{"id":205379,"date":"2002-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002"},"modified":"2015-12-14T16:15:44","modified_gmt":"2015-12-14T10:45:44","slug":"dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR         \n\n\n\n                                W.P.No.4552 of 1998\n\n                                 Dr.Rajendra Dubey\n                                                   ...Petitioners\n                           -Vs-\n\n                                State of M.P. & others\n                                                  ...Respondents\n\n\n For the Petitioner:   Shri P.Diwakar, Advocate.\n\n^ For respondents No.1 to 5 :      Dr.N.K.Shukla,\n                              Addl.A.G. with  Shri\n                              G.Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate\n\nFor respondent No.6     Shri Vivek Sibbal with Shri\nB.P.Sharma, Advocate.  \n\nHon'ble Justice Shri- FAKHRUDDIN  \n\nDate: 15\/03\/2002 \n:                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      By this writ petition filed under Article 226\/227 of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution of India, petitioner prays for  quashing<\/p>\n
of  the  allotment  order dated 05.8.1994  (Annexure  P\/1)<\/p>\n
issued in favour of respondent no.6 and the impugned order<\/p>\n
of  advance possession dated 22.8.1994 (Annexure P-2).  It<\/p>\n
is  further prayed that respondents 1 to 5 be directed  to<\/p>\n
issue  allotment  order  with delivery  of  possession  in<\/p>\n
respect  of  plot  in dispute, in favour  of  the  present<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
(2)   Petitioner submits that he is the Secretary  of  Yug<\/p>\n
Chetna Publication, Raipur which is the Unit of Yug Dharma<\/p>\n
and   applied   for  allotment  of  land  (Annexure   P-3)<\/p>\n
admeasuring  417138 sq.ft. situated at  Block  no.9,  plot<\/p>\n
no.1 x 1 at Rajbandha Talab, Civil Station, Raipur.  It is<\/p>\n
submitted that there was Press Complex categorized by  the <\/p>\n
State Government and the local Authority and various parts<\/p>\n
thereof  have been allotted to different pressmen.  It  is<\/p>\n
submitted that on receipt of the application in the office<\/p>\n
of   respondent  no.4\/Collector,  Raipur,   no   objection<\/p>\n
certificates  were  demanded and  petitioner  obtained  No<\/p>\n
Objection   Certificates  dated  9.7.1990  and   16.7.1990<\/p>\n
(Annexures  P-4  and P-5) from the concerned  authorities.<\/p>\n
It   is   further   submitted  that   while   petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application  was under process, respondent  no.6  made  an<\/p>\n
application  to the then Chief Minister for  allotment  of<\/p>\n
land  for  press  complex vide letter dt.4.8.90  (Annexure<\/p>\n
P.10).   Then  the  said  letter was  forwarded  by  Chief<\/p>\n
Minister’s   Secretariat.  The   matter   was   thereafter<\/p>\n
processed.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  In para 5.8 of the writ petition,  it is stated “that<\/p>\n
the petitioner  was absolutely innocent and ignorant about<\/p>\n
the  foul  play at the hands of the respondent ignited  by<\/p>\n
respondent  no.6 and generated through\/by the  then  Chief<\/p>\n
Minister,  on  his pursuit to claim the allotment  of  the<\/p>\n
land for which he had lawfully applied on the basis of his<\/p>\n
entitlement  flowing from the long established publication<\/p>\n
of  the Yugdharma newspaper and when no response is  flown  <\/p>\n
from the end of respondent, the present petitioner started<\/p>\n
approaching respondents 1 to 5 independently demanding all<\/p>\n
the  reasons for delay in the process of allotment in  his<\/p>\n
favour.     The    petitioner   submitted    the    latest<\/p>\n
reminder\/application dated 26.2.1997  to  respondent  No.5<\/p>\n
vide Annexure P.14”.\n<\/p>\n
            Grounds  urged  by  the  petitioner  are  that<\/p>\n
hostile discrimination has been adopted and the petitioner<\/p>\n
has  been kept in darkness and that the allotment has been<\/p>\n
made illegally and contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
(4)   Dr.N.K. Shukla, Addl. Advocate General for the State<\/p>\n
submits  that so far as allegations made against the  then<\/p>\n
Chief Minister are concerned, that Chief Minister has  not<\/p>\n
been  impleaded as party respondent and as  such,  in  the<\/p>\n
absence  of  he  being  joined as  party  respondent,  the<\/p>\n
allegations   made  against  him  do   not   require   any<\/p>\n
adjudication.   Even otherwise what has  been  alleged  is<\/p>\n
that  the office of the then  Chief Minister’s Secretariat<\/p>\n
forwarded  the petitioner’s letter.  Thereafter respondent<\/p>\n
no.6 made an application.  Shri Shukla submits that it has<\/p>\n
become a common practice that the letters are addressed to<\/p>\n
Chief Minister and other dignitaries, which is not at  all<\/p>\n
healthy.   However, once such letters are  received,  they<\/p>\n
