{"id":166680,"date":"1999-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999"},"modified":"2018-10-03T00:35:51","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T19:05:51","slug":"sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","title":{"rendered":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) AWC 2204<\/div>\n
Author: O Garg<\/div>\n
Bench: O Garg<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  O.P. Garg, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.10.1998, Annexure-21 to the writ petition whereby wholesale licence of the petitioners to distribute the kerosene oil was cancelled by the licensing authority-respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24.2.1999, Annexure-26 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Paragraph 12 of the U. P. kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Control Order, 1962’).\n<\/p>\n
 2. The petitioner No. 2 M\/s. Deewan Oil Company is a registered firm having its office at Chhatta Bazar. Agra. The petitioner No. 1–Sanjeev Dewan is one of its partners. The firm carries on the business as a wholeseller in kerosene oil having licence No. 35 issued under the Control Order, 1962. The supplies of kerosene oil are received by the petitioners from the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the orders of the State Government, every wholesale licensee is required to distribute his<\/p>\n
quota  of kerosene oil  to  the retail dealers under the directions of the District    Supply    Officer    at    the distributive    points.    The    District Supply Officer fixed  quota  for each retail dealers and distributes month-wise quota for them. On 21.8.1998. the petitioners had taken the delivery of   34    Kilo    litres    (34,000   litres) kerosene  oil  in   three tankers   from local I.O.C. Depot, Idgah, Agra. One of   the   tankers   containing   12,000 litres of kerosene oil was meant for distribution to  10 retail dealers who were running the fair price shops in Tahsil Ball in district Agra. On getting a tip from  a  reliable  informer  that 12.000 litres of kerosene oil supplied to   the   petitioners   and   meant   for distribution   to   10 retail  dealers   in Tahsil Bah has been black-marketed in    Mohalla    Rambagh,    Agra,    the licensing authority respondent No. 3 deputed a team of officers to make an on the spot surprise check. The team visited different places in Tahsil Bah on 22nd and 23rd August. 1998 and interrogated Uma Charan Singh, one of the retail dealers in village Rampur Chandra    Saint.    On    account    of absence of the other retail dealers in the      concerned      villages,      the statements   of   their   near   relatives such as brothers and nephews were recorded.  The   team   could   not  visit village Simrai, which had two retail dealers, namely, Jeewa Ram and Ho Ram      Singh      on      account      of inaccessibility due to water logging in the rainy season. The statements of the concerned   persons   recorded   by the    team    have    been    filed    as Annexures-3 to 9 by the petitioners. It was reported that on 21.8.1998, no supplies were made to any one of the retail dealers. Consequently, a show cause   notice   dated   31.8.1998   was issued by the licensing authority to the    petitioners.   The    petitioners submitted their reply\/explanation on 24.9.1998.   The   licensing   authority cancelled     the     licence     of     the petitioners to deal in the kerosene oil as   a   wholeseller   by   order   dated 12.10.1998.   a   copy   of   which    is Annexure-21    to   the   writ   petition. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred   Appeal   No.   32   of   1998 before    the    Commissioner    of   the<\/p>\n
Division. The appellate authority refused to stay the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners preferred Civil Misc. Writ No. 39259 of 1998 before this Court. The operation of the order of cancellation dated 12.10.1998 was stayed. Ultimately, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 24.2.1999, a copy of which is Annexure-26 to the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Besides the cancellation of the licence of the petitioners, a First Information Report has also been lodged against them for having allegedly resorted to malpractice of black-marketing the kerosene oil which was meant for the distribution to the retail fair price shop dealers.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Order of cancellation of the licence and the order dismissing the appeal have been challenged both on legal and factual matrix. It is used that the petitioners have not black-marketed the kerosene oil which was meant for distribution to the retail dealers in Tahsil Bah and they have properly explained the supply of 12,000 litres of kerosene oil to the retail dealers (except for 1.810 litres) and that the stand taken by the petitioner is duly supported by signed vouchers, cash memos, other documents, including the stock registers of the retail dealers which were verified and signed by the concerned Supply Inspector and Lekhpal of the village. The order passed by the licensing authority, it is stated, is based on conjecture, inasmuch as, it has omitted to take into consideration the documentary evidence which the petitioners have filed to establish that the supply of kerosene oil delivery of which was taken by them on 21.8.1998. has been actually made to the retail dealers. In any case, it is asserted that the drastic action of cancellation of the licence was not justified in the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
 5. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed. In short, the order of cancellation as well as order dismissing the appeal have been justified on the ground that the petitioners have not supplied the<\/p>\n
kerosene oil, delivery of which was taken by them on 21.8.1998 to the retail dealers and that they have illegally sold the same on higher rates, thereby contravened the terms and conditions of the licence. It is maintained that the tanker containing 12,000 litres of kerosene oil was never taken on 21.8.1998 to the villages concerned to supply the same to the 10 retail dealers in the requisite quantity. A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to repel and explain the various allegations made in the counter-affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
