{"id":33702,"date":"2010-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-07T16:21:38","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T10:51:38","slug":"district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n              MJC No.119 of 2007\n             HARI NATH PANDIT .\n                    Versus\n              STATE OF BIHAR .\n                     with\n              MJC No.120 of 2007\n            AJAY KUMAR SINGH .\n                    Versus\n           STATE OF BIHAR & ANR .\n                     with\n              MJC No.121 of 2007\n          PRADEEP KUMAR BHARTI .\n                    Versus\n           STATE OF BIHAR & ANR .\n                     with\n              MJC No.122 of 2007\n          SHYAM SUNDER TIWARY .\n                    Versus\n           STATE OF BIHAR & ANR .\n                     with\n              MJC No.123 of 2007\n              BRAJESH KUMAR .\n                    Versus\n              STATE OF BIHAR .\n                     with\n            C. REV. No.180 of 2009\n      DISTRICT COLLECTOR,SHEOHAR .\n                    Versus\n       SHYAM SUNDER TIWARY & ORS .\n                     with\n            C. REV. No.181 of 2009\n      DISTRICT COLLECTOR,SHEOHAR .\n                    Versus\n         AJAY KUMAR SINGH & ORS .\n                     with\n            C. REV. No.182 of 2009\n      DISTRICT COLLECOTR,SHEOHAR .\n                    Versus\n         HARI NATH PANDIT & ORS .\n                     with\n            C. REV. No.183 of 2009\n      DISTRICT COLLECTOR,SHEOHAR .\n                    Versus\n                                       2\n\n\n\n\n                   PRADEEP KUMAR BHARATI & ORS .\n                                  with\n                         C. REV. No.184 of 2009\n                    DISTRICT COLLECTOR,SHEOHAR .\n                                 Versus\n                        BRAJESH KUMAR & ORS .\n                                         -----------\n<\/pre>\n
            For the Petitioners:- Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate
\n            For Opposite party No.2:- Mr. Rajiv Roy,Advocate
\n            For Opp-party Nos. 1,3 and 4:- Mr. Gautam Kr. Yadav
\n                                           Asst. To SC IV<\/p>\n
17   15 .09.2010               Applications for initiating proceedings<\/p>\n
                    of   contempt     against    the    Opposite    parties,<\/p>\n
                    specially the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,<\/p>\n
                    Sheohar were filed by the petitioners for his<\/p>\n
                    willful, conscious, violation and non-compliance<\/p>\n
                    of the order dated 17.10.2006 passed in CWJC<\/p>\n
                    No. 12350 of 2004 heard analogous with CWJC<\/p>\n
                    No. 12349 of 2004, CWJC No.12257 of 2004,<\/p>\n
                    CWJC No. 12312 & CWJC No. 12346 of 2004.<\/p>\n
                                The writ applications have been filed<\/p>\n
                    by   the   petitioners    for   a   direction   to   the<\/p>\n
                    respondents to initiate selection process for<\/p>\n
                    appointment of village level worker (VLW)\/<\/p>\n
                    Village Extension Worker (VEW) in the district<\/p>\n
                    of Sheohar. Prayer of the petitioners was to
\n                3<\/span><\/p>\n
consider their candidatures in terms of the<\/p>\n
observations\/directions passed in CWJC No.<\/p>\n
2425 of 1998 disposed off        by order dated<\/p>\n
2.9.1998 and finally affirmed by orders passed<\/p>\n
in LPA No. 1555 of 1999 and LPA No. 767 of<\/p>\n
2001. The writ applications were filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners, since, despite existing vacancies in<\/p>\n
the district of Sheohar on the post of V.L.Ws<\/p>\n
and V.E.Ws process for appointment was not<\/p>\n
being initiated, despite specific direction of this<\/p>\n
Court, simply on the ground that the Bihar Jan<\/p>\n
Sewak & Gramin Prasar Karya Karta ( Bharti<\/p>\n
Aivam Sewa Shartein) Niyamawali, 1987 has<\/p>\n
been amended. In the writ applications the<\/p>\n
respondent District Magistrate had filed counter<\/p>\n
affidavit admitting the vacancies on the post of<\/p>\n
V.L.Ws and V.E.Ws in the district of the<\/p>\n
Sheohar. As per the statement in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, existing vacancies of VLW was 24 and<\/p>\n
vacancy for the post of VEW was 27. The<\/p>\n
superior authorities of the State also admitted
\n               4<\/span><\/p>\n
the position of vacancies in the district of<\/p>\n
Sheohar. The writ applications were disposed of<\/p>\n
