{"id":31170,"date":"2002-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002"},"modified":"2017-09-28T03:28:05","modified_gmt":"2017-09-27T21:58:05","slug":"smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 237, 2003 (3) SLJ 394 Delhi<\/div>\n
Author: M Sarin<\/div>\n
Bench: M Sarin<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Manmohan Sarin, J.  <\/p>\n
 1. Petitioner is the widow of Shri Dharam
\nSingh, who was working as Senior Malaria Inspector with
\nrespondent\/MCD. She has filed this writ petition,
\naggrieved by the non-reimbursement of the medical
\nexpenses incurred for treatment of her deceased
\nhusband. Late Mr. Dharam Singh, husband of the
\npetitioner, had gone to Rohtak, Haryana in the month of
\nAugust, 2001, where he took ill. He was admitted to
\nPost Graduate Medical Institute of Sciences, Rohtak.
\nAs there was slight improvement in his condition, he
\nwas brought to Delhi and admitted at Bara Hindu Rao
\nHospital, Delhi. Both at PGMIS Hospital, Rohtak and
\nBara Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi, certain medicines were
\nprescribed by the Doctors, which were not available and
\nhad to be purchased from the market by the petitioner
\nand members of her family. On 3.9.2001, the condition
\nof Shri Dharam Singh Kaushik deteriorated and he was
\nreferred to AIIMS, New Delhi, where he died on
\n7.9.2001.\n<\/p>\n
 2. Petitioner sought reimbursement of the
\ncost of medicines as incurred. Petitioner submitted
\nthe bills in the prescribed proforma duly supported
\nwith the prescriptions. The Medical Officers of the
\nhospitals issued essentiality certificates wherein it
\nis certified that the medicines prescribed were
\nessential for the recovery and prevention of serious
\ndeterioration in the condition of the patient. Further
\nthat the medicines were not stocked and were not
\navailable. The purchase of medicines and the treatment
\ngiven has been duly certified by the three hospitals
\nwith essentiality certificates.\n<\/p>\n
 3. It may also be noted that the petitioner
\nvide order dated 2.8.2001, was permitted to file an
\nadditional affidavit with regard to its contention that
\nthe medicines were neither available in the stock of
\nhospitals nor the hospital could make them available by
\npurchasing it and as such there was no option for the
\npetitioner’s family but to purchase the medicines from
\nthe market and submit the bills for the same for
\nreimbursement.\n<\/p>\n
 4. It may also be noted that the hospitals
\nare not private hospitals and happen to be either the
\nGovernment hospitals or those recognised and approved
\nby the Government and MCD as referral hospitals.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The respondent has denied the
\nreimbursement relying on a term of the office order
\nwhich is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “However, in no case reimbursement of
\nexpenditure incurred by a pensioner on
\ntreatment will be made.”\n<\/p>\n
 This brings into fore the question of
\nvalidity of the above provision. MCD on 3.10.1994 had
\nissued an office order setting out the policy for
\nmedical treatment of its employees and retired
\nemployees, including retiring and retired employees.
\nThe office order is a short one and is reproduced in
\nextenso:-\n<\/p>\n
Dated 3.10.1994  <\/p>\n
 No: F.15(138)\/CED(SU)\/94\/23702-73  <\/p>\n
 OFFICE ORDER   <\/p>\n
 The Special Officer exercising powers of the
\nCorporation has vide decision No. 4128\/GW\/Corp.
