{"id":204668,"date":"2010-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-23T21:05:57","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T15:35:57","slug":"sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                              1\n\n\n\n\n                      W.P.No.10402\/10\n\nSanjay Varshney                                          State of M.P. & others\n\n\n\n\n13.8.2010\n      Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for petitioner.\n         Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.Adovate General for respondents.<\/pre>\n
         This petition is directed against an order Annexure P\/9 dated
\n22.4.2010 of the State of M.P., Law and Legislative Department, Bhopal
\nby which the department has granted sanction to the Economic Offence
\nBureau to prosecute the petitioner. The sanction has been accorded
\nunder Section 19(1)(b)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read
\nwith section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Law
\nDepartment accorded permission to prosecute the petitioner under
\nSection 120-B of IPC and under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
         This petition has been filed on the grounds:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)      That as per order of the State Government Annexure P\/4 dt.
\n28.2.1998, before granting permission by the Law Department, it was
\nobligatory on the part of the Law Department to seek an opinion of the
\nconcerned Administrative Department and after getting the opinion of
\nthe concerned Administrative Department, the Law department should
\nhave taken a decision in respect of according sanction for prosecution.
\nThat the Law Department before grant of sanction referred the matter to
\nthe     Administrative   Department-Tribal    Welfare      Department.     The
\nAdministrative Department vide Annexure P\/5 submitted its opinion and
\nrecommended that there is no necessity to prosecute the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     The Law Department without considering the reasons and
\nopinion of the Administrative Department         as per Annexure P\/5 has
\naccorded sanction vide Annexure P\/9.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Learned counsel for petitioner has referred various paras of order
\nAnnexure P\/9 to support his contention that there was no application of
\nmind by the Law Department for according sanction in reference to the
\nopinion of the Administrative Department.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)     That the concerned Minister of Tribal Welfare Department in his
\nletter dated 22.5.2010 has specifically noted down that the Law
\n                                                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
                       W.P.No.10402\/10<\/p>\n
Sanjay Varshney                                          State of M.P. & others<\/p>\n
13.8.2010
\nDepartment has not expressed its disagreement with the opinion of the
\nDepartment then matter may be referred for reconsideration to the Law
\nDepartment but the Law Department has not reconsidered the matter. It
\nis submitted the order Annexure P\/9 may be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
          Reliance is placed to a judgment of the Apex Court in M.P.
\nSpecial Police Establishment Vs. State of M.P. (2004) 8 SCC 788 in
\nsupport of his contentions.\n<\/p>\n
          The learned counsel for State supported the order.
\n          From the perusal of the facts of the case, we find that the Law
\nDepartment in its sanction Annexure P\/9 has referred certain facts of
\nthe case and for ready reference, we reproduce para 5 of the sanction
\norder:-\n<\/p>\n
          “5-    vuqla\/kku es ;g ik;k x;k fd lkekU; oxZ ds fjDr in 101
\n          ds fo:} fu;ekuqlkj rhu xquk mEehnokjksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k
\n          tkuk Fkk ysfdu ek= 66 mEehnokjksa dks gh lk{kkRdkj gsrq cqyk;k
\n          x;k tcfd fu\/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk okys 853 mEehnokj miyC\/k FksaA
\n          vuqlwfpr tutkfr oxZ ds 132 in] vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ ds dqy 8
\n          fjDr in fiNM+k oxZ ds dqy 39 fjDr in ds fo:} rhu xquk
\n          mEehnokjks dks u cqykdj dze’k% 531] 69] 128 yksxks dks cqykdj
