{"id":139603,"date":"2010-12-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010"},"modified":"2014-05-03T02:30:32","modified_gmt":"2014-05-02T21:00:32","slug":"mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
...3_\n\n1982 he was deputecl to the National Dairy Research\n\nInstitute (for short, 'NDRI') Bangalore, for a Diploma course\n\nin Dairing and on completion of the said eoursef\"he,V\"\u00ab.afas:_.v \n\nposted at Bangalore Daiiy. In the year 1965_e-nl'\n\nof Masters Degree in Dairing atll_N--DRI,  [f4Iaiyan_a], .he\n\nwas posted at Mysore Dairy as :_El::tensio1il:Qi'ficer w.e.f.\nll\/3\/1968. Later, he   Chemist and\nposted at Bangalore,Dairy,..int.eral.ia that he\nwould forfeit  for, it \"service under the\nGovernment.  tgfhemist was also made\nby i\\\/IPSCE  posted to Bangalore Dairy on\ndeputationhasis  duty on 4\/5\/1972. The\n\npetitiorier clairned to be treated as a Government servant on\n\n .d'epuVt\"atioh'* basis whichllwas however not accepted by the\n\n and it was stated that he should be\n\ntreated ass-regular employee of the Bangalore Dairy w.e.f.\n\n5\/ i97\\2..D' The Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation\n\n[tor short 'KDDCL') the organisation under whose\n\n '~-djurisdiction was Bangalore Dairy stated that the petitioner\n\n ~ gfcould not be treated as having been on deputation to\n\nBangalore Dairy and shouid treated as a regular empioyee of\nthe Bangalore Dairy w.e.f. 4.5.1972 and the KDDCL issued\n\norder dated 24\/11\/1977 regularising the service of the\n5\n\nE\u00bb\n\n \n\n\n\n\/'2\n__ ii\n\npetitioner as an employee of the Bangalore Dairy W--_\u00a7:.f.\n\n4.5.1972.\n\n3. However, according to the petitiolner-1l1--e_'Vwas_l\"an \n\nemployee of the Department of  \n\nVeterinary Services and was depi:vted,to l\u20acl.angalo1_;e  and\nhe was therefore, a Governmen't\"'servant:.'that on attaining\nthe age of superannuation; he   1990 and he\nmade several    usetftlement of his\npensionary   a. Government servant\nbut the \"\"\"   'not': responded to his\n\nrepresentations'  he filed the application before\n\nthe tribunal'Sgelgcing\u00e9\u00e9decllaration that he be treated as a\n\n Governrnent serva:'1tti_l_lpothe date of retirement and to grant\n\nl'1_all. _n10_netary b.er\"ie__f its.\n\n4;' .._\"'\u00ab..ol\u20ac3efore}~ the Tribunal the application was\n\n  conte--s_ted_.b3r:thel respondent --~ authorities by contending that<\/pre>\n
3l”‘~___lthough the: petitioner joined Government service in the year<\/p>\n
  Elle had applied for the post of Project Chemist in<\/p>\n
“l,…h:}\u00a7angalore Dairy Project and was selected in the said<\/p>\n
irecruitment retired from Bangalore Dairy and has received<\/p>\n
all retirai benefits and after retirement, he cannot claim to be<\/p>\n
a Government servanii; that NEPSC appointed the petitioner<\/p>\n
\/”-\n<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
A\u00bb D ._<\/p>\n
directly to the Bangalore Dairy and the petitioner is governed<\/p>\n
by the rules and regulations of the KDDCL, whichvyistthe<\/p>\n
organisation which had regularised the service’s’*\u00abof~<\/p>\n
petitioner. It was also stated that Bangalore  <\/p>\n
autonomous body and the petitioner was._sel-eetevd’ <\/p>\n
post in KDDCL and was  ;:elievet1._ll:_o:t’:  duties
\nfrom the Government  the services of
\nthe petitioner was r_egulariee.:C’1 A  same was
\naccepted by  that a belated
\nclaim cannot be tor\u00aba”dleela’rationlVlthat the petitioner be
\ntreated   Accordingly, the State<\/p>\n
Government  the application.\n<\/p>\n
5. On the basis otT”the rival pleadings, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
 =  tollowiAngvpo.i1its for consideration:–<\/p>\n
‘  -riff  for consideration are: {i}
