{"id":177891,"date":"1989-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989"},"modified":"2016-05-26T16:12:30","modified_gmt":"2016-05-26T10:42:30","slug":"p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","title":{"rendered":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR  985, \t\t  1989 SCR  (1) 224<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: E Venkataramiah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nP.L. SHAH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nBENCH:\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  985\t\t  1989 SCR  (1) 224\n 1989 SCC  (1) 546\t  JT 1989 (1)\t 98\n 1989 SCALE  (1)81\n\n\nACT:\n    Central  Administrative  Tribunals\tAct,  1985:  Section\n21(2)-Subsistence    allowance--Reduction    of--Application\nseeking restoration moved after five  years--Maintainability\nof--Period  of\tlimitation-Computation\tof--Held,  cause  of\naction\tarises\tevery  month in\t which\treduced\t subsistence\nallowance is paid.\n    Civil  Services:  Suspension order--Nature\tand  purpose\nof-Subsistence\tallowance--Sufficiency\tof--Need  to  review\nfrom time to time.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Sub-section (2) of s. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals\nAct, 1985 empowers the Tribunal not to entertain an applica-\ntion  the  grievance in respect of which had  arisen  beyond\nthree  years  immediately preceding the date  on  which\t the\njurisdiction,  powers and authority of the  Tribunal  became\nexercisable under the Act.\n    The\t appellant, an Upper Division Clerk,  was  suspended\nfrom service, in July 1975 pending on account of the  insti-\ntution\tof  criminal proceedings against him.  By  an  order\ndated August 4, 1975 he was sanctioned subsistence allowance\nat  the rate of 50 per cent of his salary last drawn.  By  a\nfurther\t order dated May 6, 1982 the  subsistence  allowance\nwas  reduced to 25 per cent of the salary he was drawing  on\nthe  date  of  suspension. He moved a  petition\t before\t the\nTribunal in the year 1988 for a direction to the  Government\nto restore the original order of August 4, 1975. That  peti-\ntion was dismissed by the Tribunal solely on the ground that\nthe  order reducing the allowance having been passed on\t May\n6,  1982, it could not entertain the application  made\tmore\nthan  five  years thereafter, apparently on  the  ground  of\nlimitation set out in s. 21(2) of the Act.\n    In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the\nappellant that the Government had failed to review the order\nof  May 6, 1982 even though a long period of five years\t had\nelapsed\t after the reduction of the  subsistence  allowance,\nthat the delay in conclusion of the criminal proceedings, as\na consequence of which he had been kept under suspension,\n225\nwas not due to him and in the circumstances it was not\tjust\nand appropriate that he should be paid a subsistence  allow-\nance at a reduced rate for an unreasonably long period.\nAllowing the appeal,\n    HELD:  1.  The Tribunal was not right in  rejecting\t the\napplication. [229F]\n    2.\tThe cause of action in respect of a  prayer  seeking\nenhancement  of subsistence allowance arises every month  in\nwhich the said allowance at the reduced rate is paid. There-\nfore,  in the instant case, though no relief could be  given\nto  the appellant in respect of the period which was  beyond\nthree years from the date on which the Tribunal commenced to\nexercise its powers under the Act, it was quite open to\t the\nTribunal  to consider whether it was proper for the  Govern-\nment  to continue to give effect to the order dated  May  6,\n1982  from any subsequent date, and if the Tribunal came  to\nthe  conclusion that the said order was required to  be\t re-\nvised it could pass an appropriate order notwithstanding the\nfact  that a period of five years had elapsed from the\tdate\non  which the order reducing the subsistence  allowance\t was\npassed. While doing so it was open to the Tribunal to fix  a\ndate  within the period of the said three years\t from  which\nthe  appellant should be paid subsistence allowance  at\t the\nrevised\t rate having due regard to the date of the  applica-\ntion. [229C-E]\n    3.1.  The  very nomenclature of the allowance  makes  it\nclear  that  the amount paid to a Government  servant  under\nsuspension should be sufficient for bare subsistence in this\nworld  in  which the prices of the necessaries of  life\t are\nincreasing every day on account of the conditions of  infla-\ntion  obtaining in the country. More so, when  a  Government\nservant\t cannot engage himself in any other activity  during\nthe  period of suspension. The amount of subsistence  allow-\nance  payable  to the Government servant  concerned  should,\ntherefore, be reviewed from time to time where the  proceed-\nings  drag on for a long time, even though there may  be  no\nexpress rule insisting on such review. [228F-G]\n    3.2.  