{"id":196072,"date":"2010-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-29T14:20:43","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T08:50:43","slug":"m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                      WP 23434.03\n\n                    Writ Petition No. 23434 of 2003\n06-09-2010\n         None for the petitioner, despite of the SPC issued to the\npetitioner.\n         Ms. Jailaxmi Ayyer, learned Panel lawyer for the respondents\/<\/pre>\n<p>State.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Petitioner       though         challenges         the       order       No.<br \/>\nEstt.\/10\/DE\/156\/95 dated 31-01-1995 endorsed to the petitioner by<br \/>\nletter dated 31-05-1995 passed by the Director, Panchayat and Social<br \/>\nWelfare; however, the order is not on record. And though it is<br \/>\nmentioned in the petition that the same is filed as Annexure A-1.<br \/>\nWhereas, Annexure A-1 is the order dated 17-02-1993 passed by the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 3 inflicting upon the petitioner the penalty of<br \/>\nreversion from the post of Accountant to the Upper Division Clerk.<br \/>\nFrom the pleadings it appear that the order dated 31-01-1995 is the<br \/>\nappellate order whereby the penalty of reversion imposed on the<br \/>\npetitioner has been upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>         As unfurled from the record, the petitioner was subjected to a<br \/>\nmajor penalty charge sheet under Rule 14 of the M. P. Civil Services<br \/>\n(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on 01-06-1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Following charges were levelled against the petitioner :-<br \/>\n          &#8220;(v) Jh ckykizlkn] tqxyfd&#8217;kksj lkgw] ueZnkizlkn oekZ] y{ehukjk;.k<br \/>\n          &#8216;kekZ] d`&#8221;.kdqekj Bkdqj] lqUnjflag \/kkdM] cl#n~nhu] fy;kdyvyh]<br \/>\n          NksVsyky Bkdqj] \/kuflag \/kkdM ,oa vjfoUn dqekj feJk vkfn xzke iapk;r<br \/>\n          lfpoksa ds izLrko euekus &lt;ax ls fcuk fdlh tkap ds dysDVj ds<br \/>\n          vuqeksnu gsrq izLrqr fd, x,A tcfd lacaf\/kr lfpo vuqaeksnu ds ik= ugha<br \/>\n          FksA<br \/>\n                                                                      WP 23434.03<\/p>\n<p>        (c)       Jh veksyflag Bkdqj] fnukad 3-1-81 ls vLFkk;h fyfid ds in<br \/>\n        ij fu;qDr gksrs gq, Hkh ofj&#8221;B vf\/kdkfj;ksa dks \/kks[kk nsdj] dysDVj ls<br \/>\n        Jh Bkdqj dk lfpo ds in ij fnukad 2-6-87 ls vuqeksnu fnyk;kA\n<\/p>\n<p>        (l)       laHkkxh; dk;kZy; Hkksiky ds v\/nZ&#8217;kkldh; i= dzekad 3260<br \/>\n        fnukad 21-7-87 Onkjk pkgh xbZ ,sals va&#8217;kdkyhu lfpoksa dh lwph ftudh<br \/>\n        fu;qfDr fnukad 7-9-79 ds iwoZ gqbZ Fkh] ugha Hksth xbZA blh izdkj<br \/>\n        laHkkxh; dk;kZy; Hkksiky ds i= dzekad 3380 fnukad 3-8-87 Onkjk pkgh<br \/>\n        xbZ ,sals va&#8217;kdkyhu lfpoksa dh lwph ftudh fu;qfDr fnukad 7-9-79 ds<br \/>\n        iwoZ ,oa i&#8217;pkr~ dh xbZ Fkh] ugha HksthA<br \/>\n                  bl izdkj vkids Onkjk eq[; fyfid lg ys[kkiky ds inh;<br \/>\n        drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu u djrs gq,] Lo;a dh LokFkZ fl\/nh dk dk;Z fd;k<br \/>\n        x;kA vkidk ;g d`R; e0iz0 flfoy (vkpj.k) fu;e 1965 ds fu;e-3<br \/>\n        (1)(nks) ds foijhr gksus dh otg ls n.Muh; gSA&#8221;<br \/>\n      The petitioner, as the record reveals, did not file any reply to<br \/>\nthe charge sheet; leading to holding of a departmental enquiry by<br \/>\nappointing an enquiry officer on 25-06-1992. That before the<br \/>\nappointment of enquiry officer and after the issuance of charge sheet<br \/>\nthe petitioner vide his application dated 06-06-1992 demanded<br \/>\ncertain documents; whereon, he was informed by letter dated<br \/>\n16-06-1992 that, being not relevant, the documents were not<br \/>\nsupplied.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The enquiry officer furnished the enquiry report on<br \/>\n22-12-1992, wherein, the charges levelled against the petitioner were<br \/>\nfound proved. Consequent whereon the show cause notice was<br \/>\nissued on 29-12-1992 as to why the petitioner be not removed from<br \/>\nservice. The petitioner replied on 11-01-1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The disciplinary authority thereafter vide order dated<br \/>\n17-02-1993 reverted the petitioner from the post of Accountant to<br \/>\nthe Upper Division Clerk.