{"id":211224,"date":"2011-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011"},"modified":"2014-09-03T03:23:16","modified_gmt":"2014-09-02T21:53:16","slug":"r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011<\/div>\n
                                                              W.P. No.3326.11\n\n\n              Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2011\n14\/07\/2011\n     Shri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the\npetitioner.\n     Shri Ashish Shroti, learned Govt. Advocate for\nthe respondents\/State.\n     Heard.\n     This     petition     under         Article      226      of      the\nConstitution of India is directed against the order\ndated   11-02-2011        passed      by    respondent          No.       2\nwhereby,      while       rejecting        the       representation\npreferred     by    the     petitioner          an    order         dated\n27- 07-2009 has been affirmed. By the said order the\npetitioner was transferred to a Working Plan Unit,\nChhatarpur.\n     Facts<\/pre>\n
    briefly     are    that,     the     petitioner       is     a
\nForest Range Officer, presently posted at Working
\nPlan, Chhatarpur. By an order dated 25-02-2009 the
\npetitioner,   who     was       posted     as    Ranger       Officer,
\nDevendranagar, Forest Division, Circle, Satna, was
\ntransferred to Working Plan, Circle, Chhindwara.
\nSubsequently, by order dated 27-07-2009 the said
\norder of posting was modified and the petitioner
\nwas directed to be posted at Working Plan, Circle,
\nChhatarpur.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner being aggrieved of the said posting,
\nfiled a representation on the ground that earlier,
\n                                                                      W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
while posting him as Ranger Officer as per the
\npolicy   decision        of    the      State       Government              dated
\n22- 09-2001       the     petitioner          was    posted       at      Social
\nForestry and has completed more than three years
\nof   posting         therein.          It     was       stated         in     the
\nrepresentation that subsequently the policy of 2001,
\nthe State Government mooted and circulated the
\npolicy on 16-09-2003 wherein certain exemptions
\nwhich    were      granted        to        the   officers     from         being
\nposted      to     Working          Plan,         who     have           already
\nundergone such posting were withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
     Pertinent it is to note that the policy regarding
\nposting in Working Plan as was brought into vogue
\non 16-09-2003 stipulated :-\n<\/p>\n
         “1- dk;Z vk;ks t uk ou e.Myks a es a lh\/kh Hkjrh ls
\n         fu;q Dr ou {ks = ikyks a dh inLFkkiuk ojh;rk dz e ls dh
\n         tkos x hA
\n         2- dk;Z vk;ks t uk oue.My es a inLFkkiuk dh vof\/k
\n         dk;Z vk;ks t uk dh vof\/k vFkok nks o”kZ tks Hkh vf\/kd
\n         gks ] jgs x hA
\n         3- dk;Z vk;ks t uk oue.My es a inLFkkiuk ls ds o y
\n         fuEufyf[kr ou {ks = ikyks a dks gh Nw V nh tk;s x h :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (d) iw o Z dh uhfr ds vUrxZ r vk;q ds vk\/kkj ij Nw V
\n         dh ik=rk vftZ r dj pq ds ou{ks = ikyA
\n         ([k) iw o Z dh uhfr ds vUrxZ r dk;Z vk;ks t uk es a
\n         inLFkkiuk ls Nw V ds ;ks X ; inks a ij fu\/kkZ fjr vof\/k rd
\n         dk;Z dj Nw V dh ik=rk vftZ r dj pq ds ou{ks = ikyA\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (x) bl uhfr ds iz H kko’khy gks u s ds iw o Z dk;Z vk;ks t uk
\n         oue.My es a dk;Z vk;ks t uk iw . kZ gks u s rd ou{ks = ikyA
\n         (?k) bl uhfr ds iz Hkko’khy gks u s ds ckn dk;Z
\n         vk;ks t uk ouea M y es U;w u re 2 o”kZ vFkok dk;Z
\n         vk;ks t uk vof\/k] tks Hkh vf\/kd gks ] rd inLFk jgs
\n                                                                      W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
        ou{ks = ikyA
\n        (M) mi ou{ks = iky ds in ls inks U ufr Onkjk fu;q Dr
\n        ou{ks = ikyA
\n        4- da f Mdk -3 ds vuq lkj dk;Z vk;ks t uk es a in LFkkiuk
\n        ls Nw V ds ik= ou{ks = iky ls fHkUu ou{ks = iky dk;Z
\n        vk;ks t uk ou e.My es a inLFkkiuk ls Nw V ds fy, ik=
\n        ugha gks a x s A
\n        5- ou{ks i ky dks Nks M dj ‘ks ” k vf\/kdkfj;ks a ds fy, iw o Z
\n        funs Z ‘k ;Fkkor iz Hkko’khy ykxw jgs a x s A
\n        6- dk;Z vk;ks t uk oue.My es a inLFkkiuk              lkekU;