\n          dze’k% 135]20]71 mEehnokjksa dks vf\/kd cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA
\n          f’k{kk dehZ oxZ 2 dyk ladk; vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ dh mEehnokj
\n          dqekjh ‘kdqUryk [kkiM+s ds vad 24-43 dks dksbZ vuqHko u gksrs gq,
\n          Hkh lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd vuqlwfpr tkfr ds eSfjV lwph ds
\n          ljy dazekd 70 ij efgyk ds vad 30-37 gksrs gq, Hkh mls lk{kkRdkj
\n          es ugh cqyk;k x;k A blh rjg vuqlwfpr tutkfr oxZ ds eSfjV
\n          lwph ds ljy dazekd 148 es efgyk ds vad 36-07 gksrs gq, Hkh
\n          lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;kA tcfd eSfjV lwph ds ljy dzekad
\n          597 es mDr laoxZ ds iq:”k    laoxZ ds izkIrkad 25-47 gksrs gq, Hkh
\n          lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd blls vf\/kd vad izkIr djus okys
\n          ljy dzekad 514 ds izkIrkad 26-23 gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es ugh
\n          cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 670 ds izkIrkad 24-73 dks lk{kkRdkj es
\n                                                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
                    W.P.No.10402\/10<\/p>\n
Sanjay Varshney                                         State of M.P. & others<\/p>\n
13.8.2010
\n      cqyk;k x;k ijUrq vf\/kd vad okys ljy dzekad 514 ds izkIrkad
\n      26-23 gksus ds ckn Hkh lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;k bl izdkj de
\n      vad okyksa dks cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA fiNM+k oxZ ds ljy
\n      dzekad 86 ij nf’kZr fiNM+k oxZ efgyk ds izkIrkad 30-55 dks
\n      lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;k o blls Hkh de vad izkIr djus okys
\n      ljy dzekad 1927 ds ikIrkad 30-40 gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es
\n      cqykdj ykHk igqpk;k x;kA blh izdkj mDr laoxZ dh eSfjV lwph ds
\n      ljy dzekad 309] 381 489] dzekad 614 ds vad de gksrs gq, Hkh
\n      mUgsa lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k x;k tcfd ljy dzekad 198] 203 ds vf\/
\n      kd vad gksrs gq, Hkh ugh cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 41] 42]133 ds
\n      mEehnokjksa dks fu\/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk u gksrs gqw, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es cqyk;k
\n      x;kA f’k{kkdehZ oxZ&2 dyka ladk; lkekU; oxZ dh eSfjV lwph ds
\n      ljy dzekad 30 dh fu\/kZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk u gksrs gq, lk{kkRdkj es
\n      cqyk;k x;k A tcfd ljy dzekad 51]75 dh ;ksX;rk gksus ds ckn Hkh
\n      lk{kkRdkj es ugh cqyk;k x;kA ljy dzekad 52] 62 dks ,d o”kZ dk
\n      vuqHko gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj gsrq ugh cqyk;k x;k tcfd ljy
\n      dzekad 75]167]224 dks vuqHko u gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kRdkj es cqyk;k
\n      x;k A ljy dzekd 61 ds vad           vf\/kd gksrs gq, Hkh lk{kkRdkj es
\n      ugh cqyk;k x;kA      mDr d`R; ds fy, mDr vkjksihx.k ds vykok
\n      vkjksih Jh v’kksd o.kZoky] th-,e->k mRrjnk;h gSA lk{kkRdkj es
\n      fu;ekuqlkj p;u lfefr es fo”k; fo’ks”kK dh fu;qDr ugh dh xbZA
\n      fnukad 25-06-98 dks f’k{kk lfefr ds lHkkifr jkts’k frokjh dh v\/;
\n      {krk es lk{kkRdkj fy;s x;s mles eq[; dk;Zikyu vf\/kdkjh Jh lat;
\n      ok”.ksZ; lgk;d vk;qDr o ;w-,l-f}osnh mi lapkyd f’k{kk lfefr ds
\n      vU; lnL; fo’ks”kK       Jh ,y-Mh-cM[kkus izkpk;Z Jh ,l-vkj-usrke
\n      izkpk;Z Jh ,l-,l- JhokLro O;k[;krk Jh ,e-ds-nkl izkpk;Z Jh ts-<\/p>\n
      ih-iVSy izkpk;Z mifLFkr FksA mifLFkr lnL;ksa dks rhu xzqi es
\n      foHkkftr dj rhu cksMZ rS;kj fd;s x;sA lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk
\n      lfefr es Hkkx fy;k x;k fdUrq mDr O;fDr;ksa dks HkrhZ fu;eksa ds
\n      izko\/kku fu;e 5 \u00bc8\u00bd ds vuqlkj ftyk iapk;r cLrj }kjk p;u
\n      lfefr dk lnL; fu;qDr djus laca\/kh dksbZ vkns’k tkjh djuk ugh
\n      ik;k x;k A ;g ik;k x;k fd Jherh ehuk eFkjkuh ds lk{kRdkj
\n                                                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
                    W.P.No.10402\/10<\/p>\n
Sanjay Varshney                                         State of M.P. & others<\/p>\n
13.8.2010
\n      vadks es ;ksx 6 dks dkVdj vyx ls 11 fy[k dj ikap vadks dh o`f}
\n      dh xbZA dqekjh xhrk izlkn ds vadks dh vkB vadks dh xq:cpu flag