\ndated 27.9.1994 approved for providing medical
\nfacilities to the pensioners of Municipal
\nCorporation of Delhi by the Corporation to the
\nfollowing extent:-\n<\/p>\n
 i) All the medicines etc. including
\ndiagnostics facilities as is required for the
\ntreatment of the patient (Pensioners and their
\nfamilies) will be provided to them free of
\ncharge at the Hospitals\/Dispensaries.\n<\/p>\n
 ii) The pensioners and their families when
\nreferred from the dispensaries to the
\nhospitals for specialised treatment will be
\nattended to on priority basis. Such medicines
\netc. which are considered essential for the
\ntreatment, if not available, will be purchased
\nby the hospital authorities and provided to
\nthe patients within a reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
 iii) In order to identify the pensioners for
\nproviding medical facilities, they will be
\nissued Identity Cards by the Department from
\nwhich one has retired or will be retiring.\n<\/p>\n
 2. However, in no case reimbursement of
\nexpenditure incurred by a pensioner on
\ntreatment will be made.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, Senior Advocate, who had
\nbeen appointed amices curiae in this case, assailed
\nClause 2 of the Policy as being arbitrary, irrational
\nand violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
\nConstitution of India. He submitted that under the
\npolicy of the respondent\/MCD had a clear obligation,
\nfirstly to provide free medical aid and free medicines
\nfrom the dispensary\/hospitals to its employees
\nincluding retired employees. Secondly, if the
\nmedicines were not available, the hospitals were
\nobliged to purchase them within a reasonable time. In
\nthe instant case, it is not disputed that the
\nmedicines required for treatment were neither
\navailable nor they were procured within a reasonable
\ntime. In these circumstances, Clause 2 of the Policy,
\nwhich provides that there shall be no reimbursement of
\nexpenditure incurred by the petitioner on purchase of
\nmedicines of treatment was wholly arbitrary. It runs
\ncounter to the policy and objective of the MCD to
\nprovide medical aid to its employees. It seeks to
\nnegate the obligations of the MCD and is contrary to
\nthe terms of the office order. It was urged that
\nClause 2, imposing a blanket ban on reimbursement of
\ncost of medicines, would contravene the right to self
\npreservation and life.\n<\/p>\n
 Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
\nreliance on  Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and
\nOrs.  to urge that self
\npreservation of one’s life is the necessary
\nconcomitant of the right to life, enshrined in Article
\n21 of the Constitution of India. It was fundamental
\nin nature, sacred, precious and inviolable. The
\nSupreme Court had also approved the observations of
\nthe Punjab High Court in  Surjit Singh v. State of
\nPunjab and Ors., to which I shall advert later.\n<\/p>\n
 Mr. Neeraj Kaul also placed reliance on State
\nof Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and
\nOrs.<\/a> , to urge that the
\nright to live is integral to the right to life and the
\nstate has a constitutional obligation to provide
\nhealth services. To similar effect of the
\nobservations by the Supreme Court in  State of Punjab
\nand Ors. v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Ors.,<\/a> where the court while upholding
\nthe right of the government to formulate a medical
\npolicy and alter it depending on changed circumstances
\nemphasized on the right of a citizen to live under
\nArticle 21 of the Constitution of India the obligation
\nof the state, in this regard being further reinforced
\nby the primary duty under Article 47 to secure health
\nto its citizens.\n<\/p>\n
 7. Mr. Navin Chawla in opposition to writ
\npetition submitted that it was not open for the
\npetitioner to claim a benefit under one part of the
\noffice order and not accept the restriction or the bar
\ncontained in the remaining part. He submitted that
\nthe office order\/policy had to be read as a whole.
