{"id":40164,"date":"2011-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-04T11:41:00","modified_gmt":"2018-07-04T06:11:00","slug":"shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M. L. Mehta<\/div>\n<pre>*                   THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+                           W. P. (C) 3850 of 1991\n\n                                               Reserved on: 3.10.2011\n                                           Pronounced on : 25.11.2011\n\nShri Azad Singh                                         ... Petitioner\n                            Through:    Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.\n\n                                  Versus\n\nDelhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation\nLimited through its Chairman\n                                        ...... Respondent\n\n                            Through:    Nemo.\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA\n\n1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n        allowed to see the judgment?                 No\n2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?      Yes\n3.      Whether the judgment should be reported\n        in the Digest ?                              Yes\n\nM.L. MEHTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.      This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nhas been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12th January,<br \/>\n1990 of the respondent herein, whereby the appeal of the petitioner<br \/>\nagainst the Order of Removal from service dated 26.6.1990 was<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The petitioner has been in the employment of the respondent<br \/>\nsince 03rd March, 1982 as a Driver. After completion of probationary<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                               Page 1 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n period satisfactorily, he was employed in permanent capacity of the<br \/>\nrespondent. On 11th December, 1987, he was charged for misconduct.<br \/>\nThe statement of Articles of Charge in brief is as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)     That on 27th November, 1987, the petitioner along with an<br \/>\noutsider entered in the &#8216;N&#8217; Block office of the respondent with a bottle<br \/>\nof whisky and he started drinking there and misbehaved with the staff<br \/>\nposted at the &#8216;N&#8217; Block office and thus, the petitioner indulged into an<br \/>\nact unbecoming of a Government servant.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)     At the aforesaid time and place, the outsider asked one of the<br \/>\npersons on cash duty to fetch a glass of water. On refusing to do so,<br \/>\nboth the petitioner and his outsider friend used unparliamentary<br \/>\nlanguage. They also asked one Mahesh Kumar Arora, Casher to bring<br \/>\nthe glass of water for them and on his refusing, insulted him.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      The petitioner submitted his reply dated 24 th December, 1987 to<br \/>\nthe aforesaid charges whereby he categorically denied the allegations<br \/>\nand alleged to have been falsely implicated because of his trade union<br \/>\nactivities. It is alleged that the petitioner requested for being allowed<br \/>\nto be assisted by an Advocate during the enquiry proceedings and also<br \/>\nto supply the copies of the documents demanded by him. However, his<br \/>\nrequest was declined by the respondent.        On 26th June, 1989, he<br \/>\nreceived the order from the department whereby he was removed from<br \/>\nthe services with immediate effect. He preferred an appeal against the<br \/>\nsaid order to the Chairman of the respondent and since he did not<br \/>\nreceive any reply, he made representation dated 17th September, 1991<br \/>\nto the respondent requesting his reinstatement and full back wages and<br \/>\ncontinuance of service and that too also remained unresponded.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                                Page 2 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> 4.      The impugned order is alleged to be illegal, arbitrary,<br \/>\ndiscriminatory and violative of principle of natural justice. The main<br \/>\ngrounds which have been taken in assailing the orders are (1) that he<br \/>\nwas not permitted to be represented by an Advocate; (2) that the<br \/>\nPresenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer cross examined the<br \/>\nwitnesses in a manner in order to prove the case against the petitioner;<br \/>\n(3) he was not permitted to cross examine them nor he was allowed to<br \/>\nadduce any evidence in support of his case; (4) the enquiry was bad<br \/>\ninasmuch as the Enquiry Officer did not subject the petitioner to liquor<br \/>\ntest nor the petitioner could be said to be the under influence of liquor<br \/>\non the relevant day and; (5) the extreme punishment of removal from<br \/>\nhis service was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the<br \/>\nmisconduct and it amounts to victimization.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner centered his<br \/>\narguments on the point that there was no cogent and elaborate evidence<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner to conclusively hold him guilty of misconduct in<br \/>\nas much as out of the four witnesses examined by the respondent<br \/>\ndepartment, three had not supported the version in support of the<br \/>\ncharges and the fourth namely Chander Prakash has falsely implicated<br \/>\nthe petitioner on account of personal enmity. Learned counsel has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to<br \/>\ncross examine those witnesses and was not allowed to be assisted by<br \/>\nthe Advocate. He took me through the testimony of the four star<br \/>\nwitnesses examined by the department in support of the charge sheet.<br \/>\nThough in the present proceedings, that was not required to be seen,<br \/>\nbut keeping in view the fact that the enquiry has also been assailed on<br \/>\nthe ground of violation of principle of natural justice, I have gone<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                               Page 3 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n through the statements of those witnesses. From the testimony of those<br \/>\nwitnesses as adduced by the department before the Enquiry Officer, it<br \/>\nis seen that three of those witnesses including Mahesh Kumar Arora<br \/>\nare very shaky and have given changing versions. With regard to the<br \/>\ntestimony of Chander Prakash, it is noticed that he stated that the<br \/>\npetitioner along with an outsider came to the office and asked for water<br \/>\nfrom him and Mahesh Arora, who was also there.              In his cross<br \/>\nexamination conducted by the Presenting Officer, he stated that he was<br \/>\nbusy in work and was not aware as to who had taken out the bottle.<br \/>\nThen in contradiction to his previous stand, he has stated that the friend<br \/>\nof the petitioner asked him to bring water. It was noted that he was<br \/>\nalso shaky in evidence because at one place, he stated that he was busy<br \/>\nin cash work and did not give any attention nor had he seen them and<br \/>\nso cannot say as to whether they came together.           In short cross<br \/>\nexamination which was conducted on behalf of the petitioner, he stated<br \/>\nthat everything had happened with the friend of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      Admittedly, the petitioner was not assisted by any lawyer and<br \/>\nthe type of cross examination as was conducted by the representative<br \/>\nof the petitioner as noted above would clearly demonstrate that it was<br \/>\nillusory and he was not properly represented by a duly competent and<br \/>\nqualified person.