{"id":126263,"date":"2008-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-09T04:18:19","modified_gmt":"2018-05-08T22:48:19","slug":"dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI\n                                      W.P. (C) No. 6682 of 2004\n\n         Dr. Rajat Nath Roy                                                           Petitioner\n                                                Versus\n         The State of Jharkhand and others                                            Respondents\n                                                  ---\n         CORAM:        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik\n\n         For the Petitioner:  Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, Advocate\n         For the Respondents: Md. Shamim Akhtar, S.C(L&amp;C)\n\n                                                ---\n                                            CAV ORDER\n                                                ---\n         Reserved on: 26.11.2008                               Pronounced on: __12.12.2008\n                                                  ---\n\n12. 12.12.2008<\/pre>\n<p>           Petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for an order for quashing the<br \/>\n          direction contained in letter no. 2738 dated 16.7.2004 (annexure-5\/a) and letter no. 2957<br \/>\n          dated 31.7.2004 (annexure-5\/b) respectively as also the letter dated 1355 dated 11.8.2004<br \/>\n          issued by the respondent no. 2, under which the petitioner has been asked to deposit 50%<br \/>\n          of the market value of the lands by way of salami for transfer of various plots of<br \/>\n          Khasmahal lease hold lands measuring 38.61 decimals out of plot nos. 258 and 259<br \/>\n          within the holding no. 79 situated at village Sarle within the P.S. and District of<br \/>\n          Hazaribagh. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ of mandamus<br \/>\n          commanding upon the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner on the same<br \/>\n          terms and conditions of the original lease and not to make any additional condition in the<br \/>\n          terms of the lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 Earlier, vide W.P.(C) No. 3284 of 2001, the petitioner had filed a writ application<br \/>\n          before this Court praying for a direction upon the respondents to grant him permission<br \/>\n          for transfer of the lease. In terms of the order dated 27.6.2001, this Court had issued<br \/>\n          direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to dispose of the case relating to<br \/>\n          transfer of the land within three months.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 Thereafter, the petitioner again filed another writ application vide W.P.(C) No.<br \/>\n          5108 of 2003 before this court, praying to direct the respondents to pass an appropriate<br \/>\n          order in the matter of Permission Case No. 25 of 2001, 39 of 2001 and 48 of 2001. In<br \/>\n          terms of its order dated 17.10.2003 passed in the aforesaid writ application, this court had<br \/>\n          issued direction to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi to pass an<br \/>\n          appropriate order.\n<\/p>\n<p>          2.     The case of the petitioner is that he being the power of attorney holder of Dr.<br \/>\n          Rajat Nath Roy, the lease holder of holding No. 108, 137, 77 and 79 at village Sarle,<br \/>\n          Sarkari Hata in the district of Hazaribagh, filed his application before the concerned<br \/>\n          authority of the respondents for grant of permission to transfer the leasehold lands. Three<br \/>\n          separate permission cases were accordingly registered vide Permission Case No. 25 of<br \/>\n          2001, 39 of 2001 and 48 of 2001. The applications filed by the petitioner were examined<br \/>\n          by the concerned authorities of the Revenue Department at the various levels, where-after<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh recommended the case for permission to the<br \/>\nCommissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. On the recommendation<br \/>\ngranted by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, the Revenue<br \/>\nDepartment of the State of Jharkhand accorded previous permission order for transfer of<br \/>\nthe lands, vide letter dated 31.7.2004 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of<br \/>\nJharkhand, Revenue Department. However, it was later communicated to the petitioner<br \/>\nby the impugned order that the Government had agreed to grant permission for transfer<br \/>\nof individual plots of lands, but on condition that the lessee should deposit @50% of the<br \/>\ntotal market value in the Government Treasury under the specified Head by way of<br \/>\n&#8216;Salami&#8217;. It is this direction, as contained in the various impugned letters issued by the<br \/>\nrespondent no. 2 demanding 50% of the total market value of the land in question at the<br \/>\npresent market rate by way of &#8216;Salami&#8217;, that has been challenged in the present writ<br \/>\napplication, on the ground that such direction is wholly arbitrary, illegal and<br \/>\nunconstitutional and is against the terms and conditions of the original lease agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Shri Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, would argue that the<br \/>\nrespondents have no jurisdiction to act contrary to the Clause-2 of the terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the lease which reads that &#8220;except with the previous sanction of the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner, in writing and on payment of fee equal to 25% yearly rental (provided<br \/>\nthat no such fee shall be less than Rs. 1\/ or more than Rs. 100\/-), the lessee shall not<br \/>\ntransfer, assign, sublet or any part thereof with the possession of the said demised lands<br \/>\nand the premises or any part thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel argues that the conditions in the original lease agreement<br \/>\nconstitutes part of the registered contract between the State Government and the lessee<br \/>\nand the terms and conditions of the lease bind both the parties and therefore, neither party<br \/>\ncan unilaterally modify or vary the terms and conditions of the registered deed of lease<br \/>\nwithout the authority of the law and such action of the respondents is hit by the<br \/>\nprovisions contained in Article 299 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that<br \/>\nthe impugned action of the respondents amounts to circumvent the provisions under<br \/>\nwhich the lessee enjoys the right to transfer his lease hold right and therefore, it amounts<br \/>\nto frustrate his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel<br \/>\nargues further that the respondents have already granted permission for transfer, as<br \/>\nprayed for by the transferee. Such grant of permission for transfer of the lease hold lands<br \/>\nwould only extend the lease hold right of the transferee for the remaining period of lease<br \/>\nand as such, the respondents do not have any jurisdiction to charge salami to the extent of<br \/>\n50% of the market value.