{"id":179494,"date":"2010-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-28T10:38:35","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T05:08:35","slug":"mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP No. 2072 OF 2004    \nMohd Yunas  \nPetitioners\nState & Ors.\nRespondent  \n!Mr. S.K.Anand, Advocate. \n^Mr. Gagan Basotra, AAG  \n\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. \nDate: 9.12.2010\n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n
Petitioner has challenged the Government Order No. 1268 of 2004 dated 20th of
\nSeptember 2004 (for short impugned order) whereby he came to be prematurely
\nretired with effect from forenoon of 21st of September 2004 on the grounds taken
\nin the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        It is averred that petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the year
\n1974, promoted to the post of Deputy Forester in the year 1980 and as Forester in
\nthe year 1983.  He has unblemished service career of over thirty years and  no
\nadverse entry in his service records for the entire period. His work was appreciated
\nby the respondent-department, which is disclosed by the letter of   commendation
\nas    contained    in   Annexure A, B, C, D, E, & F. His performance is adjudged as
\nExcellent\/outstanding\/very-very good for the period 1995 to 2002-2003
\n(Annexure-G).\n<\/p>\n
        The reputation earned by the petitioner was appreciated by general public
\nand senior officers of the department but at the same time, it generated animosity
\nand some persons managed a news item in Bismark Evening Paper (Annexure-H).
\nThe complaint was made before the authorities, came to be found baseless and
\nrejected (Annexure- J, K, L, M, P & Q), but despite that the impugned order came
\nto be passed and it is prayed that it be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
        Respondents have made evasive reply. It is apt to reproduce para 6-11 of the
\nreply filed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
6-11.  That the contents of these paras are misdirected and
\nmisconceived, in that, the impugned order has been issued
\nin the public interest. Excellent APRs as projected by the
\npetitioner is no ground to question the impugned order as
\nperformance at any stage of the service of an officer cannot
\nbe taken as final assessment for entire service of such an
\nofficer. The petitioner may have performed at any point of
\ntime but at the time of consideration of his overall service
\nrecord and performance by the committee, he as been found
\nfit for premature retirement. It is further submitted that the
\npetitioner has not disclosed the source from where he has
\nmanaged APRs which he has annexed with the writ petition
\nas APRs of an employee are property of the employer and is
\nalways confidential. Silence on this point may render the
\npetitioner liable for action under law. It is further
\nrespectfully submitted that even otherwise the contents of
\nthese paras in itself speak about the conduct of the
\npetitioner.<\/p>\n
        Petitioner has also filed the rejoinder.\n<\/p>\n
        The question involved is whether in the given circumstances, the impugned
\norder can be interfered with?\n<\/p>\n
        The Apex Court and this Court in various cases reported as Baldev Raj
\nChandra V. Union of India,<\/a> 1980(4) SCC 321, Baldev Raj Chandra V. Union of
\nIndia, AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 70, H.C. Gagri V. State of Haryana, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 65, Brij
\nMohan Singh Chopra Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 948, Baidyanath
\nMahapatra V. State of Orissa, AIR<\/a> 1979 SC 2218,Ram Ekbal Sharma V. State of
\nBihar, 1990(3) SCC 504, Union of India V. Dulal Dutt,<\/a> 1993 (2) SCC 179, S.
\nRamachandra Raju V. State of Orissa,<\/a> 1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, State of J&K V. Jia
\nLal Gupta, 1994 SLJ 234, Chief General Manager, SBI V. Suresh Chandra Behera,
\nAIR<\/a> 1995 SCC 1745; K.K.Kandaswamy V. Union of India, AIR<\/a>  1996 SC 277;
\nAllahabad Bank Officers Association V. Allahabad Bank,<\/a> 1996 (4) SCC 504;
\nM.S.Bindra V. Union of India,<\/a> 1998(7) SCC 310; M.S.Bindra V. Union of India,
\nAIR<\/a> 1998 SC 3058, State of Gujarat V. Suryakant Chunilal Shah,<\/a> 1999(1) SCC
\n529, State of Gujarat V. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 1109,  State of U.P V.