\n      usrke ds vadksa es ikap vadks dh dqekjh v:.kk ds vadksa es 5 vadksa
\n      dh dqekjh xhrk ;kno ds vadks es pkj vadks dh vk’kk mbds ds vadks
\n      es 7 vadks dh deh vksOgjjkbZfaVx dj dh xbZA ;g ik;k x;k fd
\n      HkrhZ fu;eksa ds izko\/kkukuqlkj f’k{kk lfefr }kjk uke fufnZ”V nks
\n      fo”k; fo’ks”kK ftles ,d efgyk gksuk pkfg;s FkhA fdUrq lk{kkRdkj
\n      gsrq ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh usrke dk gksuk ik;k x;kA blh rjg
\n      f’k{kk dehZ oxZ&1 fo”k; laLd`r ds lk{kkRdkj es ,d gh fo”k;
\n      fo’ks”kK Jh vkbZ-vkj-[kwaVs dk gksuk ik;k x;kA mDr d`R; ds fy, Jh
\n      eukst xksfoy o vkjksih Jh lat; ok”.ksZ; mRrjnk;h ik;s x;s A ;g
\n      Hkh ik;k x;k fd f’k{kkdehZ oxZ&1 fo”k; vFkZ’kkL= ds lk{kkRdkj es
\n      deys’k Bkdqj ds vadksa es 4 vadks dh Jherh lqfe=k nsokaxu ds vadksa
\n      es 6 vadksa dh Jherh lqeu ofxZl ds vadks es 2 vadks dh vt;
\n      dqekj ikaMs ds vadksa es 11 vadks dh] dqekjh Lusgyrk ;kno ds vadksa
\n      es 2 vadks dh vksOgjjkbZfVx dj o`f} dh xbZA mDr =qfV gsrq Jh
\n      eukst xksfoy o Jh lat; ok”.ksZ; nks”kh ik;s x;sA bfrgkl fo”k; ds
\n      lk{kkRdkj es dq- lhek lhoku ds vadksa es 2 vadks dh Hkkjrh nsokaxu
\n      ds vadksa es 4 vadks dh o`f} o nhun;ky lkgw ds vadkas es 3 vadksa dh
\n      deh vksOgjjkbZfVax dj dh xbZA HkrhZ fu;eksa ds izko\/kku dk ikyu u
\n      djrs gq, flQZ ,d fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh ,y-Mh-cj[kkus dks j[kk x;k A
\n      jktuhfr fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Jh fczts’k frokjh ds vadksa es 2 vadksa
\n      dh] Jherh Hkkjrh nhoku ds vadksa es 5 vadks dh dqwekjh ‘;kek ds
\n      vadksa es rhu vadks dh fyys’k dqekj lkgw ds vadksa es 3 vadks dh o`f}
\n      vksOgj jkbZfaVx dj dh xbZA ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh t-ih-iVsy dks
\n      j[kk x;k A vaxzsth fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Jherh e\/kq ijost ds vadksa
\n      es 3 vadksa dh o`f} dh xbZA vuqi dqekj fo’okl ds ;ksx es 1 vad
\n      dh deh vksOgj jkbZfVax dj dh xbZ A lk{kkRdkj es fu;e ds
\n      fo:} ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK dqekj e\/kq oekZ dks j[kk x;kA xf.kr
\n      fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es Hkh fu;e fo:} ,d gh fo”k; fo’ks”kK Jh ,e-
\n      ds-nkl dks j[kk x;kA blh rjg tho foKku] jlk;fud ‘kkL=]
\n      HkkSfrd ‘kkL= okf.kT; Hkwxksy] d`f”k] ,ao x`g foKku ds lk{kkRdkj es
\n                                                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                    W.P.No.10402\/10<\/p>\n
Sanjay Varshney                                     State of M.P. & others<\/p>\n
13.8.2010
\n      p;u lfefr dk xBu ,ao lfpo p;u lfefr dh fu;qfDr izko\/kkuksa
\n      dk mYya?ku dj dh xbZA f’k{kk lfefr ds mifLFkr lnL; o
\n      vf\/kdkjh dks gh p;u lfefr dk lnL; ekurs gq, lk{kkRdkj laiUu
\n      djk;k x;k A ck;ksykth fo”k; ds lk{kkRdkj es dqekjh ‘kkgtagk csxe
\n      ds vadksa es ,d vad dh o`f} dh xbZA”\n<\/p>\n
      The Law Department in para 3 of the order has specifically
\nreferred that in the case of petitioner Sanjay Varshney, the
\nAdministrative Department has expressed its disagreement for grant of
\nprosecution, but for the reasons stated in the oder it has granted
\nsanction for the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      From the perusal of the opinion of the Department Annexure P\/5,
\nwe find that in respect of Charge No.5, the Department has expressed
\nits opinion that there was mistake of the petitioner. So far as other
\ncharges     are   concerned,    the   Department    has   expressed      its
\ndisagreement in respect of grant of sanction. But from the perusal of the
\nfacts, it appears that there were serious allegations against the
\npetitioner in respect of non-inviting candidates who were more
\nmeritorious and achieved higher marks and persons who had got lesser
\nmarks were invited in the interview. The Interview Board was not
\nconstituted in accordance with law. Apart from this, serious allegations
\nare in respect of overwriting in respect of the marks obtained by the
\ncandidates. The Law Department found that to give benefit to particular
\ncandidates, the marks were manipulated by overwriting and in this
\nregard, prima facie the petitioner was found responsible. From the
\nperusal of Annexure P\/5, we find that all these facts which are referred
\nin para 5 of the order passed by the Law Department were not
