{"id":33626,"date":"1997-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997"},"modified":"2016-07-07T23:23:06","modified_gmt":"2016-07-07T17:53:06","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S Kurdukar<\/div>\n
Bench: J.S. Verma, S.P. Kurdukar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDR. RAHIMUDDIN KAMAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nJ.S. VERMA, S.P. KURDUKAR\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     S.P. KURDUKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This civil\t appeal by  Special Leave  is filed  by\t the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh and another challenging the legality
\nand correctness\t of the\t judgment and  order dated August 7,
\n1984 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in
\nreview representation  being Misc.  Petition No. 322 of 1984
\nin Representation  Petition No.\t 142 of\t 1978 filed  by\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.   A few  facts relevant  for the  disposal of this appeal
\nmay be briefly summarised as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     The respondent  was appointed  on 18th  April, 1945  as
\nTehsildar in  revenue department  of the  erstwhile State of
\nHyderabed. On re-organization of the States on 1st November,
\n1956, the  respondent was  allotted State of Andhra Pradesh.
\nIn the year 1957, he was promoted as Deputy Collector.\n<\/p>\n
3.   While serving  as the  Deputy Collector, the respondent
\napplied for  the granted  leave from 11th June, 1963 to 10th
\nJune, 1968.  While on  leave, on  14th November,  1964,\t the
\nrespondent  sought   pre-mature\t retirement.  The  Board  of
\nRevenue informed  the respondent.  that the govt. servant in
\nsuperior service  governed by  old  pension  rules  had\t the
\noption to  retire from\tservice only  after completion of 25
\nyears of qualified service. While sanctioning the last spell
\nof extension  of leave\tfrom 1st January, 1968 to 10th June,
\n1968, the  Board of  Revenue informed the respondent that he
\nwould cease  to be a government servant from 11th June, 1968
\nas per\tRule 29\t of the\t Hyderabad Civil  Service Rules (for
\nshort `Rules’) according to which a government servant after
\nfive years of continuous absence from duty elsewhere than on
\nforeign service\t ceases to  be a government servant. Despite
\nsuch communication,  the respondent did not join the service
\non 11th\t June, 1968 but sought permission on 19th June, 1968
\nto serve  in a\tprivate company started by him and his wife.
\nAccording to  the appellants,  the respondent  thus had\t not
\nonly violated  Rule 29\tof the Rules by remaining absent for
\nmore than  five years  but also contravened Rules 10, 11 and
\n12 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964.
\nIn the\tmeantime, the  Government of  Andhra Pradesh on 28th
\nAugust, 1968 appointed the Secretary to the Board of Revenue
\nas  enquiry  officer  under  Rule  19(2)(a)  of\t A.P.  Civil
\nServices (Classification,  Control and\tAppeal) Rules, 1963.
\nOn November  24, 1970,\ta charge  sheet came to be served on
\nthe respondent.\t The respondent\t submitted his reply on 28th
\nDecember, 1970\tbut did\t not ask  for any  oral inquiry.  On
\nperusal\t of   the  reply,   the\t Authority  found  that\t the
\nexplanation given  by the  respondent was  not\tsatisfactory
\nand, therefore, on 31st March, 1972, a show cause notice was
\nissued\tto   him  (respondent)\t indicating   the   proposed
\npunishment of  removal from  service. Vide  order dated 23rd
\nSeptember, 1977, the respondent was removed from service. By
\nanother order  dated 13th December, 1977, the period between
\n11th June, 1968 to 23rd September, 1977 was treated as `dies
\nnon.’ It  is relevant  to mention  that till  the  order  of
\nremoval from  the service was made, the respondent continued
\nto  remain   absent.   In   1978,   the\t  respondent   filed
\nrepresentation\tpetition   against  the\t orders\t dated\t23rd
\nSeptember, 1977\t and 13th  December, 1977  before the Andhra
\nPradesh Administrative\tTribunal. After hearing the parties,
\nthe A.P.Administrative\tTribunal vide  its order  dated June
\n10,  1984   dismissed  the   representation  petition.\t The
\nrespondent  thereafter\tfiled  review  representation  Misc.
