{"id":261695,"date":"2000-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000"},"modified":"2015-04-27T02:23:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-26T20:53:20","slug":"mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: K Venkataswajmi<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Venkataswam., S.S.M.Quadei<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMREETI MITTAL, ETC.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGAGANJOTKAUR SAIRA & ORS.,ETC.ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nK.  Venkataswam., S.S.M.Quadei\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
K.  VENKATASWAjMI,J.\n<\/p>\n
Judjment<\/p>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      All  these  eight appeals arise out of a common  order
\ndated  26.11.98 of the Punjab and Karyana High Court made in
\nCWP  Nos.   12304, 12350, 13775, 13296, 12350 of 1998.\t The
\nChandigarh  Administration & Another (hereinafter called the
\n“appellants’)\thave  preferred\t four\tappeals\t  and\t‘the
\nindividuals  affected  by the order under appeal have  filed
\nseparately  four  appeals.  The common issue relates to\t the
\nadmission  of the candidates to the MBBS course for the year
\n1998-99 in the<\/p>\n
      Government  Medical  College, Chandigarh\t(hereinafter
\ncalled the ‘College’).\tBrief facts leading to the filing of
\nthe Writ -Petitions are as under.\n<\/p>\n
      The.   Government\t Medical  College,  Chandigarh,\t was
\nstarted\t in  the year 1991 with an annual intake of 50\tMBBS
\nseats.\t 15% of the seats (7 seats) were being filled by the
\nCollege\t from  the All India Quota seats in accordance\twith
\nthe  decision of this Court from the year 19SI upto 1994  by
\nadmitting  students  selected through the Combined  Entrance
\nTest  conducted\t by the CBSE, New- Delhi.  It  appears\tthat
\nfrom  the year’ 1994-1995 onwards the Directorate of  Health
\nServices, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of
\nIndia,\tdid  not  send any students against the 7  seats  on
\naccount\t of  an\t order of the Punjab &\tHaryana\t High  Court
\nholding\t that  the  College  was   not\ta  recognised\tone.
\nConsequently,  all the 50 seats were filled exclusively from
\nthe  Chandigarh\t Pool.\tWhile so, on 27.3.1998 the Punjab  &
\nHaryana\t High  Court in CWP No.2731 of 1998 held  that\t100%
\nreservations for the students of Chandigarh Pool was against
\nthe settled principles of law .on the point.  In view of the
\n‘said  judgment\t dated 27.3.98 of the Punjab & Haryana\tHigh
\nCourt, it was decided by the Administration to fill _ up,<\/p>\n
      15%  seats  from All India Pool and the remaining\t 85%
\nfrom  Chandigarh  Pool.\t  Accordingly,\ta  Notification\t was
\nissued\ton  19.9.98.  In the said Notification,\t clause\t (d)
\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “If  candidate  clears in All India Pool, even  though
\nbelonging  to Chandigarh, he\/she would have the right to  be
\nconsidered  and\t admitted  in that pool subject\t to  his\/her
\nmerit.\tOther conditions would remain the -same.”\n<\/p>\n
      Similar clause identically worded bearing No.  4 finds
\na place under the heading ‘Clarifications’ in the Prospectus
\nissued for the year 1998 by the College.\n<\/p>\n
      After  the  select list was published, the  contesting
\nrespondents  in these appeals challenged the same by  filing
\nthe separate Writ Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
      The question that fell for consideration of the Punjab
\n&  Haryana  High  Court was whether the\t Administration\t was
\nright  in  first  filling up 85% of Chandigarh Pool  out  of
\nmerit  list  and  then filling up the remaining 15%  of\t All
\nIndia  Pool.   According to the Writ Petitioners before\t the
\nHigh  Court (hereinafter referred to as “Writ Petitioners’),
