sepoy in the trade of Clerk (G\/D). While
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
serving at Station Headquarters, Bikaner as Combatant<\/p>\n
in the regular army he was tried by a General Court<\/p>\n
Martial     held        from        2.7.1997       to    29.9.1997.        The<\/p>\n
petitioner was subjected to General Court Martial for<\/p>\n
four charges out of that he was found guilty for two<\/p>\n
and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for<\/p>\n
three years, to be dismissed from service and to be<\/p>\n
reduced    from       the   ranks.     The       findings   and    sentence<\/p>\n
given by the General Court Martial stood confirmed by<\/p>\n
General Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry Division on 8th<\/p>\n
Day of December, 1997 with a direction to carry out<\/p>\n
sentence by confinement in civil prison.<\/p>\n
            Being aggrieved with the order passed by the<\/p>\n
General     Court       Martial,           duly     confirmed      by      the<\/p>\n
confirming       authority,          the    petitioner         preferred     a<\/p>\n
statutory    petition          as    per    the    provisions      of    sub-<\/p>\n
section(2)       of    Section       164    of    the    Army    Act,    1950<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1950”) read<\/p>\n
with Rule 210 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as “the Rules of 1954”) and para 365 of<\/p>\n
the Army Regulations. In the petition aforesaid dated<\/p>\n
20.1.1998,        the        petitioner           highlighted       various<\/p>\n
infirmities in General Court Martial including over-<\/p>\n
stepping    by    the       Judge     advocate      to   the    powers     and<\/p>\n
duties as given under Rule 105 of the Rules of 1954.<\/p>\n
The petitioner also asserted that the findings given<\/p>\n
by the General Court Martial were not supported by any<\/p>\n
evidence. The statutory petition dated 20.1.1998 came
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
to be rejected by General Officer Commanding, 10 Corps<\/p>\n
on 19.6.1998 in following terms:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “I agree with the recommendations of the
\n             General   Officer Commanding, 24 Infantry
\n             Division and direct that the petition be
\n             rejected.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             A challenge is given to the proceedings of<\/p>\n
the General Court Martial, findings and sentence given<\/p>\n
by   the    General      Court       Martial,        confirmation       of   the<\/p>\n
findings and sentence, and also to the order dated<\/p>\n
19.6.1998 rejecting the statutory petition submitted<\/p>\n
by the petitioner, on various grounds. It is urged<\/p>\n
that the order dated 19.6.1998 has been passed without<\/p>\n
application of mind and as such the said order is just<\/p>\n
monumental and non-speaking. According to counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner an order rejecting a post confirmation<\/p>\n
statutory     petition       must          be    a     self-speaking         and<\/p>\n
reasoned one. It is asserted that a substantive right<\/p>\n
i.e.   of    presenting          a    petition         to     the     competent<\/p>\n
authority is available to any person subjected to Army<\/p>\n
Act, who considers himself aggrieved by a finding or<\/p>\n
sentence of any Court Martial which has been confirmed<\/p>\n
and such post confirmation statutory petition deserves<\/p>\n
consideration       by     the       competent         authority       as    per<\/p>\n
provisions     of     clause(g)        of       regulation      365    of    the<\/p>\n
Regulations    for       Army.       According       to     counsel    for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner the consideration of a post confirmation<\/p>\n
statutory petition must be an objective one and such
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
objectivity can be examined by the reasons given for<\/p>\n
negativating the contentions raised by the person who<\/p>\n
has   preferred         the    petition.             To    substantiate       the<\/p>\n
contention,       reliance         is    placed       by    counsel     for    the<\/p>\n
petitioner       upon    various         judgments         including     1986(4)<\/p>\n
SLR, 791, Lt. Colonel Amal Sankar Bhadury v. Union of<\/p>\n
India & Ors.<\/a>; 2006(2) SCT, 1, Hans Raj v. Union of<\/p>\n
India & Ors.; and Lt. Col. N.K.Ghai v. Union of India<\/p>\n
& Ors., W.P.<\/a>(C)3266\/2005, dated 20.2.2006.<\/p>\n
            Per contra, it is stated by counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents       that        in        view     of       the    authoritative<\/p>\n
pronouncement       of        Hon’ble          Supreme      Court       in    Shri<\/p>\n
S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India,<\/a> 1990(5) SLR, 8, there<\/p>\n
is no need to prescribe any reasons by the competent<\/p>\n
authority        while        rejecting          a        post    confirmation<\/p>\n
statutory petition submitted by a person subjected to<\/p>\n
the   Act   of    1950.       In    S.N.Mukherjee’s              case   (supra),<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “46.With    regard    to    post-confirmation
