{"id":272130,"date":"2006-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006"},"modified":"2018-12-05T06:25:29","modified_gmt":"2018-12-05T00:55:29","slug":"anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: J H.K.Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr.A.R. Lakshmanan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6445 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nAnjan Kumar\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUnion of India & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & Dr.A.R. LAKSHMANAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
H.K.SEMA,J<\/p>\n
The appellant Shri Anjan Kumar is the offshoot of the
\nwedlock between Shri Lakshmi Kant Sahay, District Gaya in
\nthe State of Bihar and Smt. Angela Tigga who belongs to
\nScheduled Tribe community of Oraon Tribe, village Pondi
\nPotkona, Distt.\/Division Raigarh, State of Madhya Pradesh.
\nBy an order dated 7th August, 1992 Scheduled Tribe certificate
\nwas issued to the appellant by S.D.M., Gaya on the ground
\nthat the mother of the appellant Smt. Angela Tigga belongs to
\nOraon tribe which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the
\nState of Madhya Pradesh.  The appellant appeared before the
\nCivil Service Examination in 1991 conducted by the Union
\nPublic Service Commission claiming himself to be the
\nScheduled Tribe candidate. In the said examination he had
\npassed the written test but could not qualify in the interview.
\nHe again appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted
\nby the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1992 and
\npassed the written examination.  In 1993 he was called for
\ninterview. The result of the successful candidates was
\npublished and he stood at 759th rank in order of merit.  He
\nwas also allotted Indian Information Service Grade A.
\nHowever, the appellant did not receive any final posting order,
\nwhich had resulted in filing many representations to the Union
\nof India.  In one of representations dated 14th September, 1994
\nthe appellant also stated that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe
\ncategory and his sub-caste is Oraon.\n<\/p>\n
Having failed to receive any positive response from the
\nrespondents, he filed an Original Application before the
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
\nbeing O.A. No. 2291 of 1994, inter alia, seeking direction to
\nthe Union of India to allow the appellant to join training.  In
\nresponse to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the Union of
\nIndia, by its letter dated 9th November, 1994, conveyed to the
\nTribunal that the appellant has not been brought up in tribal
\nenvironment and that his father is a non-tribal and, therefore,
\nhe cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe.  Further, the Union
\nof India, as directed by the Tribunal, conducted the enquiry
\ninto the question whether the appellant belongs to Scheduled
\nTribe community and the enquiry was conducted by the
\nAdditional District Collector, Jaispurnagar, District Raigarh,
\nMadhya Pradesh and the report was submitted on 26th June,
\n1995.   The enquiry report obviously was against the
\nappellant.  After examining the enquiry report submitted as
\naforestated, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the Original
\nApplication No. 2291 of1994 by order dated 12th December,
\n1995.  Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a Writ Petition
\nbeing C.W.P No. 647 of 1997 before the High Court of Madhya
\nPradesh at Jabalpur, inter alia, challenging the enquiry report
\nsubmitted by the enquiry officer on the allegation of violation
\nof the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity
\nof hearing had been accorded to the appellant.  The learned
\nsingle Judge of the High Court after perusing the records and
\nthe enquiry report, submitted by the enquiry officer, dismissed
\nthe Writ Petition by order dated 22nd January, 1999.  The
\nappellant thereafter carried an unsuccessful appeal before the
\nDivision Bench in L.P.A. No. 138 of 1999, which was
\ndismissed by the L.P.A. bench on 3rd December, 1999.  Hence,
\nthe present appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard the parties at length.\n<\/p>\n
        The sole question calls for determination in this appeal
\nis, as to whether the offshoot of the tribal woman married to
\nnon-tribal husband could claim status of Scheduled Tribe and
\non the basis of which the Scheduled Tribe certificate could be
\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n
        It is contended by Mr. M.N.Krishnamani, learned senior
\ncounsel that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry behind
\nthe back of the appellant and therefore, the learned single
\nJudge as well as the Division Bench erred in law dismissing
\nthe petition\/appeal by placing reliance on the enquiry report
\nand the material collected during the course of the enquiry.