\nPetition No.  322 of 1984 before the said Tribunal. The A.P.
\nAdministrative Tribunal\t after hearing the review petitioner
\nand the\t respondent vide its order date 7th August, 1984 set
\naside the  order of removal of the respondent passed on 23rd
\nSeptember, 1977 though upheld the order dated 13th December,
\n1977 on\t the ground  that prior\t to the issue of order dated
\n23rd  September,   1977,  the\tAndhra\t Pradesh   Vigilance
\nCommission was\tnot consulted  by the Government as required
\nby  the\t then  existing\t Rule  4(2)  of\t A.P.Civil  Services
\n(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules.\n<\/p>\n
4.   From the  record, it  is found  that the  Government of
\nAndhra Pradesh\ton 31st\t October, 1984\tissued G.O.M.S.\t No.
\n1618 whereby  it annulled  the orders  of the Tribunal dated
\nAugust\t7,   1984  passed  in  review  representation  Misc.
\nPetition No.  322 of  1984. This  order was  issued  by\t the
\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of its powers under
\nArticle 371-D(5)  of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by
\nthe order  dated 31st  October, 1984,  the respondent  filed
\nwrit petition  in the  High Court  of Andhra Pradesh and the
\nHigh Court  vide its  order date 12th February, 1987 relying
\nupon the  decision of  this Court in P.Sambamurthy Vs. State
\nof  Andhra  Pradesh,  1987(1)  APLJ  13,  allowed  the\twrit
\npetition and  set aside\t the order  dated 31st October, 1984
\npassed by  the Government  of Andhra Pradesh. The Government
\nof Andhra  Pradesh feeling  aggrieved by the order passed by
\nthe Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on August 7, 1984
\nhas  filed   this  appeal   challenging\t the   legality\t and
\ncorrectness thereof.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  Andhra   Pradesh  Administrative   Tribunal  after
\nconsidering  to\t  Rule\t2(b)  of  the  A.P.  Civil  Services
\n(Disciplinary Proceedings  Tribunal) Rules  (for short\t`DPT
\nRules’)\t  which\t   defines   the    “misconduct”   and\t  on
\nreconsideration of  Rule 4  opined that the charges levelled
\nagainst the  respondent relate\tto the misconduct as defined
\nunder Rule  2(b) ibid  and since  the Government  of  Andhra
\nPradesh under sub rule (2) of Rules 4, as it then stood, did
\nnot consult  the Andhra\t Pradesh Vigilance Commission before
\npassing the  order of  removal on  23rd September, 1977, the
\nsaid order  is rendered illegal. However, the Andhra Pradesh
\nAdministrative Tribunal did not disturb the order dated 13th
\nDecember, 1977\tas regards  treating the period between 11th
\nJune, 1968  to 23rd  September, 1977 as “dies non.” The only
\nquestion, therefore,  that falls for our consideration is as
\nto whether  Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was right
\nin setting  aside the  order of\t removal of  the  respondent
\npassed on  23rd September,  1977 solely\t on the\t ground that
\nbefore passing\tthis order, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
\ndid not\t consult  the  Vigilance  Commission.  In  order  to
\nappreciate  the\t  rival\t contentions,  it  is  necessary  to
\nreproduce Rule 4 of DPT Rules which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “4.(1)    In every case referred to
\n     in sub-rule  (1) or  (2) of rule 3,
\n     on completion of investigation, the
\n     anti corruption department or other
\n     departmental  authority   concerned
