{"id":246912,"date":"2005-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005"},"modified":"2017-03-21T21:38:27","modified_gmt":"2017-03-21T16:08:27","slug":"mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 20\/1\/2005  \n\nC O R AM  \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\nW.P.No.19009 of 1996  \n\n\nMohammed Hanifa                                        ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Presiding Officer,\n   Labour Court,\n   Coimbatore.\n\n2. Pandalur Indco Tea Factory,\n   Pandalur rep. by its\n   Special Officer                                      ..      Respondents\n\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.S.Ravi for\n                M\/s.Gupta &amp; Ravi\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.L.Dwarakanathan for R.2.\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>                This  writ  petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of<br \/>\nCertiorari calling for the records of the award dated  2.11.1995  made  in  I.<br \/>\nD.No.366  of  1994  on  the  file  of  the first respondent and quash the same<br \/>\ninsofar as it relates to denial of backwages for the period of non-employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The petitioner\/workman challenges the award passed by  the<br \/>\nLabour  Court,  Coimbatore, relating to the denial of backwages for the period<br \/>\nof non-employment under the second respondent.    The  petitioner  herein  and<br \/>\nanother  were  charged  for  certain  alleged  misconduct,  regarding which an<br \/>\nenquiry was ordered to be held on 5.3.1994 in which  the  petitioner  appeared<br \/>\nand the  enquiry  date was adjourned to 19.3.1994.  The petitioner applied for<br \/>\nmedical leave from 8.3.1994 to 6.4.1994 and the same  was  sanctioned  by  the<br \/>\nmanagement, but it was not brought to the notice of the enquiry officer.  Even<br \/>\nthereafter  from  7.4.1994  to 6.5.1994, he extended the leave period, besides<br \/>\nwriting a letter seeking postponement of the enquiry, in spite of which,  they<br \/>\nproceeded  to  hold  an exparte enquiry on 9.4.1994 and a finding was given on<br \/>\n16.4 .1994 finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against  him,<br \/>\nthough admittedly  the  petitioner  was  on  leave.    Thereafter,  the second<br \/>\nrespondent  Management  passed  an   order   on   30.4.1994   dismissing   the<br \/>\npetitioner\/workman from  service.    Aggrieved, the petitioner herein raised a<br \/>\ndispute before the first respondent and an award was  passed  reinstating  the<br \/>\npetitioner  with  continuity of service, but without backwages and challenging<br \/>\nthis portion of the award of denial of backwages, the  present  writ  petition<br \/>\nhas been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner,<br \/>\nbesides narrating the facts and events, would specifically point out  that  in<br \/>\nrespect of similarly placed persons, the petitioner alone has been singled out<br \/>\nand discriminated because as the secretary of the Workmen Committee, he had to<br \/>\nespouse  the cause of the fellow workmen and therefore, the management started<br \/>\nharassing him with frequent memos.  and show cause notices on flimsy  grounds.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel  would also submit that there is a gross violation of Section<br \/>\n33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Apex Court has also held<br \/>\nthat where there is violation of 33(2)(b) of the  I.D.    Act,  the  order  of<br \/>\ndismissal  is  void  and inoperative and would refer to a decision of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt reported in 2004 (1) LLN 594 <a href=\"\/doc\/656696\/\">(P.Balasundaram v.    P.O.,  Labour  Court)<\/a><br \/>\nwherein it is held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;When S.33 specifically mandates the employer to seek prior permission<br \/>\nunder  S.33(1)  or  to  seek  an approval under S.33(2)(b), merely because the<br \/>\nenabling provision of S.33A entitling the employees to lodge a  complaint  for<br \/>\nnon  compliance  of  the  provisions  of  S.33, the protection accorded to the<br \/>\nemployees under S.33 for imposing the punishment of dismissal or otherwise  of<br \/>\nthe  workmen  when the dispute before the Conciliation Officer cannot be taken<br \/>\naway and the right for approval as a precondition for dismissal or disch  arge<br \/>\ncould be  deprived.   When once this position of law is accepted and factually<br \/>\nsuch objection was raised by the employees and the same was rejected  only  on<br \/>\nthe  ground  that the employees have to approach the very Conciliation Officer<br \/>\nunder S.33A by making a complaint, I find no merit in the submissions  of  the<br \/>\nlearned counsel  for  management  in  this  regard.  The finding of the Labour<br \/>\nCourt that is contrary to the law laid  down  by  the  Apex  Court  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Once  this court comes to the conclusion that the orders of dismissal<br \/>\nwere made without any approval under S.33(2)(b) of the Act, the award  of  the<br \/>\nLabour  Court  in  directing  the discharge of the employees with compensation<br \/>\nonly cannot be sustained.