\nChater Sen, 2005 (9) SCC 592, Pritam Singh V. Union of India,<\/a> 2005 (9) SCC 748,
\nState of J&K &b ors., Vs. Gh. Rasool Magray, SLP No. 3369\/2010 date of
\ndecision: 16th of August 2010; Ashok Kumar Jain V. State of J&K & Ors. LPA
\nNos. 27J and 28J of 2005 decided on 5-8-2005, Ghulam Rasool Magray Vs. State
\nof J&K & ors., 2005(Supp) JKJ 348 [HC]; Mohammad Mehraj-ud-Din Khan V.
\nState of J<\/a>&K & Ors., 2006 (3) JKJ 240 (HC), Shah Latief V. State of J&K & Ors.,
\n2006 (1) JKJ 486 HC (DB), Rajesh Gupta Vs. State of J&K & Ors., 2008 (1) JKH
\n573 [HC] and SWP No. 828 and other bunch of petitions titled Zareena Banoo &
\nconnected matters V. State and others, 2008 (3) JKJ HC-106 date of decision 6-6-
\n2008, Janak Singh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2008 JKJ [HC] (1)
\n2009 588, SWP No. 1397 titled Parshottam Singh Vs. State & Ors., decided on 08th
\nof April 2010  and SWP No. 530 of 2005 titled Ram Dass Vs. State & Ors., date
\nof decision 24th of September 2010 have discussed the principles in order to test
\nwhether the order of compulsory retirement is legally tenable or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
        It is a beaten law of the land that compulsory retirement is not a punishment
\nat all and cannot be questioned by way of writ petition, except as per guidelines and
\ntests laid down by the judicial pronouncements. Apex Court in case Baikuntha
\nNath Das & another Vs. Chief  District Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020 has
\nlaid down the following principles:-\n<\/p>\n
32.    The following principles emerge from the above
\ndiscussions:-\n<\/p>\n
i)      An order of compulsory retirement is not a
\npunishment. It implies no stigma nor any suggestion of mis-
\nbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n
ii)     The order has to be passed by the Government on
\nforming the opinion that it is in the public interest to retire a
\ngovernment servant compulsorily. The order is passed on the
\nsubjective satisfaction of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
iii)    Principles of natural justice have no place in the
\ncontext of an order of compulsory retirement. This does not
\nmean that judicial scrutiny is excluded altogether. While the
\nHigh Court or this Court would not examine the matter as
\nan appellate Court, they may interfere if they are satisfied
\nthat the order is passed (a) mala fide, or (b) that it is arbitrary
\nin the sense that no reasonable person would form the
\nrequisite opinion on the given material in short; if it is found
\nto be a perverse order.\n<\/p>\n
iv)     The Government or the Review Committee, as the
\ncase may be, shall have to consider the entire record of
\nservice before taking a decision in the matter of course
\nattaching more importance to record of and performance
\nduring the later years. The record to be so considered would
\nnaturally include the entries in the confidential
\nrecords\/character rolls, both favourable and adverse. If a
\ngovernment servant is promoted to a higher post
\nnotwithstanding the adverse remarks, such remarks lose
\ntheir sting, more so, if the promotion is based upon merit
\n(selection) and not upon seniority.\n<\/p>\n
v)      An order of compulsory retirement is not liable to be
\nquashed by a Court merely on the showing that while
\npassing it un-communicated adverse remarks were also
\ntaken into consideration. That circumstance by itself cannot
\nbe a basis for interference. Interference is permissible only
\non the grounds mentioned in (iii) above. This object has
\nbeen discussed in paras 29 to 31 above.<\/p>\n
        Virtually respondents have admitted that the petitioner is having excellent
\nAPRs but have not disclosed as to what was the material relied upon by them
\nbefore passing the impugned order.  Respondents were directed to produce the
\nrecord, failed to do so, however, they have produced the photostat copies of the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
        The concerned department was directed to screen the available record and
\nAPRs of the officers against whom the departmental enquiries have been held
\nearlier or complaints against whom are under enquiry. It is apt to reproduce that
\ndecision herein:-\n<\/p>\n
. . . . .The Committee screened the personal files and also
\nperused the APRs of some of the officers of the Forest
\nDepartment. It was however, decided that the matter shall be
\nfurther considered on re-opening of offices at Srinagar. The
\nForest Department shall in the meantime screen all relevant
\nrecords and APRs of the officers against whom
\ndepartmental enquiries have either been held earlier or
\ncomplaints against whom are under enquiry. The gist of
\ncomplaints, whether these were enquired into and, if so, with
\nwhat results shall also be placed by the Department before
\nthe Committee in the next meeting. Adverse comments, if
\nany, contained in the Audit report against the officer shall
\nalso be indicated in the report. . . . .<\/p>\n
        In terms of this decision, APRs of the officers were to be taken into
\nconsideration. Admittedly, respondents have not taken into consideration the APRs
\nand the commendation letters before passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
        The photostat copies of the record reveals that the four complaints were
\nmade against the petitioner, out of which three charges came to be thrashed out and
\nwas recorded in favour of the petitioner as discussed hereinabove, which have not
\nbeen taken into consideration by the Government while passing the impugned order.