as the counsel appearing for the State made a<\/p>\n
submission that vacancies have already been<\/p>\n
identified and the process of appointment has<\/p>\n
been initiated. Considering this submission the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate, Sheohar was directed to<\/p>\n
advertise posts inviting applications against<\/p>\n
existing vacancies by Ist week of November,<\/p>\n
2006 and complete all process of appointment<\/p>\n
including issuance of appointment letters by<\/p>\n
31st of January, 2007. Since nothing was done<\/p>\n
despite the expiry of the time schedule as per<\/p>\n
the direction of the High Court and no process<\/p>\n
of appointment was initiated, as such contempt<\/p>\n
applications were filed in the year 2007 for<\/p>\n
initiating proceeding of contempt against the<\/p>\n
Opposite parties- contemnors.\n<\/p>\n
               In the first show cause filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector,<\/p>\n
Sheohar, it is clearly stated that for complying
\n                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the direction of this Court he sought for<\/p>\n
direction from the Secretary, Department of<\/p>\n
Personnel        and        Administrative         Reforms,<\/p>\n
Government        of    Bihar,       Patna    about        the<\/p>\n
procedure      for     appointment.          The    District<\/p>\n
Magistrate,      Sheohar         again   sought      for     a<\/p>\n
direction from the Secretary, Department of<\/p>\n
Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of<\/p>\n
Bihar, Patna as he received letter No.1587\/Aa<\/p>\n
dated 20.12.2006 from the Joint Secretary,<\/p>\n
Bihar Staff Selection Commission for reporting<\/p>\n
the vacancies of V.L.Ws. and V.E.Ws.                       The<\/p>\n
stand taken by the District Magistrate, Sheohar<\/p>\n
was     that   since    the      Bihar   Staff     Selection<\/p>\n
Commission had already initiated the process of<\/p>\n
appointment of V.L.W. and V.E.W. on account<\/p>\n
of amendment in the              Jan Sevak Recruitment<\/p>\n
Rules     1987       vide   letter    no.    6864     dated<\/p>\n
14.7.2006      issued       by     the   Personnel      and<\/p>\n
Administrative Reforms Department, as such<\/p>\n
the District Magistrate was not empowered to
\n                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
make       selection          or     appointment.          The<\/p>\n
appointment could have been made only by the<\/p>\n
Bihar Staff Selection Commission; as such the<\/p>\n
vacancies were reported to the Staff Selection<\/p>\n
Commission         for      initiating   the    process      of<\/p>\n
selection.\n<\/p>\n
             All     writ     applications          had    been\n\ndisposed     off    vide     order    dated     17.10.2006,\n\n<\/pre>\n
subsequent to the amendment brought in the<\/p>\n
appointment process, as stated in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, but this fact was never brought to the<\/p>\n
notice of the Court by filing any counter<\/p>\n
affidavit during the pendency of the writ<\/p>\n
application,       or    after     disposal    of    the   writ<\/p>\n
application any modification application had<\/p>\n
been   filed       by      the     respondent\/State         for<\/p>\n
modification of the order dated 17.10.2006.<\/p>\n
What is surprising that District Magistrate was<\/p>\n
seeking direction from Secretary Department of<\/p>\n
Personnel      and       Administrative        Reforms,     for<\/p>\n
complying the direction of the High Court and
\n                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
did     not     think     it     proper     to     seek<\/p>\n
modification\/clarification from the High Court?<\/p>\n
Considering this fact the District Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Sheohar was directed to remain physically<\/p>\n
present in Court on 9.9.2009. Finding it to be a<\/p>\n
clear case of contempt, since till the date no<\/p>\n
process of appointment had been initiated. The<\/p>\n
District    Magistrate    on    his   appearance    on<\/p>\n
9.9.2009 has apprised the Court that process<\/p>\n
of    appointment       has    been   initiated     on<\/p>\n
17..7.2009 by publishing advertisement in the<\/p>\n
daily      newspaper      “Hindustan      Vernacular”<\/p>\n
language and there is all possibility that          by<\/p>\n
10th of November, 2009 entire selection process<\/p>\n
will be completed and the appointment letters<\/p>\n
will be issued to the selected candidates.<\/p>\n
        Subsequent to that the petitioners filed<\/p>\n
supplementary affidavit on 5.11.2009 stating<\/p>\n
that the District Magistrate, Sheohar has asked<\/p>\n