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel would submit that once violation of Section 33(2)(b) is there,<br \/>\nthe order of dismissal is void ab initio and this point has been  specifically<br \/>\nmade  in  the  claim statement and even though this plea was raised before the<br \/>\nlabour court, there was no finding to that effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Yet another submission of the learned counsel  is  on  the<br \/>\nground of  discrimination.    The  pertinent  point  is that discrimination is<br \/>\nattempted to by the management as among the persons similarly placed  and  the<br \/>\npetitioner  alone  has been singled out and proceedings were initiated against<br \/>\nand there is no explanation as to why he alone has been  singled  out  and  he<br \/>\nwould  cite  a  judgment  of  this  Court reported in 19 93 I LLJ 1148, in his<br \/>\nfavour wherein it is held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;When evidence with regard to the misconduct of a number of workman is<br \/>\nidentical, the employer must  give  rational  or  reasonable  explanation  for<br \/>\nawarding   different   punishments  to  the  different  workman  on  the  same<br \/>\nmisconduct.  If different workman are similarly  placed  with  regard  to  the<br \/>\nevidence  and  if  the  workman  are  covered  by  the  same  set of facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, the  employer  cannot  single  out  a  particular  workman  for<br \/>\ndiscriminatory treatment  while  awarding  punishment.  If some of the workman<br \/>\nare arbitrarily weeded out for discriminatory treatment, the  court  will  not<br \/>\nhesitate to frown upon such discriminatory treatment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Learned  counsel  would  also cite a judgment of the Apex<br \/>\ncourt reported in (2002) 2 SCC 244 <a href=\"\/doc\/34445\/\">(Jaipur Zila  Sahakari  Bhoomi  Vikas  Bank<br \/>\nLtd., v.  Ram Gopal Sharma)<\/a> wherein it is held:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The  proviso  to  Section  33(2)(b),  as  can  be  seen from its very<br \/>\nunambiguous and clear language, is mandatory.  Moreover, from  the  object  of<br \/>\nSection  33  and  in  the  context  of  the proviso to Section 33(2)(b), it is<br \/>\nobvious  that  the  conditions  contained  in  the  said  proviso  are  to  be<br \/>\nessentially complied   with.    Further,  any  employer  who  contravenes  the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 33 invites a punishment under  Section  31(1  ).    This<br \/>\npenal provision is again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso.  In<br \/>\nother  words,  the  said conditions being mandatory, are to be satisfied if an<br \/>\norder of discharge or  dismissal  passed  under  Section  33(2)(b)  is  to  be<br \/>\noperative.  Taking a view to the contrary would defeat the very purpose of the<br \/>\nproviso and  render  the  same  meaningless.    It  is  well-settled  rule  of<br \/>\ninterpretation that no part of a statute should be construed as unnecessary or<br \/>\nsuperfluous.  The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer.    He<br \/>\ncannot  disobey  the  mandatory  provision  and  then  say  that  the order of<br \/>\ndischarge or dismissal made in contravention of Section 33(2)(b) is  not  void<br \/>\nor inoperative.  The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision<br \/>\ncannot be  taken  away.  Otherwise the employer may with impunity discharge or<br \/>\ndismiss a workman.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The view that  when  no  application  is  made  or  the  one  made  is<br \/>\nwithdrawn,  there  is no order of refusal of such application on merits and as<br \/>\nsuch the order of dismissal of discharge does not become void  or  inoperative<br \/>\nunless set  aside  under  Section  33-A,  cannot  be  accepted.  Not making an<br \/>\napplication  under  Section  33(2)(b)  seeking  approval  or  withdrawing   an<br \/>\napplication  once  made  before  any order is made thereon, is a clear case of<br \/>\ncontravention of the proviso to Section 33(2)(b).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Learned  counsel  would  further  submit  that  the  whole<br \/>\nproceedings  would  clearly show the vindictive action perpetrated on the part<br \/>\nof the management in singling  out  the  petitioner  which  has  been  clearly<br \/>\narrived  at by the labour court and moreover a person who was on leave, unless<br \/>\nit is denied and proved that he was not on leave, no such exparte order  could<br \/>\nbe  passed against him and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief<br \/>\nprayed for by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  In reply, the learned counsel for  the  second  respondent<br \/>\nmanagement  would  submit  that  the  labour  court  was  right in denying the<br \/>\nbackwages for the reason that the employee concerned was  charge  sheeted  for<br \/>\ncertain  misconduct  and  the  labour court has also held that the petitioner,<br \/>\nalong with other employees, are jointly responsible for  the  delinquency  and<br \/>\nhas  ordered  a  lesser  punishment  of denial of backwages to the petitioner.