\n            proceedings we find that sub-section(2) of
\n            Section 164 of the Act provides that any
\n            person subject to the Act who considers
\n            himself aggrieved by a finding or sentence of
\n            any court-martial which has been confirmed,
\n            may present a petition to the Central
\n            Government, the Chief of the Army Staff or
\n            any prescribed officer superior in command to
\n            the one who confirmed such finding or
\n            sentence and the Central Government, the
\n            Chief of the Army Staff or other officer, as
\n                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
the case may be, may pass such orders thereon
\nas it or he thinks fit. In so far as the
\nfindings and sentence of a court-martial and
\nthe proceedings for confirmation of such
\nfindings and sentence are concerned it has
\nbeen found that the scheme of the Act and the
\nRules is such that reasons are not required
\nto be recorded for the same. Has the
\nlegislature made a departure from the said
\nscheme   in   respect   of  post-confirmation
\nproceedings? There is nothing in the language
\nof sub-section(2) of Section 164 which may
\nlend support to such an intention. Nor is
\nthere anything in the nature of post-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
confirmation proceedings which may require
\nrecording of reasons for an order passed on
\nthe post-confirmation petition even though
\nreasons are not required to be recorded at
\nthe stage of recording of findings and
\nsentence by a court-martial and at the stage
\nof confirmation of the findings and sentence
\nof the court-martial by the confirming
\nauthority. With regard to recording of
\nreasons the considerations which apply at the
\nstage of recording of findings and sentence
\nby the court-martial and at the stage of
\nconfirmation of findings and sentence of the
\ncourt-martial by the confirming authority are
\nequally   applicable    at   the   stage   of
\nconsideration    of   the   post-confirmation
\npetition. Since reasons are not required to
\nbe recorded at the first two stages referred
\nto said, the above requirement cannot, in our
\nopinion, be insisted upon at the stage of
\nconsideration of post-confirmation petition
\nunder Section 164(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
           47.For the reasons aforesaid it must be held
\n           that reasons are not required to be recorded
\n           for an order passed by the confirming
\n           authority   confirming   the   findings  and
\n           sentence recorded by the court-martial as
\n           well as for the order passed by the Central
\n           Government dismissing the post-confirmation
\n           petition. Since we have arrived at the same
\n           conclusion as in Som Datt Datta case (supra)
\n           the submission of Shri Ganguli that the said
\n           decision needs reconsideration cannot be
\n           accepted and is, therefore, rejected.<\/p>\n
           48.But that is not the end of the matter
\n           because even though there is no requirement
\n           to record reasons by the confirming authority
\n           while passing the order confirming the
\n           findings and sentence of the court-martial or
\n           by the Central Government while passing its
\n           order on the post-confirmation petition, it
\n           is open to the person aggrieved by such an
\n           order to challenge the validity of the same
\n           before this court under Article 32 of the
\n           Constitution or before the High Court under
\n           Article 226 of the Constitution and he can
\n           obtain    appropriate    relief   in    those
\n           proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
\n           Heard counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
           In light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment<\/p>\n
in   S.N.Mukherjee’s    case   (supra),   on   its    face,   it<\/p>\n
appears that there was no need to extend reasons while<\/p>\n
deciding   a   post    confirmation   petition   as    per    the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 164(2) of the Act of 1950. In
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
the case aforesaid Hon’ble Supreme Court negativated<\/p>\n
need of giving reasons on the premise that neither<\/p>\n
sub-section(2) of Section 164 of the Act of 1950 nor<\/p>\n
any other provision under the Rules of 1954 or the<\/p>\n
Army Regulations provides for recording reasons for an<\/p>\n
order passed on post confirmation petition. The Court<\/p>\n
was of the view that reasons are not required to be<\/p>\n
recorded even at the stage of confirmation of findings<\/p>\n
and    sentence     of   the   Court        Martial   by     confirming<\/p>\n
authority, as such that could not be made essential at<\/p>\n
the subsequent stage. Such position, as a matter of<\/p>\n
fact, does not exist after an amendment introduced in<\/p>\n
Rule   62(1)   of    the   Rules       of    1954,    that   reads   as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “(1)The finding on every charge upon which
\n            the accused is arraigned shall be recorded