\nconsidered by the Administrative Department and without considering
\nfacts extensively in respect of manipulation of the marks, the
\nAdministrative Department expressed disagreement for according
\nsanction for prosecution.<\/p>\n
\n                                                                           6<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                    W.P.No.10402\/10\n\nSanjay Varshney                                     State of M.P. & others\n\n\n\n\n13.8.2010\n<\/pre>\n
      `It appears that on the recommendation of the concerned
\nMinister, the matter was placed before the Law Department and the
\nLaw Department on 1.6.2010 has not agreed with the aforesaid and
\nrefused to reconsider earlier order on the ground that disagreement of
\nthe department was referred in para 3 of the order. The scope of
\ninterference in such matter is limited. This Court cannot sit as an
\nappellate Court to examine merits of the order passed by the Law
\nDepartment for according sanction. Only process of exercise of the
\npowers by the executive can be looked into and not the decision. The
\nApex Court in M.P. Special Police Establish (supra), in para 29 held
\nthat it is now well settled that refusal to take into consideration a
\nrelevant fact or acting on the basis of irrelevant and extraneous factors
\nnot germane to the purpose of arriving at the conclusion would vitiate an
\nadministrative order. But in the present case, factual position is entirely
\ndifferent. The Law Department has taken into consideration of the facts
\nwhich are referred in para 5 (supra) and the administrative department
\nwithout looking to the aforesaid facts has superficially expressed
\ndisagreement for granting sanction.\n<\/p>\n
       The Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu
\n(2005) 11 SCC 600 in para 16 of the judgment considered procedure
\nfor according sanction. The Apex Court held that the grant of sanction is
\nan executive act and validity thereof cannot be tested in the light of
\nprinciples applied to quasi-judicial orders. The Apex Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
      “The two pronged test laid down therein has been amply
\n      satisfied in the instant case. The sanction orders on their
\n      face indicate that all relevant material viz. the FIR,
\n      disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge-
\n      sheet and other materials on record were placed before
\n      the sanctioning authority. The fact that the sanctioning
\n      authority perused all this material is also discernible from
\n      the recital in the sanction orders. An elaborate narration of
\n      facts culled out from the record placed before the
\n      sanctioning authority and the discussion as to the
\n      applicability of each and every section of the penal
\n      provision quoted therein is not an imperative requirement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                                                             7<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                      W.P.No.10402\/10\n\nSanjay Varshney                                        State of M.P. & others\n\n\n\n\n13.8.2010\n<\/pre>\n
      A pedantic repetition from what is stated in the FIR or the
\n      draft charge-sheet or other documents is not what is called
\n      for in order to judge whether there was due application of
\n      mind.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Virender Kumar Tripathi
\n(2009) 15 SCC 533, the Apex Court considering the similar question
\nthat the Law and Legislative Department was required to consult parent
\ndepartment of the accused as per circular\/order of the State
\nGovernment and therefore, the sanction was proper or not, considering
\nthis question, the Apex Court held that the sanction was granted in the
\nname of the Governor of State by Additional Secretary, Department of
\nLaw and Legislative, hence requirement of advice at the most was an
\ninterdepartmental matter. The Apex Court in para 8 held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
         “8.     So far as the defect in sanction aspect is concerned,
\n         the circular on which the High Court has placed reliance
\n         needs to be noted. The Circular in question is dated 9.2.1988
