{"id":40853,"date":"2011-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-03-10T12:47:19","modified_gmt":"2016-03-10T07:17:19","slug":"union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale<\/div>\n
                                    1\n\n\n         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                  NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n         Writ Petition No.  5950 of 2010.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n    Petitioners       :   1) Union of India, through the Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                          Ministry of Defence, D (Fy-II), Sena \n                          \n                          Bhawan, New Delhi\n\n                          2) The DGOF\/Chairman, Ordnance Factory\n                         \n                          Board, 10\/A, Shaheed K. Bose Road, \n\n                          Kolkata\n       \n\n\n                          3) The General Manager, Ordnance\n    \n\n\n\n                          Factory, Chanda\n\n\n\n\n\n                          versus\n\n    Respondents :         1) M. M. Rangari, Chargeman Grade-II,<\/pre>\n
                          Ordnance Factory, r\/o Jatpura, Ward No.3,<\/p>\n
                          Ghorkhiedki, Chandrapur<\/p>\n
                          2) J. R. Chimurkar, DBW (HS), Ordnance<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
           Factory, Chanda, r\/o Gautam Nagar, Near<\/p>\n
           Dr Hakke House, Bhadrawati, District<\/p>\n
           Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           3) B.K. Chirde, Orderly in Ordnance Factory,<\/p>\n
           Chanda, r\/o near Hanuman Mandir, Bal Wadi,<\/p>\n
           Krishna Nagar, Mul Road, Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           4) A. R. Majumdar, Supervisor “B” in Ord-\n<\/p>\n
        ig nance Factory, Chanda, r\/o Janki Niwas,<\/p>\n
           Opp. Dr Milmile Hospital, Guru Nagar, <\/p>\n
           Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           5) N. G. Bele, DBW (HS-I) in Ordnance<\/p>\n
           Factory, Chanda, r\/o Sindhi Panchayat <\/p>\n
           Bhawan, Zade Complex, ram Mandir Road,<\/p>\n
           Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           6)  R.B. Tiwari, Labourer “B” Grade in <\/p>\n
           Ordnance Factory, Ambajhari, r\/o Benu<\/p>\n
           Nagar, Datta Wadi, Plot No. 58, Nagpur<\/p>\n
           7) P. K. Khedkar, F.E. Driver Gr.II in <\/p>\n
                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
           Ordnance Factory, Chanda, r\/o near<\/p>\n
           Tendupatta Godown, Sriram Nagar, Plot No.<\/p>\n
           199, Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           8) K. K. Tikale, DBW (HS) in Ordnance<\/p>\n
           Factory, Chandra, r\/o near Santosh Kirana,<\/p>\n
           Zade Plot, Ghutkala Ward, Bhadrawati,<\/p>\n
           District Chandrapur
\n        ig 9) Smt Mangala N. Dhakate, TGT in Ord-\n<\/p>\n
           nance Factory School, Ordnance Factory,<\/p>\n
           Chanda, r\/o Anchaleshwar Ward, <\/p>\n
           Kannamwar Chowk, Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           10) Gangaram B. Gurle, Supervisor “B”\n<\/p>\n
           (NT) in Ordnance Factory, Chanda, r\/o<\/p>\n
           Babupeth Ward No. 3, Chandrapur<\/p>\n
           11) N. N. Meshram, Machinist (HS) in <\/p>\n
           Ordnance Factory, Chanda, r\/o Manjusha<\/p>\n
           Layout, Pradhan Society, Bhadrawati,<\/p>\n
           District Chandrapur<\/p>\n
                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
                               12) S. P. Urkude, FE Driver “A” in Ordnance<\/p>\n
                               Factory, Chandra, r\/o c\/o P. B. Urkude, Amre<\/p>\n
                               Kirana Stores, Zade Plot, Bhadrawati, <\/p>\n
                               District Chandrapur<\/p>\n
    Mr S. K. Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General for petitioners<\/p>\n
    Mr B. Lahiri, Advocate for respondents<\/p>\n
                 Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ<\/p>\n
                 Dated  : 26th  September 2011<\/p>\n
    Judgment (Per A. P. Bhangale, J)<\/p>\n
    1.           Rule.  Heard forthwith by consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
    2.           The   short   question   that   falls   for   consideration   in   this <\/p>\n
    Petition   is   whether   the   employees   of   Ordanance   Factories   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner-Union   of   India,   viz.,   the   Ordanance   factory   Board   are <\/p>\n
    entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) after they had constructed <\/p>\n
    their own respective houses by arranging loans and after shifting to <\/p>\n
    their own accommodation on the ground that  they have not obtained <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
    “non-availability   Certificate”   in   respect   of   official     residential <\/p>\n
    accommodation . The answer must be given in the negative   for the <\/p>\n
    following reasons.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            It is not in dispute that Employees who have applied for <\/p>\n
    allotment of Government accommodation   from the General pool of <\/p>\n
    residential accommodation and have not been allotted their entitled <\/p>\n
    type of accommodation due to non-availability of the accommodation <\/p>\n
    would   be   entitled   to   claim     House   Rent   Allowance(HRA).   The <\/p>\n
    submission     made     on   behalf  of  the   Petitioner   is  that   the     Central <\/p>\n
    government   Employees   who   are   offered   official   residential <\/p>\n