\n            and, except as provided in these rules, shall
\n            be recorded as finding of ‘Guilty’ or of ‘Not
\n            Guilty’. After recording the finding on each
\n            charge, the court shall give brief reasons in
\n            support thereof. The judge advocate or, if
\n            there is none, the presiding officer shall
\n            record or cause to be recorded such brief
\n            reasons in the proceedings. The above record
\n            shall be signed and dated by the presiding
\n            officer and judge advocate, if any.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Prior to 6.12.1993, sub-rule(1) of Rule 62 of<\/p>\n
the Rules of 1954 was worded as under:-
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
            “(1)The finding on every charge upon which
\n            the accused is arranged shall be recorded
\n            and, except as provided in these rules, shall
\n            be recorded simply as a finding of “Guilty”
\n            or “Not guilty”.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In      S.N.Mukherjee’s      case   (supra)      Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court was considering a matter relating to a<\/p>\n
statutory petition that was relating to General Court<\/p>\n
Martial     prior      to   6.12.1993.    The   position     as   per<\/p>\n
Regulations of 1965 now existing is that the presiding<\/p>\n
officer   of     the   General   Court    Martial   should    record<\/p>\n
brief reasons in the proceedings in support to the<\/p>\n
findings and sentence given.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Lt.<\/p>\n
Col. N.K.Ghai’s case (supra), while examining an issue<\/p>\n
regarding      prescribing     reasons,    while    considering     a<\/p>\n
statutory petition under Border Security Force Act,<\/p>\n
held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “As we gather from the communication issued,
\n            the appellate authority rejected the appeal
\n            on the ground that it is devoid of merit. If
\n            the disposal of the appeal was in the manner
\n            as stated in the said communication, one
\n            cannot but hold that the said order of the
\n            appellate authority is cryptic and is devoid
\n            of reasons. While disposing of an appeal, the
\n            appellate authority discharges a statutory
\n            function and acts as a quasi judicial
\n            authority. Therefore, the appellate authority
\n            is required to give due weightage and apply
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
          its mind take a conscious and considered
\n          decision and dispose of the appeal giving
\n          reasons for its decision. The order disposing
\n          the appeal must indicate that there has been
\n          proper application of mind by the authority
\n          to all the pleas raised and the reasons for
\n          the decision are also to be explicit in the
\n          order itself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The    relevant     provisions    of     the   Border<\/p>\n
Security Force Act are para-materia to the provisions<\/p>\n
under consideration in instant petition for writ.<\/p>\n
          In Hans Raj’s case (supra), a Division Bench<\/p>\n
of   Hon’ble   Delhi   High   Court   considered   the   entire<\/p>\n
issue relating to prescribing reasons while deciding a<\/p>\n
post confirmation petition under Section 164(2) of the<\/p>\n
Act of 1950 and held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “20.We are of the view that S.N.Mukherjee’s
\n          case (supra) was postulated on the premise
\n          discernible from paragraph 46 of the judgment
\n          which was to the effect that the reasons were
\n          not required to b e given to the post-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          confirmation petition under Section 164(2) as
\n          there was no statutory requirement of giving
\n          reasons in support of the findings of
\n          confirmation based upon an analysis inter
\n          alia of existing Rule 62. Since the amendment
\n          of the Rule 62 in the year 1993 has already
\n          put in the requirement of giving reasons in
\n          support of the findings of court martial, the
\n          position of law laid down in S.N.Mukherjee’s
\n          case in so far as it held that reasons in
\n          support of orders under Section 164(2) of the
\n                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
Army Act were not required to be given no
\nlonger holds the field. The other position of
\nlaw laid down in S.N.Mukherjee’s case (supra)
\nwas discernible from the paragraph 39 which
\nclearly held that except to the extent where
\nthe   requirement    to   record    reasons   was
\ndispensed with expressly or by necessary
\nimplication, the administrative authority
\nexercising   quasi    or   non-quasi     judicial
\nfunction was required to record reasons. In
\nour view even S.N.Mukherjee’s case (supra)
\nrequired   the    recording    of    reasons   by
\nadministrative authority exercising quasi or
\nnon-quasi judicial function except when the
\nrequirement to record reasons was dispensed
\nwith expressly or by necessary implication.
