{"id":40625,"date":"2010-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-04T00:25:30","modified_gmt":"2015-06-03T18:55:30","slug":"dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                            W.P.NO.5809\/2010.\n\n17-05-2010\n\n         Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n         Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent nos.1<\/pre>\n<p>and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Shri S.A.Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.3.<br \/>\n         Shri Mukhtat Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.4.<br \/>\n         Challenging the order dated 27-04-2010, passed by respondent<br \/>\nnos. 1 and 2 repatriating the petitioner back to his parent department<br \/>\nand posting        him as      Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital,<br \/>\nGairatganj, District Raisen and instead posting        respondent no.3 as<br \/>\nChief Executive Officer, M.P.Waqf Board, Bhopal, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>         The facts in brief necessary for disposal of this writ petition are<br \/>\nthat petitioner is an Assistant Veterinary Surgeon. Vide order dated<br \/>\n15-09-2008, he was          sent   on deputation on the post of Chief<br \/>\nExecutive Officer of the Waqf Board. Thereafter the petitioner was<br \/>\nrelieved by his parent department and an order was passed vide<br \/>\nAnnexure P-4 dated 29-09-2008 by the parent          department sending<br \/>\nhis   services on deputation       to the Waqf Board through the State<br \/>\nGovernment for a period of one year or until further orders. The<br \/>\npetitioner is working as Chief Executive Officer in Waqf Board since<br \/>\nthen and now by the impugned order he is repatriated back to his<br \/>\nparent department. Challenge to the impugned action is made mainly<br \/>\non the ground that respondent no.4 Mohd. Siddiquie alias Chhiddi<br \/>\nChacha who is the member of M.P. Haj Committee had filed a Public<br \/>\nInterest Litigation W.P. No.5558\/2009 and the Division Bench of this<br \/>\ncourt vide Annexure P-6 dated 05-01-2010 directed for conducting<br \/>\ninquiry into allegation against the petitioner preferable within period<br \/>\nof 3 months and in the said inquiry it was directed that opportunity<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>should be granted to the petitioner for defending himself. Inter alia<br \/>\ncontending that without conducting inquiry and on the        ground of<br \/>\ncomplaints received, the petitioner is being transferred , challenge is<br \/>\nmade to the action repatriating the petitioner to his parent department.<br \/>\nIt was argued by Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that apart from the fact that      no inquiry was held in<br \/>\naccordance to the directive issued by the Division Bench on 05-01-<br \/>\n2010 in W.P.N o.5558\/2009 the petitioner is being repatriated in the<br \/>\nlight of various complaints received against him. By referring to<br \/>\nvarious complaints filed by the respondents       alongwith reply and<br \/>\ntaking me through the provisions of M.P. Waqf Board Rules, 2000<br \/>\nAnnexure P-7 and the provisions of Rule 7 thereof, it was argued by<br \/>\nShri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that under the<br \/>\nRules the inquiry into complaints should be held by the Govt. only if<br \/>\na report is submitted by the Chairman       of the Board. Taking me<br \/>\nthrough the provisions of   Sub Rule (c ) of Rule 7, it was argued that<br \/>\nin this case   there is neither any complaint to the Chairman nor is<br \/>\nthere request for conducting inquiry by the Chairman and therefore,<br \/>\nthe action taken is unsustainable. Contending that transfer of an<br \/>\nemployee on complaint is        unsustainable for the reasons and<br \/>\nprinciples laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of       Somesh<br \/>\nTiwari Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner seeks interference into the matter. It was<br \/>\nemphasized by Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that an order of transfer which is tainted with malafides<br \/>\nand is in lieu of punishment on complainant, is illegal and cannot be<br \/>\nsustained, accordingly it was argued that the action is unsustainable<br \/>\nand cannot be upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The respondents      have filed   return and in the   return the<br \/>\nrespondents have brought on record various complaints received<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner vide Annexure R-1 &amp; 2\/2 to R-1 &amp; 2\/5 and the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>provisions of the policy in respect of sending person on deputation to<br \/>\nemphasize that the petitioner was sent on deputation for a period of<br \/>\none year, the period is over and therefore, he can be repatriated .