\nHe further contended that the marriage of mother of the
\nappellant (Scheduled Tribe) and the father of the appellant
\n(Kayastha) has been approved and accepted by the community
\nof the village and the appellant has been transplanted into the
\nTribal community and therefore, he was entitled to the
\nScheduled Tribe certificate which was correctly granted.  In
\nthis connection, he has referred to a Circular dated 4th March,
\n1975 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home
\nAffairs on the subject ‘Status of children belonging to the
\ncouple one of whom belongs to Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled
\nTribes’.  He particularly referred to the portion when a
\nScheduled Tribe woman marries a non-Scheduled Tribe man,
\nthe children from such marriage may be treated as members
\nof the Scheduled Tribe community, if the marriage is accepted
\nby the community and the children are treated as members of
\ntheir own community.  Such Circulars issued from time to
\ntime, being not law within the meaning of Article 13<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India, it would be of no assistance to the
\nappellant on the face of the Constitutional provisions.
\nFurther, the facts of this case are however different with the
\nfacts in which the circular was sought to be clarified.
\nUndisputedly, the marriage of the appellant’s mother
\n(tribal woman) to one Lakshmi Kant Sahay (Kayastha) was a
\ncourt marriage performed outside the village.  Ordinarily, the
\ncourt marriage is performed when either of the parents of
\nbride or bridegroom or the community of the village objects to
\nsuch marriage.  In such a situation, the bride or the
\nbridegroom suffers the wrath of the community of the village
\nand runs the risk of being ostracised or ex-communicated
\nfrom the village community.  Therefore, there is no question of
\nsuch marriage being accepted by the village community.  The
\nsituation will, however, stand on different footing in a case
\nwhere a tribal man marries a non-tribal woman (Forward
\nClass) then the offshoots of  such wedlock would obviously
\nattain the tribal status.  However, the woman (if she belongs to
\nforward class) cannot automatically attain the status of tribal
\nunless she has been accepted by the community as one of
\nthem, observed all rituals, customs and traditions which have
\nbeen practiced by the tribals from time immemorial and
\naccepted by the community of the village as a member of
\ntribal society for the purpose of social relations with the village
\ncommunity.  Such acceptance must be by the village
\ncommunity by a resolution and such resolution must be
\nentered in the Village Register kept for the purpose.  Often
\nthan not, such acceptance is preceded by feast\/rituals
\nperformed by the parties where the elders of the village
\ncommunity participated.  However, acceptance of the marriage
\nby the community itself would not entitle the woman (Forward
\nclass) to claim the appointment to the post reserved for the
\nreserved category.  It would be incongruous to suggest that the
\ntribal woman, who suffered disabilities, would be able to
\ncompete with the woman (Forward class) who does not suffer
\ndisabilities wherefrom she belongs but by reason of marriage
\nto tribal husband and such marriage is accepted by the
\ncommunity would entitle her for appointment to the post
\nreserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.   It
\nwould be a negation of Constitutional goal.
\nIt is not disputed that the couple performed court
\nmarriage outside the village; settled down in Gaya and their
\nson, the appellant also born and brought up in the
\nenvironment of forward community did not suffer any
\ndisability from the society to which he belonged.  Mr.
\nKrishnamani, learned senior counsel contended that the
\nappellant used to visit the village during recess\/holidays and
\nthere was cordial relationship between the appellant and the
\nvillage community, which would amount the acceptance of the
\nappellant by the village community.  By no stretch of
\nimagination, a casual visit to the relative in other village would
\nprovide the status of permanent resident of the village or
\nacceptance by the village community as a member of the tribal
\ncommunity.\n<\/p>\n
The ‘tribe’ has been characterized by Dr. Gupta, Jai
\nPrakash in The Customary Laws of the Munda & the Oraon
\nquoted by this Court in State of Kerala vs.
\nChandramohanan<\/a> (2004) 3 SCC 429 at 432 as under:
\n“Tribe has been defined as a social group of a
\nsimple kind, the members of which speak common
\ndialect, have a single government and act together
\nfor such common purposes as warfare.  Other
\ntypical characteristics include a common name, a
\ncontiguous territory, a relatively uniform culture or
\nway of life and a tradition of common descent.
