{"id":270426,"date":"2010-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-15T16:08:20","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T10:38:20","slug":"malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">Court No. - 33                                             Reserved\n                                                           A.F.R.\n\nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 45701 of 2010\n\nPetitioner :- Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias Arvind Malik\nRespondent :- State Of U.P. &amp; Ors.\nPetitioner Counsel :- Ankur Sharma,Ravi Kiran Jain\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C,V.K. Dixit\nAnd\nCase :- WRIT - C No. - 45699 of 2010\n\nPetitioner :- Smt. Sheeba Zareen\nRespondent :- State Of U.P. &amp; Ors.\nPetitioner Counsel :- Ankur Sharma,Ravi Kiran Jain\nRespondent Counsel :- C.S.C,V.K. Dixit\n\n\nHon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      The petitioners by means of these writ petitions have challenged<br \/>\nthe validity of the two notices dated 3.4.2010 and the separate orders<br \/>\ndated 25.6.2010 passed in consequence thereof by the Collector<br \/>\n(Stamps), in exercise of powers under Section 47-A (3) of the <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_1\">Indian<br \/>\nStamp Act<\/a> (hereinafter referred as Act). The said orders in respect of<br \/>\nthe sale deeds dated 16.11.06 and 1.8.07 (Document nos. 9756\/06 and<br \/>\n6688\/07) respectively determine the deficiency in stamp duty by<br \/>\nRs.3,88,840\/- and Rs. 7,07,020\/- and imposes penalty of Rs.1,000\/- in<br \/>\neach case. The deficiency has been directed to be paid with interest @<br \/>\n1.5 % per month.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      Against the aforesaid orders, petitioners have a statutory<br \/>\nalternative remedy of filing an appeal or a revision as the case may be,<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/81969614\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 56<\/a> of the Act. The petitioners without availing the<br \/>\nalternative remedy have directly approached this Court under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article<br \/>\n226<\/a> of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">      Sri R.K. Jain, Senior counsel assisted by Sri Ankur Sharma,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners relying upon various authorities has<br \/>\nsubmitted that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and that as the<br \/>\nvalidity of the notices is being challenged, the writ petitions cannot<br \/>\nbe thrown out on the ground of alternate remedy. The impugned<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                    -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>notices are not only vague but are unworthy of being replied with as<br \/>\nthey are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. He has<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the notices as such have to be treated as without<br \/>\njurisdiction and the orders passed in consequence to the same as<br \/>\nnullity.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">       The principles on which a writ petition can be entertained are<br \/>\nwell recognized. The power to issue prerogative writs under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article<br \/>\n226<\/a> of the Constitution of India is plenary in nature and is not limited<br \/>\nby any other provision. However, such a remedy of writ is an absolute<br \/>\ndiscretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to<br \/>\nrefuse grant of any writ if it is satisfied that the party aggrieved can<br \/>\nhave an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The writ authority is<br \/>\nnot normally exercised unless substantial injustice ensue or is likely<br \/>\nto ensue and the parties must be relegated to the courts of appeal or<br \/>\nrevision to set right errors of law. It has therefore, been propounded<br \/>\ntime and again that when an alternative or an equally efficacious<br \/>\nremedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue alternative<br \/>\nremedy and not to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High<br \/>\nCourt of issuing a prerogative writ. Thus, the existence of an adequate<br \/>\nlegal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of<br \/>\ngranting writs and where such remedy is not exhausted it is a sound<br \/>\nexercise of discretion to refuse interference in a petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_4\">Article<br \/>\n226<\/a> of the Constitution of India. In other words, where statutory<br \/>\nremedy is available the court must decline to interfere under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article<br \/>\n226<\/a> of the Constitution of India. <a href=\"\/doc\/318728\/\" id=\"a_6\">In Kernel State Electricity Board<br \/>\nand another vs. Kuriyan E. Klathil<\/a> (2000) 6 SCC 293, while<br \/>\ndealing with a similar issue the Apex Court held the writ petition<br \/>\nshould not be entertained unless the party has exhausted the<br \/>\nalternative   or   statutory   efficacious   remedy.   In   A.   