them to furnish the matriculation certificate<\/p>\n
within two days when they all are Agricultural
\n                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Graduates and as per the Rule the Agricultural<\/p>\n
Graduates can be directly appointed on the<\/p>\n
sanctioned\/vacant posts in case the vacancies<\/p>\n
are to be filled       and voluntarily they have<\/p>\n
applied for appointment on the post.               This<\/p>\n
supplementary       affidavit   was   filed   as    the<\/p>\n
petitioners were apprehensive of this fact that<\/p>\n
despite their eligibility the District Magistrate<\/p>\n
may play    some game and they may remain<\/p>\n
deprived of being selected for the post. The<\/p>\n
District Magistrate was again asked to submit<\/p>\n
show cause and in the supplementary show<\/p>\n
cause. The statement made by the Opposite<\/p>\n
party no.2 made it clear that apprehension of<\/p>\n
the petitioners was true and they were not<\/p>\n
selected for the post. The District Magistrate<\/p>\n
was asked to file supplementary show cause. In<\/p>\n
the supplementary show cause it was stated<\/p>\n
that the case of the writ petitioners were<\/p>\n
considered as per provisions laid down under<\/p>\n
Bihar Jan Sewak and Gramin Prasar Karya
\n                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
Karta (Bharti Avam Sewa Sharten) Niyamawali,<\/p>\n
1987. Since all these five petitioners had lesser<\/p>\n
marks    in    matriculation       than   the   selected<\/p>\n
candidates, which was the basic educational<\/p>\n
qualification for selection of the Jansevak, as<\/p>\n
such petitioners could not be selected for the<\/p>\n
post. This was nothing but simply an eye-wash<\/p>\n
and the petitioners by filing supplementary<\/p>\n
affidavit brought on record the letter of the<\/p>\n
Deputy        Secretary      to    the     Government<\/p>\n
Department       of   Agriculture         contained   in<\/p>\n
circular no. 415 dated 6.4.1988 addressed to all<\/p>\n
District Magistrates and          Deputy Development<\/p>\n
commissioners. This letter contained direction<\/p>\n
to be followed in the matters of appointment on<\/p>\n
the post of V.L.W. and V.E.W. and the village<\/p>\n
Extension       worker,      in    case    Agricultural<\/p>\n
Graduates have also applied for the post. This<\/p>\n
letter   indicated        that    candidates     having<\/p>\n
agriculture       degree          from      Agricultural<\/p>\n
Universities, who are residents of Bihar, can be
\n                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
appointed directly even without appearing in<\/p>\n
the examination, if they fulfilled all other<\/p>\n
requisite    criteria.    The     petitioners     are<\/p>\n
Agricultural Graduates but their cases were not<\/p>\n
considered on a frivolous ground that in the<\/p>\n
matriculation    examination    they   had      lesser<\/p>\n
marks than the selected candidates, ignoring<\/p>\n
this fact that all the petitioners had better<\/p>\n
qualification than the selected candidates, as<\/p>\n
they are Agricultural Graduate.\n<\/p>\n
                The District Magistrate, Sheohar<\/p>\n
thereafter filed another affidavit stating that<\/p>\n
Clause 2 of Rule 7 of the Rule 1987 prescribed<\/p>\n
for education qualification for appointment to<\/p>\n
the post of Jansewak and Village Extension<\/p>\n
Workers, according to which, the minimum<\/p>\n
educational qualification is matriculation or any<\/p>\n
equivalent      degree   from    the    recognized<\/p>\n
University\/ Board. Since this is the basic<\/p>\n
qualification, as such the candidates having<\/p>\n
higher marks in the matriculation were given
\n                11<\/span><\/p>\n
preference. It was also stated that an earlier<\/p>\n
circular bearing no. 415 dated 6.4.1988 issued<\/p>\n
under the signature of the Secretary to the<\/p>\n
Government     Agriculture    Department      was<\/p>\n
slightly modified vide circular no. 9133 dated<\/p>\n
6.8.1988,   whereby    only   those   Agricultural<\/p>\n
Graduates who have passed out from any<\/p>\n
Agricultural Universities of Bihar were to be<\/p>\n
given such preference. When this matter was<\/p>\n
verified from the Director, Agriculture there was<\/p>\n
no positive answer. In fact the affidavit filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of Director, Agriculture Bihar, Patna<\/p>\n
indicated that as per Niyamawali 1987 the<\/p>\n
Agriculture Director has no role to play in<\/p>\n
selection of VLWs and VEWs. As per the rule, it<\/p>\n
is the responsibility of District Magistrate and<\/p>\n
even in the writ application direction was also<\/p>\n
to the District Magistrate to complete the<\/p>\n