In doing so, the authority concerned no doubt\t has\nto  take into account whether the Government servant  is  in\nany  way responsible for the undue delay in the disposal  of\nthe  proceedings  initiated against him. If  the  Government\nservant\t is not responsible for such delay or even if he  is\nresponsible  for such delay to some extent but is  not\tpri-\nmarily\tresponsible  for  it, it is for\t the  Government  to\nconsider whether the\n226\norder  of  suspension  should be continued  or\twhether\t the\nsubsistence  allowance should be varied to his advantage  or\nnot. [228G-H; 229A]\n    4.\tThe case is remanded to the Tribunal to\t dispose  of\nthe application made by the appellant on merits. [229G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 38 of<br \/>\n1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment and order dated 15.3.  1988  of\t the<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in M.A. No. 49 of<br \/>\n1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.H. Parekh and Shishir Sharma for the Appellant.<br \/>\n    B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indu  Malho-<br \/>\ntra and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    VENKATARAMIAH, J. The appellant was working as an  Upper<br \/>\nDivision Clerk in the year 1975. He was placed under suspen-<br \/>\nsion by an order dated 25.7.1975 as a result of the institu-<br \/>\ntion of a criminal prosecution against him and he  continues<br \/>\nto  remain  under suspension till today. By an\torder  dated<br \/>\n4.9.  1975  he was sanctioned subsistence allowance  at\t the<br \/>\nrate  of 50 per cent of his salary last drawn. By a  further<br \/>\norder made on 6.6.1982 the subsistence allowance was reduced<br \/>\nto  25 per cent of the salary he was drawing on the date  of<br \/>\nsuspension. The increments he would have earned from time to<br \/>\ntime  and  the periodical revisions of pay-scales  were\t not<br \/>\ntaken  into  consideration in  determining  the\t subsistence<br \/>\nallowance.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The charge-sheet was filed in the criminal case  against<br \/>\nthe  appellant\tin 1976 and the case was  committed  to\t the<br \/>\nsessions, but the committal proceedings were quashed by\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court in 1978. Then the proceedings again began  before<br \/>\nthe Metropolitan Magistrate in 1979. The case, however,\t has<br \/>\nnot yet come to an end.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Aggrieved by the denial of the salary and allowances due<br \/>\nto him for a long time on account of the order of suspension<br \/>\nand in particular the order fixing the subsistence allowance<br \/>\nat  25\tper cent of the salary which he was drawing  at\t the<br \/>\ntime of suspension by the Order dated 6.5. 1982, the  appel-<br \/>\nlant approached in the year 1988 the Central  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal (Ahmedabad Bench) for a direction to be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">227<\/span><br \/>\nissued to the Government to restore the original Order dated<br \/>\n4.8. 1975 by which the subsistence allowance was fixed at 50<br \/>\nper  cent of his salary. That petition was dismissed by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal by its order dated 15.3.1988 on the ground that the<br \/>\nappellant  had approached the Tribunal more than five  years<br \/>\nafter  the date on which the Order dated 6.5. 1982 had\tbeen<br \/>\npassed\tapparently  on the ground of limitation set  out  in<br \/>\nsub-section  (2) of section 21 of the Administrative  Tribu-<br \/>\nnals  Act,  1985  (hereinafter referred to  as\t&#8216;the  Act&#8217;).<br \/>\nAggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellant  filed<br \/>\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The question for consideration in this appeal by special<br \/>\nleave is whether in a case of this nature, the Tribunal\t was<br \/>\nright in holding that the application before it, was  barred<br \/>\nby time. Sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act, no doubt,<br \/>\nsays  that  a Tribunal shall not admit an application  in  a<br \/>\ncase where a final order such as is mentioned in clause\t (a)<br \/>\nof sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection<br \/>\nwith  the grievance unless the application is  made,  within<br \/>\none  year from the date on which such final order  has\tbeen<br \/>\nmade,  and in a case where an appeal or representation\tsuch<br \/>\nas  is mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (2) of  section<br \/>\n20  has\t been made and a period of six\tmonths\thad  expired<br \/>\nthereafter without such final order having been made, within<br \/>\none  year from the date of expiry of the said period of\t six<br \/>\nmonths.