{"id":262248,"date":"2010-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-22T10:09:26","modified_gmt":"2017-12-22T04:39:26","slug":"vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                                                                   Court No. 21\n\n                       Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38630 of 2010\n                                   Vijay Bahadur Singh\n                                             Vs.\n                                 State of U.P. and others\n\nHon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      Petitioner claims that he is elected member of Gram Panchayat Pahari<br \/>\nBujurg and has further stated that Smt. Juju was elected as a Gram Pradhan, has<br \/>\ndied on 6.5.2010. Petitioner has stated that thereafter, District Magistrate on<br \/>\n10.6.2010 in exercise of authority vested under Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj<br \/>\nAct, 1947 without calling any meeting of member of Gram Panchayt, nominated<br \/>\nSmt. Chunni to function as Gram Pradhan for the interregnum period. Petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted that thereafter, Smt. Chunni has also died on 19.6.2010 and thereafter,<br \/>\nno meeting whatsoever has been convened by the prescribed authority for<br \/>\nnominating the officiating Pradhan as per majority wish to be expressed by the<br \/>\nmember of Gram Panchayat. In pith and substance petitioner is complaining that<br \/>\nofficiating arrangement should be made at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      Sri Rishi Kant Rai, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioner contended with<br \/>\nvehemence that in the present case, at no point of time, wishes of member of<br \/>\nGram Panchayat has been ascertained, as such arrangement, which has been<br \/>\nmade is unjustifiable arrangement.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">      Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel on the other<br \/>\nhand contended that rightful arrangement has been made, as such no interference<br \/>\nbe made.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">      At this juncture Section 12-J of the Act, which deals with making of<br \/>\narrangement in temporary vacancy in the office of Pradhan is being extracted<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>      12-J Arrangement in temporary vacancy in the office of Pradhan:-(1) Where the office<br \/>\n      of Pradhan is vacant by reason of death, removal, resignation or otherwise, or where<br \/>\n      the Pradhan is incapable to act by reason of absence, illness or otherwise, the Up-<br \/>\n      Pradhan shall exercise all powers and discharge all duties of the Pradhan.<br \/>\n      (2) Where the offices of both, Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are vacant for any reason<br \/>\n      whatsoever, or when both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are incapable to act for any<br \/>\n      reason whatsoever, the prescribed authority shall nominate a member of the Gram<br \/>\n      Panchayat to discharge the duties and exercise the powers of the Pradhan until such<br \/>\n      vacancy in the office of either the Pradhan or the Up-Pradhan is filled in, or until such<br \/>\n      incapacity of either of the two is removed&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      Said provision in question has been subject matter of interpretation<br \/>\nbefore this court and this court in the case of Usha Singh (Smt.) V. District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Gorakhpur, 1992 RD 337 has opined that nomination of a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>person as Gram Pradhan by the District Magistrate\/Prescribed Authority is<br \/>\narbitrary if it is not made by the consent of the member of the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat. Paragraph 6 of the judgement is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            A perusal of Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act shows that if the<br \/>\n            office of Pradhan becomes vacant then the Up-Pradhan would exercise<br \/>\n            the function of Pradhan. Sub-section (2) of Section 12-J of the Act states<br \/>\n            that if the office of both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are vacant, or if for<br \/>\n            any reason both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are incapable to act, the<br \/>\n            prescribed Authority shall nominate a member of the Gaon Panchayat to<br \/>\n            discharge the functions of the Pradhan until the office of Pradhan or Up-<br \/>\n            Pradhan is filled up. Sub-section (2) does not state which member of the<br \/>\n            Gaon Panchayat should be nominated by the Prescribed Authority to<br \/>\n            discharge the functions of the Pradhan. Literally construed the said<br \/>\n            provisions gives absolute discretion to the Prescribed Authority to<br \/>\n            nominate any member of the Gaon Panchayat for this purpose. Such an<br \/>\n            interpretation, however, would make the provision arbitrary and also<br \/>\n            unconstitutional since no guiding principles has been laid down as to<br \/>\n            how the discretion of the prescribed authority is to be exercised and in<br \/>\n            various of which members of the Gaon Panchayat. However, it is a<br \/>\n            settled principle of interpretation that the Courts should as far as<br \/>\n            possible try to avoid holding a statute to be unconstitutional, and if an<br \/>\n            interpretation can be found which makes the statute constitutional, such<br \/>\n            an interpretation should be accepted . In my opinion, since the Gaon<br \/>\n            Sabha and Gaon Panchayat are democratic bodies elected by the<br \/>\n            people, the proper interpretation of sub-section (2) of section 12-J would<br \/>\n            be that in case where the offices of both Pradhan and Up Pradhan are<br \/>\n            vacant, or when both Pradhan and Up-Pradhan are incapable to act, the<br \/>\n            Prescribed Authority should ask the members to act, the Prescribed<br \/>\n            Authority should ask the members of Gaon Prnahayct to hold a meeting<br \/>\n            , and such members should decide among themselves which member<br \/>\n            should be nominated as Pradhan for the interim period until regular<br \/>\n            election, and such member should be nominated as officiating Pradhan<br \/>\n            under section 12(2). Such an interpretation would be inconsonance with<br \/>\n            the democratic principle underlying the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and<br \/>\n            would also make the statute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_5\">      Said view has again been reiterated by this court in the case of Udaivir<br \/>\nVs. The State Election Commission of U.P. through its Chairman and others,<br \/>\ndecided on 11.4.2008 in Writ Petition No. 53468 of 2007. The judgment of<br \/>\nlearned single judge in the aforementioned case has been approved of by<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this court in the case of Udaivir Versus State Election<br \/>\nCommission 2009 (106) RD 151. View has been taken as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>            &#8220;This Special Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment<br \/>\n            and order of the Hon&#8217;ble Single judge dated 11th April, 2008 passed in Civil<br \/>\n            Misc. Writ Petition No. 53468 of 2007; Udaivir V. The State Election<br \/>\n            Commission of U.P. through its Chairman and others, filed by the appellant<br \/>\n            against appointment of respondent No. 7 as officiating Pradhan has been<br \/>\n            dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>            The Hon&#8217;ble Single Judge after considering the facts and law applicable<br \/>\n            came to the conclusion that the wishes of the elected members of the<br \/>\n            Gram Panchayat could have been ascertained before nominating any<br \/>\n            member to officiate as Pradhan till the regular election qua the office is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>             held, in exercise of powers under section 12-J of the U.P. Panchayat Raj<br \/>\n             Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>             We have hared Sri B.N. Singh learned counsel for the appellant -petitioner,<br \/>\n             Sri S.C. Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7, Sri K.P., Singh,<br \/>\n             learned counsel for the respondent no1. and learned Standing Counsel for<br \/>\n             other respondents, and perused the records of the present special appeal.<br \/>\n             Considering the basic concept of the democracy set up for the Panchayat<br \/>\n             Raj under the provisions of <a href=\"\/doc\/452231\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 243<\/a> of the Constitution, we are of the<br \/>\n             o9pinion that respondent No,3, i.e. District Magistrate, Aligarh ought to<br \/>\n             have ascertained the wishes of the elected members of the Gram<br \/>\n             Panchayat, as to who should be the officiating Pradhan for the period till<br \/>\n             the regular election of the Gram Pradhan is held. Further every attempt<br \/>\n             should be made to elect the new Pradhan at the earliest possible<br \/>\n             In view thereof, we dispose of this Special appeal with a request upon the<br \/>\n             District Magistrate i.e. respondent No. 3 to convene a meeting of the<br \/>\n             elected members of the Gram Panchayat within a period of two weeks from<br \/>\n             the date of certified copy of this order is filed before him, nominating some<br \/>\n             responsible officer not below the rank of Sub Divisional Magistrate, to chair<br \/>\n             the meeting of the elected members so as to ascertain the wishes qua<br \/>\n             nomination of officiating Pradhan. Person so nominated would be handed<br \/>\n             over the charge forthwith. We also request the District Magistrate to ensure<br \/>\n             that the election of the Gram Pradhan of the village concerned be held in<br \/>\n             accordance with law at the earliest possible&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">      In the case of Smt. Kusma Devi Versus State of U.P. and others<br \/>\n2009 (106) RD 5 and Jaglal Versus State of U.P. and others 2009 (106)<br \/>\nRD 47 decided on 06.11.2008 and 10.11.2008, learned Single Judge has<br \/>\ntaken view that provision of sub-section (2) of Section 12-J of the Act is clear<br \/>\nthat temporary Gram Pradhan is to be nominated by the Prescribed Authority.<br \/>\nNothing can be added by reading in between the lines or to give strength<br \/>\none&#8217;s own opinion. The Prescribed Authority has power to nominate any<br \/>\nperson under the Act which cannot be said to be arbitrary and the Registrar<br \/>\nhas acted in its wisdom as conferred under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">       These two judgements of learned Single judge has been passed in<br \/>\nignorance of the judgment Division Bench judgment of this court decided on<br \/>\n23.4.2008 reported in 2009 (106) RD 151 Udaivir V. State Election<br \/>\nCommission of U.P. through its Chairman and others. It appears that Division<br \/>\nBench judgment has not been placed before the learned Single Judge. Once<br \/>\non the same subject matter, the view of Division Bench of this court is there<br \/>\nand view mentioned therein has been holding the field since more than15<br \/>\nyears, then in this background judicial discipline impells this court to follow the<br \/>\nview which has been laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the case<br \/>\nof 2009 (106) RD 151 Udaivir V. State Election Commission of U.P. through<br \/>\nits Chairman, which clearly provides that considering the basic concept of the<br \/>\ndemocracy set up for the Panchayat Raj under the provisions of <a href=\"\/doc\/452231\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 243<\/a> of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the Constitution, District Magistrate ought to have ascertained the wishes of<br \/>\nelected member of the Gram Panchayat, as to who should be the officiating<br \/>\nPradhan for the period till the regular election of the Gram Pradhan is held.<br \/>\nIt is true that language of Section 12-J of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 does<br \/>\nnot talk of convening any meeting but by judicial pronouncement. Looking into<br \/>\nthe fact that, it is democratic elected office in view of <a href=\"\/doc\/452231\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article 243<\/a>, qua which<br \/>\ninterim arrangement is to be made, the lacuna has been sought to be filled up<br \/>\nby directing that meeting shall be convened and then as per the majority wish<br \/>\ninterim arrangement should be made amongst elected Gram Panchayat<br \/>\nmembers.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">       In such a situation liberty is given to petitioner to represent the matter<br \/>\nwithin three weeks from today before the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot and<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate, Chitrakoot is directed to decide the matter in regard to<br \/>\nofficiating arrangement of pradhan after convening the meeting within six<br \/>\nweeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nDt. 06.07.2010<br \/>\nT.S.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 Court No. 21 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38630 of 2010 Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others Hon&#8217;ble V.K. Shukla, J. Petitioner claims that he is elected member of Gram Panchayat Pahari Bujurg and has further [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-262248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - 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\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-22T04:39:26+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\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T04:39:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1685,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-22T04:39:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - 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\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-22T04:39:26+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\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T04:39:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010"},"wordCount":1685,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010","name":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-22T04:39:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijay-bahadur-singh-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijay Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 6 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262248","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=262248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}