\nIn the aforesaid Mukherjee’s case (supra) the
\nConstitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt held that the said requirement was
\nnecessarily excluded by implication by virtue
\ninter alia of the then existing Rule 62 of
\nthe Army Rules. Since Rule 62 has been since
\namended and recording of reasons have been
\nexpressly included therein, the reasoning
\ncontained    in     paragraph     39    of    the
\nS.N.Mukherjee’s case (supra) to the following
\neffect comes into play:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     ’39.For the reasons aforesaid, it must
\n     be concluded that except in cases where
\n     the requirement has been dispensed with
\n     expressly or by necessary implication an
\n     administrative   authority    exercising
\n     judicial or quasi-judicial functions is
\n     required to record the reasons for its
\n     decision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Since in the amended Army Rule 62 the
\n    requirement of recording reasons in
\n    support of a Court Martial verdict has
\n    now been statutorily incorporated, the
\n    principles laid down in S.N.Mukherjee’s
\n    judgment far from supporting the plea of
\n    the learned Addl. Solicitor General Shri
\n    P.P.Malhotra, in fact supports the plea
\n    of    the    petitioners;   about    the
\n    requirement of recording reasons in
\n    support of a decision under Section 117
\n    (2) of the BSF Act.’<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted while
\nobserving about the general Court Martial
\nthat the findings and sentence of a Court
\nMartial under the then existing Army Act did
\nnot require the recording of reasons as
\nevident from the Act and the Rules. Keeping
\nthe above position of law which permitted the
\nCourt Martial Finding to be without recording
\nof reasons in view of the pre-amendment Rule
\n62, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that
\nthe consideration of reasons which applied
\nwhile awarding the sentence of Court Martial
\nare equally applicable in the case of
\nproceedings of confirmation under Section 164
\n(2) of the Army Act. It was thus observed
\nthat since reasons were not required to be
\nrecorded at the stage of recording of
\nfindings and the confirmation of the finding,
\nthey were not required to be recorded at the
\nstate (stage?) of post-confirmation petition
\nunder Section 164(2) of the Act. In our view
\nsince Rule 62 has since been amended in 1992
\nafter the judgment in S.N.Mukherjee’s case
\n(supra)   the   entire  foundation   of   the
\naforesaid judgment in S.N.Mukherjee’s case
\n                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
          based on unamended Rule 62 in our view cannot
\n          now be held applicable in Court Martial
\n          proceedings which arose from the amended Rule
\n          62 which requires the recording of reasons.