\nThe fourth allegation against the petitioner is that he was holding the charge of
\nDudu Range without any authority, which is not true, as he was holding the charge
\nin terms of the order issued by the competent authority and this fact has not been
\ndenied by the respondents in the written statement filed by them. But the record to
\nhold that petitioner was not holding good reputation, despite the fact that all pleas
\nare in his favour, is not forthcoming.\n<\/p>\n
        It has been held in case titled Baikuntha Nath Das & another Vs. Chief
\nDistrict Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020 (supra) that it is mandatory to
\nconsider the entire service record before taking any decision.\n<\/p>\n
        Before passing the impugned order, it was mandatory for the respondents to
\nexamine the entire service record of the petitioner, more particularly, latest one,
\nwhich would form foundation for the opinion. I am fortified in my view by a
\njudgment of the apex Court reported as S.Ramchandra Raju Vs. State of Orissa,
\n1994 Supp (3) SCC 424, wherein it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
On total evaluation of the entire record of service if the
\nGovernment or the governmental authority forms the
\nopinion that in the public interest the officer needs to be
\nretired compulsorily, the court may not interfere with the
\nexercise of such bona fide judicial review not as a court of
\nappeal but in its exercise of judicial review to consider
\nwhether the power has been properly exercised or is
\narbitrary or vitiated either by mala fide or actuated by
\nextraneous consideration or arbitrary in retiring the
\ngovernment officer compulsorily from service.<\/p>\n
        Apex Court in case titled Bayanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orrisa, AIR
\n1989 SC 2218 held that if any officer is promoted, previous allegations cannot be
\nmade the basis for compulsory retirement.\n<\/p>\n
        Keeping in view the tests laid down by the Apex court and judgments of
\nthis Court (supra), it can be easily held that relevant material was not considered by
\nthe Committee and the impugned order came to be passed on no evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        Respondents have failed to indicate as to what were the allegations against
\nthe petitioner. If at all, there were some allegations, same cannot be made basis for
\npassing the impugned order for the simple reason that the petitioner admittedly
\ncame to be promoted twice in the year 1980 & 1983 as Deputy Forester and
\nForester respectively. Apex Court in Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India &
\nors., AIR 1981 SC 70,  laid down the same law.\n<\/p>\n
        The apex Court in cases State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, AIR
\n2001 SC 1109, Baldev Raj Chadha Vs. Union of India, (1980) 4 SCC 321,
\nH.C.Gargi Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 65,  M.S.Bindra Vs. Union of
\nIndia, (1998) 7 SCC 310 and State of U.P. Vs. Chater Sen (2005) 9 SCC 592,
\nhas also laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 16 of the judgment
\nreported in (1980) 4 SCC 321(supra) hereunder:-
\n16.    The appellant was promoted only in 1961 and was
\nregularly drawing increment for well over a decade, without
\nlet or hindrance. What is far more significant is the further
\nfact that the Reviewing Committee and the AG appear to
\nhave ignored entries in yearly\/half yearly reports in the
\nseventies.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant states categorically:-\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of the extract from the confidential reports would
\nshow that there were no adverse remarks in the confidential
\nreports of the appellant for the years 1971-72, 1972-73,
\n1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76, till the date of his retirement
\nfrom service on August 27, 1975.<\/p>\n
        A Division Bench of this Court while dealing with a case of an identical
\nnature titled as State of J&K Vs. Jia Lal Gupta & Ors., 1994 SLJ 24 has also laid
\ndown the same principle.\n<\/p>\n
        Apex Court in case reported in Baikuntha Nath Das & another Vs. Chief
\nDistrict Medical Officer, AIR 1992 SC 1020, Chief General Manager, SBI V.