\n     shall submit  a report  of the case
\n     to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  The  Government   shall  after
\n     examining such  records  and  after
\n     consulting the  Heads of Department
\n     concerned,\t if   necessary,  decide
\n     whether the  case shall be tried in
\n     a court  of law of inquired into by
\n     the   Tribunal    or   departmental
\n     authority.\t But   before  taking  a
\n     decision,\tthe   Government   shall
\n     consult\tthe    Andhra\t Pradesh
\n     Vigilance Commission.<\/p>\n
     (3)  If the  Government decide that
\n     the case  shall be inquired into by
\n     the Tribunal,  they shall\tsend the
\n     records   relating\t   thereto   the
\n     Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)  In any  case where the Head of
\n     the Department is not consulted, he
\n     shall be  informed\t of  the  action
\n     that is being taken.\n<\/p>\n
     (5)  There shall  be a  Director of
\n     Prosecutions and as many Additional
\n     Directors of Prosecutions as may be
\n     considered\t necessary   to\t conduct
\n     enquiries\t on    behalf\tof   the
\n     Government\t in  disciplinary  cases
\n     before the Tribunal and the accused
\n     officer concerned\tshall be allowed
\n     to be  represented by  counsel.  In
\n     case   where    the   Director   of
\n     Prosecutions   or\t  any\tof   the
\n     Additional Directors of Prosecution
\n     cannot attend  to\texaminations  of
\n     witnesses on commission, and ad-hoc
\n     Director of  Prosecutions shall  be
\n     appointed. (As  per G.O.Ms. No. 109<\/span>
\n     (Ser.D) 25-2-1969.”\n<\/p>\n
6.   Rule 2(b) of DPT Rules defines the “misconduct”:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Misconduct” shall\t have  the  same
\n     meaning  as   criminal   misconduct
\n     under   Section\t5(1)   of    the
\n     Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1947
\n     (Central Act  II of 1947) and shall
\n     include any  attempt to  commit any
\n     offence referred  to in  clause (c)
\n     or clause\t(d) of\tthat section and
\n     any “wilful  contravention\t of  the
\n     rules made\t under\tthe  proviso  to
\n     Article  309   of\tthe  of\t persons
\n     appointed\tservices  and  posts  in
\n     connection with  the affairs of the
\n     State.” (\tG.O.Ms. No.  1026,  G.A.
\n     (Ser-D), dated 16-2-1969.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.   Admittedly, the  respondent had  remained\tabsent\tfrom
\nduty for  more than  five years\t commencing from  10th June,
\n1968 till  the order  of removal  was made  on September 23,
\n1977. His  absence from duty, therefore, would be covered by
\nthe definition of misconduct under Rule 2(b) of DPT Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for the appellants urged that Rule 4(1)
\nand (2) of DPT Rules have no application in the present case
\nbecause no  vigilance investigation was ever directed by the
\nGovernment  of\t Andhra\t  Pradesh,   Vigilance\t Commission.
\nAlternatively, it  was submitted  that assuming\t that clause
\n(2) of\tRule 4\tof DPT Rules applies in the present case yet
\nthe same is not mandatory and, therefore, no consultation by
\nthe Government\twith the Andhra Pradesh Vigilance Commission
\nwould not  render  the\torder  dated  23rd  September,\t1977
\nillegal. A  somewhat similar question fell for consideration
\nbefore the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P.
