{"id":154079,"date":"2010-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-23T02:28:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-22T20:58:09","slug":"karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                    Judgment reserved on 19th May, 2010\n                                     Judgment delivered on 5th July, 2010\n                                                            Court No.39\n\n               Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19042 of 2010\n                        Karamveer Singh & Anr.\n                                    Vs.\n                           State of U.P. & Ors.\n                                 ~~~~~~~\n\nHon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      The Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College, Vaina,
\nTehsil Khair, District Aligarh and Karamveer Singh claiming to be its
\nManager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 29th March,
\n2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh by which the claim
\nof the petitioner-Committee of Management for approving the elections of
\nthe Committee of Management of the Institution held on 7th December, 2008
\nwith Manoj Kumar as the President and Karamveer Singh as the Manager
\nhas been rejected and the election of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution held on 12th October, 2008 with Karamveer Singh as the President
\nand Sant Pal Singh as the Manager have been approved.\n<\/p>\n
      It is stated in the writ petition that that Shiksha Prasarini Samiti,
\nVaina, Tehsil Khair, which is a Society registered under the provisions of
\nthe Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’),
\nruns an Intermediate College by the name of Sarvodaya Inter College
\n(hereinafter referred to as the ‘College’). The College has its Scheme of
\nAdministration. In the election of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution held on 5th December, 2004, Sant Pal Singh was elected as the
\nPresident and Karmaveer Singh was elected as the Manager. This election
\nwas approved by the Regional Level Committee on 9th February, 2005 and
\nthe District Inspector of Schools also attested the signatures of Karamveer
\nSingh as the Manager by the order dated 16\/17 th February, 2005. Thereafter,
\nthe election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on
\n12th October, 2008 in which Karamveer Singh was elected as the President
\nand Sant Pal Singh was elected as the Manager. The District Inspector of
\nSchools did not approve this election by the order dated 5th November, 2008
\nand a further direction was issued for holding of the elections under the
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
supervision of Balbeer Singh as the Election Officer and Ranveer Singh as
\nthe Observer.\n<\/p>\n
      Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by the District Inspector of
\nSchools, the Election Officer published the election notification in daily
\nnewspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’. Election of the Committee of Management of
\nthe Institution was held on 7th December, 2008 in which Karamveer Singh
\nwas elected as the Manager. The papers were sent by the Election Officer to
\nthe District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools by the
\norder dated 30th March, 2009, on the basis of the communication dated 30th
\nMarch, 2009 sent by Sant Pal Singh that a compromise had taken place
\nbetween the parties and it was agreed that the elections dated 12th October,
\n2008 with Karamveer Singh as the President and Sant Pal Singh as the
\nManager should be approved, passed an order dated 30th March, 2009
\napproving the elections of the Committee of Management held on 12th
\nOctober, 2008 with Karamveer Singh as the President and Sant Pal Singh as
\nthe Manager and also attested the signatures of Sant Pal Singh as the
\nManager.\n<\/p>\n
      This order dated 31st March, 2009 was challenged by one Manoj
\nKumar, claiming himself to be a life member of the Society, in Writ
\nPetition No.31128 of 2009 and the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution with Karamveer Singh as the Manager was arrayed as respondent
\nno.4. A further prayer was made to hold election of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution. This petition was disposed of by the
\njudgment and order dated 24th June, 2009 with the following observations:-\n<\/p>\n
                           “Grievance of the petitioner is that no real election
\n                   of Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter
\n                   College, Tehsil Khair, Aligarh took place, however, two
\n                   sets of persons set up two fictitious elections and
\n                   thereafter on the basis of compromise between them
\n                   fictitious election of one of the sets was approved by
\n                   D.I.O.S. through order dated 31.3.2009, copy of which is
\n                   Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Even though in writ
\n                   petition it has not been stated that petitioner also intended
\n                   to contest election, however such assertion was orally
\n                   been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           The petitioner is directed to immediately file a
