{"id":218508,"date":"2010-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-03T05:57:43","modified_gmt":"2016-01-03T00:27:43","slug":"pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                  1\n\nReserved\nCourt No. - 27\nCase :- ELECTION PETITION No. - 5 of 2004\nPetitioner :- Pramod Kumar Tewari\nRespondent :- Arun Shourie & 12 Ors.\nPetitioner Counsel :- Smt P.L. Nigam,Anupam Mehrotra,Ram Narain\nSahu\nRespondent Counsel :- Waseeq Uddin Ahmed,Ashutosh Singh,I.B.\nSingh,Jay Narayan Pandey, P. D. Gupta, S.K. Chaudhary, Satish\nChandra Mishra, Ved Prakash Sharma, Vinod K. Singh\n\nIn re:\nC.M.Application No. 1714 of 2004 application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 11 under Section 81 and 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read\nwith Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 10 of the C.P.C.\n\nC.M.Application No. 1730 of 2004 application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 10 under Section 81 and 86 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read\nwith Order 7 Rule 11.\n\nC.M.Application No. 169 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 5 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 226 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 9 under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 227 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 9 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 366 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 2 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 1663 of 2005 application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 3 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 1664 of 2005 application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 3 under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\n\nAlong with\n\nCase :- ELECTION PETITION No. - 8 of 2004\nPetitioner :- Harendra Agarwal\nRespondent :- Dr. Lalit Suri And 11 Ors\nPetitioner Counsel :- G.S. Mehra, M.C.Gupta, R.K. Misra\nRespondent Counsel :- Waseeq Uddin Ahmed, Anupam Mehrotra,\nRanjeet Kumar, Ved Prakash Sharma, Vinod Kumar Singh\n\nIn re:\nC.M.Application No. 1746 of 2004, application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 1 under Section 81 and 86 of the R. P. Act, 1951 read\n                                                                      2\n\nwith   Order    7    Rule     11   and   Section   10   of   the   CPC\n\nC.M.Application No. 1508 of 2005, application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 10 under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 1509 of 2005 application on behalf of\nrespondent no. 10 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 246 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 02 under Order 6 Rule 16 of the C.P.C.\n\nC.M.Application No. 287 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 11 under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 288 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 11 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 359 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 06 under Section 86(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\nC.M.Application No. 358 of 2005 application on behalf of respondent\nno. 06 under Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951\n\n\nHon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.     Election Petition No. 5 of 2004 and Election Petition No. 8 of<\/p>\n
2004 were connected with Election Petition No. 4 of 2004.<\/p>\n
Controversy involved and ground raised in these election petitions are<\/p>\n
almost identical, hence, decided by present common judgement.<\/p>\n
Factual narration with regard to biennial election of Rajya Sabha\/Apar<\/p>\n
House has already been made in Election Petition No. 4 of 2004,<\/p>\n
hence, it is not necessary to repeat.\n<\/p>\n
2.     Election Petition No. 5 of 2004 has been filed by Shri Promod<\/p>\n
Kumar Tewari, who is a member of legislative assembly. Election<\/p>\n
Petition No. 8 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner with the<\/p>\n
pleading that he has been sponsored by Indian National Congress.<\/p>\n
Grounds enumerated in both the election petitions are almost identical<\/p>\n
with addition to new facts.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
3.    In election petition no. 5 of 2004 the petitioner in para 9,30,31<\/p>\n
and 33 had pleaded the involvement of corrupt practice in election.<\/p>\n
Pleading of corrupt practice has also been contained the election<\/p>\n
petition no. 8 of 2004.      However, in both the election petitions<\/p>\n
affidavit in prescribed Form 25 has not been filed, which is fatal in<\/p>\n
view of law discussed in Election Petition No. 4 of 2004. Apart from<\/p>\n
above in Election Petition No. 5 of 2004 the notices was issued on<\/p>\n
5.10.2004 but it appears that the process was not filed within a week,<\/p>\n
required in the Rules of the Court. It was filed on 29.10.2004. It also<\/p>\n
borne out from the order sheet dated 26.9.2005 that copy of the<\/p>\n
election petition was not supplied to a respondents and copy served on<\/p>\n
them does not tally with the paper book of the court. Order sheet<\/p>\n
dated 26.9.2005 further reveals that on court’s direction the petitioner<\/p>\n
had taken steps to supply the copy of election petition on respondent<\/p>\n
no. 3. Thus there is flagrant violation of Rules of the Court in<\/p>\n
pursuing the election petition.\n<\/p>\n
4.    In both the election petitions neither the petitioner nor their<\/p>\n
counsel were appeared to advance their arguments. Shri S.N.Shukla<\/p>\n
learned counsel appeared for petitioner in Election Petition No. 4 of<\/p>\n
2004 had proceeded to defend the cause of election petitioners.<\/p>\n
5.    In election petition no. 5 of 2004 the list of documents has been<\/p>\n
filed which indicate six documents but the same is not on record and<\/p>\n
an applications was moved for summoning of record which was never<\/p>\n
pressed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Apart from above in both these election petitions the petitioner<\/p>\n
had defended the nomination of Madan Mohan, who filed election
\n                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
petition no. 4 of 2004. Knowledge has also been derived from the<\/p>\n
information communicated by Shri Madan Mohan while filing<\/p>\n
affidavit. Election petition filed by Madan Mohan has been dismissed<\/p>\n
by separate order. Accordingly, the common ground existing in these<\/p>\n
election petitions does not contain the material facts and also does not<\/p>\n
furnish the cause of action under the Code of Civil Procedure. The<\/p>\n
source of knowledge has not been disclosed.          Reliance has been<\/p>\n
placed from the information received by Shri Madan Mohan seems to<\/p>\n
be here say and not sustainable more so when the election petition<\/p>\n
filed by Shri Madan Mohan has been dismissed by separate order.<\/p>\n
7.    All materials facts with regard to corrupt practices coupled with<\/p>\n
source of knowledge are missing and also can not be considered in the<\/p>\n
absence of Affidavit in Form 25 read with Rule 94 A of the Rules. In<\/p>\n