are  required to be dealt with by the Secretariat.  It  is<\/p>\n
for the respective authorities to take appropriate steps.<\/p>\n
(5)  Dr. N.K. Shukla,. Learned Additional Advocate General<\/p>\n
further  submits that the main question is of  delay,  the<\/p>\n
allotment  has  been made on 5.08.1994 and the  petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted  his   letter  dated 26.02.1997  and  this  writ<\/p>\n
petition  has been filed on 19.9.1998  that  is   after  a<\/p>\n
lapse  of  considerable period.  No explanation  for  such<\/p>\n
delay  has  been  given and as such this petition  suffers<\/p>\n
from delay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
(6)    Dr. Shukla, further submits that according  to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s own showing the land has since been  allotted<\/p>\n
construction is going on, and now when rights have accrued<\/p>\n
in  favour  of other allottees, civil suit is  appropriate<\/p>\n
remedy for petitioner in view of the disputed questions of<\/p>\n
fact.   He  further  submits that this petition  has  been<\/p>\n
filed  by  the petitioner in his individual capacity,  but<\/p>\n
not  on  behalf  of Yug Chetna Prakashan,  the  petitioner<\/p>\n
wants  the land for his individual purpose rather than  as<\/p>\n
owner  of  the Press, therefore, no cause of  action  does<\/p>\n
arise in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
(7)    Dr.  Shukla,  learned Addl. Govt. Advocate  further<\/p>\n
submits that respondents 1 to 5 have filed return in which<\/p>\n
it  has  been  stated that Policy regarding allotment  has<\/p>\n
been  taken that no land exceeding 43360 sq.ft.  could  be<\/p>\n
allotted  to  any  press, as such the  petitioner  is  not<\/p>\n
entitled  to  any land exceeding 43360 sq.ft.  He  submits<\/p>\n
that  total land available and earmarked is 834276  sq.ft.<\/p>\n
whereas petitioner has applied for 417138 sq.ft. which  is<\/p>\n
more than half of the total land available.<\/p>\n
(8)     Dr. Shukla, Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 further<\/p>\n
submits  that while processing the case of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
he  was  asked to submit registration certificate  of  his<\/p>\n
establishment  and  the  petitioner   was  also  asked  to<\/p>\n
furnish the details  as to the quantum of  bank balance of<\/p>\n
the   petitioner    vide  order  sheet  dated   14.11.1990<\/p>\n
(Annexure   R-2),   but  he  did  not   give   any    such<\/p>\n
information. It is also submitted that he did not indicate<\/p>\n
whether   the   institution  Yug  Chetna   Prakashan   was<\/p>\n
registered  anywhere and in absence of  such   information<\/p>\n
the  case  being incomplete was returned by the Government <\/p>\n
vide   letter  dated  20.10.1995  (Annexure  R   4).   The<\/p>\n
respondents  submit that the petitioner has not  disclosed<\/p>\n
whether   the   Yug  Chetna  Prakashan  is  a   registered<\/p>\n
institution  and  as  the petition  filed  in   individual<\/p>\n
capacity  it seems that the petitioner wants the  land  in<\/p>\n
his individual capacity rather than as owner of the Press.<\/p>\n
The respondents have also filed additional return in which<\/p>\n
it  has  been stated that in view of Memo dated 30.06.1991<\/p>\n
(Annexure  R  5) it was made clear that no land  exceeding<\/p>\n
43360  sq.fts  could  be allotted  to  any  Press.  It  is<\/p>\n
submitted   that  thereafter,  the  petitioner   preferred<\/p>\n
application  for allotment of land, a case was  registered<\/p>\n
by the Nazul Officer and the proceedings were going on and<\/p>\n
from  the order sheets vide annexure R-6 it is clear  that<\/p>\n
petitioner  was  asked to furnish the details  vide  order<\/p>\n
dated  3.8.1990  and  when the  matter  was  taken  up  on<\/p>\n
14.8.1990,  petitioner sought time and on  25.8.1990  when<\/p>\n
the matter was taken up, petitioner was again granted time<\/p>\n
to  furnish  the  details in proforma.  On  18.3.1991  the<\/p>\n
matter was referred to the Commissioner, Raipur, for being<\/p>\n
forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department, for onward<\/p>\n
action.  The matter was received back by the Nazul Officer<\/p>\n
on 1.1.1996 from the State Government with a note that the<\/p>\n
application should be preferred in prescribed  format.  On<\/p>\n
25.1.1997 the petitioner wanted progress of the case  vide<\/p>\n
annexure R 7 and on the same letter it was informed to him<\/p>\n
that State Government had directed that application should<\/p>\n
be   in  prescribed proforma. On 26.2.1997 the  petitioner<\/p>\n
gave  a  letter asking for information as to  whether  the<\/p>\n
land  sought  by  the  petitioner  has  been  allotted  to<\/p>\n
respondent No. 6 and if it has been allotted to respondent<\/p>\n
No.  6 then the application in prescribed proforma was not<\/p>\n
required.  Learned counsel for the respondents submit that<\/p>\n
there  is no right as such available to the petitioner  to<\/p>\n