\n                   detailed application before the D.I.O.S., Aligarh seeking
\n                   recall of his order dated 31.3.2009 and consequential
\n                   orders if any. The matter shall be decided very
\n                   expeditiously by D.I.O.S., Aligarh after issuing notice to
\n                   Santpal, Govind Singh and Karm Veer. Representation is
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
                    stated to have already been filed on 12.6.2009 copy of
\n                    which is Annexure no.3 to the writ petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Let the copy of the said representation be filed
\n                    again alongwith certified copy of this order and
\n                    supplementary representation if considered necessary
\n                    before the D.I.O.S. D.I.O.S. must make all efforts to
\n                    decide the matter within two months from the date of
\n                    receipt of a certified copy of this order alongwith copy of
\n                    the representation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thereafter, another Writ Petition No.64147 of 2009 was filed by the
\nCommittee of Management of the Institution with Karamveer Singh as the
\nManager and Manoj Kumar for a direction upon the District Inspector of
\nSchools to recognise the election of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution held on 7th December, 2008 with Manoj Kumar as the President
\nand Karamveer Singh as the Secretary\/Manager. This petition was dismissed
\nby the judgment and order dated 26th November, 2009. The said order with
\nthe array of the parties is quoted below :-\n<\/p>\n
                    ” Writ Petition No.64147 of 2009\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    1.    Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter
\n                          College, Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh,
\n                          through its Manager Karamvir Singh son of Amar
\n                          Pal Singh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    2.    Karamvir Singh son of Amar Pal Singh, Resident
\n                          of Village Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh,
\n                          Manager, Committee of Management, Sarvodaya
\n                          Inter College, Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District
\n                          Aligarh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    3.    Manoj Kumar son of Sri Muneem Singh, Resident
\n                          of Village and Post Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District
\n                          Aligarh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                               ...............     Petitioners.\n\n                                              Versus\n\n                    1.    District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh.\n<\/pre>\n
                    2.    Shiksha Prasarini Samiti, Vaina, Tehsil Khair,
\n                          District Aligarh, through its alleged President Sri
\n                          Govind Pal Singh son of Lal Singh and alleged
\n                          Secretary Sri Sant Pal Singh son of Sri Saudan
\n                          Singh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    3.    Deputy Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies,
\n                          Aligarh Division, Agra.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                …………..   Respondents.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
       The petitioner no.3 has approached this Court
\nthrough writ petition no. 31128\/09 for redressal of his
\ngrievance which he represented through the
\nrepresentation dated 12.6.09 to D.I.O.S. and in the said
\nwrit petition, the following order was passed:-\n<\/p>\n
       “The petitioner is directed to immediately file a
\ndetailed application before the D.I.O.S., Aligarh seeking
\nrecall of his order dated 31.3.2009 and consequential
\norders if any. The matter shall be decided very
\nexpeditiously by D.I.O.S. , Aligarh after issuing notice to
\nSantpal, Govind Singh and Karm Veer. Representation is
\nstated to have already been filed on 12.6.2009 copy of
\nwhich is Annexure no.3 to the writ petition. ”\n<\/p>\n
       The present writ petition has been filed with the
\nfollowing prayers:-\n<\/p>\n
“i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
\nmandamus, commanding the respondent District
\nInspector of Schools Aligarh to recognize election of
\ncommittee of management of Sarvodya Inter College,
\nVaina, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh and attest signatures
\nof petitioner no.2 as Manager thereof.\n<\/p>\n
ii. to issue ad interim mandamus, commanding the
\nrespondent District Inspector of Schools Aligarh to
\nrecognize election of committee of management of
\nSarvodaya Inter College, Vaina, Tehsil Khair, District
\nAligarh and attest signatures of petitioner no.2 as
\nManager thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
       In substance, the relief sought in this writ petition
\nis identical to the relief sought in writ petition no.