\nVs. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, 1958 SCR 533. In this reported
\ndecision, a  penalty of\t reduction in  rank was made without
\nconsulting the\tPublic Service\tCommission. An\targument was
\nraised that  under Article  320(3)(c) of the Constitution of
\nIndia, it  was obligatory  to  consult\tthe  Public  Service
\nCommission before  any adverse\torder was  made against\t the
\npublic servant.\t This Court  while construing the provisions
\nof Articles 311 and 320 (3)(c) of the Constitution held that
\nthe provisions\tof Article  320(3)(c) relating\tto the prior
\nconsultation with  the Public  Service\tCommission  are\t not
\nmandatory and  that non\t compliance thereof  does not afford
\ncause of  action to  the respondent  (public servant)  in  a
\ncourt of law. This Court observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “An examination  of  the  terms  of
\n     Article 320  shows\t that  the  word
\n     “Shall”  appears  in  almost  every
\n     paragraph and  every clause or sub-
\n     clause of\tthat article. If it were
\n     held that the provisions of Article
\n     320(3)(c) are  mandatory in  terms,
\n     the other clauses or sub-clauses of
\n     that  article   will  have\t  to  be
\n     equally held  to be  mandatory.  If
\n     they are  so held, any appointments
\n     made to  the public services of the
\n     Union or a State, without observing
\n     strictly the  terms of   these sub-
\n     clauses in\t clauses (3)  of Article
\n     320,  would  adversely  affect  the
\n     person so appointed to a public ser
\n     vice, without any fault on his part
\n     and without  his having  any say in
\n     the matter.  This result  could not
\n     have  been\t  contemplated\tby   the
\n     makers of\tthe Constitution. Hence,
\n     the use  of the  word “shall”  in a
\n     statute, though  generally taken in
\n     a\t mandatory   sense,   does   not
\n     necessarily man  that in every case
\n     it shall  have that effect, that is
\n     to say,  that unless  the words  of
\n     the   statute   are   punctiliously
\n     followed, the  proceeding,\t or  the
\n     outcome of the proceeding, would be
\n     invalid. On  the other  hand, it is
\n     not  always  correct  to  say  that
\n     where the word “may” has been used,
\n     the statute  is only  permissive or
\n     directly in  the  sense  that  non-
\n     compliance\t with  those  provisions
\n     will  not\t render\t the  proceeding
\n     invalid.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.   The relevant  portion of  clause (2)  of Rule  4 of DPT
\nRules reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “4(2)-\t  ……………….But
\n     before  taking   a\t decision,   the
\n     Government shall consult the Andhra
\n     Pradesh Vigilance Commission.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   The phraseology  used in  Article 320(3)(c)  is similar
\nand reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
     “The    Union     Public\t Service
\n     Commission\t or   the  State  Public
\n     Service Commission, as the case may
\n     be, shall be consulted.”\n<\/p>\n
10.  The word  “shall” appearing in clause (2) of Rule 4 set
\nout  herein   above,  therefore,  in  our  opinion,  is\t not
\nmandatory and  consequently non consultation with the Andhra
\nPradesh Vigilance  Commission would  not render the order of
\nremoval of  the respondent  passed on  23rd September,\t1977
\nillegal.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Mr.  H.S.Gururaja\t Rao,  the  Learned  Senior  Counsel
\nappearing for  the respondent  relied upon  the Judgment  of
\nthis Court  in Deokinandan  Prasad Vs.\tState of  Bihar 1971
\n(Suppl.) S.C.R.\t 634 to\t contend that  the word\t “shall”  in
\nclause (2)  of Rule  4 of the DPT Rules must be construed as
\nmandatory and  non observance thereof would render the order
\ndated 23rd  September, 1977 illegal. After going through the
\njudgment, we  are unable  to accept the contention raised on
\nbehalf of  the\trespondent.  He\t then  relied  upon  another
\ndecision of this Court in Jai Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan
\n1966(1) SCR  825. It  was a  case  where  Regulation  13  of
\nJodhpur Service\t Regulations was not questioned. it provided
\nfor automatic  termination of  service on  account  of\tover
\nstaying the  leave  period  for\t more  than  one  moth.\t The
\nquestion  raised   before  the\t Court\twas   whether\tsuch
\ntermination attracts  Article 311  and answer  given by this
\nCourt is  in the  affirmative. The  facts of  this  reported
\ndecision are quite distinguishable and has no application to
\nthe facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
12.  For the  foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set
\naside the  order dated\tAugust 7,  1984 passed by the Andhra
\nPradesh Administrative Tribunal. In the circumstances, there
\nwill be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 Author: S Kurdukar Bench: J.S. Verma, S.P. Kurdukar PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: DR. RAHIMUDDIN KAMAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/02\/1997 BENCH: J.S. VERMA, S.P. KURDUKAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-33626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-07T17:53:06+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T17:53:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2096,\"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\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-07T17:53:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - 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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-07T17:53:06+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T17:53:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997"},"wordCount":2096,"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\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-07T17:53:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-anr-vs-dr-rahimuddin-kamal-on-7-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Dr. Rahimuddin Kamal on 7 February, 1997"}]},{"@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\/33626","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=33626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33626\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}