{"id":248219,"date":"2002-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002"},"modified":"2015-01-30T19:38:06","modified_gmt":"2015-01-30T14:08:06","slug":"pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S V Patil<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil.<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)  9895 of 2000\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)  10512 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nPratap Singh\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri Bhajan Lal &amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/09\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; SHIVARAJ V. PATIL.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>SHIVARAJ V. PATIL J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tIn these petitions, orders passed by the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court dismissing the Letter Patent<br \/>\nAppeals affirming the order passed by the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge are under challenge.  The petitioner filed<br \/>\nwrit petitions claiming them to have been filed in the<br \/>\npublic interest questioning the validity, legality and<br \/>\npropriety of selection made by the Haryana Public<br \/>\nService Commission (HPSC) and appointments made<br \/>\npursuant to the selection by the State Government to<br \/>\nthe post of District Food and Supplies Controller<br \/>\nrelating to respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895\/2000<br \/>\nand respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tThe learned Single Judge dismissed the writ<br \/>\npetitions mainly on two grounds\t (1) the petitioner<br \/>\nnot being one of the contestants for the post of<br \/>\nDistrict Food and Supplies Controller and that the writ<br \/>\npetition had been filed only to gain political<br \/>\nadvantage as he was Member of Legislative Assembly in<br \/>\n1967, hence he had no locus standi to file the writ<br \/>\npetition; (2) the selected candidates were appointed to<br \/>\nthe post of District food and Supplies Controller in<br \/>\nthe year 1981 i.e. nearly 16 years prior to filing of<br \/>\nthe writ petitions.  There was no stay of appointment<br \/>\nof the selected candidates and they have been<br \/>\ncontinuing in service and further they had earned two<br \/>\npromotions in 1985 and 1989.  If the petitioner was<br \/>\nreally aggrieved, he should have made representation to<br \/>\nthe Department that the selected candidates i.e. the<br \/>\nrespondents were not qualified for the post.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">On appeal, the Division Bench although did not<br \/>\nfind any justification to condone the delay of 386<br \/>\ndays, yet considered the appeals on merits.  The<br \/>\nDivision Bench noticed that out of the 16 candidates,<br \/>\nwho were called for interview, the HPSC selected<br \/>\nrespondent no. 4 Achint Ram Godara, the petitioner<br \/>\nhimself was not one of the candidates for the post and<br \/>\nnone of the candidates who had not been selected,<br \/>\nchallenged his appointment; that during the pendency of<br \/>\nthe writ petition, the respondent no. 4 had earned two<br \/>\npromotions in the year 1985 and 1989 and even the<br \/>\nreview application filed by the writ petitioner before<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge was also dismissed on<br \/>\n8.8.1997; respondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P No. 10512\/2000<br \/>\nwere similarly placed; the Division Bench did not find<br \/>\nany good ground to differ with the findings recorded by<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge and concurring with the<br \/>\nreasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, Letter<br \/>\nPatent Appeals also were dismissed.  Aggrieved by the<br \/>\nsame, the petitioner is before this Court in these<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\tMr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner in S.L.P. no. 9895\/2000 submitted that the<br \/>\nHigh Court went wrong in holding that the petitioner<br \/>\nhad no locus standi to file the writ petition.\tHe<br \/>\nurged that the appointment secured on the basis of the<br \/>\nforged and bogus certificate of experience ought to<br \/>\nhave been annulled particularly when the Director<br \/>\nGeneral, State Vigilance Bureau had found that the<br \/>\nexperience certificate produced by the respondent No. 4<br \/>\nwas bogus; at any rate, the minimum that could have<br \/>\nbeen done was to direct some authority at least to hold<br \/>\nenquiry as to the bogus and forged certificates.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P.<br \/>\nNo. 10512\/2000 while adopting the submissions made by<br \/>\nShri P.P. Rao, reiterated the submissions made before<br \/>\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\tIn opposition, Mr. M.S. Ganesh, the learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel for respondent nos. 4, 8 and 9 in S.L.P. No.<br \/>\n10512\/2000, Mr. A.Sharan, learned senior counsel for<br \/>\nrespondent no.6 and the learned counsel representing<br \/>\nother respondents made submissions supporting the<br \/>\nimpugned orders.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tMr. M.S.Ganesh, learned senior counsel submitted<br \/>\nthat on earlier occasion, a candidate whose claim for<br \/>\nrecruitment to the same post was overlooked for want of<br \/>\nexperience as Executive Officer had approached the High<br \/>\nCourt unsuccessfully.  When the matter was brought to<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1811840\/\" id=\"a_1\">Mohinder Singh vs. State of Haryana &amp;<br \/>\nOrs<\/a>. (1989 (3) SCC 93), this Court did not disturb the<br \/>\nrecruitment of the respondents who had been appointed<br \/>\npursuant to the selection.  The learned senior counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondents also submitted that in the light of<br \/>\na statement made in the counter-affidavit filed on<br \/>\nbehalf of the State and the HPSC, no case is made out<br \/>\neven to conduct any enquiry as to the alleged bogus<br \/>\ncertificates said to have been produced by the selected<br \/>\ncandidates.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\tIn our view, at this length of time, it may be<br \/>\nunnecessary to deal with the question of locus standi<br \/>\nof the petitioner to maintain the petitions.  We<br \/>\nproceed to consider on the merits of the contentions<br \/>\nraised.