\nTribes are usually composed of a number of local
\ncommunities e.g. bands, villages or neighbourhoods
\nand are often aggregated in clusters of a higher
\norder called nations.  The term is seldom applied to
\nsocieties that have achieved a strictly territorial
\norganization in large States but is usually confined
\nto groups whose unity is based primarily upon a
\nsense of extended kinship ties though it is no longer
\nused for kin groups in the strict sense, such as
\nclans.”\n<\/p>\n
Bhowmik, K.L. in Tribal India: a profile in
\nIndia Ethnology observed:\n<\/p>\n
“Tribe in the Dictionary of Anthropology is
\ndefined as ‘a social group, usually with a definite
\narea, dialect, cultural homogeneity and unifying
\nsocial organization.  It may include several
\nsubgroups, such as sibs or villages.  A tribe
\nordinarily has a leader and may have a common
\nancestor, as well as patron deity.  The families or
\nsmall communities making up the tribe are linked
\nthrough economic, social, religious, family or blood
\nties’.”\n<\/p>\n
The object of Articles 341, 342, 15(4), 16(4) and 16(4A) is
\nto provide preferential treatment for the Scheduled Castes and
\nScheduled Tribes having regard to the economic and
\neducational backwardness and other disabilities wherefrom
\nthey suffer.  So also considering the typical characteristic of
\nthe tribal including a common name, a contiguous Territory, a
\nrelatively uniform culture, simplistic way of life and a tradition
\nof common descent,  the transplantation of the outsiders as
\nmembers of the tribe or community may dilute their way of life
\napart from such persons do not suffer any disabilities.
\nTherefore, the condition precedent for a person to be brought
\nwithin the purview of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)
\nOrder, 1950, one must belong to a tribe and suffer disabilities
\nwherefrom they belong.\n<\/p>\n
In Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl.Commnr<\/a>. Tribal
\nDevelopment (1994) 6 SCC 241 this Court denounced the
\npractice of persons claiming benefits conferred on STs by
\nproducing fake, false and fraudulent certificates:
\n“13.\tThe admission wrongly gained or
\nappointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false
\nsocial status certificate necessarily has the effect of
\ndepriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or
\nScheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in
\nthe Constitution of the benefits conferred on them
\nby the Constitution.  The genuine candidates are
\nalso denied admission to educational institutions or
\nappointments to office or posts under a State for
\nwant of social status certificate.  The ineligible or
\nspurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to
\ndilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of
\nthe inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee.  It is true
\nthat the applications for admission to educational
\ninstitutions are generally made by a parent, since
\non that date many a time the student may be a
\nminor.  It is the parent or the guardian who may
\nplay fraud claiming false status certificate.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar view was reiterated in Director of Tribal
\nWelfare, Govt. of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri<\/a> (1995) 4 SCC 32.  In
\nthe case of  Punit Rai vs. Dinesh Chaudhary<\/a> (2003) 8 SCC
\n204 this Court at page 221 in para 39 observed as under:-
\n“39. A person in fact not belonging to the
\nScheduled Caste, if claims himself to be a member
\nthereof by procuring a bogus caste certificate, would
\nbe committing fraud on the Constitution.  No court
\nof law can encourage commission of such fraud”\n<\/p>\n
Further in Punit Rai’s case (supra) in paragraph 27, this
\nCourt observed that:\n<\/p>\n
“27. The caste system in India is ingrained in
\nthe Indian mind.  A person, in the absence of any
\nstatutory law, would inherit his caste from his
\nfather and not his mother even in a case of
\nintercaste marriage.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Valsamma Paul (Mrs.) vs. Cochin
\nUniversity and others<\/a> (1996) 3 SCC 545 this Court again
\nexamined the entire gamut and came to the conclusion that
\nthe condition precedent for acquiring Scheduled Tribes
\nCertificate one must suffer the disabilities – Socially,
\nEconomically and Educationally.  The facts of that case are
\nimportant and may be recited in a nutshell.  Two posts of
\nLecturers in Law Department of Cochin University were
\nnotified for recruitment, one of which was reserved for Latin
\nCatholics (Backward Class Fishermen).  The appellant was a
\nSyrian Catholic (a Forward Class).  She married to Latin
\nCatholic (Backward Class Fishermen) and had applied for
\nselection as a reserved candidate.  The University selected her
\non that basis and accordingly appointed her against the
\nreserved post.  Her appointment was questioned by another
\ncandidate by filing a writ petition praying for a direction to the
\nUniversity to appoint the petitioner in place of the appellant.