process for appointment within the stipulated<\/p>\n
time, as such it was the responsibility of the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate to comply the direction.
\n                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
Regarding Subsequent modified circular No.<\/p>\n
9133    dated      6.6.1988,         there   was     complete<\/p>\n
silence in the show cause filed by the Director.<\/p>\n
              Counsel for the petitioners submits<\/p>\n
that circular No. 9133 dated 6..8.1988 never<\/p>\n
came     in    existence,       despite      this    fact   the<\/p>\n
petitioners’ eligibility and qualification for the<\/p>\n
post of Jansevak and Village Extension Worker<\/p>\n
as    against      the       claim    of     other    suitable<\/p>\n
candidates was willfully ignored by the District<\/p>\n
Magistrate and the Members of the Selection<\/p>\n
Committee. Circular No. 415 dated 6.4.1988<\/p>\n
attaches superiority to the qualification of<\/p>\n
Agricultural Graduate,              which was ignored by<\/p>\n
the    Collector        as    head     of    the     Selection<\/p>\n
Committee. The Opposite party no.2, having full<\/p>\n
knowledge about the existing selection process<\/p>\n
and guidance to be followed, willfully disobeyed<\/p>\n
the    direction    of       High    Court     in    the    writ<\/p>\n
application. Non consideration of petitioners’<\/p>\n
candidature is an instance of willful non
\n                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
compliance of the direction of the High Court.<\/p>\n
        Entire circumstances of the case make it<\/p>\n
a case of contempt. The District Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Sheohar was adamant not to comply the<\/p>\n
direction of the Court, due to his personal<\/p>\n
vengeance, for the reason best known to him,<\/p>\n
as such he managed to ignore the candidature<\/p>\n
of petitioners. It has also been submitted by the<\/p>\n
petitioners’ counsel that on the basis of Circular<\/p>\n
no. 415 dated 6.4.1988 in all other district of<\/p>\n
Bihar    preference      have    been    given   to    the<\/p>\n
Agricultural Graduates in appointment to the<\/p>\n
post    of     VLW      and     VEW,     without      this<\/p>\n
consideration whether they have obtained their<\/p>\n
Agriculture degree from Agriculture Colleges of<\/p>\n
Bihar or elsewhere only consideration being<\/p>\n
that    they      are   agriculture     graduates     and<\/p>\n
residents of Bihar. It has also been submitted<\/p>\n
by the petitioners Counsel that in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit    of   the   writ    application   the     total<\/p>\n
vacancies on the post of VLW was 24 and on
\n                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
the post of VEW was 27 as disclosed by the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate, Sheohar, but only nine<\/p>\n
posts of VLW were advertised and the selection<\/p>\n
has been made only against 9 vacancies. This<\/p>\n
also shows willful disobedience of the direction<\/p>\n
of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
           I.A. No. 2338 of 2010 has been filed<\/p>\n
on behalf of nine selected candidates, for being<\/p>\n
impleded     as      Intervenors\/Opposite           party<\/p>\n
because    on     account    of     pendency   of    the<\/p>\n
contempt application all 9 selected candidates,<\/p>\n
who have already joined on their posts, have<\/p>\n
been terminated without following principle of<\/p>\n
natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
        On consideration of the entire facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, it is obvious that<\/p>\n
right from beginning the District Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Sheohar    has       shown        his   reluctance     in<\/p>\n
compliance of the direction of the Court. The<\/p>\n
writ applications were disposed off in the year<\/p>\n
2006. Till 2009 even the process for selection
\n                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
had not been initiated. Only when the District<\/p>\n
Magistrate was asked to appear personally in<\/p>\n
Court, then he initially tried to shift his<\/p>\n
responsibility          on         the     Staff      Selection<\/p>\n
Commission         in        the     name        of   amended<\/p>\n
appointment Rules. When he failed to succeed<\/p>\n
in it, then in September, 2009 for the first time<\/p>\n
he advertised vacancies of the posts. Total<\/p>\n
Vacancies which were disclosed in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit,   for    that       advertisement          was     not<\/p>\n
