{"id":18340,"date":"2008-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-15T17:40:00","modified_gmt":"2018-09-15T12:10:00","slug":"akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur<\/div>\n
Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008<\/div>\n
                               1\n\n   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                       JODHPUR\n\n\n                         :ORDER:\n\n\nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5549\/2007.\n(Akash Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another)\n\n\nDATE OF ORDER :                    December 19th, 2008\n\n\n                         PRESENT\n\n\n          Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas\n          _______________________________\n\n\nMr. Kamal Dave for petitioner.\nMr. R.K. Bohra for the respondent(s).\n\n\nBY THE COURT :<\/pre>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
      In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction<\/p>\n
to the respondents to appoint him as Notary in furtherance of<\/p>\n
the decision of the appropriate Government and to impose<\/p>\n
exemplary cost on the respondents.      Further, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
prayed that respondents may be directed to compensate the<\/p>\n
petitioner for withholding his right of fair consideration in<\/p>\n
consonance with the rules and for unnecessary keeping the<\/p>\n
issuance of appointment order pending for such a long period of<\/p>\n
time and for failure to communicate him the decision despite<\/p>\n
mandatory requirement under the rules.\n<\/p>\n
      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is registered<\/p>\n
Advocate and he filed an application in pursuance of the<\/p>\n
notification dated 04.06.2003 for appointment as Notary under<\/p>\n
Rule 4 of the Notaries Rules, 1956.     The petitioner was fulfilling<\/p>\n
the eligibility criteria and all the qualification for appointment as<\/p>\n
Notary as required under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1956.<\/p>\n
      The case of the petitioner was considered in accordance<\/p>\n
with rules and finally this case was placed before the Minister<\/p>\n
concerned and was approved by the appropriate Government.<\/p>\n
As per petitioner, under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1956, it is<\/p>\n
mandatory for the competent authority to inform about every<\/p>\n
order passed by the appropriate Government under sub-rule (1)<\/p>\n
of Rule 8 after receiving the report of the competent authority;<\/p>\n
but, in the case of the petitioner, no communication as per sub-
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1956 was given and after<\/p>\n
awaiting for some time an application was filed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
under Right to Information Act.\n<\/p>\n
        In reply to the aforesaid application under Right to<\/p>\n
Information Act, the required documents were supplied to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, upon those documents, it has come to the knowledge<\/p>\n
of the petitioner that the appropriate Government has already<\/p>\n
ordered for issuance of the appointment order as Notary in<\/p>\n
favour of the petitioner on 26.06.2004 in the file.      After the<\/p>\n
deficiency in the application-form rectified by the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
respondents kept the matter hanging without compliance with<\/p>\n
the mandatory requirement under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of<\/p>\n
1956.\n<\/p>\n
        Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
though the petitioner satisfied the appropriate Government by<\/p>\n
way of removing the deficiency in the application as desired by<\/p>\n
the respondents but the respondents have illegally denied the<\/p>\n
appointment on the ground that the matter was again placed<\/p>\n
before the Minister concerned and, upon placing the matter<\/p>\n
again before the Minister concerned, it was ordered that fresh<\/p>\n
notification may be issued.\n<\/p>\n
        Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
the petitioner being eligible for appointment claimed the same<\/p>\n
and his case was considered up to the level of the appropriate
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
Government and finally as per office note 27 of the file, which is<\/p>\n
received by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Law Minister ordered for issuance of the appointment<\/p>\n
order after removing the objections regarding the deficiencies in<\/p>\n
the application form.    But, instead of issuing the appointment<\/p>\n
order in favour of the petitioner, the matter was arbitrarily again<\/p>\n
placed by the Law Department with certain notes by the then<\/p>\n
Law Secretary before the Law Minister and, upon that, the<\/p>\n
Minister concerned passed order for issuing fresh notification.<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted<\/p>\n
that mere changing of the Minister concerned order passed by<\/p>\n
the appropriate Government cannot be changed and the decision<\/p>\n
was required to be obeyed but, the then Law Secretary against<\/p>\n
placed the matter after change of Ministry upon which the order<\/p>\n