\t Sub-section  (2) of section 21,  however,  provides<br \/>\nthat  notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section\t (1)<br \/>\nof  section  21 where the grievance in respect of  which  an<br \/>\napplication  is made had arisen by reason of any order\tmade<br \/>\nat  any\t time during the period of three  years\t immediately<br \/>\npreceding  the\tdate on which the jurisdiction,\t powers\t and<br \/>\nauthority  of the Tribunal become exercisable under the\t Act<br \/>\nin respect of the matter to which such order related, and no<br \/>\nproceedings  for  the redressal of such grievance  had\tbeen<br \/>\ncommenced  before the said date before any High\t Court,\t the<br \/>\napplication  shall be entertained by the Tribunal if  it  is<br \/>\nmade within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the<br \/>\ncase  may  be,\tclause (b) of sub-section (1)  or  within  a<br \/>\nperiod\tof six months from the said date,  whichever  period<br \/>\nexpires later. Sub-section (3) of section 21 further confers<br \/>\npower  on the Tribunal to condone the delay in certain\tcir-<br \/>\ncumstances  if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that  he<br \/>\nhad  sufficient cause for not making the application  within<br \/>\nsuch period.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In the present case the main grievance of the  appellant<br \/>\nwas not that the Order dated 6.5.1982 by which the  subsist-<br \/>\nence allowance payable to him was reduced to 25 per cent was<br \/>\nbad at the commencement although there were some allegations<br \/>\nto that effect but it was one relating to the failure of the<br \/>\nauthority  or  the  Government to  review  the\tOrder  dated<br \/>\n6.5.1982 even though a long period of 5 years had elapsed<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">228<\/span><br \/>\nafter  the reduction of the subsistence allowance. His\tcon-<br \/>\ntention was that the delay in the conclusion of the criminal<br \/>\nproceedings as a consequence of which he had been kept under<br \/>\nsuspension  was not due to him and in the  circumstances  it<br \/>\nwas not just and proper that he should be paid a subsistence<br \/>\nallowance at a reduced rate for an unreasonably long period.<br \/>\nIn support of his case the appellant relied upon a  decision<br \/>\ndated  23.6.1987 of the very bench of the Tribunal  in\tShri<br \/>\nBhupendra  Mahashuklal Mehtap v. The Union of India &amp;  Ors.,<br \/>\nin  T.A. No. 223 of 1986 (S.C.A. No. 3509 of 1922) in  which<br \/>\nFundamental  Rule  53  which authorised\t the  Government  to<br \/>\nreview\tan order regarding subsistence allowance  arose\t for<br \/>\nconsideration.\tIn the said case the Ahmedabad Bench of\t the<br \/>\nTribunal quashed the Order dated 6.5.1982 passed against the<br \/>\napplicant  in that case by which the  subsistence  allowance<br \/>\npayable to the said applicant had been reduced.<br \/>\n    An order of suspension is not an order imposing  punish-<br \/>\nment  on  a person found to be guilty. It is an\t order\tmade<br \/>\nagainst\t him  before  he is found guilty  to  ensure  smooth<br \/>\ndisposal  of  the proceedings initiated\t against  him.\tSuch<br \/>\nproceedings should be completed expeditiously in the  public<br \/>\ninterest and also in the interest of the Government  servant<br \/>\nconcerned. The subsistence allowance is paid by the  Govern-<br \/>\nment so that the Government servant against whom an order of<br \/>\nsuspension  is\tpassed\ton account of the  pendency  of\t any<br \/>\ndisciplinary  proceeding  or  a\t criminal  case\t  instituted<br \/>\nagainst him could maintain himself and his dependants  until<br \/>\nthe departmental proceeding or the criminal case as the case<br \/>\nmay  be\t comes to an end and appropriate orders\t are  passed<br \/>\nagainst\t the Government servant by the Government  regarding<br \/>\nhis  right  to continue in service etc. depending  upon\t the<br \/>\nfinal outcome of the proceedings instituted against him. The<br \/>\nvery  nomenclature of the allowance makes it clear that\t the<br \/>\namount\tpaid to such a Government servant should  be  suffi-<br \/>\ncient for bare subsistence in this world in which the prices<br \/>\nof  the\t necessaries  of life are increasing  every  day  on<br \/>\naccount\t of  the conditions of inflation  obtaining  in\t the<br \/>\ncountry. It is luther to be noted that a Government  servant<br \/>\ncannot\tengage\thimself\t in any other  activity\t during\t the<br \/>\nperiod\tof suspension. The amount of  subsistence  allowance<br \/>\npayable\t to the Government servant concerned should,  there-<br \/>\nfore,  be reviewed from time to time where  the\t proceedings<br \/>\ndrag on for a long time, even though there may be no express<br \/>\nrule  insisting\t On such review. In doing so  the  authority<br \/>\nconcerned  no  doubt has to take into  account\twhether\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  servant is in any way responsible for the  undue<br \/>\ndelay  in the disposal of the proceedings initiated  against<br \/>\nhim.  