\n ‘t.lieV..Applicant can be regarded as
\n ‘ernployee of the Government of
\nKorniataka; (it) whether the Applicant
\n llfshotlld. be treated as on deputation to
\n ‘KDDC and {iii} whether the Applicant is
\nentitled to any benefit of pension and other
\nretiral benefits admissible under the KCS<\/p>\n
Rules.” , pf<\/p>\n
__6_<\/p>\n
6. The Tribunal on consideration of the material on<\/p>\n
record held that there was no merit in the application<\/p>\n
the petitioner could not be treated as a Govt. s\u00a2;4<;a\u00a71:_~ <\/p>\n
accordingly, dismissed the application. Being."<\/p>\n
the said order, this writ petition has bAeen..pl'{:ferreld.  ll   l  <\/p>\n
7. We have heard tt:e””‘  cotinsel tor the
\npetitioner and the iearnedl No.1 and 2,
\nand learned counsel    4.\n<\/p>\n
8. It \u00a3511..  the petitioner that
\nhe was alsilial’G:otrernrnent”stervant but he was sent
\non deputation to the:’.’l\u00a7arii\u00abatall{a..lCooperative Milk Producers’<\/p>\n
Federation and retired7–frorn the said organisation but he<\/p>\n
 alllGo1.r–e1’nment servant; that the Govt. was<\/p>\n
ll’–nia;naging._:the”~l\u00a7angalore Dairy through the Department of<\/p>\n
Animal’  and Veterinary Services. That the<\/p>\n
‘selection  the petitioner was made through the MPSC and<\/p>\n
V’ inAAthe–._notification issued, it was stated tht the post are<\/p>\n
“‘l\u00ab.–pelnsionab1e under the Governrnent; that the petitioner did<\/p>\n
 agree to any of the adverse conditions sought to be<\/p>\n
imposed on him that when he was relieved from Mysore
\nDairy and he joined Bangalore Dairy, it was on deputation<\/p>\n
basis: that there was no option given to the petitioner to be<\/p>\n
_\/<\/p>\n
10. Having heard the counsel on both sides.,i..the.’:ori1;y it ” <\/p>\n
point that arises for our consideration is as to__\\X}hetherviti\u00a7e’ <\/p>\n
order of the Tribunal calis ‘for any int.erfere:nee -:ii1.lV:t’iiiisgwrit <\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
1 1. From the material    the
\npetitioner joined service. . as la””Veterinary
\nStoekman under the Govt!vand_’..subsequently
\npursuant to l\\\u00a5oj;ifieat’io1q  by MPSC,
\nthe   Project Chemist at
\nBangaiorellfiairyja\ufb01ncliby n’e~ti:fieaiio”n”‘diated 11\/8\/197] issued
\nby MPS(jxKhe iwasj  post of Project Chemist.<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  Director of Bangalore Dairy<\/p>\n
 1ette1f,j_to t.he*petitioner offering an appointment as a<\/p>\n
WPrcje’ct. jC’he1r1:vist.”s-iibject to certain terms and conditions. In<\/p>\n
the said letter;  was stated that the petitioner would be on<\/p>\n
fprobatio..nV1’ for a period of one year and other conditions of<\/p>\n
it 2..servic’e._as”applicable to the employees of the Bangalore Dairy<\/p>\n
‘–\u00abl\u00ab’7we”tiidlappiy to him and the petitioriefs concurrence to these<\/p>\n
Kljcoriditions were sought. Thereafter, by order dated<\/p>\n
19\/4\/1972 issued by the Director of Bangalore Diary, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was appointed as Project Ch\u20acl:\u00a7i1iS[ in the<\/p>\n
\u00a7\/”<\/p>\n
 frepartrrient of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services at
\nh  Mysore, on 29\/4\/ 1972. Thereafter, the petitioner sought his<\/p>\n
” posting at Bangalore Dairy as Project Chemist. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
3 __
\nsanctioned post on a pay scale of Rs.300–“\/’00 pm. One of<\/p>\n
the conditions stipulated in the said order was as follows:–<\/p>\n
“The Bangalore Dairy will not be responsible
\nany way for settlement of any claims or liabiliiies_c’   . it
\narising out Of the service Of Shri Md Ghouse? iv” ‘A<\/p>\n
to his joining duty with the Bangalore   <\/p>\n
response of his earlier sero_ice:_u2liptlI the.