\nThe petitioner cannot rely on certain parts of the
\npolicy to seek benefit and then seek to be absolved
\nfrom the provision, which contains a bar on
\nreimbursement. He submitted that policy offered
\ncertain benefits and Clause 2 restricts those
\nbenefits. He submits that there is a rationale for
\nmaking such a provision. The respondent in its wisdom
\nand as a matter policy have undertaken the obligation
\nto provide medical aid and facilities as available in
\nthe hospitals and dispensary. However, for economic
\nand administrative reasons, it was decided to put a
\nban on reimbursement of expenses incurred by employees
\non purchasing medicines from outside. He relied on
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Lubhaya’s
\ncase (Supra) to urge that such a restriction was
\njustified considering the economic constraints and it
\nwas a valid exercise of policy making. Further that
\nthis court would not entertain a challenge to the said
\npolicy. He submits that even in Ram Lubhaya’s case
\nright to revise the policy of reimbursement of medical
\nexpenses and confining them to the rates of AIIMS
\nhospital, has been upheld.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Having noted the submissions on the part
\nof the petitioner and the amices curiae as also of the
\nrespondent, the legal position which emerges based on
\nthe judgments of the apex court may be noted:-\n<\/p>\n
  (I)(a) The right of a citizen to live under
\nArticle 21 casts a corresponding duty and obligation
\non the State, reinforced under Article 47, to secure
\nhealth to its citizen as its primary duty. No doubt
\nthe Government is rendering this obligation by opening
\ngovernment hospitals and health centres, but in order
\nto make it meaningful, it has to be within the reach
\nof its people, as far as possible, to reduce the queue
\nof waiting lists, and it has to provide all facilities
\nfor which an employee looks for at another hospital.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) The state can neither urge nor say that
\nit has no obligation to provide medical facility. If
\nthat were so, it would be ex-facie violative of
\nArticle 21.\n<\/p>\n
 (c) The right of the State to change its
\npolicy from time to time under changing circumstances
\nis neither challenged nor could it be. It is not
\nnormally within the domain of any court, to weigh the
\npros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and
\ntest the degree of its beneficial or equitable
\ndisposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or
\nannulling it, based on howsoever sound and good
\nreasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative
\nof any constitutional, statutory or any other
\nprovision of law. No state or country can have
\nunlimited resources to spend on any of its projects
\nthat is why it only approves the projects to the
\nextent it is feasible. The same holds good for
\nproviding medical facilities to its citizens including
\nits employees. Provision of facilities cannot be
\nunlimited. (State of Punjab and Ors. Ram
\nLubhaya Bagga and Ors.-Supra).\n<\/p>\n
 (II) Right to live is integral to the right
\nto life and state has a constitutional obligation to
\nprovide health facilities. In State of Punjab and
\nOrs. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla and Ors.  the Supreme Court<\/a> observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
  “If the government servant has suffered an
\nailment which requires treatment at a
\nspecialized approved hospital and on reference
\nwhereat the government servant had undergone
\nsuch treatment therein, it is but the duty of
\nthe State to bear the expenditure incurred by
\nthe government servant. Expenditure, thus,
\nincurred requires to be reimbursed by the
\nState of the employee.”\n<\/p>\n
 (III) Self preservation of ones life is the
\nnecessary concomitant of the right to life enshrined
\nin Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which was
\nfundamental in nature, sacred, precious and
\ninviolable. (Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab and
\nOrs. Supra).\n<\/p>\n
 The Supreme Court also approved the
\nobservations of the Punjab High Court in Sadhu R. Pall
\nv. State of Punjab reported at 1994(1) SLR 283,
\nwhere the court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “The respondents appear to have patently used
\nexcusals in refusing full reimbursement, when
\nthe factum of treatment and the urgency for
\nthe same has been accepted by the respondents
\nby reimbursing the petitioner the expenses
\nincurred by him, which he would have incurred
\nin the AIIMS, New Delhi. We cannot lose sight
\nto factual situation in the AIIMS, New Delhi,
\ni.e., with respect to the number of patients
\nreceived there with heart problems. In such
\nan urgency, one cannot sit at home and think
\nin a cool and calm atmosphere for getting
\nmedical treatment at a particular hospital or
\nwait for admission in some government medical
\ninstitute. In such a situation, decision has
\nto be taken forthwith by the person or his
\nattendants if precious life has to be saved.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. It would be seen from the foregoing that
\nthe right of a citizen to live, casts an obligation on
\nthe State to provide health care, which is reinforced
\nunder Article 47 of the Constitution of India. The
\nright of the State of formulate a policy for provision
\nof medical facilities and make changes therein
\ndepending upon the circumstances and economic