\t It is not in dispute that respondents who were<br \/>\nselected to the post of District Food and Supplies<br \/>\nController were appointed in the year 1981; they are<br \/>\ncontinuing in service and they were given two<br \/>\npromotions, one in 1985 and the other in 1989; there<br \/>\nwas no interim order issued by any court or authority<br \/>\nrestraining from making appointments of the selected<br \/>\ncandidates or continuing them in service and giving<br \/>\npromotions to them. The petitioner is not a person who<br \/>\nis directly affected in any way.  We are not saying<br \/>\nthis for the purpose of examining his locus standi.<br \/>\nAs already stated, we do not intend to go into that<br \/>\nquestion in this case at this stage.  When there was<br \/>\nserious dispute between the parties as to whether the<br \/>\ncertificates were genuine or bogus or forged, the High<br \/>\nCourt exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and<br \/>\n227 could not have efficaciously decided such dispute.<br \/>\nIf the petitioner was serious about the allegations of<br \/>\nforgery or fraud alleged to have been committed by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895\/2000 and respondent<br \/>\nNos. 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512\/2000, he could have<br \/>\npursued with the competent authorities including the<br \/>\nState Government or he could have initiated action on<br \/>\ncriminal side by filing complaint.  In case the<br \/>\ncompetent authority\/court had found the respondent no.<br \/>\n4 or other selected candidates guilty of the offences,<br \/>\nfurther action could have been taken for removing them<br \/>\nfrom service.  That having not been done and taking<br \/>\nnote of the fact that the appointments were made as<br \/>\nearly as in 1981 i.e. 21 years back and that during<br \/>\nthis period, the respondents got two promotions, in our<br \/>\nview, the High court was right and justified in not<br \/>\ndisturbing the selection and appointment of the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\tIn the case of Moninder Singh vs. State of Haryana<br \/>\nand Ors. (supra), this Court in para 11, referring to<br \/>\nthe selected candidates in the very same selection and<br \/>\nappointments made thereto, has stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">&#8220;The selected candidates were, however, not<br \/>\nimpleaded as respondents in the writ petition<br \/>\nand attempt to implead them at this stage is<br \/>\nbound to prejudice him.\t They have now been<br \/>\nin service for more than eight years and<br \/>\nrespondent 4 has even been holding a<br \/>\npromotional post for some time.\t We do not<br \/>\nthink in such a situation there would be any<br \/>\njustification to allow challenge to the<br \/>\nrecruitment of the respondents.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">It appears in this very case also, it was brought<br \/>\nto the notice of the Court that an enquiry was<br \/>\nundertaken by the Government against some of the<br \/>\nselected candidates on the allegation that forged \/<br \/>\nfalse certificates had been produced both in support of<br \/>\nqualification \/ eligibility and that in the enquiry a<br \/>\nprima facie case had been made out but this Court did<br \/>\nnot express any opinion about the same stating that it<br \/>\nshall be for the State Government to deal with the<br \/>\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Our attention was drawn to the judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh court in Criminal (Misc.) No. 3190-M\/89 to which<br \/>\nthe State of Haryana was also a party.\tIn that case,<br \/>\nF.I.R. No. 125 dated 13.4.1989 under <a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections 420<\/a>, <a href=\"\/doc\/1985627\/\" id=\"a_2\">467<\/a>,<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1466184\/\" id=\"a_3\">471<\/a>, <a href=\"\/doc\/1053937\/\" id=\"a_4\">466<\/a>, <a href=\"\/doc\/48127346\/\" id=\"a_5\">161<\/a>, <a href=\"\/doc\/1897847\/\" id=\"a_6\">120-B<\/a> IPC lodged at P.S. City Hisar was<br \/>\nsought to be quashed by two of the respondents namely<br \/>\nLila Dhar and Dharmpal.\t The F.I.R. was lodged by Shri<br \/>\nSatyapaul, Advocate, Fatehbagh in which almost all the<br \/>\nallegations which are made against the respondent no. 4<br \/>\nin S.L.P. No. 9895\/2000 and respondents 4 to 9 in<br \/>\nS.L.P. No. 10512\/2000 were made.  The High Court by a<br \/>\ndetailed and considered order dated October 11, 1991,<br \/>\nquashed the F.I.R. accepting the petitions filed by<br \/>\nsome of the respondents herein.\t It appears the said<br \/>\norder was not challenged any further.  Possibly, having<br \/>\nregard to this situation and at this length of time the<br \/>\nauthorities did not pursue the matter any further as to<br \/>\nholding of further enquiry or taking action pursuant to<br \/>\nthe report of the Vigilance Director General against<br \/>\nthe respondent no. 4 in S.L.P. No. 9895\/2000 and<br \/>\nrespondents 4 to 9 in S.L.P. No. 10512\/2000. A<br \/>\nsubmission was also made on behalf of some respondents<br \/>\nparticularly respondents 5 and 6 in S.L.P. No.<br \/>\n10512\/2000 that even no prima facie case was made out<br \/>\nagainst them in the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">Thus, having regard to all aspects, we feel not<br \/>\ninclined to exercise our jurisdiction under <a href=\"\/doc\/427855\/\" id=\"a_7\">Article 136<\/a><br \/>\nof the Constitution of India to interfere with the<br \/>\nimpugned orders.  Consequently, these Special Leave<br \/>\nPetitions are dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002 Author: S V Patil Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil. CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 9895 of 2000 Special Leave Petition (civil) 10512 of 2000 PETITIONER: Pratap Singh RESPONDENT: State of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri Bhajan [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - 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\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1536,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - 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\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002"},"wordCount":1536,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002","name":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri ... on 23 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-30T14:08:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pratap-singh-vs-state-of-haryana-ors-shri-on-23-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana &amp; Ors., Shri &#8230; on 23 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/248219","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=248219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}