{"id":226329,"date":"2010-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-03-06T09:00:46","modified_gmt":"2015-03-06T03:30:46","slug":"dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                               Judgement reserved on 18.5.2010\n                               Judgement delivered on 14.7.2010\n\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.58404 OF 2009\n            Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs. State of UP and others\n                        Connected with\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 58406 OF 2009\n            Dr. Suman Singh vs. State of UP and others\n                          AND\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 58407 OF 2009\n            Dr. Om Hari Agnihotri vs. State of UP and others\n                          AND\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.58409 OF 2009\n      Dr. Sanjay Kumar Doharey vs. State of UP and others\n                        AND\n      CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 58410 OF 2009\n            Dr. P.K. Varma vs. State of UP and others\n\n\nHon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioners. Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing
\nCounsel appears for the State respondents. Shri Chandra Shekhar
\nSingh appears for UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
\n58404 of 2009 is a qualified and registered medical practitioner. He
\nis registered with the Chief Medical Officer on a declaration
\nfurnished by him in terms of the orders of this Court in Contempt
\nPetition No. 820 of 2002 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs. A.P. Verma
\nand others<\/a>. In Writ Petition No. 58406 of 2009 Dr. Suman Singh; in
\nWrit Petition No. 58407 of 2009 Dr. Om Hari Agnihotri; in Writ
\nPetition No. 58409 of 2009 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Doharey; in Writ
\nPetition No. 58410 of 2009 Dr. P.K. Varma, the petitioners are
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
qualified and registered medical practitioners. They are all
\nregistered with the Chief Medical Officer. All the petitioners are
\nresiding and carrying on their medical practice in their residential
\nhouse Nos. C-160, A-241 & A-242, C-165, C-9 & C-163 in Awas &
\nVikas Colony in District Etawah. They have challenged the notices
\nissued by the Chief Medical Officer, informing them that the
\nclinics\/hospitals\/nursing homes run by them in the residential houses
\nin Awas Evam Vikas Colony Etawah is against the Rules of the UP
\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad. Their registration has been suspended
\nforthwith and they have been directed to close the medical facility
\nrun in the residential houses, within 30 days and to inform him about
\nthe change of the place of their clinics\/hospitals\/nursing homes,
\nfailing which proceedings will be taken to cancel their registration.\n<\/p>\n
3.    Shri Arvind Srivastava submits that the petitioners are
\nqualified medical practitioners. They are registered with the Medical
\nCouncil of U.P. and with the Chief Medical Officer under the orders
\nof the High Court. They are running their clinics and carrying on
\ntheir medical practice in the residential houses in the colony. No one
\nhad made complaint against their professional activity. The Chief
\nMedical Officer, Etawah, has, on his own, without there being any
\ncomplaint in writing from any person, on an information received
\nfrom the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, given notices to the
\npetitioners and suspended their registration. Shri Srivastava submits
\nthat the medical facilities provided by the petitioners from their
\nresidential houses are not prohibited by any law. The petitioners as
\nqualified doctors have fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of
\nthe Constitution of India to carry on their profession at any place of
\ntheir choice. The registration with the Medical Council of Uttar
\nPradesh authorises them to run their clinics\/nursing homes\/hospitals,
\nand to offer diagnostic facilities, which are part of professional
\nservices. The Chief Medical Officer has no authority to suspend their
\nregistration. He submits that the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad has
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
not framed any by-laws or regulations referable to UP Awas Evam
\nVikas Parisahd Act, which may restrict their right to carry on the
\nmedical profession and to treat patients in the residential houses.
