{"id":268704,"date":"2010-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-30T07:17:36","modified_gmt":"2015-08-30T01:47:36","slug":"mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">                                      1\n\n                                                                 Court No. 1\n\nWrit Petition No. 7317 (MB) of 2010\nMohammad Shamshad Alam\nVs.\nState of U.P. and others.\n\n\nHon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">Hon&#8217;ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">       Heard Sri Aftad Ahmad, counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K.<br \/>\nUpadhyaya for Lucknow Development Authority and Sri Sandeep Dixit for<br \/>\nprivate respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">       The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, challenges the auction<br \/>\nof the shops, namely, shops no. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 32, situate at A-Block,<br \/>\nKanchan Market, Chowk, Lucknow, in favour of private respondents, on the<br \/>\nground that the aforesaid shops were allotted to him and that he is prepared<br \/>\nto deposit the entire amount towards sale consideration, not only on the<br \/>\nprice which was fixed at the time of allotment but even at the present<br \/>\nmarket rate.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">       The petitioner&#8217;s case is that in pursuance of the allotment order<br \/>\nissued by the Lucknow Development Authority, he was delivered<br \/>\npossession by the Lucknow Development Authority and since he is in<br \/>\npossession, right from the year 2002, he cannot be forcibly evicted on the<br \/>\npretext that the shops have been auctioned in favour of private respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">       Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Lucknow Development<br \/>\nAuthority (LDA), on the basis of instructions received and the record of the<br \/>\npetition itself, has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the writ<br \/>\npetition and has also questioned the conduct of the petitioner in approaching<br \/>\nthis Court with an absolutely incorrect and false story.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">       In brief, a decision was taken by the LDA to allot the aforesaid<br \/>\nshops in favour of Mohammad Shamshad Alam i.e. the petitioner, which<br \/>\ndecision was duly communicated vide letter dated 2.7.02. The aforesaid<br \/>\ncommunication said that sanction\/approval has been granted by the Vice<br \/>\nChairman to allot the aforesaid shops in favour of the petitioner and,<br \/>\ntherefore, 25% amount, namely, an amount of Rs. 1,39,760\/- be deposited<br \/>\nby 15.7.02 and rest of 75% amount be deposited in eight, three monthly<br \/>\ninstalments. These instalments were of Rs. 1,09,050\/- each, wherein the<br \/>\nentire payment was to be made by July, 2004. The shops were to be<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>transferred\/allotted on cash down basis.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">       Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the amount, as directed in<br \/>\nthe letter dated 2.7.02, and had deposited only an amount of Rs. One lakh.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">       The petitioner&#8217;s case is that he has deposited a sum of Rs. Five lakhs<br \/>\nthrough a bank draft in the United Commercial Bank, upon which an<br \/>\nenquiry was made and the bank informed that no such bank draft has been<br \/>\ndeposited in the bank. This amount of Rs. Five lakhs, which is said to have<br \/>\nbeen deposited by the petitioner, was allegedly deposited on 2.6.05, though<br \/>\nunder the terms of the aforesaid allotment proposal, the entire instalments<br \/>\nwere to be deposited upto July, 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">       On the aforesaid claim of the petitioners regarding deposit of Rs.<br \/>\nfive lakhs through bank draft, an F.I.R. has been lodged.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">       Be that as it may, the fact remains that the amount of Rs. five lakhs,<br \/>\nwhich according to the petitioner was deposited by him in favour of LDA, is<br \/>\nnot in deposit and was never credited to the account of LDA.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">       This Court at present is not concerned, as to whether the petitioner<br \/>\nactually has deposited the aforesaid bank draft or not, as it cannot be<br \/>\nignored that the amount, as was required to be deposited upto July, 2004,<br \/>\nhas not been deposited.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">       Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the aforesaid<br \/>\nfactual position.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">       Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the LDA has<br \/>\ndelivered possession to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">       Opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Court to file<br \/>\nnecessary document indicating the delivery of possession but despite<br \/>\naffidavit being filed, no such document has been brought on record and<br \/>\nrather, orally it has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that if the<br \/>\nrecords are summoned, they would show the document of delivery of<br \/>\npossession, which was done under the orders of the then Vice Chairman.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">       In effect, there is an averment in the affidavit also, that on deposit of<br \/>\nRs. One lakh, on the request of the father of the petitioner, the then Vice<br \/>\nChairman directed the concerned official to hand over the possession of the<br \/>\nshops in question to the petitioner and as such, possession was handed over.