Venkta<br \/>\nSubramanyam Naydu vs. S. Chellapan and others (2000) 7 SCC<br \/>\n695, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of exercising the writ<br \/>\njurisdiction when efficacious alternative remedy is available. The<br \/>\nabove aspects of the matter have time and again been reiterated by the<br \/>\nApex Court in a catena of decisions, such as City Industrial<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Development Corporation Vs. Dosn Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala &amp;<br \/>\nothers (2009) 1 SCC 168, <a href=\"\/doc\/1916388\/\" id=\"a_7\">Rajkumar Shivhare V. Asst<\/a>. Director,<br \/>\nDirectorate of Enforcement &amp; another (2010) 4 SCC 772, Modern<br \/>\nIndustrial Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 5 SCC 44 and a<br \/>\nvery recent judgment in the case of United Bank of India Vs.<br \/>\nSatyawati Tandon &amp; others decided on 26.7.2010. Thus, the power of<br \/>\nissuing writ has to be exercised with care and great circumspection<br \/>\nand the court should not interfere in the matter lightly where<br \/>\nalternative remedy is available. However, availability of alternative<br \/>\nremedy does not operate as a complete bar and a writ petition can be<br \/>\nentertained directly in at least three contingencies which have been<br \/>\nspelled out in the case of (1998) 8 SCC 1 <a href=\"\/doc\/172383107\/\" id=\"a_8\">Whirlpool Corporation vs.<br \/>\nRegistrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others<\/a> i.e. (i) where the<br \/>\npetition has been filed for enforcement of any fundamental right; (ii)<br \/>\nwhere there is a violation of principle of natural justice; and (iii)<br \/>\nwhere the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or<br \/>\nthe virus of the Act is challenged.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      In short High Court under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_9\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia though is vested with very wide powers and there is no statutory<br \/>\nrestrain in exercise of wisdom by the High Court in issuing high<br \/>\nprerogative writs but the court has placed self restrain on its aforesaid<br \/>\npower not as a rule of law but as a rule of convenience and one of the<br \/>\nprinciples is that where equally efficacious statutory remedy is<br \/>\navailable the court should not interfere in the matter and must relegate<br \/>\nthe party to avail the statutory remedy so available with the exceptions<br \/>\nas carved out above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">      In the instant case petitioners are not seeking enforcement of a<br \/>\nfundamental right nor they are challenging the virus of any provision<br \/>\nof the Act. They are merely complaining about indirect violation of<br \/>\nthe principle of natural justice and accordingly the proceedings to be<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction on the ground of illegality in the notices. The<br \/>\nalleged notices dated 3.4.2010 are annexure-1 to the writ petitions. I<br \/>\nhave perused the said notices. In fact the alleged notices are not<br \/>\nactually a notice. They are only letters by the Collector Stamp which<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>have been written to the Tehsildar directing him to inform the<br \/>\npetitioners to appear personally or through pleader before the court of<br \/>\nthe Collector on 12.4.10 at 10.00 a.m. obviously in connection with<br \/>\nthe Stamp Case No.170\/03\/10 &amp; 169\/03\/10 described in the heading<br \/>\nof the letters itself. A careful reading of the impugned orders dated<br \/>\n25.6.10 would indicate that the sale deeds dated 16.11.06 and 1.8.07<br \/>\nwere referred by the Sub-registrar vide his report dated 26.9.07 for<br \/>\ndetermination of the market value of the property involved therein for<br \/>\nthe purposes of payment of stamp duty as the same were found to be<br \/>\neven less than the prescribed circle rate as notified on 22.6.06. On said<br \/>\nreference being made the matters were assigned to a committee of<br \/>\nthree Officers to submit a report which was submitted on 3.3.10. On<br \/>\nthe basis of the aforesaid report Stamp Case No.170\/3 of 2010 and<br \/>\n169\/03 of 2010 were registered and notices were directed to be<br \/>\nissued to the petitioners. The notices which might have actually been<br \/>\nissued by the office of the Collector have not been enclosed. It has<br \/>\nbeen submitted that apart from the notices (annexure-1) no other<br \/>\nnotice was served upon the petitioners but to this effect no specific<br \/>\naverment in the writ petitions has been made. In fact the alleged<br \/>\nnotices (annexure-1) which are letters as described earlier were not<br \/>\neven endorsed to the petitioners. On the other hand, the orders state<br \/>\nthat after the proceedings were registered notices in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw were issued and served upon the petitioners. In such a situation<br \/>\nthe vagueness in the alleged notices (annexure-1)        which are not<br \/>\nactually notices meant to be served upon the petitioners are of no<br \/>\nconsequence and any vagueness or illegality in the same would not be<br \/>\nmaterial and make any difference to entitle the petitioners to invoke<br \/>\nthe writ jurisdiction directly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">      Notice in its legal sense is information concerning a fact. A<br \/>\nperson has notice