<br \/>\nLearned counsel would also submit that this  is  the  final  award  passed  on<br \/>\nmerits  and  there is a preliminary award passed by the labour court, which is<br \/>\nnot challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  In consideration of the facts pleaded,  having  regard  to<br \/>\nthe  materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both,<br \/>\nwhat could be assessed is that the award passed by the lower Court relating to<br \/>\nthe denial of backwages for the  period  of  nonemployment  under  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  has  come  forward to file the above writ petition on such grounds<br \/>\nextracted supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  A careful perusal of the award passed by the lower  Court,<br \/>\nthe  labour  Court  would  find  that the petitioner cannot be singled out and<br \/>\naccused  of  having  committed  the  delinquency  and  it  is   the   combined<br \/>\nresponsibility  of many as it came to be proved from various documents such as<br \/>\nM.Ws.15 and 16 and even from M.Ws.  11 and 12 would ultimately decide that the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be singled out and accused of having committed  any  offence<br \/>\nof that sought as he was charged by the management.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   The  labour Court would further find that showing M.Ws.1<br \/>\nto 8 series of documents,  the  disciplinary  authority  has  arrived  at  the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the petitioner has committed delinquency without considering<br \/>\nthe other aspects involved in the case which are vital for  consideration  and<br \/>\ntherefore,  the  labour  Court  would validly arrive at the conclusion to hold<br \/>\nthat it is erroneous on the part of the Management to  have  come  forward  to<br \/>\naccuse  the  petitioner  and  proceeded against him and therefore, would order<br \/>\nreinstatement of the petitioner in service but without backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  The flimsy reason assigned on  the  part  of  the  labour<br \/>\nCourt while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner denying the backwages, is<br \/>\nthat  in  the  discharge of responsibilities along with others, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas also been slack in his duties and therefore, for the days  the  petitioner<br \/>\nwas  not in service, the punishment of denial of backwages will serve the ends<br \/>\nof justice.  The conclusion arrived at by the labour Court is not  acceptable,<br \/>\nsince  it is the big question as to what is the punishment that has been meted<br \/>\nout for all those who have been accused of having committed the  same  offence<br \/>\nalong  with the petitioner, against whom absolutely no action was initiated by<br \/>\nthe Management at all.  The simple answer is that since  the  petitioner  also<br \/>\nsails  along  with the other employees, he cannot be discriminated against and<br \/>\ntherefore, since the Management has not bothered about initiating  any  action<br \/>\nagainst  all  those  who  have  been  responsible  for  the  commission of the<br \/>\ndelinquency, it is only proper not to impose any punishment on the  petitioner<br \/>\nalone  and  therefore,  the denial of backwages ordered by the labour Court is<br \/>\nillegal and improper.  Since no  other  valid  or  proper  reasons  have  been<br \/>\nassigned by the labour Court for having denied the backwages, this Court is of<br \/>\nthe  view that it is only proper to allow the above writ petition and the same<br \/>\nis ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In result,<\/p>\n<p>                (i).  the  above  writ  petition  succeeds  and  the  same  is<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (ii).   So far as the award dated 2\/11\/1995 made in I.D.No.366<br \/>\nof 1 994 by the Presiding Officer, Coimbatore, is  concerned,  denial  of  the<br \/>\nbackwages for the petitioner is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (iii).   Instead, it is ordered directing the petitioner to be<br \/>\nreinstated with all backwages and attendant benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                (iv).  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gs\/mvs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes\/No<br \/>\nwebsite:  Yes\/No <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Special Officer<br \/>\nPandalur Indco Tea Factory,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/1\/2005 C O R AM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ W.P.No.19009 of 1996 Mohammed Hanifa .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 2. Pandalur Indco Tea Factory, Pandalur rep. by its [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-21T16:08:27+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T16:08:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1901,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T16:08:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-21T16:08:27+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T16:08:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005"},"wordCount":1901,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005","name":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T16:08:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-hanifa-vs-the-presiding-officer-on-20-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammed Hanifa vs The Presiding Officer on 20 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/246912","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=246912"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246912\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246912"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246912"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}