{"id":223357,"date":"2008-08-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-08T14:53:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-08T09:23:39","slug":"india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court<\/div>\n
India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008<\/div>\n
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK\nWrit Petition (Criminal) No. 220.of 2007\n\nIn the matter of an application under Article 226 of Constitution of\n\nIndia.\nM \/s. Shakti Bricks .......... .. Petitioner\n-Versus-\nThe Collector, Bhadrak and others .......... .. Opp. Parties\nFor Petitioner : M \/ s. Prafulla Kumar Rath,\n\nR.C.Jena, P.K.Satpathy,\nR.N.Parija 85 A.K.Rout\n\nFor Opp. Parties 1 to 4: Addl. Govt. Advocate\nFor Opp. Parties 5 85 6: M\/s. None.\n\nFor Opp. Party No.7 : ' M \/ s. Chittaranjan Nanda,\nS.N.Kar, A.C.Mohanty,\nR.C.Rath, N.Das,\nN.M.Praharaj, P.Das,\nA.Parida, M.Behera and\n\nA S.Acharya.\n\nFor Opp. Party No.8 : M \/s. Subha Bikas Panda,\n* M.K.Dash and P.K.Beura.\n\nPRESENT:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY.\nDate of hearing: 21.12.2007 Date of Judgmentzgig .O8.2008\n\nI.Mahanty, J. The petitioner--M\/s. Shakti Bricks, represented by its Proprietor\nSri Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, has filed this writ application seeking a\ndirection to the District Administration as well as the police authorities\n\n\n\nto provide protection to the life and property of the petitioner who\nclaims to be threatened by the private opposite parties 5 and 6 who are\nallegedly restraining them from carrying on their business activity and\ntrade.\n\n2. I In course of proceeding, certain intervenors either\nsupporting the petitioner intervened and they were impleaded as\nopposite parties 7 and 8.\n\n3. The main grounds of challenge as narrated in this writ\napplication are :\n\n(a) The freedom of carrying on occupation, trade and\n\n' business is one of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen of this country\n\nprovided under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. The\npetitioner's industry which has been lawfully registered and is\nsupposed to carry on his business but then only because he could not\nsatisfy the demand of the private opposite parties, they have been\ncreating illegal impediment by blocking the village road for transporting\nthe materials from the petitioner's industry.\n\n(b) As a result, the loss suffered by the petitioner is huge\nand enormous. In View of the illegal act of the opposite parties, the\npetitioner's right of carrying on business and occupation is affected and\nthe District Administration who are 'authorities of the State are\nsupposed to protect the same by preventing the illegalities being\ncommitted.' Though the petitioner has sought for protection by\nrepresentation to all the authorities, inaction on their part is unjust,\nillegal and contrary to law.\n\n4. The petitioner asserts that the petitioner-firm is a\nregistered as an industrial unit under the District Industries Centre\nand the petitioner and his family members have been carrying on\nbusiness of Brick Kiln Unit for more than 15 years, over 8-10 acres of\n\nland said 'to be recorded in their favour under Routrapur Mouza. He\n\n\n\nasserts that the property over which the Brick.-Kiln is situated stands\nrecorded in the name' of the petitioner's father. It is also assertedithat\nthe Brick Kiln is located about 26 K.Ms and 24 K.Ms from N.H.--5 and\nN.H.53 and the railway line respectively. The petitioner states that for\nthe purpose of running his business, he has obtained \"No Objection\nCertificate\" from the Tahasildar, Bonth and the Unit has also obtained\n\"consent order\" for carrying on business of Brick Kiln as required under\nSection 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981\nfrom the Orissa Pollution Control Board. It is also asserted that the\ninitial consent order granted by the Pollution Control Board on\n24.12.2005<\/pre>\n
 was originally valid upto 31.3.2006 and on expiry of the
\nsame, the petitioner has applied for renewal of consent and such
\nrenewal has been granted in favour of the petitioner extending the same
\nup to 31.3.2011.\n<\/p>\n
5. The petitioner contended that the younger brother of the
\npetitioner had entered into an agreement with Nrusingha Nath Jew
\nTrust Board for utilizing their sandy soil for the purpose of preparing
\nraw material for the Brick Kiln business under Routrapur Mouza. It is
\nstated that the local Tahasildar objective to the same, effected seizure of
\nthe raw bricks manufactured by same sandy soil obtained from
\nNrusingha Nath Jew Trust Board and put the same to public auction.
