{"id":32287,"date":"2010-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-14T07:05:02","modified_gmt":"2017-05-14T01:35:02","slug":"m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ajit J Gunjal<\/div>\n
iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 12\"' DAY OF AUGUST. 2010,\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J. GUNJAP:\"'~.f\":'~:\\\"A\n\nWRIT PETITION No.22828 OF 2010 (GM'a\u00e9i?oL:C\ufb01i' A'\n\nBetween:\n\n1\\\/I.F.Khaleem\n\nS\/o Abdul Razzaq,\nAged about 34 years,\nDistrict President.\nPopuiar Front of India.\n2764\/7, K T Street.\nMandi Mohalla.\nMysore.\n\n(By    A Sdh\ufb01onnanna. Advocates)\nAnd : V d V V I d\n\n1 The Ddii:isiona1--. Inspector General of Poiice,\n3  Mysore Ddi\ufb02sion. Mysore.\n\n  'I'}ieAyCofnmissioner of Police.\n\n\" VMysor_e'~City. Mysore.\n\n3 d A \"'Fhe S'tat.c' of Karnataka.\n--. 133:' its- Secretary,\nDepartment of Home Aifairs.\n.A _ Vidhana Soudha.\nV \"\u00ab-Bangalore.\n'  Respondents<\/pre>\n
 __    K.M. Nataraj. Additional Advocate General,
\n”  along with Sri Satyanarayana Singh, AGA)<\/p>\n
$*$*****$#<\/p>\n
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226
\nof the Constitution of India praying to gtiash’r.”theV
\nendorsement issued by the second respondent\u00a7__dated’~–.21-ii”.
\nJuly 2010 vide Annexure D, declaring it as inoperative” and
\nvoid and to direct the respondents to granit”‘p’erl1nission to
\nhold the freedom parade on ii5~O8\u00a5A20’10p ‘pursuaiit to5the’;
\npetitioner’s application dated 21$’;–\u00bb-_J.uly_ 2010,’
\nArinexure C, etc.    N, \u00ab.   ‘<\/p>\n
This Writ Petition comingv.,i\u00a7i1.yfor “\u00a351-e1irn1:\u00a7’:–ir\u00a7~–,”Healing. it
\nthis Day. the Court made the follovgirig; ‘ ‘ <\/p>\n
Even though’ thiel\ufb02niatter  lufor Preliminary
\nHearing,  up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
 On pState__ has entered appearance and
\nis represented 153*   Nataraj. learned Additional
\nAdvoieate Generaltv <\/p>\n
 8; vl..pin*~-,response to the memorandum of writ<\/p>\n
  of objections are filed by the State<\/p>\n
–V accoinplarpiie\u00e9d by several documents. The matter arises<\/p>\n
 in the following manner.\n<\/p>\n
l’ H The writ petition is filed by the District President.<\/p>\n
it mPHopu1ar Front of India. Mysore. The petitioner proposes<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
\ufb01x<\/p>\n
to celebrate the Independence Day on 15*” August
\n2010. The case of the petitioner is that, the
\norganized a freedom Parade at Mangalore.  ~
\npermitted by all the authorities..~an.dgprograiiiine:  H’
\nconcluded peacefully without
\nof untoward incident,    it ” V
\ndemonstrates that  is_.*”a:.”p_:’patriotic’,”—di.sciplined
\norganization, functioning’._’i’n–‘ Suffice it to
\nsay that they.   celebrate the
\nindependence:.D’ay’l’–\u00a7or\u00e9tthel”–ye:ar:f2009 at Mysore. But
\nhowever,%”Vl’    the said
\nperinission petitioner has made an<\/p>\n
identical ap’pl_ication;. seeking permission to celebrate<\/p>\n
‘l is \u00b0*~the”i~ind\u00bbepei2;ienceVDay for the year 2010. It appears the<\/p>\n
is–.sai._d  seeking permission was given on 215*<\/p>\n
July falcopy of which is produced at Annexure C.<\/p>\n
  perusal of the request made to the Commissioner of<\/p>\n
  ‘~l?Vol–ise would disclose that they would not use any<\/p>\n
 ~-slogan, incite disturbances and propose to hold a\ufb02<\/p>\n
F\n<\/p>\n
-2:}\/xv”\n<\/p>\n
raliy\/parade from Eid-gah Maidan of Tilak Nagar to
\nBanni Mantap Ground of Mysore, following the rou~t_e of
\nPuikeshi Road, Fountain Circle, and Tippu  V’
\nsaid request is considered by the responderiit\ufb02idg
\npermission is accorded in terrrisii   V
\ncelebrate the Independence  it
\ncertain stringent conditions}ai\u00e9flaeg “really
\naggrieved by the said by<\/p>\n
the second respo_ndent,_  it it it<\/p>\n
4. Mr. ;.1ean\ufb01e:d’:-eounsei appearing for<\/p>\n
the pe’titio1’1ei:ii,  jipre-as in’t’o'”service a ruling of the
\nMadras\ufb02dighi Cottrt.,V_in_di*ca1:ing that there shouid not be<\/p>\n
any _i.rnped4i”ment_in Aeelehrating the Independence Day.<\/p>\n