<br \/>\nThe respondents relying on judgment rendered by this court in the<br \/>\ncase of SNP Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another, 2005 MPLJ<br \/>\n398 and another judgment       in the case of Kunal Nanda Vs. Union<br \/>\nof India, AIR 2000 SC 2076 argued the petitioner was on deputation,<br \/>\nhe has no right to continue on the post to which he was appointed<br \/>\nand as there are serious complaints with regard to his working in the<br \/>\nBoard, a administrative decision is taken repatriating him, which is not<br \/>\nillegal. It was argued by Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nState     that even though the      Division Bench in the PIL filed by<br \/>\nrespondentno.4 W.P.N o.5558\/2009 has directed for inquiry into the<br \/>\nmatter but as the respondents are not conducting inquiry and have<br \/>\ntaken an administrative decision to send back the petitioner to his<br \/>\nparent department , the action of the respondents is not illegal<br \/>\nwarranting interference by this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Shri S.A.Khan and Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for<br \/>\nrespondent nos. 3 and 4        respectively     supported the arguments<br \/>\nadvanced by the learned counsel for the State and by filing separate<br \/>\nreturn state that there is no malafides, the petitioner has no right to<br \/>\ncontinue on the post       and he        is only sent back to his parent<br \/>\ndepartment, no case is made out for interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>         I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused<br \/>\nthe record,.\n<\/p>\n<p>         As far as M.P. Waqf Board Rules 2000 and the provisions of<br \/>\nsection 7 are concerned, the said provision reads as under:<br \/>\n&#8220;7.      The terms and conditions of service of Chief Executive Officer-<br \/>\nThe appointment, terms and conditions of service of Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act shall be as given<br \/>\nbelow-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          (a)   There shall be appointed a Chief Executive Officer by<br \/>\n                the Government on deputation who shall be a Muslim<br \/>\n                Government Servant not below the rank of Deputy<br \/>\n                Collector;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (b)   The Board shall pay to the Chief Executive Officer such<br \/>\n                salary and allowances as fixed by the State Government<br \/>\n                from time to time;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (c)   When any disciplinary proceeding have to be initiated<br \/>\n                against the Chief Executive Officer the Chairman shall<br \/>\n                report the full facts to the Government and the<br \/>\n                Government will take suitable action contemplated in<br \/>\n                Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control<br \/>\n                and Appeal) Rules, 1966;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (d)   &#8212;&#8212;-&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A perusal of the aforesaid       statutory provisions     indicates that the<br \/>\nappointment, terms and conditions of service of the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer     in the Waqf Board is governed by the provisions          of Sub<br \/>\nSection (2) of Section 23 of the Act and Sub Rules 7(a) of the Rules<br \/>\nframed under the Property Act contemplates that every Board shall<br \/>\nhave a Chief Executive Officer who shall be appointed by the<br \/>\nGovernment on deputation,            the employee has to be a       Muslim<br \/>\nGovernment servant and not below the rank of Deputy Collector.<br \/>\nSalary and allowance to the Chief Executive Officer is to be paid<br \/>\nby the Waqf Board as fixed by the State Government from time to<br \/>\ntime. As far as initiating disciplinary action against the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer is concerned, sub rule 7(c ) contemplates that                when<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceeding is to be initiated against the Chief Executive<br \/>\nOfficer, the Chairman of the Board shall report the full facts to the<br \/>\nGovernment        and the Government will take          suitable action   as<br \/>\ncontemplated in Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classification, Control<br \/>\nand Appeal) Rules, 1966. As far as the present case is concerned<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>there is no report and recommendation of the Chairman of the Board<br \/>\nto initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner. That being so<br \/>\nthe provision of Rule-7 (c )   is not at all applicable in the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner. The petitioner admittedly was sent on deputation and his<br \/>\nsubstantive post is that of Assistant Veterinary Officer. Orders<br \/>\nAnnexures P-3 and P-4 indicate that the period of deputation was one<br \/>\nyear or until further orders , that period of one year is already over<br \/>\nand now the petitioner is being repatriated back. It is an admitted<br \/>\nposition that an employee who is sent on deputation has not right to<br \/>\ncontinue on the post to which he was sent on deputation. The law in<br \/>\nthis regard is well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of<br \/>\nIndia     through Govt. of Pondicherry and                 another Vs.<br \/>\nV.Ramakrishnan and others, (2005) 8              SCC 394 has clearly<br \/>\napproved the aforesaid principle. The said principle is also laid down<br \/>\nby this Court in the case of S.N.P. Sharma (supra). That being so the<br \/>\npetitioner cannot have any legal right enforceable by way of<br \/>\nmandamus to seek continuation on the deputed post.\n<\/p>\n<p>        However for making     allegations of malafide the petitioner has<br \/>\nonly placed reliance on the order passed by this court in W.P.