\n          Since Court Martials after the amendment of
\n          Army Rule 62 are required to record reasons,
\n          the    rationale    or    the    reasons    of
\n          S.N.Mukherjee’s case can no longer be said to
\n          apply to the situation emerging pursuant to
\n          the amended Rule 62 requiring recording of
\n          reasons.   Accordingly,   in   our   view   in
\n          confirmation petitions pursuant to court
\n          martials which subsequent to the amendment in
\n          Rule 62 are required to record reasons for
\n          their    decision,    the    post-confirmation
\n          petition disposal is required to be with
\n          reasons.”\n<\/p>\n
\n          The need of giving reasons by judicial and<\/p>\n
quasi   judicial   authorities   is   also   emphasised   by<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme court in Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs.<\/p>\n
& Ors. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr.,<\/a> reported in<\/p>\n
(2004)7 SCC 431, by observing as follows:-<\/p>\n
          “12.Even in respect of administrative orders
\n          Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated
\n          Engg. Union observed : (All ER p. 1154h) “The
\n          giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals
\n          of   good   administration.”   In   Alexander
\n          Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was
\n          observed : “Failure to give reasons amounts
\n          to denial of justice. Reasons are live links
\n          between the mind of the decision-taker to the
\n          controversy in question and the decision or
\n          conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute
\n          subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
           recording reasons is that if the decision
\n           reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”,
\n           it can, by its silence, render it virtually
\n           impossible for the courts to perform their
\n           appellate function or exercise the power of
\n           judicial review in adjudging the validity of
\n           the   decision.  Right   to   reason  is   an
\n           indispensable part of a sound judicial
\n           system, reasons at least sufficient to
\n           indicate an application of mind to the matter
\n           before court. Another rationale is that the
\n           affected party can know why the decision has
\n           gone against him. One of the salutary
\n           requirements of natural justice is spelling
\n           out reasons for the order made, in other
\n           words, a speaking out. The “inscrutable face
\n           of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with
\n           a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Need not to say that consideration of a post-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
confirmation statutory petition as per provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 164(2) of the Act of 1950 is a quasi judicial<\/p>\n
function. In the case in hand the statutory petition<\/p>\n
of petitioner was decided by the authority concerned<\/p>\n
by     merely     noting      his       agreement        with     the<\/p>\n
recommendations     of     General     Officer    Commanding,     24<\/p>\n
Infantry Division. He has not supplied any reason for<\/p>\n
such   agreement,   that    was    essential     in   view   of   the<\/p>\n
legal position discussed above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           Accordingly       the       order     dated    19.6.1998<\/p>\n
rejecting the post-confirmation petition submitted by<\/p>\n
the petitioner as per provisions of Section 164(2) of
\n                                           14<\/span><\/p>\n
the Act of 1950 is bad. Counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
also    pressed        in       service        certain       other       arguments<\/p>\n
alleging over stepping of powers by the judge advocate<\/p>\n
and    also    that       the    findings        given     by    General       Court<\/p>\n
Martial are not based on any evidence, however, as I<\/p>\n
am     inclined        to       remand     the       matter        to   competent<\/p>\n
authority to decide post-confirmation petition as per<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 164(2) of the Act of 1950, I am<\/p>\n
not    entering        into      all     these      questions.          All    these<\/p>\n
questions, as a matter of fact, deserve consideration<\/p>\n
at    the   time      of    examination          of    the      petition       under<\/p>\n
Section 164(2) of the Act of 1950.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Accordingly,            this     petition         for     writ      is<\/p>\n
allowed. The order dated 19.6.1998 passed by General<\/p>\n
Officer Commanding, 10 Corps, is hereby quashed. The<\/p>\n
authority       competent         to     consider      a     petition         as   per<\/p>\n
Section       164(2)      of     the   Act     of     1950    is    directed        to<\/p>\n
consider       the      statutory          post-confirmation             petition<\/p>\n
submitted by the petitioner afresh in accordance with<\/p>\n
law. If any grievance survives after decision of the<\/p>\n
statutory petition aforesaid, the petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
at     liberty       to        challenge       the       same      by     availing<\/p>\n
appropriate          remedy        with        all       available        grounds<\/p>\n
including the grounds taken in present petition for<\/p>\n
writ.\n<\/p>\n
               Cost is made easy.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J.\n<\/p>\n
kkm\/ps.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Ex.Havildar Gulia v. Union of India & Ors. Kailash Singh S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3413\/1998 under Article 226 of the […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108047","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nEx Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 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\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-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=\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3041,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 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":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 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\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009"},"wordCount":3041,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009","name":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T08:04:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-havildar-gulia-kailash-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ex Havildar Gulia Kailash Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 February, 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\/108047","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=108047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108047\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}