{"id":152786,"date":"2002-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-27T16:03:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-27T10:33:01","slug":"shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 125, 98 (2002) DLT 48, 2002 (63) DRJ 417<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Khan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Khan, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Though petitioner&#8217;s detention period was to<br \/>\nexpire shortly in the next few days, his counsel still<br \/>\ninsisted on testing the waters and wanted us to examine<br \/>\nthe validity of the detention order any way.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Petitioner was detained by order dated 4.8.2000<br \/>\nunder Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act which was executed on 30.3.2001.<br \/>\nHe was supplied the grounds of detention within<br \/>\nprescribed time. He also made a representation against<br \/>\nhis detention which was rejected. His detention order<br \/>\nwas later approved and confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Petitioner challenges the detention order on<br \/>\noft-repeated grounds viz. long and undue delay in<br \/>\npassing of detention order and in its execution,<br \/>\nnon-supply of legible copies of some documents and<br \/>\nfailure of sponsoring authority to place some<br \/>\nmaterial\/information before the detaining authority and<br \/>\nall this, according to his, vitiated the detention.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Petitioner claims that there was a delay of 26<br \/>\nmonths in passing the detention order. While the<br \/>\nalleged incident against him had taken place on<br \/>\n16.6.1998, proposal for passing the detention order was<br \/>\nmade by the sponsoring authority on 11.6.1999. The only<br \/>\nexplanation given by the detaining authority for this<br \/>\ndelay was that it had received the relevant documents on<br \/>\n28.7.2000 which did not justify the delay. As a matter<br \/>\nof fact, almost all documents pertained to 1998 and were<br \/>\nin possession of sponsoring authority and at least these<br \/>\nshould have been forwarded to Detaining Authority<br \/>\npromptly. Even sponsoring authority had failed to<br \/>\nexplain the delay of 11 months from the date of<br \/>\ncomplaint against him (14.7.1999) in sending documents<br \/>\nto the detaining authority. All this had frustrated the<br \/>\nobject of passing the detention order and snapped the<br \/>\nconnection between his alleged prejudicial activity and<br \/>\nhis detention. Support for this is drawn from several<br \/>\nSupreme Court judgments in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1202929\/\">Ahamed Mohaideen Zabbar v.<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu and Ors.<\/a> 1999 (2) JCC SC 292,<br \/>\n <a href=\"\/doc\/1983579\/\">S.K. Serajul v. State of West Bengal<br \/>\nand  Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar<\/a> v. Sh. S. Ramamurthi and<br \/>\nOrs. .\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Petitioner also alleges that there was a delay<br \/>\nof seven months in execution of detention order which<br \/>\nwould invalidate it. Even as this order was passed on<br \/>\n4.8.2000, it was not executed till 30.3.2001 and there<br \/>\nis no worthwhile explanation for this. Reliance is<br \/>\nplaced for this again on Supreme Court judgments in<br \/>\n S.M.F. Sultan Abdul Kader v. Joint Secretary ,  K.M.P. Basheer v. State of Karnataka and<br \/>\nAnr. and 1992 Crl.L.J.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Petitioner&#8217;s next contention is that sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority had also failed to inform the detaining<br \/>\nauthority about his being in judicial custody which<br \/>\ncould have affected his decision either way. Similarly,<br \/>\nday to day orders passed by the ACMM were also not<br \/>\nplaced before that authority. The detention order was<br \/>\nverbatim reproduction of the dossier of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority and suffered from non-application of mind.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Petitioner also complains, though meekly, that<br \/>\nhe was not informed to make a representation against his<br \/>\ndetention and also alleges that there was a long and<br \/>\nundue delay in consideration and disposal of his<br \/>\nrepresentation dated 17.4.2001 which was rejected on<br \/>\n29.5.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The detaining authority, G.L. Meena, Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary (Home) has filed a counter affidavit giving<br \/>\nhis version. It is explained by him that proposal for<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s detention was received on 11.6.1999. It<br \/>\nwas put before the Screening committee on 5.7.1999 and<br \/>\nthereafter sponsoring authority was asked to furnish<br \/>\ndocuments\/information which were received in April 2000.<br \/>\nThe matter was again placed before Screening Committee<br \/>\non 27.4.2000 and the last document\/information was<br \/>\nreceived from the sponsoring authority on 28.7.2000<br \/>\nleading to the passing of the order on 2.8.2000 which<br \/>\nwas issued for execution on 4.8.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Mr. M.K. Arora, Deputy Secretary (Preventive),<br \/>\nCustoms has also filed an affidavit for R-1 in<br \/>\ncompliance of court order to explain why documents could<br \/>\nnot be furnished to detaining authority till April 2000.