{"id":33752,"date":"2002-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002"},"modified":"2019-03-17T11:44:38","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T06:14:38","slug":"m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 560<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A D Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Anil Dev Singh, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal the appellant challenges the order of the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge dated May 1, 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6717\/99. By that<br \/>\norder the learned Single Judge declined to issue direction to the respondents to<br \/>\nreimburse the medical claim of the appellant in connection with his coronary bypass<br \/>\nsurgery at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, and consequently dismissed the<br \/>\nwrit petition. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The appellant is employed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the senior<br \/>\nscale at Dau Dayal Arya Vedic Senior Secondary School, Naya Bans, Delhi. The<br \/>\nschool is an aided school within the meaning of Delhi School Education Act, 1973.<br \/>\nOn September 17, 1996, the appellant was diagnosed by the G.B. Pant Hospital,<br \/>\nDepartment of Cardiology, New Delhi, as a case of tipple vessel disease (TVD).<br \/>\nAfter the test, on September 19, 1996 he was discharged from the G.B. Pant Hospital<br \/>\nas his condition was found to be stable. The discharge summary of the appellant<br \/>\nprepared by the hospital, inter alia, revealed as follows-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;xx xx xx  <\/p>\n<p> Provisional CAG Report AO 146\/80 LVEDP\/  <\/p>\n<p> LM Osteal 50-60% Stenosis  <\/p>\n<p> LAD Proximal 75% Distal 90% Stenosis  <\/p>\n<p> Lex After XM 100% Block  <\/p>\n<p> RAC Dominent mild Plaquing in mid RCA  <\/p>\n<p> LV Angio Normal Contraclity  <\/p>\n<p> Condition of Discharge STABLE&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. As per the investigation report of the aforesaid hospital, early surgical<br \/>\nrevescularisation was recommended. It is claimed in the writ petition that after a<br \/>\nfortnight of his check up at G.B. Pant Hospital the condition of the appellant<br \/>\ndeteriorated which necessitated a detailed medical check up. He is stated to have<br \/>\nbeen examined by one Dr. M.B. Gupta on October 5, 1996, and Dr. R.C. Bhatia of<br \/>\nSwami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, on October 9, 1996. According to the<br \/>\nappellant, Dr. Bhatia advised immediate coronary bypass surgery. The appellant is<br \/>\nstated to have made an attempt for seeking an early date for his operation at the All<br \/>\nIndia Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), but he did not succeed. On October 14,<br \/>\n1996, he was rushed to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital by his relatives. The doctors at<br \/>\nthe Indraprastha Apollo Hospital admitted the appellant as an indoor patient on<br \/>\nOctober 14, 1996 as if was found that he needed an early surgery for his ailment. On<br \/>\nOctober 17, 1996 the appellant was operated upon at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital<br \/>\nfor coronary artery bypass grafting. After the operation the appellant was kept in the<br \/>\naforesaid hospital for post operative care for about eight days.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. On October 25, 1996 the appellant was discharged from the<br \/>\nIndraprastha Apollo Hospital. The total expenses for the treatment and operation at<br \/>\nIndraprastha Apollo Hospital including bills for medicines came to Rs. 1,30,238.90<br \/>\nwhich the appellant paid. On January 11, 1997, the appellant asked the respondent<br \/>\nfor reimbursement of expenses incurred by him in connection with his operation and<br \/>\ntreatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. On July 27, 1997, the bills were returned<br \/>\nto the appellant without any action being taken in regard thereto by Department of<br \/>\nEducation, Government of NCT of Delhi. The appellant again submitted the bills to<br \/>\nthe Education Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi on July 29, 1997. The<br \/>\nDepartment of Education rejected the claim of the appellant for reimbursement on<br \/>\nAugust, 9, 1998. The decision was communicated by the Department of Education to<br \/>\nDau Dayal Arya Vedik Senior Secondary School, which in turn transmitted the<br \/>\naforesaid decision to the appellant on August 27, 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. On September 21, 1999 the appellant sent legal notices to the second<br \/>\nrespondent-Director of Education, the third respondent-Deputy Director of Education<br \/>\n(North), and the fourth respondent-Chairman\/Manager, Dau Dayal Arya Vedic Senior<br \/>\nSecondary School, asking them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,30,238.90, being the<br \/>\nexpenditure incurred by the appellant on his treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.<br \/>\nThe respondents did not respond to the legal notices sent on behalf of the appellant as<br \/>\na result thereof he filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 6717\/99. The learned Single<br \/>\nJudge, inter alia, came to the conclusion that Indraprastha Apollo Hospital was not a<br \/>\nhospital recognised by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for treatment of C.G.H.S.