{"id":168825,"date":"2010-05-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-12T16:15:05","modified_gmt":"2017-12-12T10:45:05","slug":"the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010<\/div>\n
                                1\n\n\n\n\n     HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n                       W.A.No.292\/2010\n                  State of M.P. and others\n                             Vs.\n                       Dr.Ashok Sharma\n\nFor Appellants\/State:\nShri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General.\n\nFor respondent:\n\nShri Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate.\n\n       DB:    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra&\n             Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C.Sinho\n\n\n             Order passed on :18\/05\/2010\n\n\n        Whether approved for reporting :Yes\/No.\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       As Per:- ARUN MISHRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
        In writ appeal an Order dated 26.3.2010<\/p>\n
passed       by   learned   Single   Judge   staying   the<\/p>\n
operation of the order of suspension has been<\/p>\n
assailed.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The petitioner was holding the post of<\/p>\n
Director, Health Services, MP, Bhopal.                 His<\/p>\n
suspension was ordered vide Order (P\/1) dated<\/p>\n
24.02.2010.        It was mentioned in the order of<\/p>\n
suspension that there were six cases pending<\/p>\n
with respect to serious irregularities before<\/p>\n
the Lokayukt.In one of the case, charge sheet
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
has    already       been   issued    against        Dr.    Ashok<\/p>\n
Sharma.        Income Tax Department has also sent<\/p>\n
the report in which it was mentioned that he<\/p>\n
was    possessing         disproportionate          assets    as<\/p>\n
compared       to     his     income.     As        there     was<\/p>\n
possibility          of     influencing        the     enquiry<\/p>\n
adversely, he was placed under suspension.<\/p>\n
3.     It was submitted before the Single Bench<\/p>\n
by the petitioner that State Government has<\/p>\n
conducted      an    enquiry    against   the        petitioner<\/p>\n
and    vide    Documents       P\/5,P\/6,P\/7,P\/8,P\/11,P\/14<\/p>\n
and P\/15 nothing has been found against the<\/p>\n
petitioner.         Order (P\/20) passed by this Court<\/p>\n
in writ petition has also been relied upon by<\/p>\n
the petitioner.           The Single Judge has granted<\/p>\n
stay      of     suspension       order        on      26.3.10.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved thereby the instant writ appeal has<\/p>\n
been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
4.     Shri     P.K.Kaurav,        learned          Deputy    AG<\/p>\n
appearing      for    State\/appellants       has     submitted<\/p>\n
that the order of suspension could not have<\/p>\n
been stayed in the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the instant case. No clean chit has been given<\/p>\n
by the State to the petitioner.                On the other
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
hand,    yet     another       departmental          enquiry   has<\/p>\n
been initiated in which petitioner has been<\/p>\n
placed    under         suspension       subsequent      to     the<\/p>\n
instant case. Fresh suspension was ordered on<\/p>\n
6th of May,2010. Learned Deputy AG has also<\/p>\n
relied upon decision of Apex Court in State of<\/p>\n
Orissa Through its Principal Secretary, Home<\/p>\n
Dept. vs.         Bimal Kumar Mohanty (1994) 4 SCC<\/p>\n
126 laying down that when an investigation is<\/p>\n
likely    to      be      affected       by     an     incumbent,<\/p>\n
suspension        is      warranted.       He     has     further<\/p>\n
submitted        that     remedy     of       appeal    is     also<\/p>\n
available to the petitioner as such no case<\/p>\n
for interference is made out.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Shri        Sanjay       Agarwal,        learned     counsel<\/p>\n
appearing        for    the    respondent       has     submitted<\/p>\n
that order of suspension was not warranted.<\/p>\n
Merely due to the fact that investigation was<\/p>\n
pending     in    six     cases     before      the    Lokayukta,<\/p>\n
suspension could not have been ordered.                       Order<\/p>\n
(P.20) passed by this Court in writ petition<\/p>\n
has also been relied upon in which contract<\/p>\n
which    was     awarded       to   Jagran      Solutions      was<\/p>\n
upheld. He has further submitted that though
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner has been suspended subsequently<\/p>\n