\nthe  Administration  was not right and it has acted  against
\nths  spirit of clause (d) of the Notification  corresponding
\nto clause 4<\/p>\n
      of  the ‘Clarifications’ given in the Prospectus.\t The
\ncontention  of the Writ Petitioners was that 15% of ‘the All
\nIndia  Pool must have been filled in first and the remaining
\nS5%’of\t Chandigarh   Pool   must   have  been\t filled\t  up
\nsubsequently.\tThe  reason for taking such a stand  by\t the
\nWrit  Petitioners  was\tthat by filling up  Chandigarh\tPool
\nfirst, the meritorious students hailing from Chandigarh lost
\ntheir  seats\/claims, which had been given to candidates from
\nAll  India Pool.  ^actually speaking, according to the\tWrit
\nPetitioners the first seven numbers from the merit list were
\nall  candidates\t from  the  Chandigarh Pool.   But  for\t the
\nimpugned procedure followed by the Administration by filling
\nup  Chandigarh\tPool in the first instance, no\tsingle\tseat
\ncould  have gone to candidates from All India Pool.  In that
\nway,  according to the Writ Petitioners, the Chandigarh Pool
\ncandidates  are affected.  On the other hand, the reason for
\nfilling\t up the Chandigarh Pool first followed by All  India
\nPool,  according to the Administration, was to safeguard the
\ninterests of All India Pool candidates and to make the order
\nof the High Court meaningful and purposeful.\n<\/p>\n
      It  was  the claim of the Administration that  neither
\nthe  Notification  nor\tthe Prospectus\tgives  any  specific
\ndirection regarding the -filing up of candidates in .the<\/p>\n
      first  instance  from  either  Pool.   Therefore,\t the
\nAdministration\tby  invoking  clause-I\tof  the\t ‘Overriding
\nConditions’  given in the Prospectus, devised the method  as
\nnoticed above.\n<\/p>\n
      The   High   Court,  after   considering\t the   rival
\nsubmissions  and interpreting clause (d) of the Notification
\nequivalent  to clause 4 of the ‘Clarifications’, was of\t the
\nview  that the procedure followed by the Administration\t was
\nnot  in\t accordance with the  said  instructions\/prospectus.
\nThe  High  Court  also\twas of the view that  there  was  no
\noccasion  for  the Administration to invoke clause-I of\t the
\noverriding conditions as there was no ambiguity.  It is seen
\nfrom the judgment that the High Court proceeded on the basis
\nthat  the  Notification\t dated\t19.5.98\t explicitly  made  a
\nprovision that the All India Pool candidates would be filled
\nin first and the Chandigarh Pool thereafter according to the
\nmerit.\t This assumption appears to be not correct.  In view
\nof  what  is stated above, the High Court allowed  the\tWrit
\nPetiitons  and directed the appellants to reframe the  merit
\nlist  of  the eligible candidates for the admission to\tMBBS
\ncourse\tby  filling up All India Fool in the first  instance
\nand  then the candidates from the Chandigarh Fool.  The High
\nCourt also set aside the seat given to a Scheduled Caste<\/p>\n
      candidate\t from Chandigarh Pool on the ground that  no
\nScheduled  Caste candidate from All India Pool was available
\nand  directed  that the seat should be given to the  general
\ncandidate from All India Pool.\n<\/p>\n
      Aggrieved\t by  the above decision of the\tHigh  Court,
\nthese appeals are preferred by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
      The leading argument was advanced by Ms.indu Malhotra,
\nlearned\t counsel appearing for the Administation.  According
\nto  the\t learned counsel, the comroon issue raised in  these
\ncases  is  a  one time issue in the sense  that\t the  seats,
\nbelonging  to the All India Pool were being filled up,\tupto
\nthe  year  1994, by accepting the students whose names\twere
\ngiven\tby  the\t Central   Board  of  Secondary\t  Education.