 6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage according to the provisions of Rules of Court. Heard Sri Sunit Ambwani, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of the State.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The petitioners are undoubtedly the wholesale dealers of long standing to receive supply of kerosene oil from Indian Oil Corporation for being distributed to the retail dealers. The licence has been granted to them under the provisions of the Control Order, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Sri Sunil Ambwani learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the order of cancellation of the licence has been passed on the basis of certain statements recorded in the absence of the petitioners by the team of the officers deputed by the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies), Agra for an on the spot enquiry ; that the said statements stand falsified by the subsequent affidavits filed by the fair price shop dealers as well as from the various documents in which the entries of the supply of the kerosene oil on 21st August, 1998 were made and that the vouchers and the cash memos which are duly signed by the concerned persons give a death blow to the concocted theory that no kerosene oil was supplied by the petitioners to the fair price shop dealers on 21.8.1998. It was also emphatically urged that the order of cancellation has been passed in an arbitrary manner in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
and the procedure adopted to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners have black marketed 12,000 litres of oil delivered to them on 21.8.1998 does not stand the test of fairness.\n<\/p>\n
 9.   It is an indubitable fact that the licence which has been granted to the     petitioners     is     subject     to suspension\/cancellation if its terms and  conditions  are  in  any   manner violated. The order of suspension or cancellation    is    also    subject    to scrutiny      in      appeal      by      the Commissioner of the  Division.   It  is also not disputed that 12,000 litres of kerosene   oil   was   supplied   to   the petitioners   on   21.8.1998   from   the local  I.O.C.   Depot,   Idgah,  Agra.   In terms   of the   order   of the   District Supply  Officer,   this   quantity of oil was     to    be     distributed    by    the petitioners   to   ten   fair   price   shop dealers located in different villages at Tahsil  Bah  (Agra)  and  on   the   spot enquiry made   by   the   team   of   the officers appointed by the A.D.M. (Civil Supplies).     Agra,     to     verify     the correctness    or    otherwise    of    the complaint received by him, indicated that   the   kerosene   oil    was    not transported   by   any   tanker   to   the villages  in which  the aforesaid  fair price shop dealers were having their shops. In the rejoinder-affidavit,  the stand taken by the petitioners is that all the fair price shops in Tahsil Bah are situate in village having Kaccha road which become   unmotorable in rainy  season   on   which   heavy   oil tanker could not be plied ;  that the dealers   received   their   supply    on points convenient to them situated on main pucca road  where   the  tanker can be taken : that the supply was off-loaded   from  the  tanker  in  the drums owned by the dealers which were   then   taken  by   them   to  their respective shops   according to  their convenience. Out of 10 centres of the fair   price   shops,   villages   Dearak, Killa, Gopalpur and Farera are almost on the motorable roadside while other villages, namely, Raipura. Bhadouria, Rampur,   Chandra   Saini   are   at   a distance of few kilometers  from the main   road   and   are   accessible   by Kachcha roads. Village Simral, though is   on   Delhi   Gosali-road.   was   not accessible    on   account    of   water-\n<\/p>\n
logging as has been reported by the inspecting team. Uma Charan Singh respondent is having a fair price shop in  Rampur Chandra  Saini.   He has made a categorical statement that no supply of kerosene oil was made on 21.8.1998 and that the tanker of the plaintiff-petitioners did not arrive on that   date.   Besides   Uma   Charan Singh.   there  are  statements  of the near relatives of the other fair price shop-dealers who have,   in unerring terms, gave out that the kerosene oil was not supplied on 21.8.1998  and that the tanker of the petitioners was also not  seen  on  that  date.  Twelve thousand litres of kerosene oil in  10 drums was found lying on the  main road   outside  the  village  Farera  on 22.8.1998. Though in writ Jurisdiction the  controversy which  requires   the examination of the evidence   cannot be gone into and sifted but the facts remain that from the statements of various persons recorded by the team which made the surprise inspection in the presence of various villagers go to establish that kerosene oil was not supplied to anyone of the  fair price shop-dealers    at    ten    centres    on 21.8.1998 and that the tanker of the petitioner was not seen around. This part of the evidence falsifies the stand taken by the petitioners that  12,000 litres   kerosene  oil was   transported through a tanker for delivery of the oil in the specified quantity,  to  the  ten dealers in Tahsil Bah on 21.8.1998. After the receipt of the report of the Inspecting    team,     A.D.M.     (Civil Supplies) issued show cause notice to the     petitioners     and     ultimately cancelled the licence recording a firm finding that the kerosene oil which was meant for public distribution to the   ten   fair   price   shop-dealers   in Tahsil  Bah was niissupplied by the petitioners    by    selling    the    same elsewhere obviously on  higher rate. The Court would be loathe to upset this finding of fact in writ jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