of the fact if he knows about the fact and has reason<br \/>\nto know about it. The fact envisaged herein is the fact of pendency of<br \/>\nthe proceedings under <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 47-A<\/a> of the Act. Undisputedly,<br \/>\npetitioners have acquired the knowledge\/information of the said<br \/>\nproceedings may be through any source or through the alleged notices<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>(annexure-1), thus, having a notice or atleast serving the purpose of<br \/>\nthe notice. Petitioners have even filed their comprehensive reply to<br \/>\nthe said notices on 17.5.2010 and submitted to the procedure and the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the authority concerned. It is on consideration of the<br \/>\nabove reply that the impugned orders were passed. In this view of the<br \/>\nmatter the illegality of the notices if any pales into insignificance.<br \/>\nNow, what is material and relevant is the impugned orders which may<br \/>\nbe right or wrong. The correctness of the said orders or any error<br \/>\ntherein is subject to rectification in appeal or revision under <a href=\"\/doc\/81969614\/\" id=\"a_11\">Section<br \/>\n56<\/a> of the Act. The remedy so available to the petitioners cannot be<br \/>\nsaid to be illusive or inefficacious. In case the writ petitions are not<br \/>\nentertained at this stage it would not even render the petitioners<br \/>\nremedyless.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">      In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal<br \/>\nposition, I am not inclined to exercise my extraordinary discretionary<br \/>\njurisdiction in the matter at this stage when the petitioners have an<br \/>\nefficacious statutory remedy under the statue itself.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">      The various authorities cited at the bar by the learned counsel<br \/>\ndoes not cut any ice so as to alter the legal position as enumerated<br \/>\nabove and therefore, I do not consider even refer to them and to<br \/>\nunnecessarily burden my judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">      The merits of the petitions were also highlightened so as to<br \/>\ndispose of the matter finally but I refrain myself in dealing the merits<br \/>\nlest it may prejudice the petitioner as that would have the effect of<br \/>\nclosing the doors for         hearing before the Appellate\/Revisional<br \/>\nauthority also.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">      Accordingly, I refuse to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction<br \/>\nin the matter on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of<br \/>\nappeal\/revision to the petitioner under <a href=\"\/doc\/81969614\/\" id=\"a_12\">Section 56<\/a> of the Act and the<br \/>\nwrit petitions are dismissed on the aforesaid ground.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">      No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">Dated-9.8.2010<br \/>\npiyush\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 33 Reserved A.F.R. Case :- WRIT &#8211; C No. &#8211; 45701 of 2010 Petitioner :- Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias Arvind Malik Respondent :- State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Ankur [&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-270426","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>Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 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\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-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=\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-15T10:38:20+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=\"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\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T10:38:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1656,\"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\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T10:38:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 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\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-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":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-15T10:38:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T10:38:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010"},"wordCount":1656,"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\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010","name":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias ... vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T10:38:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malik-shahnawaz-wali-khan-alias-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-9-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Malik Shahnawaz Wali Khan Alias &#8230; vs State Of U.P. &amp; Ors. on 9 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:\/\/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\/270426","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=270426"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270426\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270426"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270426"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}