\nThereafter,  between  the  year 1995-1998 no  students\twere
\naccepted from the All India Quota due to lack of recognition
\nof  Government\tMedical College, Chandigarh, by the  Medical
\nCouncil\t of  India.  It is only for the year  1998-1999\t the
\nstudents  were sought to be accepted from the All India Pool
\nin compliance with the directions given by the High Court of
\nPunjab\t&  Haryana.   With  effect from\t the  academic\tyear
\ncommencing  1999,  the Central Board of Secondary  Education
\nwould recommend names of candidates to be given admission to
\nthe seats set apart for the All<\/p>\n
      India Pool and, therefore, the present arrangement was
\nonly  for  the\tacademic .year 1993-33 and  will  not  recur
\nhereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      Apart  from ths above submission, it is the contention
\nof the learned counsel for the appellants that this Court in
\nState of Maharashtra Vs.  Minoo Noazfer Kavarana & Ors.\t ect
\n[(1989)\t 2 SCC 626] has categorically held that filling\t up
\nof seats by the Administration is the exclusive jurisdiction
\nof  the\t Administration and the Courts shall  not  interfere
\nwith  that  unless the course adopted by the  Administration
\nwas   arbitrary.   According  the   learned   counsel,\t the
\nAdministration\thas to resort to the method adopted in these
\ncases  to safeguard the interests of the candidates from Ail
\nIndia  Pool and if the direction given by the High Court  is
\nto  be\tfollowed,  it will be not only\tdetrimental  to\t the
\ninterests  of  students applying under All India  Pool,\t but
\nalso  will be contrary to the law laid down by this Court in
\nMinoo Noazer Kavarana’s case ( supra ).\n<\/p>\n
      On   the\tother  hand,   counsel\tappearing  for\t the
\ncontesting  respondents\t (writ petitioners before  the\tHigh
\nCourt)\t contended  that  the  High   Court  was  right\t  in
\ninterpreting the scope of cl-ause (d) of.the Noificaion<\/p>\n
      corresponding to clause 4 of the ‘Clarifications*.  It
\nwas also the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe  contesting\t respondents  that  it is not  open  to\t the
\nAdministration\tto  go\tagainst a judgment of the  Pujnab  &
\nHaryana\t High  Court rendered in CWP No.  11653\/93  fNeetika
\nBansal\tVs.   Chandigarh  Adnm.\t  & Ors.}  just\t before\t the
\nrelease\t of the list, dismissing a writ petition moved by  a
\ncandidate from All India Fool praying for a direction to the
\nAdiainistrationto   fill  up  first   the  candidates\tfrom
\nChandigarh Pool and then the candidates from All India Pool.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  senior counsel appearing on behalf of Shishir
\nGupta  (Writ  Petitioner in W.P.  No.\t13775\/98)  submitted
\nthat his name {Shishir Gupta} was found in the merit list at
\nSerial\tNo.50  and  in\tspite of that\/he  was  not  selected
\nwhereas\t Serial\t Numbers below him were found in the  Select
\nList.\tTo  this,  the\tanswer of learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant-Administration is that Shishir Gupta did not apply
\nfor  a\tseat in the Government Medical College,\t Chandigarh,
\nand therefore he cannot find faul.t with the Select List.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have\tconsidered the rival submissions.   We\thave
\nalready seen that from 1994-1995 to 1997-\n<\/p>\n
      1998  no\tstudents  were selected from the  All  India
\nquota  on  the ground that the Government  Medical  College,
\nChandigarh had no recognition from Medical Council of India.
\nIt  is\tonly by reason of the judgment of the High Court  in
\nC.W.P.\t No.  2731\/98 the Chandigarh Administration  decided
\nto fill up 7 seats by candidates from All India Pool.  It is
\nimportant  to bear in mind that neither the Notification nor
\nthe  Prospectus issued for admission to MBBS Course for\t the
\nSession\t 1998-99  did contain any indication that the  seats
\nfor  All India Pool would be filled up first and  thereafter
\nthe seats reserved for Chandigarh\/U.T.\tPool would be filled
\nup.   The High Court at one place wrongly stated as  follows
\n;-\n<\/p>\n
      “Administration  in its Notification dated  19.05.1998
\nexplicitly  made  a  provision\tthat   the  All\t India\tPool
\ncandidates   would  be\tfilled\tin   the  first\t and  the  .