\nThe petitioners’ younger brother being the highest bidder offered Rs.l
\nlakh and on being successful, deposited the said amount of Rs.l lakh
\nwith the Revenue Authority and took possession of the bricks.\n<\/p>\n
6. The petitioner submits that for carrying coal, which is
\nrequired for the purpose of \ufb01ring the brick kiln, the petitioner had to
\nuse the only passage for transport such materials, which runs through
\nthe village Patkura. It is stated that some anti-socials and criminals of
\nthe locality, named in the petition including opposite parties 5 and 6,<\/p>\n
demanded huge amount of contribution from the petitioner and since<\/p>\n
the petitioner did not support their demands, they obstructed the<\/p>\n
passage running through their village byputting an unauthorized gate-\n<\/p>\n
and started demanding contribution from all the trucks carrying
\nmaterials to and from the petitioner’s unit as well as from the
\nlabourers, working in the said unit. It is further submitted that the
\npersons named in paragraph-10 of the petition also assaulted the
\nTahasildar, Bonth While he was carrying on auction of raw materials
\nand the Tahasildar has lodged an F.I.R. before the police against such
\nanti-socials, some of whom were arrested and some remain absconding.\n<\/p>\n
7. It is stated that since no furtherlaction was taken against
\nthe said law breakers, the petitioner had to approach this Court in
\nW.P.(Crl.) No.51 of 2007 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the
\nsame by directing the O.l.C., Agarpada P.S. to take appropriate action
\nagainst the accused persons. It appears that the accused persons had
\napproached this Court and obtained bail and it is alleged that, those
\naccused persons taking advantage of the bail order granted by this
\nCourt, carried on committing similar activities and whenever the
\npetitioner’s trucks loaded with coal and\/ or bricks were sought to be
\ncarried over the public road, these accused persons with their
\nsupporters blocked the passage by sitting in front of the vehicle, as a
\nresult of which the petitioner’s business activities have come to a
\nstandstill. It is further asserted that on an occasion, the petitioner’s
\ntruck driver was assaulted by the accused persons and when he lodged
\nthe F.I.R. against them, no action whatsoever has been taken against
\nthem. Accordingly, the petitioner has \ufb01led the Writ application praying
\nfor issue of writ of certiorari and\/ or mandamous and\/ or any other
\ndirections commanding the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak to<\/p>\n
provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for carrying on his<\/p>\n
trade or business.\n<\/p>\n
8. A counter affidavit dated 23.7.2007 has been f1led’by
\nopposite party No.4-O.I.C., Agarpada P.S. alleging therein that the
\npetitioner had not obtained any permission from the competent
\nauthority regarding running of his Brick Kiln for the year 2006-07 for
\nwhich the Tahasildar, Bonth had been to Brick Kiln of the petitioner for
\nspot enquiry and had submitted an enquiry report dated 26.6.2007
\nstating that the petitioner had manufactured bricks unauthorisedly.