 10. The submission of Sri Sunil Ambwani that the licensing authority and, for that matter, the appellate authority discarded the documentary evidence in preference of oral statements of certain witnesses recorded in the absence of the petitioners in an unjustified manner<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the order of cancellation and dismissal of appeal are vitiated. Is wide off the mark. The licensing authority has concluded that the various documents on which the petitioners relied upon have been fabricated or manufactured with a view to give fillip to their defence and the signatures of the concerned Supply Inspectors and the Lekhpal on the delivery vouchers and other documents are the product of the collusion of these officers with the petitioners. For the same reason, affidavits of the various fair price shop dealers which have been brought on record are afterthought. Some of the delivery vouchers bear the signatures In the handwriting of one and the same person though he has signed the same in different names. The reasons for manipulating the documents are not loo far to seek. When clinching evidence had come on record as a result of on the spot immediate enquiry that the kerosene oil was not transported from the tanker or delivered to the fair price shop dealers on 21.8.1998. the petitioners obviously in collusion with the Supply Inspectors made all out efforts to save their skin or to shield themselves by spinning a false story by coining fictitious documents. The licensing authority has rightly initiated departmental enquiry against the officials who have colluded with the petitioners to prepare a false defence for them.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Now comes the key question whether the impugned order withstands the test of scrutiny at the alter of the principles of natural justice. A brief summary of the decisions on the point may usefully be made. In the process of development of doctrine of natural Justice as applicable to administrative bodies, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India,<\/a> (1970) 1 SCR 457, is a turning point. It was said that under our Constitution the rule of law pervades over the entire field of administration. Every organ of the State under our constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. The concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities<\/p>\n
of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their functions in a    fair    and    just    manner.     The requirement   of acting   judicially   in essence is nothing but a requirement to   act   justly   and   fairly   and   not arbitrarily    or    capriciously.    The procedures   which   are   considered Inherent in the exercise of a judicial power    are    merely    those    which facilitate if not ensure a just and fair decision. In the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1973 (3) SCR 22.     it   was    observed    that    the administrative authorities concerned should   act   fairly,   impartially   and reasonably      and       where       the administrative officers are concerned, the   duty   is   not   so   much   to   act judicially but  to  act  fairly.  The oft quoted   celebrated   observations   of Justice   Krishna   Iyer   of   the   Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978   (1)   SCC   405,   have    left   an indelible Impact on the development of   the   law   on   the   point.    It   was commented  that the natural Justice though varying is the soul of the rule as fair play in action.  It extends to both    the    fields    of   judicial   and administrative.   The   administrative power in a democratic set up is not allergic   to   fairness   in   action   and discretionary executive justice cannot be degenerated into unilateral justice. Good  administration   demands  fair play   in   action   and    this   simple desideratum is the fount of natural justice.  Fairness  is  flexible  and  is intended for improving the quality of Government by injecting fair-play into its wheels. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India,<\/a>  1981 (42)  FLR 225 (SC),    Sarkaria.    J.,    speaking    for himself  and   Desai,   J.,   said   that irrespective   of  whether   the   power conferred   on   a   statutory   body   or Tribunal is administrative or quasi-judicial a duty to act fairly, that is, in consonance   with   the   fundamental principles   of  substantive justice  is generally implied. The presumption is that in a democratic polity wedded to the  rule of law.   the  State  or  the Legislature does not intend  that in the exercise of their statutory powers its functionaries should act unfairly or unjustly. The citations on the point<\/p>\n
may be multiplied since fairly abundant case law has come into existence. The modern concept of administrative law is that the State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. In Management M\/s. M. S. Natty Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd, v. State of Bihar and others, 1990 (60) FLR (SC) 785, it was observed that what is thus important in the modern administration is the fairness of procedure with elimination of element of arbitrariness. The State functionaries must act fairly and reasonably. That is, however, not the same thing to state that they must act judicially or quasi-judicially.\n<\/p>\n
 12. The decisions with regard to the question of applicability of the principle of natural justice do not all speak in the same voice and sometimes it is difficult to reconcile them. Nevertheless, a duty has been cast on the administrative authorities to act fairly, i.e., in consonance with the fundamental principles of substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n
 13. After having gone through the various illuminating decisions of the Apex Court on the question of observance of the fundamental principles of natural Justice, such as. Som Dutt v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 414 : Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor,<\/a> (1978) 2 SCC 836 : Gurdian Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab.<\/a> (19791 2 SCC 368 ; S. N. Mukherjt v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 ; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S. Gandhi and others<\/a>, (1991) 2 SCC 716 ; Managing Director ESIL, Hyderabad v. B, Karunakaran, JT 1993 (6) SC 1 and M. J. Sivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others<\/a>, AIR 1995 SC 1770, one cannot escape from the conclusion that the applicability of the principles of natural justice is not a rule of thumb or strait-jacket formula or an abstract proposition of law. It depends upon the facts of the case, nature of the enquiry and the effect of the order\/decision on the rights of the person and attendant circumstances. It is noticeable features that the Courts have not hesitated in moulding the concept of<\/p>\n