for issuing fresh notification was passed; meaning thereby, the<\/p>\n
action taken by the respondents is totally in contravention of the<\/p>\n
basic principles of law.     After passing of the order by the<\/p>\n
Minister concerned in the file for appointment of the petitioner as<\/p>\n
Notary, in compliance of the said order, the petitioner was to be<\/p>\n
given the appointment order and, change in the Ministry does<\/p>\n
not create any right in favour of the State Government to snatch<\/p>\n
away the right of the citizen which has already been finalized.<\/p>\n
It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this<\/p>\n
case, illegally appointment of the petitioner on the post of Notary
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
has been denied and in respect of all other persons who<\/p>\n
preferred application for appointment as Public Notary, orders<\/p>\n
were issued for their appointment in the month of November<\/p>\n
2002 vide Annex.-11.     In this view of the matter, it is prayed by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner that denial of appointment is<\/p>\n
totally arbitrary and suffers from the vice of malice.<\/p>\n
      In reply to the notice, it is submitted by learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents that mere selection does not create any<\/p>\n
right in favour of the petitioner for appointment to the post; but,<\/p>\n
in this case, the petitioner is agitating the right which, in fact,<\/p>\n
did not materialize in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was not given appointment to the post of Public<\/p>\n
Notary; and, later on order was passed for issuing fresh<\/p>\n
notification.    It is contended by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents that mere selection does not create right, therefore,<\/p>\n
this writ petition deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone.<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that there was deficiency in the application form of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, therefore, after completion of the legal formalities the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Minister directed to appoint the petitioner as Public<\/p>\n
Notary; but, the Law Secretary being the competent authority<\/p>\n
again moved the file to the Hon’ble Minister with reference to the<\/p>\n
illegality which could be committed if the appointment order was<\/p>\n
to be issued. On that, the Hon’ble Minister directed for issuance
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
of the fresh notification for which the Minister concerned was<\/p>\n
competent.\n<\/p>\n
     As per learned counsel for the respondents the competent<\/p>\n
authority has rightly sent the file to the Hon’ble Minister because<\/p>\n
the application of the petitioner was not complete when it was<\/p>\n
submitted.      In para (C) of the reply to Ground (C), it is<\/p>\n
specifically stated by the respondents that nothing is provided in<\/p>\n
the statute to remove the deficiency after submission of the<\/p>\n
application form to the competent authority, nor the petitioner<\/p>\n
has shown such provision in the writ petition, therefore, the<\/p>\n
competent authority has rightly sent the file to the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Minister to review the decision on the fact that application<\/p>\n
submitted by the petitioner was not complete when it was<\/p>\n
submitted.      So, the competent authority was within his<\/p>\n
competence to place the file before the Minister concerned to<\/p>\n
review his decision and the petitioner cannot question the<\/p>\n
competence of the Law Secretary to place the file again before<\/p>\n
the Minister concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Upon hearing arguments on 08.12.2008, it was felt<\/p>\n
necessary to call the relevant record of the case.   In pursuance<\/p>\n
of the said order, the relevant file has been produced for perusal<\/p>\n
of the Court.   After perusing the entire record of the case it is<\/p>\n
abundantly clear that the final decision was taken by the then<\/p>\n
Law Minister Shri Khet Singh on 27.09.2003 to appoint the
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     “\u0935 \u0927 \/\u0938\u0927
\n                     \u092e .\u0935 \u0927 \u092e\u0924 \u092e\u0939 .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        27. \u0936 \u0906\u0915 \u0936 \u0935 \u091c\u092f\u0938\u0938\u0939 \u0915 \u092b \u092e \u092e \u091c \u0915\u0938\u092e\u092f \u0939 \u0909\u0928\u0915
\n        \u092a\u0930 \u0915\u0930\u0928 \u0915 \u092a\u0936 \u0924 ” \u0924\u0939\u0938 \u0932 \u091c \u092a$\u0930 \u0915 \u0938\u0932\u090f \u0936 \u0906\u0915 \u0936
\n        \u0935 \u091c\u092f\u0938\u0938\u0939 \u0905\u0938” \u0937\u0915 \u0915 \u0928 \u091f\u0930* \u092a\u092c,\u0932\u0915, \u0928\u0928\u092f\u0915
\n                                          $  \u0915\u0915\u092f \u091c \u0924
\n        \u0939\u0964\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      \u090f\u0938.\u0921 .- 27-9.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
When this specific order was passed by the Minister concerned;<\/p>\n
and, thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to complete the<\/p>\n
deficiencies which too were completed by the petitioner, then,<\/p>\n
only order was to be issued by the respondents for appointment<\/p>\n
of the petitioner as Public Notary because all other persons who<\/p>\n
had applied in pursuance of the notification for appointment as<\/p>\n
Public Notary were already appointed.\n<\/p>\n
     Upon perusal of the subsequent decision I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that what were the reasons for placing the matter again<\/p>\n
before the Minister concerned is very relevant and upon perusal<\/p>\n
of the note dated 17.07.2004 upon the file by the then Law<\/p>\n
Secretary it is nowhere stated why the file was again placed<\/p>\n
before the Minister concerned because earlier the order was<\/p>\n
passed by the Minister concerned to provide appointment after<\/p>\n
completing the deficiencies.\n<\/p>\n
     In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that for no<\/p>\n
reason the matter was again placed before the Law Minister after
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
change of the Ministry, therefore, such an order which is passed<\/p>\n
subsequently without compliance of the earlier order is not<\/p>\n
justified.   More so, no reason whatsoever has been assigned for<\/p>\n
not obeying the order passed by the then Law Minister on<\/p>\n
27.09.2003.     The relevant file produced before this Court clearly<\/p>\n
reveals that without any reason aribtrarily the matter was again<\/p>\n
placed for review upon which the decision for re-notification was<\/p>\n
taken by the appropriate Government which is not permissible<\/p>\n
under the law. The order for appointment as Notary Public was<\/p>\n
to be issued in pursuance of the decision taken by the then<\/p>\n
Minister but it has not been done and subsequently the matter<\/p>\n
was reviewed which is not in consonance with any provision of<\/p>\n
law.    Therefore, the subsequent even and order for inviting<\/p>\n
fresh applications, so far as petitioner is concerned, is illegal.<\/p>\n
       It is also very relevant to observe here that the decision<\/p>\n
for issuing fresh notification without quashing the earlier decision<\/p>\n
for appointment is illegal and against the basic principles of law.<\/p>\n
Upon perusal of the file produced by the respondents, it is<\/p>\n
revealed that there is no order of cancellation of the earlier<\/p>\n
decision in the subsequent order and only order was made that<\/p>\n
new notification may be issued; meaning thereby, qua the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the earlier decision of the petitioner’s appointment as<\/p>\n
Notary Public was not superseded by any subsequent order<\/p>\n
passed in relation to the petitioner.          Foregoing facts and
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances clearly reveal that the respondents have indulged<\/p>\n
in illegal practice and action on their part is completely in<\/p>\n
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India while<\/p>\n
denying appointment to the petitioner on the post of Notary<\/p>\n
Public.    Therefore, the order of appointment of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
in existence.   In this view of the matter, in my opinion, this writ<\/p>\n
petition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is<\/p>\n
accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to issue<\/p>\n
appointment order in favour of the petitioner for the post of<\/p>\n
Public Notary as per decision dated 27.09.2003 within a period<\/p>\n
of one month from today and grant all other benefits in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
      There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.\n<\/p>\n
Ojha, a.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :ORDER: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5549\/2007. (Akash Vijay Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another) DATE OF ORDER : December 19th, 2008 PRESENT Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan […]<\/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":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"\nAkash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - 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\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-15T12:10:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T12:10:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T12:10:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - 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\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-15T12:10:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T12:10:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008"},"wordCount":1729,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008","name":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T12:10:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/akash-vijay-singh-vs-state-anr-on-19-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Akash Vijay Singh vs State & Anr on 19 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/18340","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=18340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}