\nThe O.I.C. avers that during the spot enquiry of the Tahasildar, he
\nnoticed one Check-gate had been putting in the village road for
\ncollecting Chanda (Donation) from each truck carrying bricks. It
\nappears that   villagers” to remove
\nthe check–gate from the village road as it is a public road but the
\nvillagers opposed him and on the written report of the Tahasildar,
\nAgarpada P.S. Case No.1\/2007 was registered under Sections 143, 342,<\/p>\n
294, 353, 506 85 149 l.P.C. read with Section–3 SC\/ST (P.A.) Act<\/p>\n
against 11 accused persons. It is further stated that in course of –\n<\/p>\n
investigation, four accused persons had obtained anticipatory bail from
\nthis Court and one accused was arrested and forwarded to the court
\nand other accused persons surrendered in the court of S.D.J.M.,
\nBhadrak and were released on bail subsequently. In paragraph~11 of
\nthe said counter af\ufb01davit, it is averred by the O.I.C. that subsequent to
\nthe representation made by the petitioner, the police has taken
\nadequate protective measures and has also registered cases and
\napprehended some accused persons. It is further stated therein that
\nsince lifting of brick is a continuous affair, it is not possible on the part
\nof the police to provide continuous protection.\n<\/p>\n
A further ‘additional affidavit’ on behalf of opposite party
\nNo.4–O.I.C., Agarpada P.S. was filed on 31.10.2007, alleging that the
\npetitioner had manufactured bricks unlawfully and for the said purpose<\/p>\n
thetpetitioner had appeared before the Tahasildar, Bonth on 12.7.2007<\/p>\n
O\\<\/p>\n
and on admitting that he had manufactured bricks unauthorisedly, he
\nagreed to pay penalty for it. But till date the petitioner has not paid any
\npenalty and, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for in the
\nwrit application. Further, it is stated therein that no police protection
\nshall be given to the petitioner for shifting of his \ufb01nished products or
\notherwise as it would put the entire district administration and police
\nin bad light and will only boost the confidence of people violating laws
\nfor their petty self-interest. It is also averred that it can lead to serious<\/p>\n
law and order problems in the areas in future.\n<\/p>\n
‘9. M   ” ‘lniitheifrejoinder”af\ufb01davit filed by the petitioner in reply to<\/p>\n
the counter af\ufb01davit of O.P.4-O.I.C., it is stated that the petitioner’s
\nindustry which has been lawfully established, should be allowed to use
\nthe public road and the proceeding against the petitioner initiated by
\nthe Tahasildar, _Bonth vide case No.3 \/ 2007-O8 imposing penalty and<\/p>\n
royalty of Rs.60,000\/–, has been closed with the petitioner’s depositing _<\/p>\n
the demanded amount and, therefore, there could be noquestion of
\npetitioner’s business activities being Violative of any statutory provision.
\nIt is further averred that the petitioner is entitled for protection of his
\nlife and property as guaranteed under Article 21 read with Article
\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and it is the constitutional
\nobligation of the police to provide protection to the citizens and denying
\nthe said protection amounts to be the violation of the petitioner’s
\nconstitutional rights.\n<\/p>\n
10. As noted hereinabove, a group of persons headed by one
\nNarayan Ch. Bhutia claiming to be the villagers of village Pattakana
\nhave been impleaded as opposite party no.7. In their intervention
\napplication, the interveners claim that the petitioner was excavating
\nearth from the embankment of the river Shalandi which belongs to the
\nIrrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa and adjacent reserve communal<\/p>\n
(Gochar) land belonging to the deity Sri Nrushinghanath Dev under the<\/p>\n
admi.nistrative control of the Endowment Department. They asserted
\nthat the petitioners have been carrying on illegal Brick Kiln for more
\nthan 15 years by removing thousands of trees from adjoining
\ngovernment land and their actions have been resulted in “soil erosion,
\nenvironmental pollution and ecological imbalance, due to which over
\n1000 acres of agricultural land lost its fertility and become un\ufb01t for
\nagricultural operation. It is contended that the soil erosion and
\nexcavation of earth near to the bed of river Salandi causes weakness to
\nthe embankment and therefore, there is every possibility of \ufb02ood to the
\nadjoining villagers. Apart from the aforesaid factual assertions, it is
\naverred by the intervenors that Rule–3 of the Orissa Minor Mineral
\nConcession Rules, 1990 (in short ‘1990 Rules’) providesthat no person
\nshall undertake any quarrying operations for the purpose of extraction,
\ncollection and\/ or removal of minor minerals, except under and in
\naccordance with the terms and conditions of quarry lease, permit
\nand \/ or auction sale provided under these rules. It is further submitted
\nthat Rule 24(1) of the 1990 Rules provides that whoever contravenes
\nthe provisions of Rule–3 shall be liable to punishment with
\nimprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with \ufb01ne
\nwhich may extend to Rs.1000\/- only or both. It issubmitted that the
\npetitioner and his family members have contravened the provisions
\nmentioned in Rule–24(1) of 1990 Rules and are liable for the penalty
\nunder the same and the bricks made by the earth extracted by violating
\nRu1e–20 becomes property of the Government and, therefore, neither
\nthe petitioner nor his family members have any right on those bricks.