in     another        case,       but        his     suspension              was<\/p>\n
totally unwarranted in the case in question by<\/p>\n
the impugned order.                  Remedy of appeal could<\/p>\n
not be said to be an efficacious remedy as the<\/p>\n
decision        has        been      taken           by     the           State<\/p>\n
Government to suspend him. Learned counsel has<\/p>\n
further         submitted               that             order            being<\/p>\n
interlocutory          one,     interference              in     the         writ<\/p>\n
appeal is not warranted.                      Writ appeal cannot<\/p>\n
be   said      to    be    maintainable             against         such      an<\/p>\n
order     of        interim       stay       passed        in       a        writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
6.     After    hearing         learned            counsel          for       the<\/p>\n
parties        and        going      through              the        various<\/p>\n
documents, we are of the considered opinion<\/p>\n
that the order of stay of suspension cannot be<\/p>\n
allowed        to         stand         in         the     facts              and<\/p>\n
circumstances             of   the      instant           case.         It     is<\/p>\n
settled law that order of suspension is not<\/p>\n
that    of     punishment.           Requirement               of    law       is<\/p>\n
that reasons must be mentioned in the order of<\/p>\n
suspension.          In the instant case, reasons have<\/p>\n
been mentioned in the order of suspension and
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
those are found to be sufficient for ordering<\/p>\n
suspension of the petitioner. Enquiry in six<\/p>\n
cases was pending before the Lokayukta.                              In<\/p>\n
one of the case charge sheet had already been<\/p>\n
issued    to    the        petitioner          and        Income    Tax<\/p>\n
Department      has         sent     the        report        to    the<\/p>\n
Government to the effect that petitioner was<\/p>\n
possessing the assets disproportionate to his<\/p>\n
income.        In     our     opinion,          these        were   the<\/p>\n
grounds   which       were       more     than       sufficient      to<\/p>\n
order    suspension         of     petitioner,            hence,    the<\/p>\n
interim   relief       could        not    have       been     granted<\/p>\n
staying    the        operation           of        the     order    of<\/p>\n
suspension.      When       we     refer       to    the     documents<\/p>\n
relied     upon        before           the         Single      Bench,<\/p>\n
communication (P\/5) dated 17.1.08 is a letter<\/p>\n
of the Deputy Controller with respect to the<\/p>\n
sample being as per specification. Para 3 of<\/p>\n
the   communication          (P\/6)       dated       26th    November,<\/p>\n
2009 indicates that there was no unanimity in<\/p>\n
the      opinions           of       technical               committee<\/p>\n
constituted for the purpose of valuation and<\/p>\n
Directorate           of         Health             Services\/Health<\/p>\n
Department.      It        would     be       advisable       in    the
\n                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances              that           health          department<\/p>\n
constitute a team for rate analysis. It could<\/p>\n
not be said that petitioner was given clean<\/p>\n
chit        by       the      aforesaid            communication.<\/p>\n
Communication           (P\/8)     dated         8.8.07     is     with<\/p>\n
respect       to    cancellation           of     certain       supply<\/p>\n
orders.       Communication (P\/11) is with respect<\/p>\n
to    the    decision        of     the    committee        for    the<\/p>\n
purpose      of     tenders.      Communication           (P\/12)    is<\/p>\n
dated       16.12.2009       by     which       explanation        was<\/p>\n
sought from Dr.Ashok Sharma into the various<\/p>\n
irregularities.            (P\/13)    is     the    reply     of    the<\/p>\n
petitioner. (P\/14) is the communication dated<\/p>\n
12th March,2010 written to the Legal Advisor of<\/p>\n
Lokayukta, MP, Bhopal with respect to enquiry<\/p>\n
in    case       no.178\/07      pending         against     Dr.Ashok<\/p>\n
Sharma.       The communication was with reference<\/p>\n
to letter dated 4.1.2010 written by the Legal<\/p>\n
Advisor . In communication (P\/15) para 14.7 it<\/p>\n
has been mentioned that by making payment of<\/p>\n
the tax the business man was unduly benefited.<\/p>\n
Tax was required to be deducted at the source.<\/p>\n
