{"id":35065,"date":"2011-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-11-12T21:24:43","modified_gmt":"2018-11-12T15:54:43","slug":"ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders<\/div>\n
Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011<\/div>\n
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA\n                            CWJC No.11971 of 2010\n          1. GANESH YADAV S\/O MAHIPAL YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          CHANDRAPURA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n                                 Versus\n          1. PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH S\/O SHRI PRAN MOHAN SINGH R\/O\n          VILL.- LASKARA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          2. GANESH YADAV S\/O MAHIPAL YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          CHANDRAPURA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          3. RAMCHANDRA YADAV S\/O BASUDEO YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          CHHATA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          4. RANJAN KUMAR S\/O RAMCHANDRA YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          CHHATA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          5. JAIPRAKASH BHAGAT S\/O RAMCHANDRA BHAGAT R\/O VILL.-\n          CHHATA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          6. KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH S\/O LATE SITARAM SINGH R\/O\n          VILL.- LASKARA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          7. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH S\/O SRI PRAN MOHAN SINGH R\/O\n          VILL.- LASKARA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          8. RAMTAHAL PRASAD SINGH S\/O LATE AMRIT MANDAL R\/O\n          VILL.- NONAJEE, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          9. KRISHNANAND YADAV S\/O LATE DAMODAR YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          BHANDAR, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          10. BISHUNDEO YADAV S\/O LATE BUDHU YADAV R\/O VILL.-\n          BHANDAR, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          11. ASHOK MANDAL S\/O LATE DEEPNARAYAN MANDAL R\/O\n          VILL.- BHALGURI, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          12. RAMDEO KUMAR BHARTI S\/O DINESH MANDAL R\/O VILL.-\n          BHALGURI, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER\n          13. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, MUNGER\n          14. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER,\n          MUNGER\n          15. S.D.O., KHARAGPUR\n          16. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TETIYA BUMBAR - CUM -\n          ELECTION OFFICER FOR PANCHAYAT ELECTION\n          17. AMRENDRA KUMAR AMAR ASSISTANT RETURNING OFFICER\n          FOR TETIYA BUMBER ANCHA\n\n\n          For the Petitioner:-  Mr.       Ranjan Kumar Jha &\n                                Mr.       Thakur Manish Mohan, Advocate\n          For Respondent No.1:- Mr.       Ashok Kumar Singh, Sr., Advocate &\n                                Mr.       Prakash Kumar, Advocat\n          For the State:-       Mr.       Sanjay Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I\n\n                                   -----------\n<\/pre>\n
05.   24.01.2011                 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
                    learned counsel for respondent no.1.\n<\/p>\n
                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
          The petitioner was the winning candidate in the<\/p>\n
Panchayat Election which was questioned by respondent<\/p>\n
no.1 in Miscellaneous Election Petition No. 12 of 2006<\/p>\n
upon 19 of 2009 before the Munsif-I, at Munger. By the<\/p>\n
judgment dated 17.7.2010, the learned Munsif holding<\/p>\n
that the respondent no.1\/Election petitioner had raised<\/p>\n
objections in writing under Rule 79 (1) of the Bihar<\/p>\n
Panchayat    Raj   Rules   2006    (hereinafter   called   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat Rule) with regard to the errors during counting<\/p>\n
of votes allowed the prayer for recounting of ballots.<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied<\/p>\n
upon the findings in the impugned order that the<\/p>\n
application under Rule 79 (1) was filed after the counting<\/p>\n
was over. He submit that the statutory requirement of<\/p>\n
filing such application during the counting was mandatory<\/p>\n
in absence of which the impugned order is unsustainable.<\/p>\n
He next submits that even in the application preferred<\/p>\n
under Rule 79 (1), if it could have been entertained after<\/p>\n
counting was over, no grounds have been spelt out for<\/p>\n
invocation for this extraordinary power interfering with the<\/p>\n
secrecy of the ballot.\n<\/p>\n
          Leaned counsel for respondent no.1 strongly<\/p>\n
relied upon a decision reported in 2008 (4) P.L.J.R. 62 (SC)<\/p>\n
(Hosila Tiwari Versus State of Bihar). He submitted that<\/p>\n
mere non-filing of an application under Rule 79 (1) during
\n                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
counting cannot defeat the claim for a prayer to recount<\/p>\n
the votes, if grounds are otherwise made out to the<\/p>\n
satisfaction of the Court concerned. He submits that the<\/p>\n
petitioner did file an application. In his pleadings he also<\/p>\n
demonstrated the circumstances under which he was<\/p>\n
unable to file his objections during the counting. Therefore<\/p>\n
under the findings recorded in paragraph-11 of the<\/p>\n
aforesaid judgment, the Munsif did not commit any<\/p>\n
material irregularity in directing counting of votes. It was<\/p>\n
not a mandatory requirement that under all circumstances<\/p>\n
the objection must be filed during the counting only.<\/p>\n
            The law laid down in Hosila Tiwari (supra)<\/p>\n
primarily     is   that   compliance     with   Rule   79(1)   was<\/p>\n
mandatory. Quoting an extract from its own judgment<\/p>\n
reported in 2004 (6) SCC 331 (Chandrika Prasad Yadav<\/p>\n
Versus State of Bihar & others) at paragraph-20 and 21 of<\/p>\n
the same, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal positing<\/p>\n
with regard to Rule 79 (1) thus:-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “20. It is well settled that an order of re-
\n      counting of votes can be passed when the
\n      following conditions are fulfilled:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (i) a prima facie case;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ii) pleading of material facts stating
\n            irregularities in counting of votes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (iii) a roving and fishing inquiry shall not
\n            be made while directing re-counting of
\n            votes; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (iv) an objection to the said effect has
\n            been taken recourse to.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
          21. The requirement of maintaining the
\n       secrecy of ballot papers must also be kept in
\n       view before a re-counting can be directed.