\nTherefore, no direction should be issued to provide police help from
\ntaking away these bricks. i<\/p>\n
11. A further set of interveners headed by Arun Kumar Prusty,<\/p>\n
have intervened and have been impleaded as opposite party no.8 in the<\/p>\n
present proceeding. They, on the other hand, support the prayer of the<\/p>\n
lit.’<\/p>\n
petitioner and state that_they are belonging to the village Patkana and
\nare labourers Working in the petitioner’s industry and state that their
\nlivelihood is at stake since the private opposite parties and interveners
\nwho are villagers of Mouza Routrapur are preventing the petitioner’s
\nvehicle from moving through the village which is the only road thereby
\naffecting their livelihood. They asserts that the industry in question is
\nnot creating any kind of hazard to the intervener no.7 and asserts that
\nprivate opposite parties 5 and 6 demanded huge amount of “batti”
\n(donation) from the petitioner as a pre–condition for carrying on such
\nbusiness.\n<\/p>\n
12. In the light of the aforesaid controversy since opposite
\nparty no.3 (Tahasildar) had not filed any counter af\ufb01davit, a direction
\nwas issued to the Tahasildar, Bonth on 4.12.2007 directing him to file
\nan af\ufb01davit indicating the legal impediment if any exists for not
\ngranting the prayer sought for by the petitioner. In terms of the said
\ndirection, an affidavit was filed by the Tahasildar–O.P.3 on 18.12.2007.
\nFrom this af\ufb01davit, it appears that the petitioner’s firm Which operates
\na Brick Kiln is situated at Routrapur and the land on which the Brick
\nKiln is located, stands recorded in the name of Bibhuti Bhusana
\nMishra, the proprietor of petitioner-firm. The Tahasildar further stated.
\nthat the petitioner had manufactured approximately 17.5 lakhs of
\nbricks Without the prior permission of the competent authority and that
\nthe petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs.60,600\/– towards
\npenalty, royalty etc. on 27.09.2007. Most importantly, the Tahasildar
\nhas stated in paragraph–5 that the petitioner had manufactured the
\nabove bricks “using his own land”.\n<\/p>\n
In the light of the aforesaid contention and\/ or the
\naverments of the Tahasildar in his af\ufb01davit, it is apparent that the
\npetitioner–\ufb01rm is a registered small-scale ‘industry manufacturing<\/p>\n
bricks and is located at Routrapur Mouza. This unit was issued a “No<\/p>\n
Objection Certificate” by the Tahasildar on 11.3.2003 and the State
\n“Pollution Control Board has also given its consent to the petitioner to
\noperate the brick kiln and the said consent is valid up to 31.3.2011.
\nThe assertion of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s unit is established
\nover his own land which is accepted by the Tahasildar in his counter
\naffidavit. The sale of 2.5 lakhs bricks on the allegation of non-payment
\nof royalty, is also an admitted fact.iIt is also a matter of fact that the
\npetitioner’s brother, being the highest bidder at the public auction, had
\npaid Rs. 1 lakh to the Revenue Authority and purchased those bricks in
\nauction. It is also a further matter of record that there is only public
\nroad which runs through the village Patakana for communicating to
\nand from the petitioner’s unit.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the light of the averments made in the various affidavits,
\nnoted hereinabove, it is clear that the issues raised against operation of
\nthe petitioner’s Brick Kiln were raised for the \ufb01rst time only during the
\nmonth of January, 2007 and not on any point of time earlier thereto.