<br \/>\nbeneficiaries for coronary bypass surgery, and consequently rejected the writ petition<br \/>\nand claim of the appellant for reimbursement of the amount spend by him on his<br \/>\ntreatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant letters patent<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. It was<br \/>\nvehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Indraprastha Apollo<br \/>\nHospital has been accorded recognition for specialised and general purpose treatment<br \/>\nand diagnostic procedure for the C.G.H.S. beneficiaries, and since the appellant was<br \/>\na C.G.H.S. beneficiary he was entitled for being treated at Indraprastha Apollo<br \/>\nHospital. The learned counsel also contended that the appellant was taken to the<br \/>\nIndraprastha Apollo Hospital on October 14, 1996 by his relatives in view of the<br \/>\nmedical emergency which arose due to his recurrent chest pain and dysponea and in<br \/>\nview of the fact that he was advised immediate operation. It may be recalled that the<br \/>\nAIIMS did not give an early date for operation to the appellant and in the<br \/>\ncircumstances the appellant had to be rushed to the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for<br \/>\nimmediate treatment. It was also canvassed that the appellant has a fundamental<br \/>\nright under Article 21 of the Constitution of self preservation and he was entitled to<br \/>\ntake treatment at a hospital in which he had full faith and confidence.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the<br \/>\nfollowing three private hospitals were recognised for securing coronary bypass<br \/>\nsurgery in the case of C.G.H.S. beneficiaries in Delhi:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 1. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Escorts Health Institute and Research Centre.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. National Heart Institute and Research Centre.\n<\/p>\n<p> He also submitted that the persons covered by the Central Services (Medical<br \/>\nAttendance) Rules can get themselves treated for TVD at the following government<br \/>\nhospitals:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 1. Willingdon Hospital, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. In so far as the AIIMs is concerned it was submitted that the same was a<br \/>\nreferral hospital and in the event of the appellant not wanting his surgery to be<br \/>\nperformed at G.B. Pant Hospital, etc., he could have got his case referred to the<br \/>\nperformed at G.B. Pant Hospital, etc., he could have got his case referred to the<br \/>\nAIIMS or any of the aforesaid three private hospitals. It was also submitted that<br \/>\nthere was no emergency, which necessitated immediate admission of the appellant to<br \/>\nthe Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. It was argued by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents that since the appellant was treated at a hospital which was not<br \/>\nrecognised for the treatment of TVD, the appellant cannot claim reimbursement of the<br \/>\namount spent by him for coronary bypass surgery and the claim was rightly declined<br \/>\nby the Government of NCT of Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties. It appears to us that there was no need for long drawn arguments in the case<br \/>\nsince the solution of the matter is a simple one.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant could have got himself<br \/>\ntreated at any of the three private hospitals, namely, Batra Hospital &amp; Medical<br \/>\nResearch Centre, Escorts Health Institute and Research Centre, and National Heart<br \/>\nInstitute and Research Centre. It was also not disputed that in case the appellant<br \/>\nwould have got the surgery performed at any of the aforesaid three hospitals, he<br \/>\nwould have been reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him for his treatment.<br \/>\nThis being so, it appears to us that the respondents should have been concerned only<br \/>\nwith the fact whether or not the appellant got himself operated upon and whether or<br \/>\nnot he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,30,238.90 on his treatment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the appellant was admitted<br \/>\nin the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for coronary bypass surgery and he paid a sum of<br \/>\nRs. 1,30,238.90 for the operation and medicines. According to the respondents, the<br \/>\nappellant could have availed of the facilities at Batra Hospital &amp; Medical Research<br \/>\nCentre, Escorts Health Institute and Research Centre, and National Heart Institute<br \/>\nand Research Centre for his coronary bypass surgery. Keeping that in view the<br \/>\nrespondents could have reimbursed the appellant to the extent of allowable expenses<br \/>\nfor coronary bypass surgery at any of the aforesaid three hospitals. This seems to be<br \/>\na reasonable view as once put into action it will not impose any extra financial<br \/>\nburden on the Government of NCT of Delhi, and at the same time it will remove the<br \/>\nhardship of the appellant who actually underwent coronary bypass surgery at<br \/>\nIndraprastha Apollo Hospital to save and preserve his life.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. We may also note that it is not claimed by the respondents that the Govt.