\nconstraints is recognised. The right of a citizen for
\nself preservation and to take appropriate and timely
\ndecisions for provision of treatment and medicines as
\nrequired in emergency is recognised.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Let me now analyze and consider the
\npresent case in the light of the foregoing judicial
\npronouncements and principles as enumerated. The
\npetitioner being a retired employee was entitled to
\navail of medicines and diagnostic facilities, free of
\ncharge at the hospitals and dispensaries. The office
\norder also provided for specialised treatment on
\npriority basis from hospitals. It is not in dispute
\nthat in the instant case the treatment was obtained
\nfrom the prescribed and recognised hospitals and
\ndispensaries. This is apparent from the essentiality
\ncertificates issued by the Hindurao Hospital and the
\nPost Graduate Medical Institute of Sciences, Rohtak,
\nand the AIIMS. The question with which we are faced
\nis of reimbursement of the cost of medicines
\nprescribed by the Doctors of recognised hospitals,
\nwhere the petitioner’s deceased husband was receiving
\ntreatment. The medicines were not available in stock
\nand were considered essential and required for
\ntreatment. The hospital and medical authorities had
\nthe obligation to purchase\/provide the medicines
\nwithin a reasonable time as per office order.
\nReasonable time would depend upon the exigency of
\nrequirement. In case it is an emergency, then the
\npatient is certainly not expected to wait for a
\nreasonable time as per the usual procedure. In such
\nsituations, the attendants of the patients or family
\nmembers are not expected to follow the procurement
\nprocedure and are left with no option but to purchase
\nthe same. Reference is invited to the observations of
\nthe Supreme Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab
\nnoted earlier. In the instant case, the hospital
\nauthorities have certified that the said medicines
\nwere not available and had recommended the bills for
\nreimbursement. The respondents have not paid the same
\non account of Clause 2, I am of the view that Clause 2,
\nwhich puts an absolute ban on reimbursement of
\nexpenditure incurred by a pensioner on treatment is
\narbitrary, irrational and liable to be struck down, as
\nviolative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
\nIndia. The said clause is wholly inconsistent with
\nother provisions and seeks to negate the obligation on
\nthe part of the MCD as provided for in the office
\norder, namely to provide treatment and medicines free
\nof charge and especially the obligation to purchase
\nmedicines, if not available in the hospital stock
\nwithin a reasonable time. Once the obligation to
\npurchase the medicines, not available in the stock and
\nto provide them to the patient within a reasonable
\ntime is there, the said right cannot be
\ntaken away by providing a ban on reimbursement. The
\nsaid clause is wholly arbitrary and irrational.
\nAccordingly Clause 2 of the office order is struck
\ndown, in so far as it imposes a complete ban on
\nreimbursement of medical expenditure. By striking
\ndown Clause 2 of the aforesaid office order, it should
\nnot be understood as whittling down the right of the
\nrespondents to frame or formulate a policy including
\none providing a restriction or ceiling on
\nreimbursement of expenses as long as the said policy
\nis not violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In view of the foregoing discussion,
\nthe writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus
\nshall issue to the respondents to pay forthwith to the
\npetitioner the sanctioned amount of Rs. 26,606\/-. In
\ncase payment is not made within one month from today,
\nthe petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12%
\np.a. on the said amount.\n<\/p>\n
 Writ petition stands allowed in above terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 237, 2003 (3) SLJ 394 Delhi Author: M Sarin Bench: M Sarin JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J. 1. Petitioner is the widow of Shri Dharam Singh, who was working as Senior Malaria Inspector with respondent\/MCD. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - 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\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-27T21:58:05+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T21:58:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2550,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T21:58:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - 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\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-27T21:58:05+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T21:58:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002"},"wordCount":2550,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002","name":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T21:58:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamlesh-sharma-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kamlesh Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 3 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/31170","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=31170"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31170\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31170"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31170"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31170"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}