\nThe learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. On appeal
\nbeing filed before the Division Bench concerning the important
\nquestion of law a reference was made to the Full Bench.  The
\nFull Bench held that though the appellant was married
\naccording to the Canon Law, the appellant being a Syrian
\nCatholic by birth (Forward Class), by marriage with the Latin
\nCatholic (Backward Class Fishermen) is not member of that
\nClass nor can she claim the status as a Backward Class by
\nmarriage.  On an appeal being preferred before this Court
\nagainst the decision of the Full Bench this Court after
\nreferring to various decisions of this Court upheld the
\nJudgment of the Full Bench.  This Court held  in paragraphs
\n33 and 34  as under:\n<\/p>\n
“33.  However, the question is: Whether a lady
\nmarrying a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or
\nOBC citizen, or one transplanted by adoption or an
\nother voluntary act, ipso facto, becomes entitled to
\nclaim reservation under Article 15(4)<\/a> or 16(4), as the
\ncase may be? It is seen that Dalits and Tribes
\nsuffered social and economic disabilities recognized
\nby Articles 17 and 15(2).  Consequently, they
\nbecame socially, culturally and educationally
\nbackward; the OBCs also suffered social and
\neducational backwardness.  The object of
\nreservation is to remove these handicaps,
\ndisadvantages, sufferings and restrictions to which
\nthe members of the Dalits or Tribes or OBCs were
\nsubjected and was sought to bring them in the
\nmainstream of the nations’s life by providing them
\nopportunities and facilities.\n<\/p>\n
34. In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v.\n<\/p>\n
Vishwanath Pandu Barde 1995 Supp (2) SCC 549
\nand R.Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka<\/a>
\n(1995) 6 SCC 309 this Court had held that
\neconomic empowerment is a fundamental right to
\nthe poor and the State is enjoined under Articles
\n15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities.
\nThus, education, employment and economic
\nempowerment are some of the programmes the
\nState has evolved and also provided reservation in
\nadmission into educational institutions, or in case
\nof other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and
\n46, or in appointment to an office or a post under
\nthe State under Article 16(4).<\/a>  Therefore, when a
\nmember is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and
\nOBCs, he\/she must of necessity also have had
\nundergone the same handicaps, and must have
\nbeen subjected to the same disabilities,
\ndisadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to
\nentitle the candidate to avail the facility of
\nreservation.  A candidate who had the advantageous
\nstart in life being born in Forward Caste and had
\nmarch of advantageous life but is transplanted in
\nBackward Caste by adoption or marriage or
\nconversion, does not become eligible to the benefit
\nof reservation either under Article 15(4)<\/a> or 16(4), as
\nthe case may be.  Acquisition of the status of
\nScheduled Caste etc. by voluntary mobility into
\nthese categories would play fraud on the
\nConstitution, and would frustrate the benign
\nconstitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)
\nof the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the catena of decisions of this Court, the
\nquestions raised before us are no more res integra.  The
\ncondition precedent for granting tribe certificate being that one
\nmust suffer disabilities wherefrom one  belongs.  The offshoots
\nof the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal
\nhusband – Forward Class (Kayastha in the present case)
\ncannot claim Scheduled Tribe status.  The reason being such
\noffshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class
\nand he is not subjected to any disability.  A person not
\nbelonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
\nclaiming himself to be a member of such caste by procuring a
\nbogus caste certificate is a fraud under the Constitution of
\nIndia.  The impact of procuring fake\/bogus caste certificate
\nand obtaining appointment\/admission from the reserved
\nquota will have far-reaching grave consequences.  The
\nmeritorious reserved candidate may be deprived of reserved
\ncategory for whom the post is reserved.  The reserved post  will
\ngo into the hands of non-deserving candidate and in such
\ncases it would be violative of the mandate of Articles 14 and 21
\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Certificate is
\nnot a bounty to be distributed.  To sustain the claim, one must
\nshow that he\/she suffered disabilities – socially, economically
\nand educationally cumulatively.  The concerned authority,
\nbefore whom such claim is made, is duty bound to satisfy
\nitself that the applicant suffered disabilities socially,
\neconomically and educationally before such certificate is
\nissued.  Any concerned  authority issuing such certificates in a
\nroutine manner would be committing the dereliction of
\nConstitutional duty.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it
\ndeserves to be dismissed with costs.  The tribal certificate
\ndated 7th August, 1992 procured by the appellant by
\nmisrepresentation of the facts is quashed and set aside.
\n\tThe appeal is dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 Author: J H.K.Sema Bench: H.K. Sema, Dr.A.R. Lakshmanan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6445 of 2000 PETITIONER: Anjan Kumar RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/02\/2006 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & Dr.A.R. LAKSHMANAN JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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-272130","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAnjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - 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\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-05T00:55:29+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-05T00:55:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2953,\"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\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-05T00:55:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - 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\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-05T00:55:29+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-05T00:55:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006"},"wordCount":2953,"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\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006","name":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-05T00:55:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anjan-kumar-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-14-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anjan Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/272130","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=272130"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272130\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}