the written argument filed by Shri S.N.Shukla who appeared on behalf<\/p>\n
of petitioners nothing has been brought on record to falsify the<\/p>\n
grounds taken by respondents in their applications.          In Election<\/p>\n
Petition No. 8 of 2004 there is no specific pleading along with<\/p>\n
documents to establish that the petitioner Harendra had filed Form 26<\/p>\n
in prescribed format. Para 83,84,85 of the election petition no. 8 of<\/p>\n
2004 relates to allegation of corrupt practices. In para 60 to 64 the<\/p>\n
case of Shri Madan Mohan has been dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
8.    It has been stated that election petition was not filed in duplicate<\/p>\n
in view of Order 7 Rule 11 (E) of the CPC. But during the course of<\/p>\n
arguments attention of the court has not been invited towards any<\/p>\n
material on record that the election petition was filed in duplicate.<\/p>\n
9.    Apart from various judgment referred while deciding and
\n                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissing the election petition no. 4 of 2004 it shall be appropriate to<\/p>\n
refer the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in JT<\/p>\n
2009 (10) SC 684, Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali<\/p>\n
Shigaonkar     where Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in the<\/p>\n
absence of specific pleading with regard to material facts, discloser of<\/p>\n
source of information and in the absence of material pleading with<\/p>\n
regard to cause of action in terms of Code of Civil Procedure, election<\/p>\n
petition may be summarily dismissed. It has further been held by<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court that omission of single material fact would<\/p>\n
lead to an incomplete cause of action. It shall be appropriate to<\/p>\n
reproduce relevant paras from the Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar’s case<\/p>\n
(supra), which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                   23.    According to the appellant, the High Court
\n                   had erroneously held that the election petition is
\n                   not liable to be dismissed in limine under section
\n                   86 of the Act for alleged non-compliance of the
\n                   provisions of section 83(1) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   24.    In the impugned judgment, the High Court
\n                   erroneously concluded that the election petition
\n                   when read as a whole discloses that it has material
\n                   facts stated and regarding which triable issues are
\n                   also framed and, therefore, it cannot be rejected at
\n                   the preliminary stage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   52.   The position is well settled that an election
\n                   petition can be summarily dismissed if it does not
\n                   furnish the cause of action in exercise of the power
\n                   under the Code of Civil Procedure.        Appropriate
\n                   orders in exercise of powers under the Code can be
\n                   passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by
\n                   Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material
\n                                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
facts in the election petition are not complied with.\n<\/p>\n
53.    This Court in Samant N. Balkrishna’s case
\n(supra) has expressed itself in no uncertain terms
\nthat the omission of a single material fact would
\nlead to an incomplete cause of action and that an
\nelection petition without the material facts relating
\nto a corrupt practice is not an election petition at
\nall.\n<\/p>\n
62.    It is settled legal position that all “material
\nfacts” must be pleaded by the party in support of
\nthe case set up by him within the period of
\nlimitation. Since the object and purpose is to
\nenable the opposite party to know the case he has
\nto meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party
\ncannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state
\neven a single material fact will entail dismissal of
\nthe election petition.\n<\/p>\n
63.    The election petition must contain a concise
\nstatement of “material facts” on which the
\npetitioner relies. There is no definition of “material
\nfacts” either in the Representation of Peoples Act,
\n1951 nor in the Code of Civil Procedure. In a series
\nof judgments, this court has laid down that all facts
\nnecessary to formulate a complete cause of action
\nshould be termed as “material facts”.       All basic
\nand primary facts which must be proved by a party
\nto establish the existence of cause of action or
\ndefence are material facts. “Material facts” in other
\nwords mean the entire bundle of facts which would
\nconstitute a complete cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
65.    In the context of a charge of corrupt practice,
\n“material facts” would mean all basic facts
\nconstituting the ingredients of the particular corrupt
\npractice alleged, which the petitioner (respondent
\n                                                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
                     herein) is bound to substantiate before he can
\n                     succeed on that charge. It is also well-settled that if
\n                     “material facts” are missing they cannot be
\n                     supplied after expiry of period of limitation for
\n                     filing the election petition and the pleading
\n                     becomes deficient.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court and law discussed in Election Petition No. 4 of 2004, the<\/p>\n
petitioners seems to have been failed to brought on record the material<\/p>\n
facts and cause of action        Affidavit has not been filed to verify<\/p>\n
corrupt practice in Form 25 in view of law discussed while deciding<\/p>\n
the election petition no. 4 of 2004. The applications are liable to be<\/p>\n
allowed, hence, allowed in consequence thereof these election<\/p>\n
petitions are also dismissed summarily. Cost made easy.<\/p>\n
                                          [Justice Devi Prasad Singh]<\/p>\n
22nd January, 2010
\nMadhu\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 1 Reserved Court No. – 27 Case :- ELECTION PETITION No. – 5 of 2004 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Tewari Respondent :- Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Smt P.L. Nigam,Anupam Mehrotra,Ram Narain Sahu Respondent Counsel :- […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010"},"wordCount":1364,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010","name":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T00:27:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pramod-kumar-tewari-vs-arun-shourie-12-ors-on-22-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pramod Kumar Tewari vs Arun Shourie & 12 Ors. on 22 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218508","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=218508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}