\n         the relevant portion reads as follows:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               “The Government also decided that before giving
\n               approval of prosecution, the Principal Secretary,
\n               Law and Legal Department will obtain the advice
\n               of department concerned.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         A bare perusal of the paragraph shows that before giving
\n         approval for prosecution, advice of the department
\n         concerned was necessary. The question arises whether the
\n         absence of advice renders the sanction inoperative.
\n         Undisputedly the sanction has been given by the Department
\n         of Law and Legislative Affairs. The State Government had
\n         granted approval of the prosecution. As noted above, the
\n         sanction was granted in the name of the Governor of the
\n         State by the Additional Secretary, Department of Law and
\n         Legislative Affairs. The advice at the most is an
\n         interdepartmental matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         The law laid down by the Apex Court in Virendra Kumar
\nTripathi (supra) is applicable with full force in this case.\n<\/p>\n
         In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition.
\nThis petition is found without merit and is dismissed with no order as to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n
\n                                                                             8<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n                        W.P.No.10402\/10\n\n     Sanjay Varshney                                   State of M.P. & others\n\n\n\n\n     13.8.2010\n<\/pre>\n
           We make it clear that we have considered the case in respect of
\n     according sanction by the Law Department. Any observation made in
\n     this order shall not come in the way of the petitioner to agitate the
\n     matter before Court of law and the concerned Court shall be free to deal
\n     and decide the matter in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
           No order as to costs. C.C. as per rules.\n<\/p>\n
     (Krishn Kumar Lahoti)                                 (J.K.Maheshwari)\nC.          Judge                                               Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 2010 1 W.P.No.10402\/10 Sanjay Varshney State of M.P. & others 13.8.2010 Shri A.P.Shroti, Counsel for petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, Dy.Adovate General for respondents. This petition is directed against an order Annexure P\/9 dated 22.4.2010 of the State of […]<\/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-204668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 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\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-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=\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-23T15:35:57+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\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T15:35:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2727,\"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\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T15:35:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 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":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 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\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-23T15:35:57+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\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T15:35:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010"},"wordCount":2727,"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\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010","name":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of ... on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T15:35:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanjay-v-arshney-vs-principal-secretary-the-state-of-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanjay V Arshney vs Principal Secretary The State Of … on 13 August, 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\/204668","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=204668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}