\n31128\/09.\n<\/p>\n
       I have heard Sri B.B.Paul learned senior counsel
\nassisted by Sri A.P. Paul learned counsel for the
\npetitioner and learned standing counsel as well as Sri
\nAbhinash Kumar Sharma intervener.\n<\/p>\n
       Sri B.B.Paul learned counsel for the petitioner
\nsubmits that only prayer in this writ petition is to fix
\nsometime for disposal of representation made by the
\npetitioner before the D.I.O.S. as while deciding the writ
\npetition no. 31128\/09, no time limit was fixed by this
\ncourt directing the District Inspector of Schools to decide
\nthe representation\/application .\n<\/p>\n
       After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am
\nof the view that relief sought by the petitioner amounts to
\nmodification of the order passed by Hon. Mr. Justice
\nS.U.Khan in the said writ petition and that cannot be
\ngone into this writ petition. Otherwise also on the same
\nset of fact , no second writ petition is maintainable .\n<\/p>\n
       The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
       However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an
\nappropriate application seeking modification of order
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
                    dated 24.6.09 passed by His Lordship Hon. Mr. Justice
\n                    S.U.Khan in writ petition no. 31128\/09.”\n<\/p>\n
      There is nothing on the record to indicate that any application was
\nfiled by the aforesaid petitioners in Writ Petition No.31128 of 2009 for
\nmodification of the order dated 24th June, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
      However, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 24th
\nJune, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.31128 of 2009, the District Inspector
\nof Schools issued notice to Sant Pal Singh as well as Karamveer Singh
\nfixing 18th November, 2009 and ultimately by the order dated 30th January,
\n2010 passed an order that elections of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution should be held within three months by Balbeer Singh as the
\nElection Officer and Ranveer Singh as the Observer from the list of 130
\nmembers of the General Body. He further directed that till the elections are
\nheld, the present position shall continue.\n<\/p>\n
      This order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of
\nSchools was challenged both by Karamveer Singh and Sant Pal Singh in
\nWrit Petition No.6212 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.6962 of 2010
\nrespectively. These two petitions were allowed to the extent indicated in the
\njudgment and order dated 9th February, 2010 with the following
\nobservations:-\n<\/p>\n
                              “Writ Petition No.6962 of 2010 has been filed by
\n                    the Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter College,
\n                    Vaina, District Aligarh and Sant Pal Singh claiming
\n                    himself to be its Manager for setting aside the order dated
\n                    30th January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of
\n                    Schools, Aligarh.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Writ Petition No.6212 of 2010 has been filed by
\n                    the Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Inter College,
\n                    Vaina, District Aligarh and Karam Veer Singh claiming
\n                    himself to be its Manager for quashing the order dated
\n                    30th January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of
\n                    Schools, Aligarh to the extent it permits the Committee
\n                    of Management with Sant Pal Singh as the Manager to
\n                    continue to function till the fresh elections are held.
\n                    ……………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              Inasmuch as the copy of the representation
\n                    submitted by the Committee of Management with Manoj
\n                    Kumar as Manager was not supplied to the Committee of
\n                    Management with Sant Pal Singh as the Manager, the
\n                    submission of Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for
\n                    the petitioners that opportunity had not been given to file
\n                    a reply, deserves to be accepted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
                          The order dated 30th January, 2010 passed by the
\n                   District Inspector of Schools is, accordingly, set aside.
\n                   The District Inspector of Schools may now pass a fresh
\n                   order after supplying the documents to the parties. Such
\n                   exercise may be undertaken by the District Inspector of
\n                   Schools expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
\n                   weeks.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          The relief prayed in Writ Petition No.6212 of 2010
\n                   for quashing the order dated 30th January, 2010,
\n                   therefore, stands allowed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed to the
\n                   extent indicated above.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 9th February, 2010
\npassed by this Court, the District Inspector of Schools passed the order dated
\n29th March, 2010 approving the elections of the Committee of Management
\nof the Institution held on 12th October, 2008 with Karamveer Singh as the
\nPresident and Sant Pal Singh as the Manager. The elections held on 7th
\nDecember, 2008 with Karamveer Singh as the Manager and Manoj Kumar
\nas the President were not approved.\n<\/p>\n
      It is this order dated 29th March, 2010 of the District Inspector of
\nSchools that has been impugned in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
      In the said order dated 29th March, 2010, the District Inspector of
\nSchools has made the following observations :-\n<\/p>\n
1.    Pursuant to the judgment and order dated 9th February, 2010 passed by
\nthe Court, a two member Committee consisting of the Principal, Naurangi
\nLal Government Inter College and the Principal of Kirandevi Government
\nInter College was constituted to look into the matter. The said Committee
\nsubmitted its report on 27th March, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
2.    On the basis of the report submitted by the aforesaid two member
\nCommittee and the submissions made by the parties and the documents
\navailable on record, it transpires that Karamveer Singh was elected as the
\nPresident of the Committee of Management of the Institution in the election