 at.,H\u00a7-‘:c.st1h1nit’so.Athatbefore the Madras High Court, one of<\/p>\n
-..t:1’1eu ” was the petitioner. The present<\/p>\n
For1imv_.vis_ja1so a larger body, wherein the petitioner<\/p>\n
 before-the Madras High Court has sought for a merger<\/p>\n
” it is merged. Hence, according to him, both<\/p>\n
 .\u00bbv.-}”5’orurns stand on the simiiar footing. Further, he<\/p>\n
“*2<\/p>\n
5<\/span>
\nsubmits that the conditions imposed are highly<\/p>\n
arbitrary and discriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
5. Mr. KM. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate
\nGeneral supports the impugned  M
\nsubmits with reference to .them
\nannexed to the statement of objections
\nthe Popular Front of Inditawizs as
\ninasmuch as they  have    the
\ninternational  that to<\/p>\n
preserve tranquility .a’s”‘-Well”  in the area,<\/p>\n
  been ‘irriposed .\n<\/p>\n
 In \u00absubmission, he has pressed<\/p>\n
into _se..rvice ‘\ufb01ieideciisionht of the Apex Court in the case<\/p>\n
. it  S~t.ate\u00a7”‘of”Karnatai\u00a5\u00a7ia and another Vs. Dr. Praveen Bhai<\/p>\n
i..T1ie;ga\u00a21i’atti_r\u00a7\u00e9\u00a7of:ed in AIR 2004 so R2081 to buttress<\/p>\n
hiAs’~\u00abcon_tention that the Courts are required to be slow in<\/p>\n
 VVp””interfer”i-rig with the administrative decisions. He also<\/p>\n
  ‘stibrnits that the Association has no fundamental right.<\/p>\n
K’<\/p>\n
\/\/.7″\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. Indeed, during the course of hearing, the
\nConstitution of the Popular Front of India is made
\navailable. It is not in dispute that earlier  V.
\nthree Forums i.e. Karnataka Forum for  K
\nwas operating in Karnataka,
\nFront, which was operatinglfatate
\nNeethi Pasarai, operating
\nIndeed all these three and the<\/p>\n
Popular Front of India  It is to be<\/p>\n
. noticed that   of ‘the Court in<\/p>\n
respect”of\u00ab.admi?nistra:tive lhactions wherein certain
\nsensitive issues’=arel’~.invojved, has been dealt with<\/p>\n
extensivelylabyl the Apexllcourt in the case of State of<\/p>\n
‘Cit”‘–.Kail=rio.tc1f1:a”i–gind “cirio’tfier Vs. Dr. Praueen Bhai Thogadia<\/p>\n
  f.\u00a7.s_\u00a7r:fui to extract the observations made by<\/p>\n
the—.}\\pea~Co.:urt. The Apex Court has observed thus.<\/p>\n
” Para’? : Courts should not normally<\/p>\n
 interfere with matters relating to law and<\/p>\n
order which is primarily the domain of the
\nconcerned administrative authorities. They \/B<\/p>\n
4′
\n.. 4<\/p>\n
are by and large the best to assess and to
\nhandle the situation depending upon theTr’\u00bbl
\npeculiar needs and necessities, within
\nspecial knowledge. Their decision~:Ti’nai_Az:VV’ is
\ninvolve to some extent  elerner1t’_’:V.ofw
\nsubjectivity on the basis
\nthem. Past conductsand anltecedents.  a  l’
\nperson or group or an:”Organisat’ion:
\ncertainly provide .suff’1ci-ent”_’materialA’ or _basis<\/p>\n
for the action corltempla’tped’4 reasonable
\nexpectation of possible   which<\/p>\n
may needlfto   interest<\/p>\n
and  and order. No
\n it  ~- he njmay assume or
\n be allowed irrespective of<\/p>\n
the.__p”ositio,n’  n1.a’y’\u00abassume or claim to hold<\/p>\n
‘in publiclife toleilther act in a manner or<\/p>\n
 I}’_1_:.8.l(\u00a7: spe.e__c_hcs which would destroy<\/p>\n
sv’ecu1.ar.i,sm recognised by the Constitution of<\/p>\n
   (in short the Constitution’).\n<\/p>\n
 is not to be confused with<\/p>\n
._ ,
\n~~ communal or religious concepts of an<\/p>\n
it  individual or a group of persons. It means<\/p>\n
‘ that State should have no religion of lts own<\/p>\n
and no one could proclaim to make the State<\/p>\n
,\/1%<\/p>\n
have one such an endeavor to create a
\ntheocratic State. Persons belonging to
\ndifferent religions live throughout the length,-“=–
\nand breadth of the country. Each person-w:’f”*\u00ab.V.”*
\nwhatever be his religion must  ‘V’
\nassurance from the State that  .\n<\/p>\n
protection of law freely
\nand propagate his religion”andgfreedorn.or if
\nconscience, Otherxviserrthe rt1’l\u00a3’..__ of
\nbecome replaced_ by individual perceptigonsli of
\nones own presurrip-tu<–:ius.  order.