\nThe “assertion made by” the petitioner is that certain individuals
\nbelonging to Routrapur Mouza started demanding “dada batti” (forced
\ndonation) from each truck going to and from the unit of the petitioner,
\nis borne out from the Spot Enquiry Report of the Tahasildar. It is
\naverred by the O.l.C., Agarpada in his counter af\ufb01davit that villagers of
\nMouza Patakana had set up a “check gate” on the village public road
\nand that when the Tahasildar requested them to remove the same, the
\nrelevant law and order situation compelled the Tahasildar to lodge
\nF.I.R. under various sections of I.P.C before the local police.\n<\/p>\n
14. The assertions made by the intervener–O.P.7 that the
\npetitioner’s unit has been situated on Govt. Gochar land and causing
\nenvironmental pollution and endangers to the villagers at large, is not
\nborne out from the records. The affidavit of the Tahasildar indicates<\/p>\n
that the petitioner’s Brick Kiln is located on his “oWn private land”. In<\/p>\n
so far as. the environmental pollution is concerned, the petitioner has
\nannexed as Annexure-4, the consent of the State Pollution Control
\nBoard to operate the Brick Kiln in question and the same is valid till
\n31.3.201 1. In so far as danger to the villagers is concerned, the same is
\nnot af\ufb01rmed by the Tahasildar in his affidavit and on the contrary, the
\nTahasildar himself has granted “No Objection Certificate” on 11.3.2003
\nfor operating the brick kiln and such allegation to the contrary made by
\nthe intervenors cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
The only objection raised by the O.I.C. in his counter<\/p>\n
af\ufb01davit is that by the date of the said affidavit the petitioner had not I<\/p>\n
paid the assessed penalty as demanded, but the Tahasildar has<\/p>\n
‘ accepted the fact that the petitioner had deposited the said assessed<\/p>\n
penalty of Rs.60,600\/– in respect of 17,50,000 bricks.\n<\/p>\n
15. In the light of the aforesaid fact, it now becomesimportant
\nto determine as to whether the prayer of the petitioner seeking direction
\nto the Superintendent of Police to provide necessary legal protection to<\/p>\n
carry on the trade\/ business should be passed or not ? The O.I.C. in<\/p>\n
one of its counter affidavit has asserted that the brick business being’ a .\n<\/p>\n
continuous activity, necessary protection cannot be provided and there<\/p>\n
is likelihood of the law and order situation, that may arises if such<\/p>\n
direction is issued.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, it is relevant to quote Articles 21 and l9(1)(g) of the
\nConstitution of India hereinbelovv:\n<\/p>\n
“21. Protection of life and personal
\nliberty.– No person shall be deprived of his life or
\npersonal liberty except according to procedure
\nestablished by law. I<\/p>\n
. 19. Protection of certain rights
\nregarding freedom of speech, etc.-(1) All citizens
\nshall have the right-\n<\/p>\n
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry
\non any occupation, trade or business.”\n<\/p>\n
Article 19(l)(g), is contained in part-III of the Constitution
\nunder the heading Fundamental Rights of India. In terms thereof, all
\ncitizens of India have a right to practise any profession, or to carry on
\nany occupation, trade or business. In terms of the said Constitutional
\nright, the petitioner having obtained “No Objection Certi\ufb01cation” from
\nthe Tahasildar in 2003 and having registered itself in the District
\nIndustry Center as small-scale industry and further, after having
\nobtained the necessary consent from the said Pollution Control Board
\nwhich remains valid as on date, is entitled and is guaranteed the right
\nto carry on his occupation trade or business by the Constitution of
\nIndia. The petitioner who is also a citizen of India is entitled not to be
\ndeprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with to the
\nprocedure established by law as guaranteed under Article–2l. Both the
\nArticles read together along with the fact that the Tahasildar, Bonth
\nadmits that there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to carry on
\nhis business, justi\ufb01es the petitioners’ prayer. .\n<\/p>\n
16. In view of these facts, it is the constitutional obligation of<\/p>\n
the State and its agencies including the police to ensure that no<\/p>\n
impediments are cast on a citizen from practicing his profession or<\/p>\n
carrying on any occupation, trade or business.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case, I am of the considered view that the
\nstand of the police authorities that they are not in a position to provide
\nnecessary protection, is clearly opposed to the constitutional rights