<br \/>\nHe has explained that NCT of Delhi had requested for<br \/>\nsubmission of all documents with translation by letter<br \/>\ndated 29.6.1999. The matter was processed at various<br \/>\nlevels and since these documents ran into several<br \/>\nhundred pages and as some of these had to be obtained<br \/>\nfrom courts also and were to be translated in Hindi, it<br \/>\ntook time to organise all this and to make available<br \/>\nthese documents to the detaining authority. As may as<br \/>\n724 documents had to be translated and to top it all an<br \/>\nadditional set of 41 heads of documents was also<br \/>\nrequisitioned which took some more time in the process.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It is denied that there was any delay in the<br \/>\nexecution of detention order issued on 4.8.2000 which<br \/>\nwas endorsed to Police Commissioner, Delhi and<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs for execution. Several raids<br \/>\nwere conducted by the local police and the Customs<br \/>\nAuthorities on petitioner&#8217;s given addresses but he could<br \/>\nnot be located. Action under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act was also<br \/>\ninitiated against him. He ultimately surrendered before<br \/>\nACMM on 29.3.2001 and was remanded to judicial custody<br \/>\nwhich fact was brought to the notice of detaining<br \/>\nauthority and orders obtained from the authority for<br \/>\nexecution of the order on him on 30.3.2001. The fact of<br \/>\npetitioner being in judicial custody was duly brought to<br \/>\nthe notice of the detaining authority who had considered<br \/>\nthe matter and directed execution of the order against<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Delay in consideration and disposal of<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s representation dated 17.4.2001 is also<br \/>\ndenied. It is explained that representation was<br \/>\nreceived in the Home Department on 18.4.2001 and a copy<br \/>\nof this was forwarded to the Central Government and also<br \/>\nto the Customs Department for seeking comments and<br \/>\nnecessary action. The comments of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority were received on 24.3.2001 and it was put up<br \/>\nbefore the detaining authority on the same day who<br \/>\nconsidered and rejected it on 17.4.2001 and the outcome<br \/>\nwas communicated to the petitioner on 30.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. R-1 has also explained the position in this<br \/>\nregard. It is submitted that since the representation<br \/>\nwas received after the reference was made to Advisory<br \/>\nBoard, it&#8217;s consideration was kept in abeyance in the<br \/>\nlight of Supreme Court decision in  K.M. Abdulla Kunhi &amp;<br \/>\nB.L. Abdul Khader v. Union of India .\n<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter comments were sought from sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority on 23.5.2001 and after receipt of those,<br \/>\nmatter was put up before the Under Secretary on<br \/>\n24.5.2001 and then before Joint Secretary on 25.5.2001<br \/>\nand was ultimately considered by the Revenue Secretary<br \/>\nand rejected on 29.5.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Petitioner&#8217;s allegation that he was not<br \/>\nsupplied legible copies of some documents is also<br \/>\nrefuted.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. The legal position on the delay resulting in<br \/>\ninvalidation of detention order is well settled. Mere<br \/>\ndelay long or short whether in passing the order or its<br \/>\nexecution does not necessarily vitiate a detention order<br \/>\nunless it is established to be unreasonable and<br \/>\ninordinate and goes unexplained. There is also no hard<br \/>\nand fast rule for determining the length of time on the<br \/>\nbasis of which the delay could be held to be<br \/>\nunreasonable or inordinate. There could be cases<br \/>\nrequiring detailed investigation under the Customs Act<br \/>\nor for purposes of criminal prosecution and in which the<br \/>\nDetaining Authority could also wait and watch whether to<br \/>\npass detention order or not. Similarly cases were<br \/>\nconceivable where a detenu was already in custody and<br \/>\nthere was no immediate prospect of his being released on<br \/>\nbail affording the detaining authority option to decide<br \/>\nwhether or not to take action in the matter. Likewise,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority may take its own time in asking<br \/>\nfor particulars or details from the sponsoring authority<br \/>\nto satisfy himself whether or not to pass the detention<br \/>\norder. Therefore, it would all depend on the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case and whether such delay was<br \/>\nsatisfactorily explained or not. Where there was no<br \/>\nplausible or satisfactory explanation forthcoming and<br \/>\nthe delay terminate the link between the detenu&#8217;s<br \/>\nalleged prejudicial activity and his detention it would<br \/>\nvitiate the detention order. But where it is<br \/>\nsatisfactorily explained, it would survive and sustain.<br \/>\nThe test in any case was whether the nexus between a<br \/>\ndetenu&#8217;s prejudicial activity had snapped from his<br \/>\ndetention and where it was found so, it would invalidate<br \/>\nthe order. Otherwise not.