{"id":21699,"date":"2008-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-10-27T02:35:44","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T21:05:44","slug":"state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.K. Mathur, Aftab Alam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)   7756 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nA.K. MATHUR &amp; AFTAB ALAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>The following order of the Court was delivered:\n<\/p>\n<p>1. All these special leave petitions involve a common question as to the<br \/>\ninterpretation of sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Number and<br \/>\nLocation<br \/>\nof Excise Shop Rules, 1968 (hereinafter for short the &#8220;U.P. Excise<br \/>\nRules&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>Since these petitions involve a common question, they were heard<br \/>\ntogether<br \/>\nand are being disposed of by this order. However, for convenient<br \/>\ndisposal<br \/>\nof these petitions, the facts of SL P (C) No. 7756\/2006 are taken into<br \/>\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>SLP(C) No. 7756 \/ 2006<\/p>\n<p>2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated<br \/>\n6.4.2006<br \/>\npassed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at<br \/>\nAllahabad,<br \/>\nLucknow Bench whereby the Division Bench has taken the view that the<br \/>\nword<br \/>\n&#8220;close proximity&#8221; used in sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise<br \/>\nRules<br \/>\nshall be meant to be 100 meters or 300 ft. (approx.). The brief facts<br \/>\nleading to the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court are<br \/>\nthat a<br \/>\npublic interest petition was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the High<br \/>\nCourt making a grievance that liquor shops were opened in purely<br \/>\nresidential areas in breach of the provisions of U.P. Excise Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The said Excise Rules have been made in exercise of the powers under<br \/>\nclauses (c) and (f) of sub- section (2) of Section 40 of the Uttar Pr<br \/>\nadesh<br \/>\nExcise Act, 1910 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1910) read with Section 21 of the<br \/>\nU.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904). The said Sub- Rule<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">(4)<\/span><br \/>\nof Rule 5 of the Excise Rules reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The following principles shall be observed in determining the<br \/>\nlocation<br \/>\nand the sites for shops\/sub- shops:-<br \/>\n(4) No new shop or sub- shop shall be licensed in close proximity to a<br \/>\nplace of public resort, school, hospital, place of worship or factory,<br \/>\nor<br \/>\nto the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony. All objections to<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nlicensing of a shop or sub- shop made by persons affected, shall receive<br \/>\nfull consideration.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Division Bench of the High Court taking note of the abovesaid<br \/>\nprovision directed that all the licensed shops which were operating in<br \/>\nclose proximity to a place of public resort, school, hospital, place of<br \/>\nworship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential<br \/>\ncolony<br \/>\nshall be closed with immediate effect. As a result of the orders passed<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nthe High Court, as many as 53 liquor shops were closed in Gomti Nagar<br \/>\narea<br \/>\nof Lucknow. After hearing the parties and taking a just and fair<br \/>\nsolution<br \/>\nto the problem, the Division Bench fixed the distance of 100 meters or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">300<\/span><br \/>\nft. (approx.) within which there shall be no liquor shop close to a<br \/>\nplace<br \/>\nof public resort, school, hospital, place of worship or factory, or to<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nentrance to a bazar or a residential colony.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Aggrieved against the said judgment and order of the High Court, this<br \/>\npetition has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Notice was issued in all the petition and the operation of the<br \/>\nimpugned<br \/>\njudgment and order was stayed by this Court vide order dated 28. 4.<br \/>\n2006 .\n<\/p>\n<p>Today the petition has come up for final disposal before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. Sub- Rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise Rules deals with the<br \/>\nlocation<br \/>\nof Excise shop and sub- shop and shop has been defined in Rule 2(a) of<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nsaid Rules as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;(a) &#8220;Shop&#8221; means a retail shop for vend of country liquor, foreign<br \/>\nliquor<br \/>\n and bhang.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Rule 5 of the U.P. Excise Rules deals with the location of a shop and<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nprinciple which has to be observed while issuing license to a shop.<br \/>\nFrom a<br \/>\nplain reading of sub- rule (4) it is clear that no shop or sub- shop for<br \/>\nvending of country liquor, foreign liquor and bhang shall be opened in<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nclose proximity to a place of public resort, school, hospital, place of<br \/>\nworship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential<br \/>\ncolony.\n<\/p>\n<p>In case of any violation of the said Rule, if objections are received<br \/>\nfrom<br \/>\naffected persons, the same shall receive full consideration. Therefore<br \/>\nif<br \/>\nany shop is opened in the close proximity to a place of public resort,<br \/>\nschool, hospital, place of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a<br \/>\nbazar or a residential colony then the residents of that area has a<br \/>\nright<br \/>\nto protest and the decision has to be taken by the Excise Commissioner.