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel argues further that the petitioner had admittedly filed his<br \/>\napplication seeking permission for transfer of lease, in the first quarter of the year 2001.<br \/>\nAt that time, terms of lease which then existed, were applicable in respect of payment of<br \/>\nrequisite fee for transfer \/ renewal of lease. Had the respondents taken action promptly on<br \/>\nthe application for permission, there could be no occasion for the respondent no. 2 to<br \/>\nmake any additional demand of &#8216;Salami&#8217;. Referring to a Division Bench Judgment of this<br \/>\ncourt passed in the case of Ananda Sen Vs. State of Jharkhand (WPC 1805 of 2003),<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>learned counsel argues that amendment of one of the clauses of the agreement made on<br \/>\nthe basis of the Government Circular notified in the year 2002, cannot operate<br \/>\nretrospectively, as has been laid down in the case of Ananda Sen (Supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 6. While<br \/>\nadmitting the fact that the lands under reference in this case were given on lease to Dr.<br \/>\nRajat Nath Roy under separate lease deeds and the period of lease under all the lease<br \/>\nagreements, were renewed which continued till March 2008 and that the permission for<br \/>\ntransfer of the lease as sought for by the attorney holder of the registered lessee has also<br \/>\nbeen granted by the concerned authority of the respondents, the stand taken by the<br \/>\nrespondents is that the demand for salami has been imposed as per the orders of the<br \/>\nGovernment of Bihar vide letter no. 344 dated 11.3.1993 issued by the Secretary to<br \/>\nGovernment, Revenue Department which stipulates that the State Government has every<br \/>\nright to amend the terms and conditions of the agreement by issuing a circular. It is<br \/>\nfurther contended that the lessee can enjoy the lease hold property for the leased period<br \/>\nand if he wants to transfer the lease hold land, he has to abide by the terms and conditions<br \/>\nimposed by the State Government from time to time. Denying the claim of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the order demanding salami is arbitrary, it is sought to be explained by the counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondent that the rate of salami has been fixed as per the present market value<br \/>\nof the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     The sole question which calls for determination in this case is, whether the<br \/>\namendment in the terms of lease carried out pursuant to the Government Circular notified<br \/>\non 19.1.2002 under which a condition was inserted for demanding &#8216;Salami&#8217; @50% of the<br \/>\nmarket value, can be made applicable retrospectively to those applications for renewal \/<br \/>\ntransfer which were pending before the respondent authority much prior to the date of<br \/>\nissuance of the notification?\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     As has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ananda<br \/>\nSen (Supra), it cannot be disputed that renewal \/ transfer of the Khasmahal lease granted<br \/>\nunder the provisions of Khasmahal Manual, is a right granted to the lessee subject to the<br \/>\nlimitation mentioned in the terms of the lease or as laid down under the provisions of the<br \/>\nKhasmahal Manual.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Since learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only to the issue as<br \/>\nto whether the notification of 2002 can be made applicable with retrospective effect, the<br \/>\nissue as to whether the notification itself is illegal or arbitrary or ultra vires, is not taken<br \/>\nup for consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     In the present case, admittedly, the applications seeking permission for transfer of<br \/>\nthe lease were filed some time in the first quarter of the year 2001. At that time, the<br \/>\nperiod of lease after the last renewal, stood extended up to March 2008. The transfer of<br \/>\nlease in favour of the purchaser would not have had any effect upon the period of lease<br \/>\nand the same terms and conditions, as contained in the terms of original lease, would<br \/>\nhave continued to bind the transferee also. The terms and conditions of lease in respect of<br \/>\nrenewal \/ transfer, as it originally existed, did not contemplate any demand for &#8216;Salami&#8217;.<br \/>\nThe introduction of an additional condition for payment of &#8216;Salami&#8217; @50% of the market<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       value was made in the month of February 2002 vide the Government Circular. The new<br \/>\n       introduction of an additional condition in the lease agreement cannot be applied<br \/>\n       retrospectively to the application seeking permission which was pending before the<br \/>\n       concerned authority of the respondents much prior to the date of amendment made in the<br \/>\n       conditions of the lease agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>       9.     In the light of the aforesaid facts, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, the<br \/>\n       same is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexure-5 series of the<br \/>\n       supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, are hereby set aside. Since permission for<br \/>\n       transfer of the lease has already been granted to the petitioner, the respondents shall<br \/>\n       consider the demand for payment of the requisite fee in accordance with the terms and<br \/>\n       conditions as contained in the original lease agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>              With the above observations, this writ application is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                             (D.G.R. Patnaik, J)<br \/>\nRanjeet\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6682 of 2004 Dr. Rajat Nath Roy Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand and others Respondents &#8212; CORAM: The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice D.G.R. Patnaik For the Petitioner: Mr. [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-08T22:48:19+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\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-08T22:48:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1666,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-08T22:48:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-08T22:48:19+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\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-08T22:48:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008"},"wordCount":1666,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008","name":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-08T22:48:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajat-nath-roy-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Rajat Nath Roy vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors. on 12 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/126263","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=126263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}