\nguaranteed under the Constitution to every citizen of India. Since I am
\nof the considered View that there is no legal impediment for the
\npetitioner from carrying on his business or occupation and\/ or since no
\nlegal impediment has been cited and\/ or brought to my notice, the
\npolice authorities are duty bound and are under a Constitutional<\/p>\n
obligation to every citizen including the petitioner to provide all<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
necessary assistance so that lawful business can be carried on. It
\nneeds to be kept in my mind that demand for unlawful donation for<\/p>\n
various oblique purposes, and it is proved in this case that the villagers<\/p>\n
had set up a check-gate on a public road and the Tahasildar has.\n<\/p>\n
directed to remove the same. I reiterate that it is obligatory on the part
\nof the District Administration as well as the police authorities to ensure
\nthat no such unlawful act, such as setting up of check-gates for the
\npurpose of collecting donation, should be allowed and whenever such
\ngates being put up, immediate actions should be taken to remove the
\nsame and to take appropriate action against the persons who have<\/p>\n
erected such gates for such unlawful purposes. No doubt, the local<\/p>\n
villagers may have certain complaints against the industries operating <\/p>\n
in their locality and it is open for such villagers to make representation<\/p>\n
or to act as law–abiding citizens by bringing it to the notice of <\/p>\n
appropriate authorities. Even if any infraction ever occurs, neither the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India nor the law of this country authorize any
\nindividual or group of individuals to take law into their own hands and
\nto start collecting donations by setting up check–gates\/ road blocks at 7<\/p>\n
their respective villages over public roads and. thereby impeding the <\/p>\n
lawful business of any citizen.\n<\/p>\n
17. In View of the conclusions arrived by me hereinabove, the
\nDistrict Collector, Bhadrak and the Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak e
\nas well as the O.I.C., Agarpada are directed to provide all necessary V.
\nassistance in order toensure that the public road is permitted to be i
\nused by all persons including the petitioner without any impediment”\n<\/p>\n
and] or inconvenience. In case of any obstruction to the movement of
\nsuch vehicle to and from the petitioner’s Brick Kiln, immediate
\nassistance and prosecution against the accused persons must be taken <\/p>\n
immediately. For such purposes, if required, the police may set up a <\/p>\n
out–post to be located at the village along with necessary police<\/p>\n
,.\\-s\u00bbcq\u00ab4i-rLmlenn.m’:n~m\u00bbMaw…  ., t . .,…,., .. ., ms, .,._…,_.-MW;-.a.\n<\/p>\n
personnel to ensure compliance of those directions. This would be the
\nonly manner by which the rule of law can be enforced and at the same
\ntime, the obligation of the ‘State to its citizens can be fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid
\ndirections.\n<\/p>\n
O\/RISSA HIGH COURT; CUTTACK
\n August, 2008\/ RKS.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Orissa High Court India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 220.of 2007 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of Constitution of India. M \/s. Shakti Bricks ………. .. Petitioner -Versus- The Collector, Bhadrak and others ………. .. Opp. Parties For Petitioner […]<\/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":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIndia vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - 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\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-08T09:23:39+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T09:23:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3222,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\",\"name\":\"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-08T09:23:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - 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\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-08T09:23:39+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T09:23:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008"},"wordCount":3222,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008","name":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-08T09:23:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/india-vs-unknown-on-8-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"India vs Unknown on 8 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/223357","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=223357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}