\nChandigarh Pool thereafter according to merit .\t ”\n<\/p>\n
      Learned\tcounsel\t  appearing   for   the\t  contesting
\nrespondents  also could not sustain the above assumption  of
\nthe  High  Court  as  there was no  such  direction  in\t the
\nNotification\/Prospectus.\n<\/p>\n
      While  rejecting the contention of the learned counsel
\nappearing  for the Administration about the invoking  Clause
\nlof the-Overriding conditions, the High<\/p>\n
      Court observed thus<\/p>\n
      “Clause I of the “Overriding Conditions” given at page
\n6 of the Brochure is reproduced below;-\n<\/p>\n
      1.   admissions  are  made according to  the  les\t and
\nregulations  as mentioned in this .Dspecus.  However, in all
\nmaers  which  either  need  inerpreaion\t  or  for  which  no
\nprovision  esiss  in  he  prospecus,   the  decision  of  he
\nAdmission  Commiee shall be final.  Nocorrespondence will be
\nentertained  regarding rejection or disqualification of\t any
\ncandidate.”\n<\/p>\n
      It  will\tbe  seen  that this  clause  authorised\t the
\nAdmission  Committee  to  operate in two fields in  case  of
\ndoubt:\t firstly, in matters which needed interpretation and
\nsecondly,  in such matters where no provision existed in the
\nprospectus.   To  our mind, the conditions for\texercise  of
\nthis power did not exist in the present case as there was no
\nambiguity,  flaw  or  any  gap\tin  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nprospectus  or\tthe  brochure with regard to the  manner  or
\nmethod\tto be followed in the making of admissions as it had
\nrepeatedly  been  set  out  by\timplication  in\t both  these
\ndocuments  that admissions were to be made first against the
\nAll  India  Pool and thereafter against the Chandigarh\tPool
\nseats.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  above  observations\talso  do not  appear  to  be
\ncorrect\t because as noticed earlier neither the Notification
\nnor  the  Prospectus give any guideline as to the manner  of
\nfilling\t up  of the seats which necessitated  the  Admission
\nCommittee to invoke Clause JL of the<\/p>\n
      “Overriding  Conditions* in the Prospectus.  The\tHigh
\nCourt was, therefore, not right in holding that there was no
\nroom for the AdiTilssion Committee to invoke Clause I of the
\n‘Overriding Conditions’.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  seen from the papers that on 3.8.1998,  a\t day
\nbefore\tthe  publication  of   the  results,  the  Admission
\nComittee  decided  to  fill  up Chandigarh  Pool  first\t and
\nthereafter  to fill up the All India Fool.  The .reasons for
\ndoing  so, according to Chandigarh Administration, were that
\nsuch a course will benefit the All India Pool candidates and
\nthe   Chandigarh  Pool\tcandidates   were  eligible  to\t  be
\nconsidered  for both Pools and they were in a large  number.
\nIt  was\t also considered that the meritorious candidates  of
\nChandigarh  Pool were accommodated in the 43 seats set apart
\nfor  Union  Territory  and the Chandigarh students  did\t not
\nencroach  upon\tthe seats set apart from the All India\tPool
\nfor  which  also they (Chandigarh Pool) were eligible to  be
\nconsidered.   The  reasons  for filling up  Chandigarh\tPool
\nfirst do appear to us as fair and reasonable for it made the
\nselection of candidates from All India Pooi meaningful.\t The
\nobservations  of  the  High Court that the decision  of\t the
\nAdmission  Committee  to fill up the Chandigarh\t Pool  seats
\nfirst  had  the effect of denying admission to some  of\t the
\nChandigarh Pool candidates who<\/p>\n
      would  have  otherwise secured adroission in  the\t All
\nIndia  Pool  is\t also  not sustainabie\tas  the\t meritorious
\nstudents  from the Chandigarh Pool were permitted to compete
\nwith  the All .India Pool candidates’ As a matter of fact in
\nthe   All  .India  Pool\t  list\tpublished,  candidate\tfrom
\nChandigarh Pool was selected.\n<\/p>\n
      It is in these circumstances that the judgment of this
\nCourt  in State of Maharashtra vs.  Minoo Moazer Kavarana  &
\nOrs<\/a>.etc\t [(1983) 2 SCC 626) was pressed into service by\t the
\nChandigarh  Administration  before  the\t  High\tCourt.\t The
\nlearned\t .Judges however were of the view that that judgment