\nShri Arvind Srivastava submits that all the medical doctors are
\nbound by the ethics of their profession. They have to treat patients
\naccording their knowledge and ability and for that purpose they also
\nrequire diagnostic equipments and techniques as such the x-ray
\nmachines, ultrasound, pathology and a place equipped for carrying
\non surgeries. They are also entitled to and are bound to provide in-
\nhouse facilities for admitting patients with serious illness and for pre
\nand post operative care. The petitioners are abiding by all the
\nconditions imposed on them by law. There is no restriction to
\nprovide these facilities, which are essential to their profession in the
\nresidential houses purchased by them or built by them in the colonies
\ndeveloped by UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Shri Chandra Shekher Singh appearing for U.P. Awas Evam
\nVikas Parishad has filed an affidavit of Shri Probodh Kumar,
\nAssistant Engineer, Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,
\nConstruction Division 18, (Sub Division Etawah), Kanpur, in which
\nit is stated that each allottee of the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad of
\na house or a residential plot has to enter into an agreement with the
\nParishad. As per the agreement there is a restriction that the allottee
\nwill not change the user of the land\/house. All the petitioners and
\nother doctors living in the colonies of Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,
\nwere allotted plots in the residential schemes or have purchased the
\nplots from the original allottees. All of them had executed purchase
\nagreement\/sale deeds under which they cannot have a better title
\nthan the original allottees. All the doctors have admitted before the
\nChief Medical Officer in the declaration furnished by them for
\nregistration that they are only providing consultancy. In the joint
\ninspection carried out in pursuance to the orders of the High Court
\non 8.12.2009, it was found that apart from running their clinics all
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
the doctors are using the residential accommodation for running
\ndiagnostic clinics and that some of them are also admitting patients.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Shri C.S. Singh submits that the original allottees, under
\nwhich the petitioners are claiming their rights had agreed to a
\ncondition under clause 2 (d) that the allottee\/purchaser under hire
\npurchase scheme will not use the property, for business or commerce
\nwithout the written permission of the owner. They had agreed not
\nuse the premise for any purpose other than residential purposes and
\nnot to carry out any activity in the house which, in the opinion of
\nother residents of the colony, is against public interest, or for any
\npurpose other than the purpose for which the colony has been
\ndeveloped.\n<\/p>\n
6.    Shri C.S. Singh submits that Shri Deepak Kumar, Housing
\nCommissioner by his letter dated 30.3.2009 informed all the
\nExecutive Engineers (Competent Authorities) of UP Awas Evam
\nVikas Parishad in U.P., for taking effective steps against
\nunauthorised constructions and change of land use. In paragraphs 10
\nof this letter he directed that where the property is being used for
\nnursing home\/hospital, medicine shops etc., a request should be
\nmade to Chief Medical Officer to cancel the licence. The letter also
\nprovided for restriction on the user of the premises as school, hotel
\nand for any purpose other than the purpose for which the plot\/house
\nwas allotted. The Chief Medical Officer, Etawah informed the
\nExecutive Engineer, Construction Division 12, UP Awas Evam
\nVikas Parishad, Hamirpur Road, Kanpur, that a number of doctors
\nincluding Dr. Suman Singh resident of A-242 are running nursing
\nhomes in residential houses. He has required the Executive Engineer
\nto furnish the necessary documents with regard to the conditions
\nunder which the house was allotted.\n<\/p>\n
7.    Dr. Kamal Kumar, Medical Officer, Community Health
\nCentre, Bharthana, Etawah has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of
\nthe State. He has referred to the circular letter issued by the UP
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad dated 30.3.2009, requesting the Chief
\nMedical Officer to take notice of those nursing homes\/clinics which
\nare being run in residential colonies, and which is not permissible
\nunder law. In pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court
\ninspections were made and in which it was found that medical
\ndoctors occupying the residential houses are not running clinics but
\nwere actually found to be running medical facilities and x-ray plants,
\nultrasound pathology, medical stores, operation theatre and wards
\nincluding general wards. It was found that these facilities are being
\nrun in cubical type room which is not authorised in residential
\ncolonies. The inspection report of Dr. A.S. Sahai, Chief Medical
\nOfficer, Etawah dated 25.1.2010 in respect of Dr. Suman Singh, Dr.
\nOmhari Agnihotri, Dr. Sanjai Kumar Doharey, Dr. P.K. Varma and
\nDr. Shiv Mohan Yadav, gives the details of their professional
\nactivities in residential houses as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “1.    Writ Petition No. 58406 of 2009 Dr. Suman Singh vs.