\nTherefore, whenev_erf'   the "  ,'l[(__\/"'.*-'ficerned<\/p>\n
authorities in c3jarge'V..:of4Vla"w._ and order find<\/p>\n
 speeche'sv.or"\u00a7actions are likely
\n antagonism and hatred
\nresulting' in  tendencies gaining<\/p>\n
_ -foothold\u00bb 'Vnunderfnining and affecting
\nhvarrnony, prohibitory orders need
\n  necessfarily to be passed, to effectively avert<\/p>\n
  _\u00ab such, _uritoward happenings."<\/p>\n
1 Indeed the Apex Court further observed that<\/p>\n
  "cornrnunal harmony should not be made to suffer and<\/p>\n
if   made dependent upon Will of an individual or a<\/p>\n
group of individuals. whatever be their reiigion be___it of<\/p>\n
minority or that of the majority.<\/p>\n
9. With this preface. Wc.<W1'1l  it<\/p>\n
whether the endorsement which  :by_Tth..e  .'<\/p>\n
respondent can be justified. the which " V<\/p>\n
is sought to be pressed  Stibbaiah.
\nlearned counsel for   the identical
\nlines. indeed":vvhat   before the
\nCourt  41 (2) of the Madras
\nCity :7UI'11 'identical conditions were
\nirnposexd.VV"'Fhe  tlourt was of the view that<\/p>\n
some of the cvondi-t1ons""are un–constitut1ona1 inasmuch<\/p>\n
 ,__as"V:they"~wou1d ctlearlv violate the fundamental rights of<\/p>\n
the  however, the said writ petition was<\/p>\n
accepte,d.–'_vy.*ith a caveat inasmuch as the Madras High<\/p>\n
 Court has observed that permission is not accorded to<\/p>\n
out a rally in public streets and the permission<\/p>\n
Vi    requested to hold the rally in a public streets is rejected\/\ufb02<\/p>\n
I am of the View that identical situation has arisen in
\nthe present proceedings also. Indeed. the petitioner
\nshould not have any grievance inasmuch as condition
\nNo.5 itself more clearly discloses that it is open}
\npetitioner to hold Independence Day
\nprivate property and it is
\nshould embrace all the citizenshlglother
\nand without disturbing the  llelence.<\/p>\n
I am of the View that   petitioner
\nhas already been  the second<\/p>\n
responldent_i~..ff.I_ndeed_in.pl'So {arias the remaining four
\nconditions "are _con'c_e1"ne'd,\u00bb~"in respect of Wearing of a<\/p>\n
parti_cularialec1_iluniiorrn  they should display only the<\/p>\n
. .l'''~Natiional'i \ufb02ag andlllllnot other \ufb02ags cannot certainly be<\/p>\n
  Indeed holding of a rally or a<\/p>\n
pro'C.ess_i'onVl' a public street would certainly fall in line<\/p>\n
   \u00abdecision of the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n
l    10. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner<\/p>\n
  ,,..Front had made a request to the Station House Officer<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
H<\/p>\n
of Shivajinagar at Bangalore to make use of the sound
\nsystem. Indeed, Mr. Subbaiah wouid press into service
\nthe permission accorded by the poiice. But, however a
\ncloser scrutiny of the said permission would <\/p>\n
it is only in respect of making use of the soirnwd': _
\nbetween specified timings. That "cannot  "
\nservice to persuade this _
\npermission has been
\npresent writ petition.  it 9 it I V<\/p>\n
11. Indeed, the next  be as to the<\/p>\n
 Committee to celebrate
\nthe Independe11ce’.dDay’.~~ .::II’3.l’3’i\u20ac\u20acd in this regard, a perusal<\/p>\n
of the gpernnssion accorded to the petitioner would<\/p>\n
.  thewceiebration is to be conducted in a<\/p>\n
  and sanctity of the Eid gah ground<\/p>\n
sho\u00abuid,___v’be:inaintained. It aiso puts an onus on the<\/p>\n
i\ufb01pegtitioneer to maintain law and order. Indeed the Eid<\/p>\n
  *gva1i-ernaidan wouid certainty faii into the category as<\/p>\n
 “-inentioned in clause 5 of Annexure 1). Indeed there<\/p>\n
,\/W}<\/p>\n
cannot be any serious objection by the second
\nrespondent to permit the petitioner to ceiebr_aie:’-.:ti1e