<br \/>\nNo.5558\/2009 filed by the respondent no.4 to contend that without<br \/>\nconducting inquiry he is being repatriated and the respondent no.3 is<br \/>\nbeing accommodated at the instance of respondent no.4. From the<br \/>\nrecords it is seen that respondent no.4 had filed a writ petition<br \/>\nseeking inquiry against the petitioner and for cancellation of his<br \/>\nappointment and this court gave opportunity to the respondents to<br \/>\nconduct an inquiry      and decide the representation, instead of<br \/>\nconducting inquiry into the matter, the petitioner has repatriated to his<br \/>\nparent department. If the Govt. so took a decision, administrative in<br \/>\nnature, the petitioner cannot challenge the same until and unless<br \/>\nthe statutory rules enforceable by a writ of mandamus, are available<br \/>\nto the petitioner to seek continuation in       foreign department on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>deputation.    There is no such rule, regulation or statutory right<br \/>\navailable to the petitioner to continue in the foreign department. The<br \/>\nrespondents State Govt. has filed detailed reply and have brought on<br \/>\nrecord    various complaints and have pointed out that while working<br \/>\nas Chief Executive Officer in the Waqf Board           various complaints<br \/>\nwere received against the petitioner and questions were asked in the<br \/>\nLegislative Assembly with regard to working of the petitioner, if on<br \/>\nthese consideration an administrative decision is taken repatriating<br \/>\nthe petitioner back to his parent department this court exercising<br \/>\nlimited jurisdiction in a writ court cannot quash the aforesaid action<br \/>\nuntil and unless statutory rules are found to be violated. Neither any<br \/>\nstatutory rule is found to be violated nor any malafides established in<br \/>\nthe matter of repatriation of the petitioner. Once it is found that the<br \/>\npetitioner was on deputation and when his period of deputation is<br \/>\nover he has no right to continue on the deputed post, this court<br \/>\ncannot sit over the      administrative decision of       repatriating the<br \/>\npetitioner as if the Court has appellate jurisdiction. The judgment citied<br \/>\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Somesh Tiwari<br \/>\n(supra)     is to the effect      that      transfer     on complaint is<br \/>\nunsustainable, this is of no assistance to the petitioner. In the present<br \/>\ncase as the matter pertains to repatriation of the petitioner to his<br \/>\nparent department and when it is found that the         petitioner has no<br \/>\nlegal right to continue on the deputed post , the writ court cannot<br \/>\ninterfere in the matter. That apart another Bench of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt     in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan<br \/>\nDevanath and another, 2004 AIR SCW 955 has taken a view that<br \/>\ntransfer order on complaint without following the inquiry is not perse<br \/>\nillegal. Be that as it may be the present is not a case of transfer of<br \/>\nan employee from one place to another but is a case of repatriation<br \/>\nof a deputed employee and once it is found that the petitioner does<br \/>\nnot have any legal enforceable right to continue in the            foreign<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>department action of the respondents cannot be interfered with by<br \/>\nthis court. Accordingly       keeping in view the totality of the<br \/>\ncircumstances and      the administrative    exigency established this<br \/>\ncourt does not find any ground for interference into the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                         (RAJENDRA MENON)<br \/>\n                                              JUDGE<br \/>\nhsp.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 W.P.NO.5809\/2010. 17-05-2010 Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri S.A.Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Shri Mukhtat Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Challenging the [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - 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\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-03T18:55:30+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\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-03T18:55:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1956,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-03T18:55:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 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":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - 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\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-03T18:55:30+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\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-03T18:55:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010"},"wordCount":1956,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010","name":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-03T18:55:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-s-m-h-zaidi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. S.M.H. Zaidi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 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\/40625","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=40625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}