A    reading       of   communications           makes     it    clear<\/p>\n
that    no         clean     chit     was         given     to     the
\n                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner.            In     WP        No.8163\/2008           and      WP<\/p>\n
No.364\/2009 this Court has observed that there<\/p>\n
was     substantial           compliance          of     the        tender<\/p>\n
condition and this Court was not inclined to<\/p>\n
make    an    interference           as       period     of    contract<\/p>\n
granted       in       favour        of        petitioner           Jagran<\/p>\n
Solutions was going to be over very shortly,<\/p>\n
it would be in the fitness of the things that<\/p>\n
contract       continues           for         remaining        period.<\/p>\n
Whatever that may be the conduct of petitioner<\/p>\n
in person never came for consideration.<\/p>\n
7.     In our opinion, when Income Tax Department<\/p>\n
has     sent       a        report       that         petitioner        is<\/p>\n
possessing disproportionate assets as compared<\/p>\n
to his income, that by itself is a sufficient<\/p>\n
ground        to       place         the       petitioner            under<\/p>\n
suspension. Apart from that there are other<\/p>\n
cases    and       pendency        of      departmental         enquiry<\/p>\n
also     in    which          charge          sheet     was     issued.<\/p>\n
Correctness of the allegations of Departmental<\/p>\n
Enquiry cannot be determined by making roving<\/p>\n
enquiry in the matter of suspension.                                In our<\/p>\n
opinion,      the      order       of    suspension           was    fully<\/p>\n
justified      and      its     operation         could        not    have
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
been stayed by the Single Bench. Petitioner<\/p>\n
was having the remedy of appeal also, appeal<\/p>\n
has    to    be       decided       by        an    higher      body    as<\/p>\n
compared         to     the     authority             ordering          the<\/p>\n
suspension. Thus, in view of availability of<\/p>\n
remedy      of    appeal       also,          no    interference         is<\/p>\n
warranted in the order of suspension. Apart<\/p>\n
from   that       continuance            of    petitioner         was    to<\/p>\n
adversely        affect       the    pending          enquiry      hence<\/p>\n
suspension was warranted.\n<\/p>\n
8.     Coming to the submission raised by Shri<\/p>\n
Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
respondent         that       against          an     interim       order<\/p>\n
staying     such       an     order       of       suspension,         writ<\/p>\n
appeal cannot be said to be maintainable. In<\/p>\n
our opinion, submission is baseless.                              A Full<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain and<\/p>\n
others      vs.        State        of         M.P.       and      others<\/p>\n
2007(3)MPLJ 565 which has been relied upon by<\/p>\n
both the parties this Court has observed that<\/p>\n
proviso       to       section           2(1)        of        M.P.Uchcha<\/p>\n
Nyayalaya          (Khand        Nyaypeeth                Ko      Appeal)<\/p>\n
Adhiniyam, 2005 does not create an absolute<\/p>\n
bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench.
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
An appeal can be preferred against an order<\/p>\n
regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect<\/p>\n
and impact of the order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge. When an interlocutory order has<\/p>\n
the   semblance   of   final    order    or   affect   the<\/p>\n
rights of the parties, it can be treated as an<\/p>\n
order for all practical purposes. If an order<\/p>\n
vitally affect the rights of the parties or<\/p>\n
destroy the rights or create a situation by<\/p>\n
which   the   relegation   to      the   original   stage<\/p>\n
would become impossible, writ appeal would be<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      In Arvind Kumar Jain and others vs. State<\/p>\n
of M.P. and others (supra) in para 18 and 31,<\/p>\n
the Full Bench of this Court held thus :-<\/p>\n
      “18. Regard being had to the aforesaid
\n      fundamental concept of the term “order”
\n      it has to be understood that the statute
\n      permits an order to be appealed against.
\n      The proviso stipulates that no appeal
\n      would   lie  against   an  interlocutory
\n      order.    But an eloquent and pregnant
\n      one, when an interlocutory order has the
\n      semblance of final order or affect the
\n      rights of the parties, it can be treated
\n      as an order for all practical purposes.