\n        LFkkukUrj.k dh Js . kh es a ugh a ekuh tkos x hA”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Furthermore, there was an amendment in the
\nsaid    policy         of    2003      vide       notification            dated
\n05- 10-2005 whereby exemption clause in the policy
\nof 16-09-2003 was deleted.\n<\/p>\n
       Since     the        representation         preferred             by   the
\npetitioner against his posting in Working Plan did
\nnot reap any result, the petitioner approached this
\nCourt vide Writ Petition No. 16256\/2010(s). The
\nsaid writ petition was disposed of in following terms
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
             “In the light of certain orders
\n        passed by this court in the case of T.
\n        N. Bharadwaj Vs. State of M. P. and
\n        others, W.P. No. 2998\/2004 decided on
\n        03-08- 2010, W. P. No. 7121\/2010(s)
\n        (Sudheer Singh Vs. State of M. P.) and
\n        W. P. No. 7072\/2010 (Ramlal Sharma
\n        Vs. State of M. P.) decided by common
\n        order dated 12-10- 2010, petitioner
\n        contends that now he cannot be
\n        transferred to a Working Plan Unit as
\n        he ha already worked for more than
\n        three years.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
              Keeping in view the aforesaid
\n         grievance of the petitioner, for the
\n         present without entering into the
\n         controversy on the merit, respondent
\n         nos. 1 and 2 are directed to examine
\n         the case of the petitioner in the light
\n         of the cases referred to hereinabove
\n         and decide the same by a speaking
\n         order within a period of one month
\n         from the date of receipt of certified
\n         copy of this order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Petition stands disposed of with
\n         the aforesaid.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Respondent in compliance of the said direction
\nhas passed the impugned order dated 11-2-2011
\nholding that the petitioner will not be entitled for
\nthe benefit of exemption clause as it appeared in
\nthe policy dated 16-09-2003.\n<\/p>\n
        Grievance of the petitioner is that, respondents
\nby misconstruing the decision in T. N. Bharadwaj v.
\nState    of    Madhya    Pradesh      and    others   (W.P.     No.<\/a>
\n2998\/2004 decided on 03-08-2010) has rejected the
\nrepresentation of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        It is contended that in the said decision it was
\nheld that the decision dated 5-10-2005 (Annexure-P\/\n<\/p>\n
5)   will     not   retrospectively   take    away    the     right
\naccrued to a person vide policy dated 16-09-2003 if
\nsuch person has undergone posting in the working
\nplan.    Learned      counsel   for    the    petitioner     while
\nplacing reliance on the judgment in Sudheer Singh
\nv. State of Madhya Pradesh and others<\/a> [W. P. No.
\n                                                                    W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
71212\/2010(s)]         and    Ramlal         Sharma         v.    State       of
\nMadhya Pradesh and others<\/a> [W.P. No. 7672\/2010(s)]
\nhas to submit that in a case of similar nature this
\nCourt has already held that once a right is accrued
\nto a person, the same cannot be taken away by
\nsubsequent circular. It is urged that ignoring the
\naforesaid proposition, the respondent has rejected
\nthe representation of the petitioner and has upheld
\nan illegal      order of posting of the petitioner in
\nworking plan.\n<\/p>\n
       The     respondents         on    their       turn        while      not
\ndisputing the fact that petitioner has undergone the
\nposting in social forestry during the period when
\nthe policy of 2001 was in vogue, have to submit that
\nthe same will not exonerate the petitioner from
\nfurther      posting    in   working          plan    when        occasion
\narises       after     issuance         of     notification            dated
\n5-10-2005.      Learned      counsel          for    the    respondents
\nfurther submits that posting of the petitioner in
\nSocial Forestry Unit for more than 15 years from
\n1987 to 2003 thus, therefore, does not come to his
\nrescue    as    he    will   not    be       exempted       from       being
\nposting to a working plan.\n<\/p>\n
       Considered the rival submissions.