<br \/>\nof NCT of Delhi is holding any shares or financial interests in any of the hospitals,<br \/>\nnamely, Batra Hospital &amp; Medical Research Centre, Escorts Health Institute and<br \/>\nResearch Centre, and National Heart Institute and Research Centre. As against this,<br \/>\nit is not disputed that the Government of NCT of Delhi is a major shareholder in the<br \/>\nIndraprastha Apollo Hospital. Therefore, we fail to appreciate as to why the<br \/>\nGovernment of NCT of Delhi declined the claim of the appellant when he took<br \/>\ntreatment in the hospital in which the Government of NCT of Delhi has a share and a<br \/>\nabiding financial interest.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. That apart, our attention has been drawn to the Government of India,<br \/>\nMinistry of Health and Family Welfare, O.M. No. S11011\/16\/94-CGHS\/Desk-II\/CMO(D)\/CGHS(P),<br \/>\ndated September 18, 1996. This O.M. contains a list of<br \/>\nrecognised private hospitals\/diagnostic centres under C.G.H.S. in Delhi for<br \/>\nspecialised and general purpose treatment and diagnostic procedure. This OM was<br \/>\nin operation when the appellant was operated upon on October 17, 1996. As already<br \/>\nnoted, as per the stand of the Government of NCT of Delhi, Batra Hospital and<br \/>\nMedical Research Centre, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, and National<br \/>\nHeart Institute and Research Centre are the ones recognised for coronary bypass<br \/>\nsurgery. At this stage, it will be appropriate to quote from the aforesaid O.M. to the<br \/>\nextent it has a bearing on the subject in question:-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;xx xx xx  <\/p>\n<p> Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Both specialized and General purpose treatment and diagnostic<br \/>\nprocedure except MRI, Lithotripsy and Transplantation.\n<\/p>\n<p> xx xx xx  <\/p>\n<p> 18. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Specialized and General purpose treatment and diagnostic<br \/>\nprocedures.\n<\/p>\n<p> xx xx xx   <\/p>\n<p> 23. Escorts Heart Institute &amp; Research Centre:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  Cardiology, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery.\n<\/p>\n<p> 24. National Hearth Institute &amp; Research Centre:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  Cardiology, Cardiothoracic and Vascular Survey.\n<\/p>\n<p> xx xx xx&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. According to the O.M., both Batra Hospital and Medical Research<br \/>\nCentre and Indraprastha Apollo Hospital are recognised for specialised and general<br \/>\npurpose treatment. While in the case of Batra Hospital and Medical Research<br \/>\nCentre it is the stand of the respondents that it is recognised for the purpose of<br \/>\ncoronary bypass surgery, in the case of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital it is stated that it<br \/>\nis not so recognised for the said procedure. We do not appreciate this distinction. In<br \/>\ncase the stand of the Government of NCT of Delhi that Batra Hospital and Medical<br \/>\nResearch Centre has been accorded recognition for treatment of CGHS beneficiaries<br \/>\nfor coronary diseases, on the same analogy it has to be held that the CGHS<br \/>\nbeneficiaries are entitled for treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for coronary<br \/>\ndiseases as well since both the hospitals are recognised  for specialised and general<br \/>\npurpose treatment. If in the case of Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre<br \/>\nspecialised and general purpose treatment includes &#8216;coronary bypass surgery&#8217;, there is<br \/>\nno reason why the same expression when used for Indraprastha Apollo Hospital<br \/>\nshould not be given the same meaning.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the appellant is<br \/>\nentitled to reimbursement on account of money spent by him for coronary bypass<br \/>\nsurgery and medicines at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, to the extent<br \/>\nof the expenses which he would have incurred for similar treatment at the Escorts<br \/>\nHeart Institute and Research Centre not exceeding Rs. 1,30,238.90. We order<br \/>\naccordingly. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge is set aside.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2003 (66) DRJ 560 Author: A D Singh Bench: A D Singh, R Sodhi JUDGMENT Anil Dev Singh, J. 1. By this Letters Patent Appeal the appellant challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated May 1, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-33752","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T06:14:38+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=\"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-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T06:14:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2098,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\",\"name\":\"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T06:14:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T06:14:38+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T06:14:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002"},"wordCount":2098,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002","name":"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of ... on 27 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T06:14:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-kamra-vs-lt-governor-director-of-on-27-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.L. Kamra vs Lt. Governor, Director Of &#8230; on 27 November, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/33752","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=33752"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33752\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}