\nwas  rendered  on  the\tpeculiar facts\tof  that  case\tand,
\ntherefore, reliance cannot be placed.  On the other hand, we
\nfind  that  the\t judgment  of this Court in  the  said\tcase
\nsquarely covers the issue.  This Court in the said judgment,
\nwhile  dealing with more or less similar situation, observed
\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n
      “It  may be stated at this stage that by virtue of the
\njudgment  in the case of Nidamari Maheshkumar vs.  State  of
\nMaharashtra  relating to’ admission in “Medical “‘  Colleges
\n‘in  Maharashtra,  the\tState of Maharashtra laid  down\t the
\npolicy\tof regional reservation of 70 per cent of seats\t for
\nthe  region of Bombay and the remaining 30 per cent of seats
\nfor  the  candidates outside Bombay but within the State  of
\nMaharashtra.   It  .has already been noticed that  the\tHigh
\nCourt  is of the view that the 30 per ‘cent of seats  should
\nhave  been filed up first and, -thereafter, 70.\t per cent of
\nregional<\/p>\n
      seats  should  have been filled up.  We have not\tbeen
\nable  to  understand  the reason for this view of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\t If  30 per cent of seats are filled up\t first,\t the
\ncandidates  who\t are  residing outside Bombay will  have  to
\ncompete with the local Bombay students who are also eligible
\nfor admission in the said seats.  It may so happen that most
\nof  the\t seats\tmeant for candidates outside Bombay  may  be
\nfilled\tup by the local Bombay candidates if however, 70 per
\ncent  of  seats\t are filled up first, the  more\t meritorious
\nBombay\tstudents would be admitted and those, who would\t not
\nbe  admitted, would obviously be candidates obtaining lesser
\nmarkes\tand  it\t will  not  be\tdifficult  for\tthe  outside
\ncandidates  to compete with them for the said 30 per cent of
\nseats.\t The question whether 70 per cent of seats or 30 per
\ncent  of seats should be filled up first is a question which
\nshould\tbe left to the discretion of the government.  In our
\nopinion,  this\taspect\tis  not within the  purview  or\t the
\njurisdiction   of  the\tcourt.\t We  .\t do  not  find\t any
\nunreasonableness  or  impropriety in the State\tGovernment’s
\ndecision  to.  fill up 70 per cent of seats first.  The High
\nCourt  was not, therefore, justified in directing  admission
\non  the basis of filling up 30 per cent of seats first\tand,
\nthereafter,  70\t per  cent of seats and such  direction\t has
\ncreated some complications in the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
      The above passage clearly indicates that the manner in
\nwhich\tthe  seats  were  filled   up  by   the\t  Chandigarh
\nAdministration\t is  quite  in\t accordance  with  the\tview
\nexpressed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      As  observed in the said judgment of this Court, there
\nwas  no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the
\ndecision  of the Chandigarh Administration in the matter  of
\nfilling up of seats for the MBBS Course.\n<\/p>\n
      13<\/span><\/p>\n
      The  contention  of the learned counsel appearing\t for
\nthe  contesting respondents that in view of the decision  of
\nthe  Punjab  &Haryana  High Court in Neetika Bansal  case  f
\nsupra)\t the   procedure   followed    by   the\t  Chandigarh
\nAdministration\twas  not correct, is not acceptable.  It  is
\nseen  that in the Neetika Bansal case (supra) the  challenge
\nrelated\t to the correctness of the provision {clause (d)  of
\nthe  Notification)  which enabled the Chandigarh\/U.T.\tPool
\ncandidates  to\tcompete\t both  for the All  India  Pool\t and
\nChandigarh  Pool.   While dismissing the writ petition,\t the
\nHigh  Court no doubt made certain observations which are  in
\nfavour\tof  the\t contesting  respondents.   However,  having
\nregard\tto the scope of the writ petition and in view of the
\ndiscussion  above,  we\tdo not think that  the\tdecision  in
\nNeetika\t Bansal\t case (supra) stood in the way of  Admission
\nCommittee taking the decision, as noted above, on 3.8.1998.\n<\/p>\n
      The  contention  advanced\t by   the  learned   counsel
\nappearing  on  behalf  of Shishir Gupta to the\teffect\tthat
\nthough\this  name did find a place in the merit list at\t Sr.