\nIndependence Day at Eid gah maidan
\nNeedless to say that the peti_tior-oer  “‘
\nmaintain tranquility and harmony
\nNationaiflag. T l 2  d it\n<\/p>\n
12. Having sa.id._so,  yiew,.that the
\nquestion of interference   issued at
\nAnnexure D   ‘ V  it
\nThe  V       H Md. Gulam Abbas
\nand    unrrdjothers, reported in AIR
\n1978   l1.l’1llSZ<\/p>\n
 \u00abother hand, if the public<\/p>\n
 Sgf\u00a2ty;\u00ab._peace’i”‘or tranquility are in danger, it
\nit Vto:’_j..the Magistrate concerned to take
\n proper vlaction under Section 144 Criminal<\/p>\n
 Procedure Code. No hard and fast rules can<\/p>\n
*  be laid down for guidance in exercising a<\/p>\n
 power on which decisions must necessarily<\/p>\n
be governed by the existing situation in each<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
case. It has to be judged on facts and
\ncircumstances existing at a particular place1}’\u00bbe.<\/p>\n
at a particular time.”\n<\/p>\n
Hence. the petition stands di9I30$e-d..”.:’:t)fV”if: *.the” ..<\/p>\n
following terms:\n<\/p>\n
1] The petitio’r:1_er_V
\ncelebrate lndependencleV.:.:I}ay zit.
\nmaidan Ummary elk\/lysore\ufb01\u00bb 5:70
\n021;  j L   I V<\/p>\n
2] ‘ _:” The ape  __   ” rnaintain
\ncordial  it  suitable
\npreceuitiioris  arid order;\n<\/p>\n
 “””  “3}ivi,”lll:i’e’petitioneifisfrequired to take<\/p>\n
other’ n1eiritiotor}f’p_errr1issions from the other<\/p>\n
corr1p_eter1t”   for the purpose of<\/p>\n
 ‘ rnal<irig'-us'e'''of.'Vthe sound system during the<\/p>\n
V  Ir1deper1der1Ce"'Day celebrations;<\/p>\n
T A    Indeed the petitioner cannot\n\n  rally\/procession in the public\ns..tree't'si;\n\n<\/pre>\n
T  5] The rest of the conditions imposed,<\/p>\n
 would squarely fall within the decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the Apex Court, 111 the case of<\/p>\n
State of Kannataka and another Vs. Praveen
\nBhai Thogadia (supra).\n<\/p>\n
With these observations, the petition  <\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
Both the panties shall not  <\/p>\n
ri<\/p>\n
copy of the order, but shall act   <\/p>\n
BMV*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 August, 2010 Author: Ajit J Gunjal iN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12″‘ DAY OF AUGUST. 2010, BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J. GUNJAP:”‘~.f”:’~:\\”A WRIT PETITION No.22828 OF 2010 (GM’a\u00e9i?oL:C\ufb01i’ A’ Between: 1\\\/I.F.Khaleem S\/o Abdul Razzaq, […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - 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\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-14T01:35:02+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T01:35:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1865,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-14T01:35:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 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":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - 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\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-14T01:35:02+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T01:35:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010"},"wordCount":1865,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010","name":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General ... on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-14T01:35:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-f-khaleem-vs-the-divisional-inspector-general-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.F Khaleem vs The Divisional Inspector General … on 12 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\/32287","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=32287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}