\n      State of UP and others<\/p>\n
      House No. A 242 Awas Vikas Scheme-I Etawah is being used by
\n      Dr. Suman Singh as registered ‘Surya Surgical and Maternity
\n      Centre’. In the inspection the following facilities were found in the
\n      house on ground floor: ultrasound room 9.5′ x 9.5′; computer
\n      room 9.5’x9.5′, operation room 15.1’x9′, private ward 9.5’x9.5′
\n      (3 cubicles), employees room 9.5’x9.5′, chaukidars room 5×4′,
\n      general ward 15.1’x9′<\/p>\n
      First floor- general ward 15.1’x9′, machines in the operation
\n      theatre ( O.T. Light, Suction machine, O.T. table\/delivery
\n      table. Nursing home has 5 K.V.A. commercial connection but
\n      no bill was produced. A 5 K.V.A. Generator was found. The
\n      house A-241 is being used as residential house.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The inspections were made with the help of Dr. Shri Balbir Singh,
\n      Surgeon, who is husband of Dr. Smt. Suman Singh and is posted as
\n      Surgeon at Community Health Centre, Karhal, Mainpuri.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.     Writ Petition No. 58407 of 2009 Dr. Omhari Agnihotri
\n      vs. State of UP and others<\/p>\n
      House No. C-165 Awas Vikas Scheme-I Etawah is being used by
\n      Dr. Omhari Agnihotri. The clinic has following medical facilities:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Ground floor-Dressing room 13’x11′, hall 18’x10′ (for residential
\n                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
use); hall 18’x17.5′ (for residential use); Dr. consultancy room
\n20’x12′ with an outside medical store 12’x8′. The clinic has a
\ncommercial electric connection. A generator of 5 K.V.A was found
\nin the clinic. Dr. Omhari Agnihotri got the inspection made. He is a
\nregistered medical practitioner and states that there is no doctor
\nworking in his clinic.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Writ Petition No. 58409 of 2009 Dr. Sanjay Kumar
\nDohray State of UP and others<\/p>\n
House No. C-9 Awas Vikas Scheme-I Etawah is being used by Dr.
\nSanjay Kumar as registered ‘Deep Kiran Nursing Home’ with
\nfollowing medical facilities:-\n<\/p>\n
Ground floor- OPD chamber 9.8’x9.6′; OPD Chamber
\n8.3’x8.7′; operation theatre 10.8×18.2′;\n<\/p>\n
General ward 10.6’x18.6′, waiting room 10.6’x18.6′;
\nFirst floor- general ward 10.6’x18.6′; private ward 8’x8′,
\nprivate ward 8’x8′;\n<\/p>\n
The details of the machines in the operation (vial apparatus, OT
\ntable, OT light, pulse oxemeter, electric kothari small. The
\nclinic has commercial electric connection. It has a 5 K.V.A.
\ngenerator. The inspection was made in presence of Dr. Sanjay
\nKumar. He informs that there is no government doctor working or
\ngiving medical facilities in his nursing home.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Writ Petition No. 58410 of 2009 Dr. P.K. Varma vs State
\nof UP and others<\/p>\n
House No. C-163 Awas Vikas Scheme-I Etawah is being used by
\nDr. P.K. Varma. The clinic has following medical facilities:-\n<\/p>\n
Ground floor-X-ray room 12’x9′, pathology 9.11’x4.7′ medical
\nstore 12.3’x9.0′ doctor’s room 12.4’x7.5′. The clinic has a
\ncommercial electric connection. A generator of 5 K.V.A was found
\nin the clinic. The inspection was made in presence of Dr. P.K.
\nVarma. He informs that there is no government doctor working or
\ngiving medical facilities in his clinic.\n<\/p>\n
5.     Writ Petition No. 58404 of 2009 Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs
\nState of UP and others<\/p>\n
House No. C-160 Awas Vikas Scheme-I Etawah is being used by
\nDr. Shiv Milan Yadav. The clinic has following medical facilities:-
\nOn basement:- Pathology 13.2’x5′, X-ray 12’x8′ and three
\nrooms for private use.\n<\/p>\n
Ground floor- doctor’s room 13’x8′; ward 14’x12′ and four
\nrooms for private use.\n<\/p>\n
The clinic has a domestic electric connection. A generator of 5
\nK.V.A was found in the clinic. The inspection was made in
\npresence of Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav. He informs that there is no
\ngovernment doctor working or giving medical facilities in his clinic.’