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. There is no dearth of Supreme Court judgments<br \/>\nlaying down and affirming this position and, therefore,<br \/>\nit would be a repeat exercise to quote from these to<br \/>\nprove the obvious. However, brief reference was<br \/>\nrequired to be made to the judgments cited by L\/C for<br \/>\npetitioner quashing the detention for the unexplained<br \/>\ndelay. Supreme Court did it in  Zabbar&#8217;s case because<br \/>\nGovernment had failed to explain the delay in passing<br \/>\nthe detention order. It was the same story in  Serajul&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase where seven months&#8217; delay in passing the order was<br \/>\nfound unreasonable and had gone unexplained. The same<br \/>\nwas the position in other cases decided either by the<br \/>\nSupreme Court or this court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. The only test that can be gathered and culled<br \/>\nout from these judgments is that the delay must be<br \/>\ninordinate and unreasonable and must go unexplained and<br \/>\nsnap the link between the detenu&#8217;s prejudicial activity<br \/>\nand his detention to vitiate a detention order. If it<br \/>\nis adequately and satisfactorily explained by the<br \/>\nAuthority, it would not invalidate the order,<br \/>\nirrespective of length of time involved.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. Applying this to the present case, it does not<br \/>\nseem to us that the alleged delay was unreasonable and<br \/>\nthat it had terminated the nexus between petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nalleged prejudicial activity and his detention in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case. Though the alleged<br \/>\ndelay involved in present case is two years or so but<br \/>\nrespondents have satisfactorily explained it. The<br \/>\nmatter involved voluminous record and hundreds of<br \/>\ndocuments which had to be procured and translated and<br \/>\nmade available to the detaining authority to enable him<br \/>\nto take a decision for passing the order. It is also<br \/>\nnot the case that there was any unreasonable or<br \/>\nunexplained delay in execution of the detention order.<br \/>\nRespondent&#8217;s case is that they had conducted several<br \/>\nraids on the local address of petitioner to serve the<br \/>\norder but he was absconding. Action was also taken<br \/>\nagainst him under Section 7 of COFEPOSA Act till he surrendered<br \/>\nbefore ACMM on 29.3.2001 and the order was served on him<br \/>\non 30.3.2001. Therefore, it can&#8217;t be said or held that<br \/>\nrespondents were sitting idle and watching on the fence<br \/>\nor were dilly delaying the execution of order. That is<br \/>\nhow the Supreme Court looked at the issue in  M.Ahmed<br \/>\nKutty v. Union of India 1990 SCC (Crl) 258:-<br \/>\n  ere after passing of the detention order<br \/>\nthe passage of time is caused by the detenu<br \/>\nhimself by absconding, the satisfaction of the<br \/>\ndetaining authority cannot be doubted and the<br \/>\ndetention cannot be held to be had on ground of<br \/>\ndelay in execution of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. Petitioner&#8217;s other plea that there was a delay<br \/>\nin consideration and disposal of his representation and<br \/>\nalso he was not informed of his right to make a<br \/>\nrepresentation is belied by the record. Respondents<br \/>\nhave given day to day account of how his representation<br \/>\nwas dealt with by them and the result communicated to<br \/>\nhim promptly and, therefore, it is not possible to hold<br \/>\nthat and delay in disposal of his representation had<br \/>\nvitiated the order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. Petitioner&#8217;s last plea that he was not<br \/>\nfurnished some legible documents represents his attempt<br \/>\nto catch at straws. In any case, it is refuted by the<br \/>\nrespondents and we have no reason to believe their<br \/>\nversion in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. This petition accordingly fails and is<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 VAD Delhi 125, 98 (2002) DLT 48, 2002 (63) DRJ 417 Author: Khan Bench: B Khan, V Aggarwal JUDGMENT Khan, J. 1. Though petitioner&#8217;s detention period was to expire shortly in the next few [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - 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\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-27T10:33:01+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\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T10:33:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1925,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-27T10:33:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - 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\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-27T10:33:01+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\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T10:33:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002"},"wordCount":1925,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002","name":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-27T10:33:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-brij-mohan-behl-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-23-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Brij Mohan Behl vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/152786","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=152786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}