\nSuresh Chandra Behera, AIR<\/a> 1995 SCC 1745 and  M.S.Bindra V. Union of
\nIndia, AIR<\/a> 1998 SC 3058 has held that in order to arrive at a conclusion it is
\nmandatory to consider the entire service record of a government servant.  It is apt to
\nreproduce para 6 of the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 1745 and para 13 of the
\njudgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 3058 here in:-\n<\/p>\n
6.     Learned advocate for the respondent relied on a
\ndecision in the case of Baldeve Raj Chandra V. Union of
\nIndia (1981) 1 SCR 430 AIR 1981 SC 70). In that case, the
\nappellant was compulsorily retired on the basis of his poor
\nperformance many years ago. He had been allowed to cross
\nthe efficiency bar and there was nothing adverse in his
\nservice record for the past five years. The Court said that the
\norder of compulsory retirement could not be sustained as it
\nignored relevant material. This judgment has no application
\nto the facts of the present case.<\/p>\n
13.    While viewing this case from the next angle for
\njudicial scrutiny i.e., want of evidence or material to reach
\nsuch a conclusion, we may add that want of any material is
\nalmost equivalent to the next situation that from the
\navailable material no reasonable man would reach such a
\nconclusion. While evaluating the materials the authority
\nshould not altogether ignore the reputation in which the
\nofficer was held till recently. The maxima Nemo Firut
\nRepente Turpissiums (no one becomes dishonest all of a
\nsudden) is not unexceptional but still it is salutary guideline
\nto judge human conduct, particularly in the field of
\nAdministrative Law. The authorities should not keep the
\neyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which
\nthe delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those
\nwho were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into
\nthe puddle of doubtful integrity it is not enough that the
\ndoubt fringes on a mere hunch. The doubt should be of
\nsuch a nature as would reasonably and consciously be
\nentertain able by a reasonable man on the given material.
\nMere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would
\nhave happened. There must be preponderance of probability
\nfor the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that
\npossibility. Only then there is justification to ram an officer
\nwith the label doubtful integrity.<\/p>\n
        The Committee cannot base its report on guess work and Government
\ncannot pass an order on such guess work. Same point came up for consideration
\nbefore this Court in a case titled Zarina Bano & Ors., SWP No. 828\/2005 decided
\non 6th of June 2008 wherein it has been held by this Court that order of premature
\nretirement cannot  be passed on mere guess work and without any  material to
\nsupport the same. This Court also in case titled as Janak Singh Vs. State of J&K &
\nOrs., 2009(1) JKJ 588 [HC]; Parshotttam Singh Vs. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No.
\n1397\/2006 decided on 08th of April 2010 and Ram Dass Vs. State of J&K & Ors.,
\nSWP No. 530\/2005 date of decision 24th of September 2010 has laid down the
\nsame principle.\n<\/p>\n
        It is the duty of the Court to lift the veil and record the finding whether the
\norder of compulsory retirement is without justification, arbitrary, outcome of malice
\nand came to be passed on no evidence. As discussed hereinabove, the impugned
\norder has been passed arbitrarily, without application of mind and without
\ndiscussing the entire service record and on no evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        Having glance of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that
\npetitioner has carved out a case for interference.\n<\/p>\n
        Viewed thus, the impugned order merits to be quashed. Accordingly, same
\nis quashed and the writ petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
        Registrar Judicial to furnish a copy of this judgment to Mr. Gagan Basotra,
\nlearned Additional Advocate General.\n<\/p>\n
        Disposed of along with all CMPs.\n<\/p>\n
(MANSOOR AHMAD MIR)
\nJUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Jammu:\n<\/p>\n
09-12-2010
\nSanjay <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jammu High Court Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 2072 OF 2004 Mohd Yunas Petitioners State & Ors. Respondent !Mr. S.K.Anand, Advocate. ^Mr. Gagan Basotra, AAG Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Date: 9.12.2010 :J U D G M E N T […]<\/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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 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\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-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=\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-28T05:08:35+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T05:08:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2731,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T05:08:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 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":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 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\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-28T05:08:35+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T05:08:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010"},"wordCount":2731,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010","name":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T05:08:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunas-vs-virtually-on-9-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd Yunas vs Virtually on 9 December, 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\/179494","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=179494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}