claim any relief in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
(9)  Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.<\/p>\n
(10)   A  perusal of the order sheets (Annexure R-6)  show<\/p>\n
that   the  petitioner  himself  was  not  interested   in<\/p>\n
furnishing  the details as required by the Nazul  Officer,<\/p>\n
in  prescribed proforma.  On petitioner’s own  showing  he<\/p>\n
wrote  a  letter  on  26.2.97(Annexure-14)  to  the  Nazul<\/p>\n
Officer to ascertain as to whether the land applied by him<\/p>\n
had  been allotted to respondent no.6 and if the land  had<\/p>\n
been  allotted  to respondent no.6\/Dainik  Samvet  Shiker,<\/p>\n
then   the  application  in  prescribed  format  was   not<\/p>\n
required.   The petitioner thereafter did not do anything.<\/p>\n
Even  no notice of demand of justice was  served.   It  is<\/p>\n
further  stated that the order of allotment was passed  on<\/p>\n
5.8.1994,   possession   was   delivered    by   22.8.1994<\/p>\n
petitioner has submitted his letter on 26.2.1997 and  this<\/p>\n
petition has been filed on 19.9.1998 that is after   lapse<\/p>\n
of  long  time and no explanation has been given for  such<\/p>\n
long  delay.   It  is  also pointed out  that  during  the<\/p>\n
intervening  period,  five  institutions  have  also  been<\/p>\n
allotted    land in block no.9 of the press  complex,  but<\/p>\n
none  of  them have been impleaded as parties. Though  the<\/p>\n
parties   i.e.  State  through  the  Principal  Secretary,<\/p>\n
Revenue Dept. Bhopal; the Director, Public Relations Dept.<\/p>\n
Bhopal; the Commissioner, Raipur, have been joined, but no<\/p>\n
notice  of  demand  of  justice  has  been  served.   Even<\/p>\n
respondent No.5 the Nazul Officer and respondent no.6, the<\/p>\n
Chief  Executive, Daily Samvet Shikher,  Raipur  were  not<\/p>\n
served the notice of demand of justice.\n<\/p>\n
(11) Present petition is in the personal capacity and  not<\/p>\n
as  Secretary of Yugchetan Prakashan.  It is  pointed  out<\/p>\n
that  even  in this application,  prayer for allotment  of<\/p>\n
the  land   has  been  made on behalf of  the  Yug  Chetna<\/p>\n
Prakashan and it was not for  the petitioner.  Respondents<\/p>\n
have   filed   order  sheets  containing  the  proceedings<\/p>\n
recorded  by  the  Nazul Officer. The  order  sheet  dated<\/p>\n
3.8.90 has been referred to where certain information  was<\/p>\n
asked  as  to   “whether  the  Yugdharm  was   registered,<\/p>\n
whether  they have their own sources”  It is stated   that<\/p>\n
this  information was never submitted and again  time  was<\/p>\n
sought.  Then  the matter was referred  to  the  Dept.  of<\/p>\n
Revenue, State Government of M.P. and  the Government  has  <\/p>\n
directed  that the information in proforma be called  for.<\/p>\n
From  the order sheet dated 1.1.1996 it is clear that  the<\/p>\n
applicant  has  been informed to furnish  the  details  in<\/p>\n
prescribed  proforma  -`A’   In  the  order  sheet`  dated<\/p>\n
20.3.1997,  it  was noted that the case of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
was    forwarded  and  considered  and  accordingly,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  was  informed  the  decision  of  the  Revenue<\/p>\n
Department, State of M.P.  for allotment of land measuring<\/p>\n
43360 in Block No.9, Plot No. 1\/1.      It is also pointed<\/p>\n
out  that there was a policy and according to that  policy<\/p>\n
it  was only 43360 sq. ft. which could be allotted whereas<\/p>\n
the  claim of petitioner was for  417000 sq.ft.   of  land<\/p>\n
which  is  more than half of the total land available  and<\/p>\n
earmarked.\n<\/p>\n
     (12)  In  support of his contention, learned  counsel<\/p>\n
for  the respondents relied on a judgment of Supreme Court<\/p>\n
reported in  (1986) 4  SCC 566 (State of M.P.  -v- Nandlal<\/p>\n
Jaiswal  and others) wherein the Apex Court  has  held  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
          “The  power  of  the  High  Court  to  issue  an
\n     appropriate  writ under article 226 is  discretionary
\n     and  the High Court in the exercise of its discretion
\n     does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent
\n     or  the acquiescent and the lethargic. Where there is
\n     inordinate  and  unexplained delay  and  third  party
\n     rights are created in the intervening period the High
\n     Court  would decline to interfere even if  the  State
\n     action  complained of is unconstitutional or  illegal
\n     because  the Courts interference is likely  to  cause
\n     confusion and public inconvenience and bring  in  new
\n     injustices.  However, there may be a few cases, where
\n     the  demand of justice is so compelling that the High
\n     Court would be inclined to interfere inspite of delay
\n     or  creation  of third party rights.  Ultimately,  it
\n     would be a matter within the discretion of the Court.