\n<\/p>\n<p>      An appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed<br \/>\n                                                         WP 23434.03<\/p>\n<p>by order dated 31-01-1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner though challenges the impugned order on the<br \/>\nground that he has been punished without affording the petitioner<br \/>\nany opportunity of hearing. That the relevant documents were not<br \/>\nsupplied. That he was not afforded any opportunity to engage the<br \/>\ndefence counsel. That was not afforded any opportunity to cross-<br \/>\nexamine the witnesses and that he was not afforded an opportunity<br \/>\nto produce defence witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>      These averments in the petition when adjudged on the<br \/>\ntouchstone of the facts on record would negative the allegations that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend.\n<\/p>\n<p>      On receiving the charge sheet the petitioner vide letter dated<br \/>\n06-06-1992 demanded certain documents which as per the<br \/>\nrespondents letter dated 16-06-1992 was replied that the same were<br \/>\nnot relevant. The petitioner in the petition has also not shown any<br \/>\nrelevancy, as also how the petitioner is prejudicially affected by non<br \/>\nsupply of document.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Apparent it is from the charge sheet that the list of relevant<br \/>\ndocuments were annexed therewith. It is not the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the documents enlisted with the charge sheet was not<br \/>\nsupplied. Therefore, in absence of any cogent material on record it<br \/>\ncannot be held that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner for<br \/>\nnon-supply of documents sought by application dated 06-06-1992.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In respect of the contention regarding non granting of<br \/>\nassistance of a defence counsel and non-examination of witnesses. It<br \/>\nappears from the reply filed by the petitioner in response to show<br \/>\n                                                          WP 23434.03<\/p>\n<p>cause notice and the enquiry report, that the petitioner being well<br \/>\nversed with the procedure and the facts of the case ably defended<br \/>\nhimself without any shortcomings\/wanting of defence assistance. In<br \/>\nrespect of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the<br \/>\ndefence evidence; it is for the petitioner to have availed the<br \/>\nopportunity, when the same was readily available to him.           The<br \/>\nmaterial on record nowhere shows that the petitioner was<br \/>\nspecifically precluded from having the defence assistance, the<br \/>\ndefence evidence and the cross-examination of prosecution<br \/>\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In conclusion since the findings recorded against the<br \/>\npetitioner is based on cogent material and pertinently addressed at by<br \/>\nthe disciplinary authority, no interference is warranted with the<br \/>\npunishment which is based on such findings.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the result petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                         (SANJAY YADAV)<br \/>\n                                              JUDGE<br \/>\nsc\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 WP 23434.03 Writ Petition No. 23434 of 2003 06-09-2010 None for the petitioner, despite of the SPC issued to the petitioner. Ms. Jailaxmi Ayyer, learned Panel lawyer for the respondents\/ State. Heard. Petitioner though challenges the order No. Estt.\/10\/DE\/156\/95 dated [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - 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\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-29T08:50:43+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T08:50:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":954,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\",\"name\":\"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T08:50:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 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":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - 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\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-29T08:50:43+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T08:50:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010"},"wordCount":954,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010","name":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T08:50:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-shrivastava-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-6-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K. Shrivastava vs The State Of M.P on 6 September, 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\/196072","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=196072"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196072\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}