\n       Narrow margin of votes between the returned
\n       candidate and the election petitioner by itself
\n       would not be sufficient for issuing a direction
\n       for re-counting.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The conclusion recorded in the case of Hosila<\/p>\n
Tiwari (supra) at paragraph-11 is that in the event a<\/p>\n
candidate is able to demonstrate sufficient explanation or<\/p>\n
material    to   show   that   he    was    prevented    from<\/p>\n
circumstances prevailing beyond his control from making<\/p>\n
such an application, in such circumstances it may become<\/p>\n
a question of fact whether the application under Rule 79<\/p>\n
(1) can be entertained after the counting is over. But where<\/p>\n
opportunity was available to the aggrieved party to make a<\/p>\n
complaint, but he does not make such a complaint, the<\/p>\n
principle could not be applied in a standardized manner.<\/p>\n
The factual situation which fail for consideration before the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court arising out of a judgment from this Court<\/p>\n
related to an unruly situation created at the time of<\/p>\n
counting because of which for circumstances beyond his<\/p>\n
control the aggrieved is unable to file objection for no fault<\/p>\n
of his.\n<\/p>\n
           Therefore, the mandatory requirement of Rule 79<\/p>\n
(1) has been affirmed. What has been relaxed is to a limited<\/p>\n
extent provided the facts of the case justified the same and<\/p>\n
there is material on record to arrive at that reasonable
\n                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
explanation and satisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
          The   respondent      no.1   filed   his   application<\/p>\n
undoubtedly after the counting was over. The application<\/p>\n
only states that he had been made to loose by a narrow<\/p>\n
margin by committing irregularities. The counting was<\/p>\n
continuing and suddenly on conclusion of the counting he<\/p>\n
was told that he had lost and that he should leave. He<\/p>\n
asked for a detailed report which was not furnished<\/p>\n
indicative of foul intention. He therefore requested for<\/p>\n
appropriate action. It is apparent that in his application he<\/p>\n
did not even raise a whisper of suggestion of what<\/p>\n
irregularities were committed during counting much less<\/p>\n
any ground that he was prevented from complaining or<\/p>\n
that   circumstances    prevailing     prevented     him   from<\/p>\n
complaint. In fairness to the respondent no.1, the Court<\/p>\n
shall also consider his plaint which has been brought on<\/p>\n
record by way of a supplementary counter affidavit. Crucial<\/p>\n
are paragraphs 15 to 20 of the same. Even therein he only<\/p>\n
makes a grievance that on certain tables the counting was<\/p>\n
done in absence of his representative. Ballot papers were<\/p>\n
wrongly taken into account and ballot papers in his favour<\/p>\n
wrongly rejected. He was not allowed entry of his Election<\/p>\n
Agent during counting. He along with his counting agent<\/p>\n
only was unable to oversee the counting since counting<\/p>\n
was taking place at eight tables and it was not possible for
\n                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
      the petitioner or his counting agent to be simultaneously<\/p>\n
      present near all the tables. The petitioner even in his<\/p>\n
      pleading does not make a whisper of a suggestion as to<\/p>\n
      what were the circumstances beyond his control at the<\/p>\n
      time of counting which prevented him from filing an<\/p>\n
      objection of alleged irregularities during the counting<\/p>\n
      process. On his own showing, he was inside the counting<\/p>\n
      place along with his counting agent. Applying the principle<\/p>\n
      laid down in the case of Hosila Tiwari (supra) with regard<\/p>\n
      to acceptance of an application under Rule 79 (1) after the<\/p>\n
      counting was over, the petitioner has not been able to<\/p>\n
      make out a case to the satisfaction of the Court that he<\/p>\n
      was prevented from filing objections for reasons beyond his<\/p>\n
      control during the process of counting. On the contrary,<\/p>\n
      the Court holds that the petitioner has been unable to<\/p>\n
      place any material on record of any circumstances existing<\/p>\n
      of a nature which obstructed the filing of an objection by<\/p>\n
      him during the process of counting under Rule 79 (1) held<\/p>\n
      to be mandatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
               The order dated 17.7.2010 is set aside. The<\/p>\n
      application stands allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
P.K                                  ( Navin Sinha, J.)\n <\/pre>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court – Orders Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11971 of 2010 1. GANESH YADAV S\/O MAHIPAL YADAV R\/O VILL.- CHANDRAPURA, P.S.- SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER Versus 1. PANKAJ KUMAR SINGH S\/O SHRI PRAN MOHAN SINGH R\/O VILL.- LASKARA, […]<\/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-35065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court-orders"],"yoast_head":"\nGanesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - 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\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-12T15:54:43+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T15:54:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1098,\"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\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T15:54:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - 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\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-12T15:54:43+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T15:54:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011"},"wordCount":1098,"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\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011","name":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T15:54:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganesh-yadav-vs-pankaj-kumar-singh-amp-ors-on-24-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganesh Yadav vs Pankaj Kumar Singh &Amp; Ors on 24 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/35065","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=35065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}