\n     Ex-hypothesi  every  discretion  must  be   exercised
\n     fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to
\n     defeat it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Regarding delay and laches, learned counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
petitioner    relied  on  a  judgment  of  Supreme   Court<\/p>\n
reported in  (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty –  Vs  <\/p>\n
–  International Airport Authority of India and  Others  .<\/p>\n
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:<\/p>\n
     “Moreover  the  writ  petition  was  filed   by   the
\n     appellant more than 5 months after the acceptance  of
\n     the  tender of respondents 4 and during this  period,
\n     respondents   4  incurred  considerable   expenditure
\n     aggregating   to   about  Rs.1,25,000\/-   in   making
\n     arrangements  for putting up the restaurant  and  the
\n     snack  bars  and  in fact set up the snack  bars  and
\n     started  running  the same.  It  would  now  be  most
\n     inequitous  to set aside the contracts of respondents
\n     4  at  the  instances of the appellant.  The position
\n     would  have been different if the appellant had filed
\n     the writ petition immediately after the acceptance of
\n     the tender of respondents 4 but the appellant allowed
\n     a  period  of  over 5 months to elapse  during  which
\n     respondents  4  altered  their  position.   We   are,
\n     therefore, of the view that this is not a fit case in
\n     which  we  should interfere and grant relief  to  the
\n     appellant  in  the  exercise of our discretion  under
\n     Articles 226 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       (Emphasissupplied)<\/p>\n
(13)    It  has  already  been noted  that  although  some<\/p>\n
allegations    have  been  made  regarding   conduct   and<\/p>\n
involvement of the  then Chief Minister, but as the  Chief<\/p>\n
Minister has not been joined as party respondent and  even<\/p>\n
notice  for demand of justice has not been served  and  no<\/p>\n
material regarding those allegations have come on  record,<\/p>\n
detailed discussion and adjudication on this aspect is not<\/p>\n
required.    Even otherwise, it is pointed  out  that  the<\/p>\n
office  of Chief Minister’s Secretariat has forwarded  the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s letter and thereafter respondent no.6 himself<\/p>\n
submitted the application in prescribed proforma  and  the<\/p>\n
matter  was processed and the State has informed that  the<\/p>\n
land  has  been allotted as per the policy which they  had<\/p>\n
and that policy was in existence for about 18 years, which<\/p>\n
was made known to every body. The petitioner ought to have<\/p>\n
made  suitable  application in  prescribed  proforma  this<\/p>\n
petition is also not on behalf of the organization, but on<\/p>\n
behalf of an individual.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(14)  Dr.N.K.Shukla, counsel for the State submitted  that<\/p>\n
the  State has no malice towards any person, now  the  new<\/p>\n
State  of  Chhattisgarh  has been  formed  and  the  State<\/p>\n
Government  of Chattisgarh has no malice.  Petitioner,  if<\/p>\n
so  desired,  may make suitable application in  prescribed<\/p>\n
proforma.  In case such an application is made,  then  the<\/p>\n
State shall consider the same afresh on its own merits  in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
              In view of what has been stated above,  this<\/p>\n
petition is disposed of.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/- FAKHRUDDIN
\n     JUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.4552 of 1998 Dr.Rajendra Dubey …Petitioners -Vs- State of M.P. & others …Respondents For the Petitioner: Shri P.Diwakar, Advocate. ^ For respondents No.1 to 5 : Dr.N.K.Shukla, Addl.A.G. with Shri G.Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate For […]<\/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":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - 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\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-14T10:45:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T10:45:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2312,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-14T10:45:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - 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\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-14T10:45:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T10:45:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002"},"wordCount":2312,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002","name":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-14T10:45:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-rajendra-dubey-vs-state-of-m-p-others-on-15-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Rajendra Dubey vs State Of M.P. & Others on 15 March, 2002"}]},{"@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\/205379","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=205379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}