\nHusbandry and
\nincluding arrears of  other
\narrears on ailfinancial’ ‘lilabvilititesyp aviiiibe liable to
\nbe settlefgiwbe thel  Lisbandry Dep it.
\nThe  absolutely no
\nrespons.ibil5i.ty.;’:\ufb01andwnol ainvol.oement with the
\nma,nne_r \u00b0i.”re_l ‘such settlement. The
\nappointee will to give an undertaking
\nin _vwriting Vag.re’eing_ that all claims on account of
\n&_ ‘hisv_lApast ‘seruice__.will be liable to be settled
\n between him and the Deptt. Of Animal<\/p>\n
it  H’u.sVi:.anaryv  Vety. Services.”<\/p>\n
 .c  12$ ” Thereafter, the petitioner was relieved by the<\/p>\n
by a letter dated l8\/5\/ 1972 the petitioner made a
\nrepresentation to the Secretary, Government of Mysore<\/p>\n
Agriculture and Forest Department that he had accepted the<\/p>\n
\/.\n<\/p>\n
el\ufb01v<\/p>\n
post of Project Chemist on deputation basis. It appears that<\/p>\n
the Government did not respond to the said represenrtat.i;on,_<\/p>\n
Thereafter, the petitioner was regularised from<\/p>\n
and till his retirement on 31 \/ 7\/ 1990, there was   it<\/p>\n
by the petitioner regarding his COl;J,.EiI1L:1a_I1C\u20ac’-,,t).l’<\/p>\n
terms of order of regularisatigonadated 24\/ 1  <\/p>\n
4\/5\/1972. It is only after his retiienient  gaetitioner
\nstarted making 1’epreseritaticins’\u00a7_    treated’ as a
\nGovernment servant. and  B  pensionary
\nbenefits under the B r;fo\\risi:\u00abjns <\/p>\n
13.  it is seen that the
\nUnder   and Forest Dept. by
\nletter dated 1 \/’  to the Director, Bangalore<\/p>\n
Diary stated 4″‘th_a1*t.h–e hp-.et’itioner had been selected by the<\/p>\n
 V’iiPs(j:c..{‘ibr,mer*l.y MPBC’]'”for the post of Project Chemist and he<\/p>\n
l’1a\u00a7afepo:i+r\u00ab\u00a7d in the Bangalore Dairy on \u00e9~\/ 5\/ 1972<\/p>\n
and ,_hence?'”r:t3i_ie: question of treating him as being on<\/p>\n
 _  “c1_eputat1~on to the Bangalore dairy does not arise and that he<\/p>\n
  “sho_nld*\u00ab_.be treated as regular candidate with the Bangalore<\/p>\n
 w.e.f. -4\/5\/1972 and that his past service up to<\/p>\n
 _u’4′.x4\u00bb\/5\/1972 Should be governed by Government Order<\/p>\n
No.C1.25.FS\u00a5’.69 dated 26\/3\/1970 and his service in the
\nBangalore Dairy from 4\/5\/1972 should be 1″egi3larised as per<\/p>\n
‘l 3 _<\/p>\n
mm<\/p>\n
the terms of the Government Order l\\lo.AF.74.VDD.71 dated<\/p>\n
13\/4\/1971. Accordingly, by order dated 24\/11\/1977 the<\/p>\n
KDDCL regularised his service at Bangalore Dairy,_lt”_l’is_<\/p>\n
relevant to observe that the order of regularisatiofilllh\u00e9\u00e9 _<\/p>\n
been challenged by the petitioner’.\u00ab.._V ‘I’he’1-‘el”ore, tine’ pctvitiorllervl<\/p>\n
was an employee of KDDCL   the said
\nemployment on certain   though not
\nexpressly and  in the year
\n1972 and  i\u00e9jcjfli  onjlattaining the age
\nof superanni,i\u20acatioi1linv     any demur.<\/p>\n
   that the appointment of the
\npetitionerllasplla  in Bangalore Dairy was a<\/p>\n
fresh 4ap’pointn1e\u00bbnt”al11d it was not a deputation post as<\/p>\n
 notification dated 7\/5\/E971 issued by the<\/p>\n
 applied and was selected and recruited<\/p>\n
l  as Pmject ‘Chemist. Infact, Notification dated 11 \/8\/ 1971<\/p>\n
ll.”-__li”ssxued byatlhe MPSC also clearly states that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
:se1eet.end for the post of Project Chemist pursuant to<\/p>\n
  notification dated 7\/ 5\/ 1971 inviting applications for the said<\/p>\n
Lllpost. Also, the offer of appointment as Project Chemist by<\/p>\n
Bangalore Dairy dated 29\/8\/1971 and the order of
\nappointment dated 19\/4\/1.972 clearly prescribes that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had to forfeit. claim of past service in the<\/p>\n
ex<\/p>\n
__  _<\/p>\n
department. Only because the relieving order 25\/9\/1972<\/p>\n
stated that the petitioner was joining Bangalore <\/p>\n
deputation basis. the contention of the <\/p>\n
continued to be a Government servan_t””‘underp the<\/p>\n
Department of Animal Husbar-‘dIy_y and’-Veteririaryy: Servicesd<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted. On a  if  ifiof the