\nheld on 12th October, 2008 and after approval was granted to the said
\nelections by the District Inspector of Schools on 30th March, 2009,
\nKaramveer Singh presided over the meetings of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution as is clear from the documents available on
\nrecords and the contention of Karamveer Singh and Sant Pal Singh that
\nsignatures of Karamveer Singh had been fraudulently obtained on blank
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
registers, cannot be accepted since Karamveer Singh was an experienced
\nperson who had been elected as the Manager in the earlier election.\n<\/p>\n
3.    By the order dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the District Inspector
\nof Schools, the Committee of Management of the Institution with Karamveer
\nSingh as the President was approved on the basis of the elections held on
\n12th October, 2008 and no complaint whatsoever was raised by Karamveer
\nSingh for a long period of seven months about the said elections and,
\ntherefore, it is not proper for Karamveer Singh to raise any objection now
\nthat he was not elected as the President of the Committee of Management of
\nthe Institution in the election held on 12th October, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
4.    When Karamveer Singh took part in the election of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution held on 12th October, 2008 and he was elected
\nas the President, then there was no occasion for Karamveer Singh and his
\nsupporters to hold any election on 7th December, 2008 as a result of which
\nthe said elections were stayed by the District Inspector of Schools by the
\norder dated 5th November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Some members of the General Body have submitted affidavits that
\nelections were not held on 7th December, 2008 while some members of the
\nGeneral Body have submitted affidavits that elections were not held on 12th
\nOctober, 2008. It appears that such affidavits have been filed under pressure
\nand, therefore, cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
6.    In view of the aforesaid, after the elections of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution were held on 12th October, 2008, there was no
\ngood reason to fraudulently hold elections on 7th December, 2008 and it is
\nalso not possible to approve this election said to have been held on 7th
\nDecember, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
7.    The representation is, accordingly, decided that the election of the
\nCommittee of Management of the Institution held on 12th October, 2008 with
\nKaramveer Singh as the President and Sant Pal Singh as the Manager, which
\nhad earlier been approved, is valid.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vinod Sinha
\nsubmitted that the District Inspector of Schools could not have constituted a
\nCommittee of two Principals’ of the Government Inter College for
\ninvestigating and finding out the facts, as essential functions required to be
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
performed by the District Inspector of Schools could not have been
\ndelegated and in support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the
\njudgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Atarra Post
\nGraduate College, Atarra, Banda Vs. Vice-Chancellor, Bundelkhand
\nUniversity, Jhansi & Anr., 1988 UPLBEC 821. He further submitted that
\nreliance has been placed by the District Inspector of Schools on the report
\nsubmitted by the said Committee but a copy of the said report was not made
\navailable to the petitioners and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to
\nfile objections against the said report. He has, therefore, submitted that the
\nimpugned order dated 29th March, 2010 deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent
\nno.5-Committee of Management of the Institution with Sant Pal Singh as the
\nManager has, however, supported the order passed by the District Inspector
\nof Schools. It is his submission that in the elections of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution held on 12th October, 2008, Karamveer Singh
\nwas elected as the President and Sant Pal Singh was elected as the Manager
\nand though the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 5th
\nNovember, 2008 had disapproved the said election and a direction was given
\nfor holding fresh election, but when Sant Pal Singh represented before the
\nDistrict Inspector of Schools, a direction was issued by the District Inspector
\nof Schools on 5th December, 2008 to the Election Officer and the Supervisor
\nnot to hold the election and ultimately by the order dated 31st March, 2009,
\nthe District Inspector of Schools approved the elections of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution held on 12th October, 2008. Ever since then
\nthe meetings of the Committee of Management of the Institution have been
\nheld which have been presided over by petitioner no.1-Karamveer Singh as
\nthe President. However, Manoj Kumar in the alleged capacity as life
\nmember of the General Body of the Society filed Writ Petition No.31128 of
\n2009 with the allegation that the elections held on 12th October, 2008 had
\nbeen disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 5th
\nNovember, 2008 and a direction had been issued to hold fresh election but
\nno elections had been held and Karamveer Singh and Sant Pal Singh had
\ncolluded and had got the Committee of Management elected on 12th October,
\n2008 approved. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
\nrespondent that instead of filing any representation pursuant to the directions
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
issued by this Court in the order dated 24th June, 2009 passed in Writ
\nPetition No.31128 of 2009, Manoj Kumar manipulated Karamveer Singh
\nand with his collusion filed another Writ Petition No.64147 of 2009 setting
\nup a contrary case that election of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution had infact been held on 7th December, 2008 in which Karamveer
\nSingh was elected as the Manager and Manoj Kumar was elected as the
\nPresident and a direction was sought that the District Inspector of Schools
\nshould approve this election. It is also the contention of learned Senior
\nCounsel for the respondent that the impugned order dated 29th March, 2010
\nwas passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of the material
\navailable on record and the findings do not suffer from any perversity which
\nmay call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
      It is not in dispute that prior to the holding of the elections in 2008,
\nearlier elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were