published but only for a fraction of the total<\/p>\n
vacancy      advertisement               was    published.     In<\/p>\n
violation of the Government’s own direction to<\/p>\n
give priority to the Agricultural Graduates for<\/p>\n
appointment on the post of VLW and VEW, in<\/p>\n
case they voluntarily applied for such posts, the<\/p>\n
District     Magistrate        taking          plea   of    basic<\/p>\n
qualification       being          matriculation,          denied<\/p>\n
appointment to agricultural graduates like,<\/p>\n
petitioners. There was no direction or any<\/p>\n
observation of this Court that the selected
\n                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
candidates should be terminated, but illegally<\/p>\n
selected candidates were terminated. All actions<\/p>\n
on the part of the District Magistrate, Sheohar<\/p>\n
is illegal and contemptuous.          It is true that<\/p>\n
there was no direction to issue appointment<\/p>\n
letters in favour of the petitioners, but there<\/p>\n
was   direction      to   advertise   vacancies      and<\/p>\n
complete process of selection as per rule, within<\/p>\n
schedule time. None of these directions were<\/p>\n
completed, properly and legally.<\/p>\n
           An opportunity is being given to the<\/p>\n
District    Magistrate,     Sheohar     to    advertise<\/p>\n
remaining      vacancies,      consider      cases    of<\/p>\n
petitioners and similarly situated persons for<\/p>\n
appointment in the light of 1987 Rules as well<\/p>\n
as letter No. 415 dated 6.4.1988. The remaining<\/p>\n
vacancies must be filled up within six months<\/p>\n
from the date of this order and a compliance<\/p>\n
report must be submitted before this Court.<\/p>\n
The counsel appearing for Opposite party no.2<\/p>\n
has submitted that in a contempt proceeding,
\n                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
         there is no scope for giving further direction but<\/p>\n
         that is not correct.\n<\/p>\n
                   Put up this matter again under the<\/p>\n
         same heading on 13th of March, 2011.<\/p>\n
                   So far the termination letter issued<\/p>\n
         against the selected candidates are concerned,<\/p>\n
         as informed, have already challenged               their<\/p>\n
         termination order by filing writ applications, as<\/p>\n
         such it will be decided on its own merits.<\/p>\n
                   The Civil Review applications filed by<\/p>\n
         the   Opposite        party   no.2   and   other    are<\/p>\n
         dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Akumar                                        ( Mridula Mishra, J.)\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.119 of 2007 HARI NATH PANDIT . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . with MJC No.120 of 2007 AJAY KUMAR SINGH . Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . with […]<\/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":[8,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nDistrict Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 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\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-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=\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-07T10:51:38+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T10:51:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2197,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court - Orders\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\",\"name\":\"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-07T10:51:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 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":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 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\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-07T10:51:38+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T10:51:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010"},"wordCount":2197,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court - Orders"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010","name":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-07T10:51:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/district-collectorsheohar-vs-shyam-sunder-tiwary-amp-ors-on-15-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"District Collector,Sheohar vs Shyam Sunder Tiwary &Amp; Ors on 15 September, 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\/33702","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=33702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}