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">       Sri D.K. Upadhyaya rightly points out that it was a case of cash<br \/>\ndown transfer of shops. Possession could not have been delivered, unless<br \/>\nthe entire amount was deposited and the sale deed had been executed,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>therefore, the assertion that possession was delivered under the directives of<br \/>\nthe then Vice Chairman, neither is acceptable nor can be correct.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">         Sri Upadhyaya has also drawn the attention of the Court to the<br \/>\ninformation sought by the petitioner himself under Right to <a href=\"\/doc\/1965344\/\" id=\"a_1\">Information<br \/>\nAct<\/a>, wherein he has been informed that records do not indicate that at any<br \/>\npoint of time, possession of the shops in question was handed over to the<br \/>\npetitioner. This information has been sought by the petitioner himself,<br \/>\nwhich has been given under Right to <a href=\"\/doc\/1965344\/\" id=\"a_1\">Information Act<\/a> on 19.6.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">         It is not the case of the petitioner that this information is wrong or<br \/>\nhas wrongly been given.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">         We also fail to appreciate that if the petitioner was the allottee then<br \/>\nhow the father of the petitioner could be the person on whose request<br \/>\npossession could be delivered and we also take notice of the averments<br \/>\nmade in the affidavit aforesaid, which if are taken to be correct, would only<br \/>\nmean that the then Vice Chairman ordered the official to hand over the<br \/>\npossession, which means to hand over possession in accordance with law<br \/>\nbut such a direction did not permit the petitioner to take possession of his<br \/>\nown, without permission of the LDA. The Vice Chairman, if on<br \/>\nconsideration of some facts or request had directed for handing over the<br \/>\npossession, that would only mean that the possession may be delivered<br \/>\nthrough prescribed procedure but it could never mean that the petitioner<br \/>\ncould take possession of the shops in question forcibly and without the<br \/>\nauthority letter.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">         This observation does not mean nor do we approve the aforesaid<br \/>\ntheory and even if it is taken to be correct, it would not give a legal right to<br \/>\nthe petitioner to continue with the possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">         Learned counsel for the petitioner says that in the aforesaid shops a<br \/>\ntyping and language training institute is being run and, therefore, his prayer<br \/>\nfor allotment of the shops be reconsidered.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">         Since the petitioner has taken the possession of his own and if he<br \/>\nhad started some business or any activity, without any right and authority,<br \/>\nhe has to thank his own stars but equities do not lie in his favour on this<br \/>\ncount.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">         The petitioner right from the very beginning did not follow the terms<br \/>\nunder which the shops were to be transferred on cash down basis.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">         He did not deposit any amount but for Rs. One lakh, which was even<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>less than the amount, which was required to deposited initially i.e. Rs.<br \/>\n1,39,760\/-. Rest of the instalments which were to be deposited by July, 2004<br \/>\nwere also not deposited. The bank draft said to have been given on 2.6.05<br \/>\nwas found to be fake, as there is a report of the bank that no such bank draft<br \/>\nwas available with the bank. Of course, an F.I.R. has been lodged in this<br \/>\nregard.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">          As a matter of fact, possession of the shops in question was never<br \/>\ndelivered to the petitioner through the agency of LDA but he took<br \/>\npossession of his own and started business activities in the shops.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">          Apart from this, the petitioner first approached the District<br \/>\nConsumer Forum for the same relief and then filed another writ petition<br \/>\nduring summer vacations, in which the auction was not challenged and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to<br \/>\nfile a fresh petition; that is how the present writ petition was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">          The petitioner in the present writ petition in paragraph 21, being<br \/>\nconscious of the fact that in the presence of his claim before the District<br \/>\nConsumer Forum, writ petition would not lie, made a very curious<br \/>\nstatement to the effect that &#8216;leaving all hopes of any action on the part of the<br \/>\nopposite party no. 2 and 3 the petitioner was advised although wrongly to<br \/>\napproach Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum and as advised and being<br \/>\nunder the great pressure of losing his only source of income, which the<br \/>\npetitioner has nurtured with his labour and devotion, the petitioner without<br \/>\nany delay approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but now the<br \/>\npetitioner has asked his counsel there to get the same withdrawn and as<br \/>\nsuch the petitioner approached this Hon&#8217;ble Court by filing 5863 of 2010<br \/>\n(MB); (this is the writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn, with<br \/>\nliberty to file a fresh petition, during summer vacations).