\nheld on 5th December, 2004 in which Karamveer Singh was elected as the
\nManager and Sant Pal Singh was elected as the President.\n<\/p>\n
      The case of the respondents is that subsequent elections of the
\nCommittee of Management of the Institution were validly held on 12th
\nOctober, 2008 in which Karamveer Singh was elected as the President and
\nSant Pal Singh was elected as the Manager but the District Inspector of
\nSchools disapproved this election by the order dated 5th November, 2008 on
\nthe ground that they were held without any Observer having been appointed
\nand it is for this reason that a direction was issued by the District Inspector
\nof Schools for holding elections of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution with Balbeer Singh as the Election Officer and Ranveer Singh as
\nObserver. It needs to be mentioned that in the order dated 5th November,
\n2008, the District Inspector of Schools noticed that Karamveer Singh who
\nwas elected as the Manager in the elections of the Committee of
\nManagement of the Institution held in 2004 had submitted a letter dated 18th
\nSeptember, 2008 informing the District Inspector of Schools that Balbeer
\nSingh had been nominated as the Election Officer and sought permission to
\nhold the elections after nominating an Observer. No objection whatsoever
\nwas filed by Karamveer Singh that he had not been elected as the President
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Committee of Management of the Institution or that the election had
\nnot been held on 12th October, 2008. On the other hand, Karamveer Singh
\npresided over the meetings of the Committee of Management of the
\nInstitution as President.\n<\/p>\n
      It is also the case of the respondents that feeling aggrieved by the
\naforesaid directions issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Sant Pal
\nSingh submitted a representation to the District Inspector of Schools
\npointing out that the Committee of Management of the Institution had duly
\nnominated Devi Singh as the Election Officer and though a request was
\nmade to the District Inspector of Schools for appointing an Observer but
\nsince no Observer was appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, the
\nelections, as per the schedule, were held on 8th October, 2008. It is also the
\ncase of the respondents that the District Inspector of Schools was satisfied
\nwith the representation filed by Sant Pal Singh and so he passed an order on
\n5th December, 2008 not only requiring Karamveer Singh to submit a reply as
\nto why he had filed a false complaint, but also issued direction to the
\nElection Officer and the Supervisor appointed by him not to hold elections
\ntill a reply was submitted by Karamveer Singh, but despite the aforesaid
\nspecific directions of the District Inspector of Schools, elections were held
\non 7th December, 2008 in which it is stated that Karamveer Singh was
\nelected as the Manager and Manoj Kumar was elected as the President.\n<\/p>\n
      The District Inspector of Schools in the order dated 31st March, 2009
\nhas noticed that Sant Pal Singh had submitted a letter dated 30 th March, 2009
\npointing out that no dispute existed with regard to the constitution of the
\nCommittee of Management of the Institution since a compromise had taken
\nplace between the parties and the elections held on 12th October, 2008 may
\nbe approved. It is on the basis of the said communication that the District
\nInspector of Schools by the order dated 31st March, 2009 approved the
\nelections held on 12th October, 2008 but Karamveer Singh as the President
\nand Sant Pal Singh as the Manager.\n<\/p>\n
      What is surprising is that one Manoj Kumar claiming himself to be a
\nlife member of the Society which runs the Institution filed Writ Petition
\nNo.31128 of 2009 on 21st June, 2009 and on the basis of the averments made
\nin Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the writ petition, sought a direction that the order
\ndated 31st March, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools should be
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
set aside and a direction should be issued to hold elections of the Committee
\nof Management of the Institution in accordance with law. Paragraphs 18 and
\n19 of the writ petition are quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
                          “18. That in response to said letter Sri Devi
\n                   Singh, election officer submitted his reply dated
\n                   25.10.2008 that election had been held on 12.10.2008.
\n                   However, same was not approved by the District
\n                   Inspector of Schools, Aligarh and accordingly was
\n                   cancelled and Sri Ranveer Singh was appointed as
\n                   observer to denovo hold election of the committee of
\n                   management of the college.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          19. That while the election was to take place,
\n                   the theory of compromise was hurled in between
\n                   Karamveer Singh and Sant Pal Singh and a request was
\n                   made to District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh to approve
\n                   election dated 12.10.2008 and without holding of fresh
\n                   election by a duly appointed Election Officer and
\n                   observer, the respondent District Inspector of Schools,
\n                   Aligarh has abruptly passed impugned order dated
\n                   31.3.2009 on the basis of alleged compromise between
\n                   the groups represented by Karamveer Singh and Sant Pal
\n                   Singh. …………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      However, during the course of hearing of the petition, learned counsel
\nappearing for Manoj Kumar stated that two sets of persons had set up two
\nfictitious claim and on the basis of the compromise between them, fictitious
\nelection of one set was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by the
\norder dated 31st March, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
      What is to be noticed is that Manoj Kumar had claimed in the said
\nWrit Petition No. 31128 of 2009 that despite the directions issued by the
\nDistrict Inspector of Schools on 5th November, 2008 fresh elections of the
\nCommittee of Management of the Institution had not been held but a
\nstatement was made by his counsel that another set of election had been
\nheld, which he claimed to be fictitious, but in the present petition what is
\nstated is that in the election held on 7th December, 2008 Manoj Kumar was
\nelected as the President and Karamveer Singh was elected as the Manager.