\n       There being no dispute regarding the facts that
\nthe petitioner was posted in Social Forestry Unit
\nfrom     the   year    1987    to       2003        and    that     by      the
\n                                                          W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
impugned order he is being posted in a working
\nplan, Circle, Chhatarpur. The question arises for
\nconsideration is as to whether in view of he fact
\nthat the petitioner has undergone a posting while
\nthe policy dated 16-09-2003 was in vogue, wherein
\ncertain    exemption      was    permissible      from       being
\nposted in the working plan, whether the petitioner
\nwould     be   deprived    of   the     same   because         of     a
\nsubsequent notification dated 5-10-2005 whereby
\nthe     exemption    clauses       in     notification       dated
\n16- 09-2003     exonerating      the    persons    who         have
\nundergone      posting    in    working    plan   from       being
\nposted to such working plan in subsequent years.\n<\/p>\n
      In Sudheer Singh (supra) a Bench of this Court
\nwhile dwelling upon the aspect of accrual of vested
\nright under a policy of the State Government was
\npleased to observe :-\n<\/p>\n
        “10. In the case of T.N. Bharadwaj
\n        (supra), it is held by the Supreme
\n        Court that the policy of the State
\n        Government with regard to exemption
\n        from working in a working plan unit is
\n        binding on the parties and, therefore,
\n        the policies can be enforced by a
\n        mandamus. It is also an admitted
\n        position that both the petitioners have
\n        worked in a working plan unit prior to
\n        5-10- 2005. Once the petitioners have
\n        worked in a working plan unit prior to
\n        5-10- 2005, a right would accrue to
\n        them to seek exemption from further
\n                                                      W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
         posting in a working plan unit by
\n         virtue of the policy that was existing
\n         prior to 5-10-2005. This right which
\n         had accrued to the petitioners could
\n         not be taken away by the respondents
\n         retrospectively by enforcing the policy
\n         dated 5-10-2005. The policy dated
\n         5-10- 2005 would have prospective
\n         effect and cannot take away the right,
\n         which accrued to the petitioners prior
\n         to 5-10- 2005. It is for this reason only
\n         that the State Government granted
\n         benefit to Shri Anoop Parashar and
\n         Shri P. K. Khatri, as is evident from
\n         orders dated 15-1-2008 and 1-8-2009,
\n         available at page numbers 135 and
\n         136, in the records of W.P. No.
\n         7121\/2010(s). In fact in the orders
\n         passed on 15- 1-2008 and 1-8-2009, in
\n         the cases of Shri Anoop Parashar and
\n         Shri    P.   K.    Khatri,    the   State
\n         Government itself has held that the
\n         Policy    of   2005     will   not   have
\n         retrospective effect.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The said decision in Sudheer Singh (supra) is
\nsubsequently upheld by Division Bench of this Court
\nin   Writ      Appeal   No.    1320\/2010       decided         on
\n05- 01-2011.\n<\/p>\n
     Though an effort has been made to distinguish
\nthe judgment relied upon by the petitioner and
\nmore particularly the judgment in Sudheer Singh
\n(supra) qua Shri Anoop Parashar and Shri P. K.