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.    Shri Arvind Srivastava would submit that the Supreme Court
\nin Writ Petition No. C-552\/1997 had granted an interim order in a
\nmatter arising out of State of Haryana and in which the running of
\nmedical facilities in residential houses was under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel has brought on
\nrecord the order dated 10.9.2003 by which the Writ Petition was
\ndisposed of by the Apex Court, in terms of signed order under which
\nthe Supreme Court permitted the medical practitioners to give reply
\nto the competent authorities to the notices issued to them under
\nSection 17 (3)\/17(4) of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act,
\n1977, with further directions to the authority to dispose of the
\nreply\/representations and pass appropriate orders in each individual
\ncase on merits considering the facts and circumstances and
\ncontentions raised. The representations were to be decided within
\nfour months and until the reply\/representation was disposed of, the
\nstatus quo as existing in relation to the buildings and their use by the
\nmembers of the Association\/Indian Medical Association at Farizabad
\nwas to be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Shri Arvind Srivastava submits that the professional activity
\ncarried out by a medical practitioner includes all such activity, which
\nis incidental to, and is necessary for the purposes of using his skill
\nand knowledge for treatment. The running of medical store and
\ndiagnostic clinics is essential for diagnosis. It is also necessary for
\nthe doctors to admit patients suffering from serious illness and to
\nprovide them post operative medical care in case of surgery. These
\nincidental activities cannot be stopped as they are part of the
\nprofession. It is alleged that the petitioners have declared that they
\nwill carry on medical profession and will be running clinics. He
\nsubmits that nursing home and hospital is not defined under any
\nlaw. The clinic with incidental diagnostic and other medical facilities
\ncannot be termed as nursing home\/hospital and in any case the
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
activities of the petitioners in the residential houses are not contrary
\nto the purpose for which the residential houses were allotted and are
\nbeing used by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Shri Arvind Srivastava submits that in Association of
\nProperty Consultants vs. Delhi Development Authority C.W. No.
\n5370\/2001 the High Court at Delhi considered the question whether
\na property dealer, property broker or real estate agent can be
\nconstrued as a “consultant” under the Haryana Urban Development
\n(Disposal of Land and Buildings) Amendment Regulations 1998,
\nwhich permits the non-nuisance professional consultancy carried out,
\ndefining it as an activity under Regulation 2 (bb), as carried out by
\nan individual by his personal skill and intelligence and which
\nincludes Doctors (without Nursing Home) as an activity as a
\nproperty consultant. The Delhi High Court after considering the
\ndefinition of ‘profession’ and ‘consultancy’ in various dictionaries and
\njudgments held that the consultants will include private consultant.\n<\/p>\n
12.   All the petitioners are qualified and registered medical
\npractitioners. They have a right to run their private medical clinics
\nfor giving professional advice to the patients. A doctor’s clinic run in
\na portion of the residential house, which may either be small and
\nsufficiently big but which may not occupy the entire area with a
\nwaiting hall, a dispensary or even a small diagnostic facility may not
\nconvert the user of a premise from a residential user to commercial
\nuser. A non-nuisance professional activity running by doctors,
\nlawyers, consultant, architect, chartered accountant, property
\nconsultants, government guides may also fall in the same category.
\nThe trouble starts when the doctor or any other consultants uses a
\nsubstantial part of the building, for the activity including the
\nincidental activities such as x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology,
\noperation theatre and wards in which patients are admitted. These
\nactivities together with the consultancy, overreaches the limit of the
\nuser for professional use.\n<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
12.   The counsels for the State and UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
\nhave not placed before us any bye laws or regulations made by UP
\nAwas Evam Vikas Parishad, which may prohibit such activities. The
\ncondition of allotment\/hire purchase\/purchase, however, clearly
\nprovides that the dominant user of the building\/plot on which the
\nconstructions    are   raised    should    be   residential    and   that
\nallottee\/purchaser should not use the premises for business or
\ncommerce.\n<\/p>\n
13.   In the present case, we find that all the petitioners are using
\nthe residential houses for the purposes of running their clinics and
\nhave also converted the use of the dominant portion of the building
\nfor providing activities such as x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology,
\noperation theatre, private wards and general wards. Some of these
\nwards are so small, tht they may hardly accommodate one bed in the
\nroom. The argument advanced by Shri Arvind Srivastava, that such
\nuser is   incidental to medical practice, cannot be accepted. No
\nreasonable person in such case can say that the user of the building
\nhas not been changed from residential to commercial.\n<\/p>\n
14.   In these writ petitions all the doctors have extended their
\nconsultancy to include the diagnostic techniques as well as admitting
\npatients in the rooms and halls converted as wards. The professional
\nactivity in also these cases has converted the user of the house from
\nresidential to commercial for which all the doctors have therefore
\napplied for and have electric connections for commercial purposes.\n<\/p>\n
15.   The rights given to carry on profession, including medical
\nprofession under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, are
\nsubject to reasonable restrictions in public interest. Such restrictions
\ncan be placed by the law made by the State under Article 19 (6) or
\nmay be imposed under an agreement to which the person may
\nsubscribe, in the interest of other residents. We do not find that a
\nnotice for cancellation of registration is a restriction on the right of a
\nperson to practice profession. The UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
and Chief Medical Officer have not passed any such orders directing
\nthe petitioners to stop medical practice. They have only cautioned
\nthem to stop using the premises for commercial purposes. If they
\nwant to continue to use the diagnostic techniques and surgeries and
\nadmit patients, they should shift the place of their business to some
\nother place, where such activity is permitted. The user of the
\npremises by the professionals for a purpose other than the purpose
\nfor which it was allotted or purchased by him is not a restriction on
\nthe right to carry on the profession.\n<\/p>\n
16.   The medical professionals running nursing homes are also
\nrequired to obtain registration for running ultrasound machines,
\npermission from the Atomic Energy Commission for the use of x-ray
\nplant and to dispose of the medical waste after obtaining registration
\nand the facilities provided under the Bio Medical Waste
\nManagement Rules. There is nothing on record to show that the
\npetitioners have obtained these permissions and licenses.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The restrictions placed by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
\nfor using a residential accommodation allotted\/purchased for any
\npurpose other than residential purposes is also for maintaining a
\npeaceful environment for other residents in the residential colonies.