\nThis claim of the present petitioner is, therefore, clearly contrary to what
\nwas stated by Manoj Kumar in Writ Petition No.31128 of 2009 filed in June,
\n2009 that after 12th October, 2008 no fresh election had not been held.\n<\/p>\n
      It transpires that subsequently Manoj Kumar joined Karamveer Singh
\nand both of them filed Writ Petition No.64147 of 2009 in November, 2009.
\nIn this petition a statement was made in paragraph 6 that in the elections
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
held on 7th December, 2008 Manoj Kumar was elected as the President and
\nKaramveer Singh was elected as the Manager and in paragraph 7 it was
\nstated that no election was held on 12th October, 2008. This petition was
\ndismissed by this Court but liberty was granted to the petitioners to file an
\napplication seeking modification of the order dated 24th June, 2009 but no
\nsuch application was filed presumably for the reason that in the earlier Writ
\nPetition No. 31128 of 2009 Manoj Kumar had made a statement that no
\nelection had been held despite the directions issued by the District Inspector
\nof Schools on 5th November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus, though Karamveer Singh was elected as the President in the
\nelections held on 12th October, 2008 which elections were approved by the
\nDistrict Inspector of Schools on 31st March, 2009 and he had continued to
\npreside the meetings of the Committee of Management of the Institution, but
\nin November 2009 he turned around and started claiming that he had been
\nelected as the Manager in the election held on 7th December, 2008 and
\nelection had not been held on 12th October, 2008. In this election Manoj
\nKumar claims to have been elected as President though, as stated above, he
\nhad denied in Writ Petition No.31128 of 2009 that such election had been
\nheld. Karamveer Singh had joined Manoj Kumar in Writ Petition No.64147
\nof 2009. In such circumstances, it is not possible to approve the election of
\nthe Committee of Management of the Institution held on 7th December, 2008
\nand the District Inspector of Schools committed no infirmity in rejecting this
\nelection.\n<\/p>\n
      It is, however, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
\npetitioners that the District Inspector of Schools could not have constituted
\nthe two member Committee for investigating and finding out the facts since
\nessential functions could not have been delegated.\n<\/p>\n
      In the present case, the District Inspector of Schools required the two
\nmember Committee to submit a report and it is on the basis of the said report
\nand the documents available on record and the submissions made by the
\nlearned counsel for the parties that the order was passed by the District
\nInspector of Schools. The two member Committee had not been asked to
\ndecide the matter. The decision rendered in Committee of Management,
\nAtarra Post Graduate College (supra) is, therefore, not applicable to the facts
\nof the present case.\n<\/p>\n
                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
      The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
\npetitioners that copy of the report was not made available to the petitioners
\nand opportunity was not granted to file any reply cannot also be accepted.
\nThe matter has been examined on merits and it has been found as a fact that
\nthe claim of the petitioners for granting approval to the elections held on 7th
\nDecember, 2008 cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, not a fit case where this
\nCourt should interfere with the impugned order only on the ground that
\nopportunity had not been granted to the petitioners to file reply to the report
\nsubmitted by the two member Committee before the District Inspector of
\nSchools.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be
\ndismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Date: 05.07.2010
\nGS\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 2010 Judgment reserved on 19th May, 2010 Judgment delivered on 5th July, 2010 Court No.39 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19042 of 2010 Karamveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. ~~~~~~~ Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J. 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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaramveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 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\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-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=\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-22T20:58:09+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T20:58:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4674,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-22T20:58:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 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":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 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\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-22T20:58:09+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T20:58:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010"},"wordCount":4674,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010","name":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. ... on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-22T20:58:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karamveer-singh-anr-vs-state-of-u-p-thru-secr-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karamveer Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secr. … on 5 July, 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\/154079","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=154079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}