\nKhatri    on   the   ground   that   their   cases   are      not
\nsimilar to that of the petitioner. It is urged that
\n                                                   W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
said    Shri    Anoop   Parashar   was   posted    in    new
\nworking plan vide order dated 28-02- 2004 at Betul
\nCircle as also Shri P. K. Khatri was posted in a
\nworking plan, Ujjain on 9-11-1999 which later on
\nwas cancelled by order dated 07-07-2000.                 It is
\nurged that since the cancellation of order was prior
\nto coming in force of notification dated 05-10-2005,
\nthe petitioner does not get any benefit from the
\norders passed in favour of Shri Anoop Parashar and
\nShri    P. K. Khatri. It    is   contended    that all     the
\ndecisions which have been rendered on the basis of
\nShri Anoop Parashar and Shri P. K. Khatri being on
\nincomplete facts cannot be treated to have binding
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
       The aspect as has been put into service by
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner was also before
\nthe Division Bench of this Court in State of Madhya
\nPradesh and others vs. Suresh Kumar Upadhyaya<\/a>
\n[W.A.     No.    599\/2010    decided     on    11-02-2011
\n(Gwalior)] wherein while dealing with the factual
\naspect of Shri Anoop Parashar and Shri P. K. Khatri
\nand one Radhacharan Sharma it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
          “6. It is true that the respondent
\n          cannot be granted any relief by the
\n          Court on the basis of an illegal or
\n          unwarranted order passed by the
\n          appellants in cases of other similar
\n          situated  employees.  However,  the
\n          question   that   arises   for  our
\n                                                              W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
consideration in this appeal is whether
\norders in cases of S\/s Anoop Parashar,
\nP. K. Khatri and Radhacharan Sharma
\non which reliance is placed by the
\nrespondent can be said to be illegal or
\nunwarranted. It is not disputed by Shri
\nKhedkar,       learned      Government
\nAdvocate appearing on behalf of the
\nappellants that orders in cases of S\/s
\nAnoop Parashar, P. K. Khatri and
\nRadhacharan Sharma, who all three
\nare forest rangers working in the
\nForest      Department      with     the
\nappellants, were passed subsequent to
\ncoming into force of their policy dated
\n5-10-2005. Order in case of Anoop
\nParashar is dated 15-1-2008 and was
\nannexed as Annexure P-3 to the writ
\npetition; in case of Shri Radhacharan
\nSharma is dated 29-3-2008 and was
\nannexed as Annexure P-4 to the writ
\npetition and order in case of P. K.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Khatri is dated 1-8-2009 and has been
\nplaced before us at the time of hearing
\nof the appeal. It is suffice to refer to
\nonly one of these three orders as they
\nall are verbatim the same. Order dated
\n15- 1-2008 is case of Anoop Parashar
\n(Annexure P-3 to the writ petition at
\npage 38 of the appeal paper book) is
\nextracted below :-\n<\/p>\n
 “dz e ka d ,Q 3-125@2004@10-1 iz \/ kku eq [; ou la j {kd
\ndk;kZ y ; ds vkns ‘ k dz e ka d @LFkk@l@759 fnuka d
\n11-12- 2007 ds ljy dz e ka d 5 ij va f dr Jh vuw i
\nikjk’kj] ifj{ks = vf\/kdkjh cq <s j k lkekU; ';kS i q j lkekU;
\nou e.My dh dk;Z vk;ks t uk o` R r cS r w y es a inLFkkiuk
\ndh xbZ gS A iw o Z uhfr;ks a ds vk\/kkj ij ;fn fdlh dks
\ndk;Z vk;ks t uk djus ds nkf;Ro ls Nw V ns nh xbZ gS rks
\nmuds uke dk;Z vk;ks t uk es a Hkw r y{kh iz Hkko ls iz L rkfor
\nugh a gks a x s A Jh ikjk'kj dks dk;Z vk;ks t uk es a Nw V nh tk
\n                                                           W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
pq dh gS ] tks tkjh jgs x hA dk;Z vk;ks t uk uhfr o"kZ – 2005
\nHkw r y{kh iz Hkko ls ykxw ugh a gks x hA "\n<\/p>\n
7. It is not the case of the appellants
\nthat the above referred orders in the
\ncases of S\/s Anoop Parashar, P. K.