\naforementioned dOCuI’E1\u20acV1’1:”if.sv:”E1_1.O;l.;lg;j_hTitl1._’l9lD1’J\u00a7XL11’\u20ac  dated
\n21\/ 2\/ 1974 and Annexule. by which
\nthe services of   irje\u00e9iil-a\ufb01ised in Bangalore
\nDairy would   \ufb01oner had accepted a
\nfresh    at Bangalore Dairy
\nand  servant w.e.f. 4\/5\/1972.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore. the” ‘liribuv’i1al”- justified in holding that the<\/p>\n
. l.petitioner–.”icoul.d notlhellltreated as Govt. servant till the date<\/p>\n
of retirerriegit; dO.r_r_jthe basis of the aforesaid discussion it is<\/p>\n
Cl\u20ac’8.A1’\u00bb__’1VLhat.  hetitioner was not sent on deputation as<\/p>\n
ff”-‘..__VPr0ject “Chemist at Bangalore Dairy. The order of the<\/p>\n
   therefore. does not call for any interference on<\/p>\n
 –.D”me\u00a7”its.\n<\/p>\n
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
\ncertain decisions in the case of K.Sa.njeeva Suvarna.\n<\/p>\n
—-vs.~ The Accountant General (A 82. F), Karnataka and<\/p>\n
others [W.P.No.26215\/1997) disposed of On 2\/8\/1999, a<\/p>\n
.r%y,\u00a2<\/p>\n
_.4\u00bb”\n<\/p>\n
_lL\u00a7_<\/p>\n
18. More over, the application filed before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is also liable to be dismissed on account of gross<\/p>\n
delay and laches. Having accepted his position since\ufb01the<\/p>\n
year 1972. the petitioner cannot contend that  .<\/p>\n
treated as a Governrnent servant. _H>Tl’1O1,1g’_~l’1.l”‘t’l””‘i\u00e9_” ,case”_of__ <\/p>\n
Nar Singh Pal –vs.– Union of India; arid  <\/p>\n
in (2000 SCC (L 82. S) has been “r’e’i’i.eci~i1;pon to contend<\/p>\n
that there cannot be any .w.a:i_\\fei’  i.’a\u00a7ainst exercise
\nof fundamental  14 and 16.\n<\/p>\n
19. “”” H   alr\u00e9elof the View that there
\nis no    has been violated much
\nless a funldarnental_.lriglktland’therefore, the said decision is<\/p>\n
also not applicable. ”\n<\/p>\n
  gdff ‘lll’ie;’e is no merit in this Writ petition. The Writ<\/p>\n
petiti’onA   accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
Sdg\/I.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
*mvs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & B.V.Nagarathna …3_ 1982 he was deputecl to the National Dairy Research Institute (for short, ‘NDRI’) Bangalore, for a Diploma course in Dairing and on completion of the said eoursef”he,V”\u00ab.afas:_.v posted at Bangalore Daiiy. […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - 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\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-02T21:00:32+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\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd Ghouse S\\\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T21:00:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1582,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohd Ghouse S\\\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T21:00:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd Ghouse S\\\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - 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\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-02T21:00:32+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\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T21:00:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010"},"wordCount":1582,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010","name":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And ... on 24 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T21:00:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ghouse-so-mohd-peer-vs-the-director-animal-husbandry-and-on-24-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd Ghouse S\/O Mohd Peer vs The Director Animal Husbandry And … on 24 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/139603","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=139603"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139603\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}