\nAny business or commercial activity involves these houses to be
\nvisited by patients and their relatives,       use of motor vehicles,
\nparking, and putting pressure of the civic amenities such as
\nelectricity, water, sewer and roads. It also affects the tranquillity of
\nthe residential area used by the senior citizen and the children. The
\nchange of the dominant user of the building in a residential colony
\nnot only affects the immediate neighbours but all the residents of the
\ncolony and thus it is essential that in the residential colonies, the
\nconstructions should be used dominantly for residential purposes.\n<\/p>\n
18.   We do not find that the petitioners have been asked to stop
\ntheir medical practice or to stop the patients visiting in their clinics.
\nThey have been simply asked to stop the use of diagnostic
\n                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
techniques including x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology, running of
\noperation theatre, maternity centres and for using their houses for
\nadmitting patients. Such an activity is violative of the terms and
\nconditions of purchase and constructions of the houses and the land
\nuse, and can be regulated by the UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad
\nboth by giving notice of cancellation of the allotment or by taking
\nsteps to cancel the registration under which such activity is being
\ncarried out. The Chief Medical Officer, Etawah has registered the
\npetitioners as medical practitioners, under a declaration given by
\nthem to run the consultancy clinics the petitioners. The petitioners
\nare obliged to abide by their declarations.\n<\/p>\n
19.   Inspite of the repeated reminders given by the Court, the State
\nGovernment has not made any law regulating the medical practice
\nincluding the running of private nursing homes\/diagnostic clinics
\nand hospital. In the absence of any law covering the field the Court
\nhas to apply the test of reasonableness which may protect both the
\nresidents of the colony as well as patients visiting the doctors. It is
\ninhuman for the patients to be given professional service in such
\nsmall residential buildings. The size of the rooms of operation
\ntheatre, private wards and general wards would show that the doctors
\nin order to earn money have converted small houses into nursing
\nhomes packing up the patients in unhygienic cubicles. A room
\nmeasuring 9.5×9.5′ can hardly be used as a hygienic private ward,
\nand in any case a room measuring 15.1’x19′ cannot be used as a
\ngeneral ward. The petitioners are apparently using the residential
\naccommodation for running nursing homes putting their patients to
\nserious inconvenience.\n<\/p>\n
20.   We do not find any good ground to interfere with the notices
\nand the directions given by the Chief Medical Officer to the
\npetitioners to shift their activities other than consultancy including
\ndiagnostic, surgical, and admitting the patients to a place other than
\nthe residential houses in the Awas Evam Vikas Colony. It will,
\n                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
however, be open to the petitioners to either shift the medical
\nservices, except the consultancy from their residential houses in the
\nAwas Evam Vikas Colony to any other place, or to confine their
\nactivities in the colony only for consultancy.\n<\/p>\n
21.    All the writ petitions are dismissed with the aforesaid
\nobservations.\n<\/p>\n
Dt.14.7.2010
\nRKP\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010 Judgement reserved on 18.5.2010 Judgement delivered on 14.7.2010 CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.58404 OF 2009 Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs. State of UP and others Connected with CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 58406 OF 2009 Dr. Suman Singh […]<\/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-226329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 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\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-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=\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-06T03:30:46+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T03:30:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3563,\"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\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-06T03:30:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 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":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 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\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-06T03:30:46+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T03:30:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010"},"wordCount":3563,"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\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010","name":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-06T03:30:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-shiv-milan-yadav-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-14-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Shiv Milan Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Others on 14 July, 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\/226329","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=226329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}