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      In fact, as per the allegations, it was Mahesh Arora who was<br \/>\npresent there and was asked to bring water. The cross examination of<br \/>\nthis witness would demonstrate that he did not see any bottle of liquor<br \/>\nin the hands of the petitioner and his friend nor did he see them<br \/>\ndrinking liquor in the office. He also stated that the petitioner did not<br \/>\nabuse anyone in his presence and he also did not know when the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                                 Page 4 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n petitioner entered the office.     In fact the testimony of the other<br \/>\nwitnesses examined by the department was equally shaky and<br \/>\nunreliable and no credence could be placed upon their version.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.      From the enquiry proceedings, it is clearly demonstrated that no<br \/>\neffective opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and in fact,<br \/>\nthe cross examination which was allowed, was conducted only in an<br \/>\nillusory and ineffective manner meaning thereby that the petitioner<br \/>\nremained unrepresented in the enquiry proceedings. In view of this, it<br \/>\ncan be seen that there was no positive and reliable evidence supporting<br \/>\nthe charge leveled against the petitioner satisfactorily.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      Since nothing could be seen from the record if any opportunity<br \/>\nto lead evidence was afforded to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer,<br \/>\nit was pointed to the learned counsel for the respondent in the court<br \/>\nproceedings on 06th December, 2006. To this, he submitted that the<br \/>\npetitioner did not ask for any opportunity to lead evidence and<br \/>\ntherefore, he could not get any chance to produce his evidence. With<br \/>\nthis kind of state of affairs and the submissions coming from the<br \/>\nrespondent, there remains no doubt to conclude that no effective<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing in the proceedings to lead defence evidence was<br \/>\nafforded by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner. The plea of the<br \/>\nrespondent that no request was made by the petitioner for leading any<br \/>\nevidence in defence was not only untenable but also contrary to the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice. In the case titled State of Bombay Vs.<br \/>\nGajanan Mahadev Badley, AIR 1954 Bom 351, similar question<br \/>\narose wherein it was held that if the court believes that reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity was not given to the official in the enquiry, the impugned<br \/>\norder must be set aside. In that case, an attempt was made to argue that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                                Page 5 of 7<\/span><br \/>\n it is necessary for the servant to make a grievance that he has been<br \/>\ndeprived of a certain opportunity and it is only if he makes such a<br \/>\ngrievance and that grievance has not been removed, it would be open<br \/>\nto him to complain in court that reasonable opportunity was not given<br \/>\nto him. The court rightly repelled that argument and I am in entire<br \/>\nagreement with that. If a government servant comes to the court and<br \/>\ncomplains that his dismissal was wrongful and that reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity was not given to him as required by the statute, it is for the<br \/>\ndepartment to satisfy the court that in fact, reasonable opportunity was<br \/>\ngiven to him. The providing of reasonable opportunity to the servant<br \/>\ndoes not depend upon the servant asking for it. It was a statutory and<br \/>\nrecognized protection which was to be afforded to the petitioner by the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer in discharge of his obligation despite the fact whether<br \/>\nthe protection is claimed or not claimed by the servant.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.     In view of my above finding that there was no cogent and<br \/>\nsufficient evidence against the petitioner and that in any case, he was<br \/>\nneither afforded effective opportunity of cross examination nor any<br \/>\nopportunity of leading his evidence, the petitioner could be said to<br \/>\nhave been prejudiced on account of violation of principle of natural<br \/>\njustice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26th June, 1990 is<br \/>\nliable to be quashed and it is ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.     The question for consideration would be as to what could be the<br \/>\nrelief that can be given to the petitioner in view of the fact that he has<br \/>\nalready attained the age of superannuation. The petitioner was in the<br \/>\nemployment of the respondent for about seven years and in the given<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances, no order of reinstatement can be passed on<br \/>\naccount of his having already attained the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                                Page 6 of 7<\/span><\/p>\n<p> However, he would be entitled to back wages from the date of removal<br \/>\nfrom service i.e. 26th June, 1990 till the age of superannuation and<br \/>\nthereafter, all the consequential relief of pension etc. The respondent is<br \/>\ndirected to give effect to this order within eight weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.     The petition stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                       M.L. MEHTA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>NOVEMBER 25, 2011<br \/>\nakb<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) 3850\/1991                                                Page 7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 2011 Author: M. L. Mehta * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 3850 of 1991 Reserved on: 3.10.2011 Pronounced on : 25.11.2011 Shri Azad Singh &#8230; Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. Versus Delhi [&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-40164","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - 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\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-04T06:11:00+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-04T06:11:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1701,\"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\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-04T06:11:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - 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\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-04T06:11:00+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-04T06:11:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011"},"wordCount":1701,"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\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011","name":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation ... on 25 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-04T06:11:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-azad-singh-vs-delhi-tourism-and-transportation-on-25-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Azad Singh vs Delhi Tourism And Transportation &#8230; on 25 November, 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:\/\/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\/40164","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=40164"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40164\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}