natural justice to suit the exigencies and situations.\n<\/p>\n
 14. An order arising out of the cancellation of the licence is undoubtedly penal in nature and has serious repercussions on the business, reputation and goodwill of the dealer. He is visited with serious evil consequences. In the case of cancellation of the authorization, if the rule of law is to prevail, it is Implicit that the State executive cannot act in such matters arbitrarily or on mere humour or caprice. An order passed against the dealer which visits with such serious consequences and which is penal in nature can only be passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Supreme Court in Binapani Dei’s case. AIR 1967 SC 1269. In the administrative decision, the requirement of principles of natural Justice would be satisfied if the aggrieved person is informed of the reasons to initiate action against him and is called upon to submit his explanation to the various complaints of alleged irregularities which have surfaced after a preliminary enquiry. If after taking into consideration the report of the preliminary enquiry and the reply of the aggrieved person pursuant to the show cause notice issued to him a reasoned and speaking order is passed, in that situation the person proceeded against cannot complain of the violation of the principles of natural justice. In the Instant case, for the reasons stated above. the requirements of the principles of natural justice have been substantially complied with and a well informed order containing reasons has been passed by the licensing authority. The reasons recorded by the licensing authority clearly reveal nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached.\n<\/p>\n
 15. This fact cannot be lost sight of that dominant object and intendment of the various control orders is to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of essential commodities in the interest of the general public. Insofar<\/p>\n
as   the   issue   of  control   orders   Is concerned, it is intended to regulate the     supply     of     the    essential commodities   as   the   State   cannot afford  to and does not want  to  let loose the subject to do whatever they like in respect of such commodities which have become in one way or the other essential for human beings and of which uneven distribution, unjust hoarding and uncontrolled price may cause great hardship on the people. The State being the custodian of the people is required to see that at least such essential stuffs either of food or otherwise are made available so as to provide it to all those persons who require    it.    The    kerosene    oil    is undoubtedly  one   of   the   essential commodities.   It   is   used   by   the masses for domestic purposes,  e.g., cooking their food  and  to  light  the lamps. Sometimes, motors or engines to  lift   the  water  for  irrigation   and other    agricultural    purposes    are propelled by its liquefied gas.  If the authorised dealers who are charged of the   duty   to   regularly   supply   the kerosene   oil   meant   for   the   most needy persons in the villages,   divert the sale of the oil meant for them, for their own unjust enrichment imbued with  an  acquisitive  urge,   they may easily be branded of being guilty of perfidy  of the  highest  order.   Least which   these   recalcitrant  and   antisocial   elements   deserve   is   to  strip them of the authority and benefit of receiving the supplies to avoid their maldistribution. The petitioner have been   found   guilty   of   the   serious charge of misdirecting and diverting the supply of kerosene oil which they sold at higher rates than specified. In such a situation, only course left was to     cancel     the     licence     of    the petitioners.   It was  rightly cancelled and the appellate court has also for good reasons dismissed the appeal. The submission that the punishment awarded    to    the    petitioners    is disproportionate     and     is      not commensurate to the alleged charge said to have been established against them    also    is    not    acceptable. Emphatic     denunciation     of    the culpable    act    committed    by   the petitioners may amply be reflected by<\/p>\n
cancelling their licence and depriving them of the rights thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
 16. In the conspectus of the above facts, the present petition turns out to be merittess and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost is made.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 (3) AWC 2204 Author: O Garg Bench: O Garg JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the propriety and […]<\/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-166680","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - 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\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T19:05:51+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T19:05:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3589,\"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\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\",\"name\":\"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T19:05:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - 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\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T19:05:51+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999","datePublished":"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T19:05:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999"},"wordCount":3589,"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\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999","name":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T19:05:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjeev-deevan-and-another-vs-state-of-u-p-and-others-on-12-may-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjeev Deevan And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 12 May, 1999"}]},{"@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\/166680","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=166680"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166680\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166680"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166680"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166680"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}