\nKhatri and Radhacharan Sharma are
\nillegal or unwarranted orders. There is
\nno ground taken by the appellants in
\nthe present appeal to allege that these
\norders passed by them subsequent to
\nthe policy dated 5\/10\/2005 are in any
\nmanner unwarranted or illegal. It may
\nbe noticed from the above extracted
\norder in case of Shri Anoop Parashar
\nthat the appellants themselves have
\ntaken a policy decision that their
\npolicy dated 5-10- 2005 pursuant to
\nwhich exemption from posting in the
\n‘working plan’ was withdrawn shall
\napply      prospectively     and    not
\nretrospectively. Admittedly, in the
\npresent case, the respondent was
\nalready granted exemption from his
\nposting in the ‘working plan’ prior to
\nthe guidelines issued by the appellants
\nvide    their  policy   circular  dated
\n5-10-2005 referred above. We are
\ninformed that orders passed by the
\nappellants in the cases of S\/s Anoop
\nParashar,     P.    K.     Khatri   and
\nRadhacharan Sharma on 15-1-2008,
\n29- 3-2008 and 1-8-2009 respectively
\nhave already been implemented by
\nthem. We fail to understand that if the
\nappellants themselves have taken a
\ndecision, in the cases of S\/s Anoop
\nParashar,     P.    K.     Khatri   and
\nRadhacharan Sharma to apply their
\npolicy dated 5-10- 2005 prospectively
\nand not retrospectively, how they can
\n                                                            W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
          treat the respondent differently. We
\n          are of the considered view that the
\n          appellants are liable to extend the
\n          same and similar treatment which has
\n          been extended by them to S\/s Anoop
\n          Parashar,    P.    K.    Khatri    and
\n          Radhacharan Sharma who all three are
\n          similarly situated like him. In our
\n          opinion, the judgments of the Hon’ble
\n          Supreme Court in the cases of Gaurav
\n          Ashwin Jain’s case and in Jagjit
\n          Singh’s case (supra) are not at all
\n          applicable    to   the    facts    and
\n          circumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
          8.    In view of the foregoing, we do
\n          not find any merit in the appeal which
\n          fails and is hereby dismissed but with
\n          no order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
     In    view       of   above   proponement      of     law      the
\ncontention put forth by the learned Govt. Advocate
\nwhereby an attempt is made to create a dent in the
\ndecision rendered in Sudheer Singh (supra) loses
\nforce. The respondents thus are not benefitted by
\ndrawing        a    distinction    between   the   case      of     the
\npetitioner and that of Shri Anoop Parashar and Shri
\nP. K. Khatri.\n<\/p>\n
     Having thus considered this Court is of the
\nview that the authority concerned i.e. respondent
\nNo. 2 is not justified in rejecting the representation
\nof the petitioner who sought cancellation of his
\norder     of       posting   to    a   Working     Plan,     Circle,
\nChhatarpur. Since the petitioner prior to issuance
\n                                                   W.P. No.3326.11<\/p>\n
of   05-10-2005   has   undergone    posting   at    Social
\nForestry Units, he acquired the right for being
\nconsidered for exemption as was stipulated in the
\ncircular dated 16-09-2003. The respondents are,
\nthus, not justified in not exempting the petitioner’s
\nposting in Working Plan.\n<\/p>\n
      Having thus held, the impugned order dated
\n11- 02-2011 is hereby quashed. The respondents are
\ndirected   now    to    reconsider   the   case     of     the
\npetitioner for his posting at a place other than the
\nworking plan.\n<\/p>\n
      The petition is allowed to the extent above.
\nHowever, no costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                (SANJAY YADAV)
\n                                    JUDGE
\nSC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 W.P. No.3326.11 Writ Petition No. 3326 of 2011 14\/07\/2011 Shri D. K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents\/State. Heard. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is […]<\/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-211224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - 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\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-02T21:53:16+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\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-02T21:53:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2831,\"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\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\",\"name\":\"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-02T21:53:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - 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\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-02T21:53:16+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\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-02T21:53:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011"},"wordCount":2831,"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\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011","name":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-02T21:53:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-c-agrawal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.C. Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/211224","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=211224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}