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, the tendency of the State is to ignore the Rules in<br \/>\norder to<br \/>\naugment the revenue of the State and the State indiscrimin ately opens<br \/>\nshops making the life of the residents of the area miserable. In fact<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\npresent public interest petition before the High Court was a result of<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nfailure of the State Machinery to take necessary steps in the matter. If<br \/>\nthe Excise Commissioner has taken proper care while issuing licences to<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nliquor vendors and considered the objections of the residents of the<br \/>\narea,<br \/>\nperhaps there would not have been any necessity of filing the public<br \/>\ninterest litigation before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Be that as it may, it appears that proper care was not taken while<br \/>\nopening shops in the close proximity of a place of public resort,<br \/>\nschool,<br \/>\nhospital, place of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or<br \/>\na<br \/>\nresidential colony and that is how Sub- Rule (4) of Rule 5 came up for<br \/>\ninterpretation before the High Court. The High Court has after taking<br \/>\ninto<br \/>\nconsideration the overall view of the matter opined that 10 0 meters or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">30<\/span><br \/>\n0 ft. (approx.) would be a just measure where the shop should not be<br \/>\nopened<br \/>\nin the close proximity of a place of public resort, school, hospital,<br \/>\nplace<br \/>\nof worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential<br \/>\ncolony. We fully agree with the view taken by the High Court and we are<br \/>\nalso of the view that 10 0 meters or 30 0 ft.(approx.) should be the<br \/>\nright<br \/>\ncriteria were the Excise Commissioner shall not give any licence to a<br \/>\nshop<br \/>\nunder the Excise Act. We hope and trust that the Excise Commissioner of<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nState shall take into consideration sub- rule (4) of Rule 5 of the U.P.<br \/>\nExcise Rules and see that no shops or sub- shops are opened within<br \/>\nradius<br \/>\nof 10 0 meters or 30 0 ft. (approx.) of a place of public resort,<br \/>\nschool,<br \/>\nhospital, place of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or<br \/>\na<br \/>\nresidential colony. The interpretation of the word &#8220;close proximity&#8221; was<br \/>\nvague therefore it was misused by the authorities. But, now the matter<br \/>\nhas<br \/>\nbeen placed beyond any vagueness. Therefore, with the interpretation of<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nexpression &#8220;close proximity&#8221; by the High Court, the matter has been put<br \/>\nin<br \/>\nthe right perspective and the doubt has been cleared. Therefore, taking<br \/>\ninto consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we<br \/>\naffirm<br \/>\nthe view taken by the High Court insofar as fixing the distance of 10 0<br \/>\nmeters or 30 0 ft. (approx.) from a place of public resort, school,<br \/>\nhospital, place of worship or factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or<br \/>\na<br \/>\nresidential colony where no shop or sub- shop shall be opened under the<br \/>\nU.P. Excise Act and Rules framed thereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. However, we do not approve of the approach of the High Court in<br \/>\nclosing<br \/>\nthe shops without issuing notice to the affected parties. This should<br \/>\nnot<br \/>\nhave been done. Since the operation of the impugned judgment and order<br \/>\nwas<br \/>\nstayed by this Court, these shops have continued to operate. We direct<br \/>\nthat<br \/>\nthe interim order dated 28. 0 4 . 2 0 0 6 passed by this Court under<br \/>\nwhich<br \/>\nthese shops are operating, shall continue to operate till 31. 3. 2 0 0 8<br \/>\nand after that no shops or sub- shops under the U.P. Excise Act shall be<br \/>\nopened or continue to open within a radius of 10 0 meters or 30 0 ft.<br \/>\n(approx.) of a place of public resort, school, hospital, place of<br \/>\nworship<br \/>\nor factory, or to the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony. All<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\nshop owners or sub- shop owners shall close their shops on or before\n<\/p>\n<p>31. 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>2 0 0 8 if they are within a radius of 10 0 meters or 30 0 ft.<br \/>\n(approx.) to<br \/>\na place of public resort, school, hospital, place of worship or<br \/>\nfactory, or<br \/>\nto the entrance to a bazar or a residential colony. As there is<br \/>\nsufficient<br \/>\ntime, the shop owners or sub- shop owners shall make necessary<br \/>\narrangement<br \/>\nto shift their shops. If these shops are not closed after 31. 3. 2 0 0 8<br \/>\nthe Excise Commissioner of the State shall see to it that the said shops<br \/>\nare closed and no fresh licence or renewal shall be made of a licence if<br \/>\nthey are operating in prohibited area.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. With the abovesaid observations, this special leave petition is<br \/>\ndisposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>SLP (C) No. 8016 \/ 2006, SL P(C) No. 8022 \/ 2006 and SLP (C) No. 7684 \/<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">2006<\/span><\/p>\n<p>For the reasons mentioned in SLP (C) No. 1678 \/ 2006, these petitions<br \/>\nalso<br \/>\nstand disposed of in the same terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 Bench: A.K. Mathur, Aftab Alam CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 7756 of 2006 PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. RESPONDENT: MANOJ KUMAR DWIVEDI AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/02\/2008 BENCH: A.K. MATHUR &amp; AFTAB ALAM [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T21:05:44+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T21:05:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1532,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\",\"name\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T21:05:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T21:05:44+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T21:05:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008"},"wordCount":1532,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008","name":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T21:05:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-u-p-ors-vs-manoj-kumar-dwivedi-ors-on-25-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of U.P. &amp; Ors vs Manoj Kumar Dwivedi &amp; Ors on 25 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21699","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=21699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}