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">          The claim before the District Consumer Forum has not yet been<br \/>\nwithdrawn, rather notices have been issued by the Consumer Forum, as<br \/>\ninformed by the counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">          Same averment was made in the writ petition filed in June, 2010, as<br \/>\nhas been made in the present writ petition also.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">          The petitioner very well knew that he is pursuing his claim before<br \/>\nthe District Consumer Forum but made an incorrect statement before this<br \/>\nCourt, as aforesaid, for making the petition maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\">          The conduct of the petitioner in the matter of taking possession of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the shops in question without depositing the instalments, as directed under<br \/>\nthe order dated 2.7.02 and without getting the sale deed executed, and also<br \/>\nthe manner in which he has approached this Court, persuade us to hold that<br \/>\nhe has not come with clean hands, besides the fact that he has no locus<br \/>\nstandi to challenge the auction, so held.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\">        In fact, the petitioner has used the property of the LDA for such a<br \/>\nlong time, with no right, title or interest in the said shops.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_32\">        We thus, do not find any illegality in the auction so held, as well as<br \/>\nin the order refusing revival of allotment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_33\">        We take notice of the argument of the counsel for the private<br \/>\nrespondents that rights of private respondents have already matured, as they<br \/>\nare the lawful auction purchaser of the shops in question. The allotments in<br \/>\nfavour of private respondents have been made between 2.1.2010 and<br \/>\n29.1.2010 and on deposit of the entire amount, they are entitled to get the<br \/>\npossession of the shops in question.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_34\">        The petitioner has been in illegal possession of the shops in question<br \/>\nfor the last more than eight years. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to<br \/>\nbe dismissed with special costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_35\">        However, on the request of the counsel for the petitioner that the<br \/>\npetitioner is prepared to vacate the shops within a period of six weeks, we<br \/>\nrefrain ourselves from imposing any cost but do direct that the petitioner<br \/>\nshall vacate the shops in question on or before the expiry of six weeks and<br \/>\nshall hand over vacant premises to the person, authorised by the Vice<br \/>\nChairman, LDA.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_36\">        The petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_37\">        We, however, clarify that dismissal of this writ petition would not<br \/>\naffect the right of the petitioners, in case any other shops are to be<br \/>\nauctioned, and the petitioner applies for the same, subject to the conditions<br \/>\nof eligibility being fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_38\">Dated: 5.8.2010<br \/>\nMFA\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 2010 1 Court No. 1 Writ Petition No. 7317 (MB) of 2010 Mohammad Shamshad Alam Vs. State of U.P. and others. Hon&#8217;ble Pradeep Kant, J. Hon&#8217;ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard Sri Aftad Ahmad, counsel for the petitioner, Sri [&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-268704","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 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\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-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=\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-30T01:47:36+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-30T01:47:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1884,\"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\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-30T01:47:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 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:\/\/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":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 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\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-30T01:47:36+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-30T01:47:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010"},"wordCount":1884,"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\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010","name":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ... on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-30T01:47:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammad-shamshad-alam-vs-state-of-u-p-through-principal-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammad Shamshad Alam vs State Of U.P. Through Principal &#8230; on 5 August, 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:\/\/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\/268704","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=268704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268704\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}