\n      The said exception cannot be treated in
\n      absolute terms to nullify the enactment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Therefore, the order has to be a final
\n      order by way of final disposal. It
\n      cannot be regarded as the correct
\n      interpretation   of   the   proviso   is
\n                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
entirety, for a writ Court can issue
\ndirections   or  pass   orders  in   its
\ninherent jurisdiction which can assume
\nthe colour and contour of finality and,
\nat an interim stage, can vitally affect
\nthe rights of the parties or destroy the
\nrights or create a situation by which
\nthe relegation to the original stage
\nwould become impossible.\n<\/p>\n
31. In view of the aforesaid premised
\nreasons, we proceed to record our
\nconclusions in seriatim :-\n<\/p>\n
  (a) The decision rendered in the case
\n  of Arvind Kumar Jain (supra),does not
\n  lay down the law correctly and is
\n  hereby overruled.\n<\/p>\n
  (b) Any decision treading on the same
\n  path has to be deemed to have been
\n  overruled.\n<\/p>\n
  (c) The decisions rendered in Nav
\n  Nirman (Milan) Deria (supra) and
\n  Tejpal Singh (supra), enunciate the
\n  law correctly.\n<\/p>\n
  (d) The proviso to section 2(1) of
\n  Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyaylaya (Khand
\n  Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005
\n  does not create an absolute bar to
\n  prefer an appeal to the Division
\n  Bench.\n<\/p>\n
  (e) An appeal can be preferred againt
\n  an order regard being had to the
\n  nature, tenor, effect and impact of
\n  the order passed by the learned
\n  Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
  (f) The guidelines given in the cases
\n  of   Shah   Babulal   Khimji  (supra),
\n  Central Mine Planning and Design
\n  Institute      Ltd.(supra),     Deoraj
\n  (supra), Liverpool and London S.P.
\n  and I.Association Ltd.(supra), Subal
\n  Paul (supra) and Midnapore Peoples’
\n  Cooperative Bank Ltd.(supra) are to
\n  be kept in view while deciding the
\n  maintainability of an appeal.\n<\/p>\n
  (g) It should be borne in mind that
\n  instances given in the aforesaid
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
         decisions are not exhaustive but
\n         illustrative   in    nature,   because
\n         various kinds\/categories of orders
\n         may   be   passed   in   exercise   of
\n         jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\n         Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
         (h) The facts in each case, the
\n         nature and the character of the order
\n         are to be scrutinized to appreciate
\n         the trappings of the same.”\n<\/p>\n
        In view of aforesaid Full Bench decision<\/p>\n
of   this      Court,    we    have       no     hesitation      in<\/p>\n
holding that the writ appeal is maintainable<\/p>\n
against such an order. Effect of staying the<\/p>\n
order    of      suspension    is        that    writ    petition<\/p>\n
stands allowed at the initial stage itself.<\/p>\n
Thus,    the     order    impugned         falls    within      the<\/p>\n
purview     of    the    orders     against        which   appeal<\/p>\n
lies.\n<\/p>\n
9.      In view of aforesaid discussion, we have<\/p>\n
no hesitation in setting aside the impugned<\/p>\n
order     dated     26\/03\/2010           passed     by     learned<\/p>\n
Single    Judge      staying      the      operation       of   the<\/p>\n
order of suspension. Writ appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n
However, parties are left to bear their own<\/p>\n
costs as incurred of the appeal.<\/p>\n
     (Arun Mishra)                              (S.C.Sinho)\n            Judge                           Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADAHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR W.A.No.292\/2010 State of M.P. and others Vs. Dr.Ashok Sharma For Appellants\/State: Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent: Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Advocate. DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra& Hon’ble […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-168825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-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=\"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-12T10:45:05+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-12T10:45:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1902,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\",\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-12T10:45:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 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":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 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\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-12T10:45:05+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-12T10:45:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010"},"wordCount":1902,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010","name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-12T10:45:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-dr-ashok-sharma-on-18-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Dr. Ashok Sharma on 18 May, 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\/168825","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=168825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}