\nNo.   50, his name did not find a place in the select  list,
\nis also unsustainable inasmuch as that he did not<\/p>\n
      apply to the Government Medical College, Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n
      Incidentally,  we have also noticed that the issue  on
\nhand,  as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
\nChandigarh Administration, is one ime issue as from the year
\n1999-2000 the candidates for Ail India Pool will be given by
\nthe Central Board of Secondary Education and, therefore, the
\nselection by the Chandigarh Administration for this category
\nwill  not  arise  in  future.\tWe  also  notice  that\t the
\ncandidates  selected  as  per  the  list  published  by\t the
\nAdministration\thad  undergone the course nearly for a\tyear
\nand  in the absence of strong reasons for setting aside\t the
\nselection, the Court will not interfere with the selection.\n<\/p>\n
      Regarding\t the seat given to the general candidate  in
\nAll  India  Pool  by the High Court on the  ground  that  no
\nScheduled Caste candidate in that Pool was available, we are
\nof the view that the High Court was not right in giving that
\ndirection.   We have already seen that as per Clause fd)  of
\nthe  Notification,  the candidates from Chandigarh Pool\t are
\nentitled  to compete both for Chandigarh Pool as well as All
\nIndia Pool.  That being the position, when a Scheduled Caste
\ncandidate  was not available in the All India Pool and.suah.
\n.candidate is.\n<\/p>\n
      available\t in  Chandigarh\t Pool  that  must  go  to  a
\nScheduled  Caste  candidate in Chandigarh Pool.\t The  reason
\ngiven by the High Court that on a reading of clause 3 of the
\nClarifications\tthe  seat should go to general candidate  in
\nAll  India  Pool,  is based on wrong  appreciation  of\tthat
\nclause 3.  Clause 3 reads as follows :”\n<\/p>\n
      “3.   If the requisite number of students belonging to
\nScheduled  Caste  category  are not available,\tseats  thus
\nremaining  vacant  will be open to students of\tthe  general
\ncategory.”\n<\/p>\n
      There  is\t no  indication that the seat  belonging  to
\nScheduled  Caste category in a particular Pool should go  to
\ngeneral category of that Pool.\tClause 3 generally says that
\nif  a  Scheduled Caste candidate is not available  the\tseat
\nmust go to general category.  This clause read with clause 4
\nof  the\t Clarifications corresponding to clause (d)  of\t the
\nNotification,  will  clearly show that if a Scheduled  Caste
\ncandidate is not available in All India Pool that must go to
\nScheduled  Caste candidate in Chandigarh Pool, if available.
\nTherefore,  the\t High Court was not right in directing\tthat
\nthe  seat belonging to Scheduled caste category in All India
\nPool  to be given to general category in the same Fool.\t For
\nall these reasons, the .appeals are allowed and<\/p>\n
      the Writ Petitions filed before the Punjab and Karynna
\nHigh  Court challenging the selection of candidates for\t the
\nfirst  year  H53S  course for the year 1998-99\tshall  stand
\ndismissed.  However, there will be no or^er as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000 Author: K Venkataswajmi Bench: K. Venkataswam., S.S.M.Quadei PETITIONER: MREETI MITTAL, ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: GAGANJOTKAUR SAIRA & ORS.,ETC.ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2000 BENCH: K. Venkataswam., S.S.M.Quadei JUDGMENT: K. VENKATASWAjMI,J. Judjment L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J All these eight appeals arise out of […]<\/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-261695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - 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\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-26T20:53:20+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T20:53:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":3386,\"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\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-26T20:53:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - 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\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-26T20:53:20+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T20:53:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000"},"wordCount":3386,"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\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000","name":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & ... on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-26T20:53:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mreeti-mittal-etc-etc-vs-gaganjotkaur-saira-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mreeti Mittal, Etc. Etc vs Gaganjotkaur Saira & … on 5 April, 2000"}]},{"@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\/261695","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=261695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261695\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}