If the Government servant is not responsible for\tsuch<br \/>\ndelay  or even if he is responsible for such delay  to\tsome<br \/>\nextent\tbut is not primarily responsible for it, it  is\t for<br \/>\nthe Government to recon-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">229<\/span><\/p>\n<p>sider whether the order of suspension should be continued or<br \/>\nwhether\t the subsistence allowance should be varied  to\t his<br \/>\nadvantage or not. The decision on the said question no doubt<br \/>\ndepends\t upon several factors relevant to the case.  In\t the<br \/>\ninstant\t case the appellant was suspended in the year  1975.<br \/>\nNow  nearly 13 years have elapsed from the date\t of  suspen-<br \/>\nsion.  He was paid subsistence allowance at the rate  of  50<br \/>\nper cent of the salary last drawn by him from 1975 and\t1982<br \/>\nand  from  1982 he is being paid 25 per cent of\t the  salary<br \/>\nlast  drawn by him. It is not clear from the  record  before<br \/>\nus,  since  the application made by the applicant  was\tdis-<br \/>\nmissed by the Tribunal at the preliminary stage, whether the<br \/>\nappellant  was responsible for the inordinate delay  in\t the<br \/>\ndisposal of the case instituted against him. In the  circum-<br \/>\nstances\t of the case we are of the view that even though  no<br \/>\nrelief\tcould  be given to the appellant in respect  of\t the<br \/>\nperiod\twhich was beyond three years from the date on  which<br \/>\nthe Tribunal commenced to exercise its powers under the Act,<br \/>\nit was quite open to the Tribunal to consider whether it was<br \/>\nproper for the Government to continue to give effect to\t the<br \/>\nOrder  dated  6.5.1982 from any subsequent date and  if\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  came\tto  the\t conclusion  that  the\tOrder  dated<br \/>\n6.5.1982 was required to be revised it could pass an  appro-<br \/>\npriate order notwithstanding the fact that a period of\tfive<br \/>\nyears had elapsed from the date on which the order  reducing<br \/>\nthe subsistence allowance was passed. While doing so it\t was<br \/>\nopen to the Tribunal to fix a date within the period of\t the<br \/>\nsaid three years from which the appellant should be paid the<br \/>\nsubsistence allowance at the revised rate of course,  having<br \/>\ndue  regard  to\t the date of the application  also.  In\t the<br \/>\nalternative,  the  Tribunal could have asked  the  authority<br \/>\nconcerned to review the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe  circumstances, the Tribunal was  not  right  in<br \/>\nrejecting  the\tapplication solely on the  ground  that\t the<br \/>\norder reducing the subsistence allowance having been  passed<br \/>\non 6.5. 1982 the Tribunal could not entertain an application<br \/>\nfor directing the Government to revise the Order dated\t6.5.<br \/>\n1982  even in respect of any period within three years\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  date  on which the Tribunal commenced to  exercise\t its<br \/>\npowers having due regard to the date of the application also<br \/>\nsince  we feel that the cause of action in respect  of\tsuch<br \/>\nprayer arises every month in which the subsistence allowance<br \/>\nat  the\t reduced rate is paid. We therefore  set  aside\t the<br \/>\norder  of the Tribunal and remand the case to it to  dispose<br \/>\nof the application made by the appellant on merits. We\tmake<br \/>\nan order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThere is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>P.S.S.\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">230<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 985, 1989 SCR (1) 224 Author: E Venkataramiah Bench: Venkataramiah, E.S. (J) PETITIONER: P.L. SHAH Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/01\/1989 BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) OJHA, N.D. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-26T10:42:30+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T10:42:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1779,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\",\"name\":\"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-26T10:42:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-26T10:42:30+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989","datePublished":"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T10:42:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989"},"wordCount":1779,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989","name":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-26T10:42:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-shah-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-18-january-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.L. Shah vs Union Of India &amp; Anr on 18 January, 1989"}]},{"@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\/177891","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=177891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}