    accommodation but they refused to occupy the same would not be <\/p>\n
    entitled to claim HRA.\n<\/p>\n
    4.            The respondent-employees are occupying various posts  i.e <\/p>\n
    Machinist , Trained Graduate Teacher, Supervisor, Orderly, Laborers B’ <\/p>\n
    Grade etc.  in the Ordanance factories controlled by Petitioner-Union <\/p>\n
    of India\/Ordanance Board.   The respondents have constructed their <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
    respective houses after arranging Loan and after Construction of their <\/p>\n
    houses   shifted   to   their   own   accommodation.   Thus   they   are   not <\/p>\n
    occupying   the   government   accommodation   though   available   and <\/p>\n
    offered   to   them     by   the   Administration.     Respondents   made   a <\/p>\n
    grievance that after shifting to their own houses the HRA was stopped <\/p>\n
    and    has  not  been  paid  to  the   respondents  by  the   Petitioner    .The <\/p>\n
    Respondents after their request for HRA was rejected by the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    on   the   ground   that   they   had   not   obtained   the   Non   -availability <\/p>\n
    certificates   as   pre-requisite   condition   for   the   payment   of   HRA,filed <\/p>\n
    independent Original Applications O.A. no 2001\/2010 to 2012\/2010 <\/p>\n
    raising grievance of non payment of HRA. The original Applications <\/p>\n
    filed   by   the   Respondent   no   2   to   13   were   allowed   by   the   Central <\/p>\n
    Administrative   Tribunal   by   the   impugned   order   .The   Petitioner <\/p>\n
    challenged   it   before   us   mainly   on   the   ground   that     the   Office <\/p>\n
    Memorandum     No.   120341\/88-Pol   .III   dated   27.06.2001   of   the <\/p>\n
    Government of India, Directorate of estates ,New Delhi , would govern <\/p>\n
    the present case. The relevant portion of the said paragraph reads as <\/p>\n
    follows:\n<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
    “—-   It   has   been   found   that   the   General   Pool   Accommodation   in <\/p>\n
    Certain   types   are   presently   surplus   in   five   cities:Kolkata,   Shimla, <\/p>\n
    Faridabad,Ghaziabad and Nagpur. It has therefore been decided  that <\/p>\n
    the Govt Servants who are eligible for General Pool Accommodation <\/p>\n
    but who do not submit applications for such accommodation or those <\/p>\n
    who   after   submitting   such   applications   refuse   to   accept   the <\/p>\n
    accommodation offered\/allotted or those who after having accepted <\/p>\n
    accommodation   surrender   it   ,   may   be   paid   HRA,   if   otherwise <\/p>\n
    admissible,   without   obtaining   ‘No   Accommodation   Certificate’   from <\/p>\n
    the Directorate of Estates or its regional offices as the case may be  in <\/p>\n
    respect   of   all   types   of   accommodation   at   the   under   mentioned <\/p>\n
    stations:\n<\/p>\n
    1. Delhi                4. Chandigarh\n\n\n\n\n\n    2 Mumbai            5 Bangalore\n\n\n\n\n\n    3 Chennai             6. Indore----\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
    In another Govt of India Ministry of Finance Office memorandom no F.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
    12034\/1\/2007   -Pol.III,   dated   14\/11\/2007   there   was   review   of <\/p>\n
    demand-   availability   situation     in   cities   having   General   Pool <\/p>\n
    accommodation  to determine the admissibility of HRA to the Central <\/p>\n
    Government employees. In the city of Nagpur since it has a surplus <\/p>\n
    stock   of     Central   Government   ‘s   General   pool   residential <\/p>\n
    accommodation   (GPRA)administered   by   Directorate   of   Estates   , <\/p>\n
    employees eligible for the same   shall be able to draw HRA only if <\/p>\n
    they   can   produce   a   ‘No   Accommodation   Certificate”   The   policy   is <\/p>\n
    applicable to the Central Government Employees in Nagpur amongst <\/p>\n
    other   notified   cities   .Necessary   directions   in   this   regard   as   to   the <\/p>\n
    current policies are issued by the central government  to the heads of <\/p>\n
    the departments and heads of all the offices concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    In   other   words   therefore   for   Nagpur   city     obtaining   ‘No <\/p>\n
    Accommodation Certificate’     for government servant is necessary to <\/p>\n
    claim HRA as   may be  payable or admissible.\n<\/p>\n
    It is contended  on behalf of the Petitioner that the Tribunal (CAT) was <\/p>\n
    in error to pass the impugned order without considering the settled <\/p>\n
    principle of law and   HRA and CCA   general rules and guidelines by <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
    office   memorandums     issued   from   time   to   time.     Central <\/p>\n
    administrative   Tribunal     making   reference   to   it’s   earlier   decisions <\/p>\n
    observed that the requirement of obtaining the “No Accommodation <\/p>\n
    Certificate  “as   a   pre-requisite  is  not  shown  to  have  been  emanated <\/p>\n
    from the binding law or statutory rules while allowing the Original <\/p>\n
    applications filed by the respondents herein .  Our attention is brought <\/p>\n
    to the ruling by the Apex Court  in Director, Central Plantation crops <\/p>\n
    Research Institute vs.. M Purushottaman and others  reported in  AIR <\/p>\n
    1994 SC 2541.   It is explained thus in Para 4 :-\n<\/p>\n
         “It   must   be   remembered   in   this   connection   that   the <\/p>\n
         Government   or   the   organisation   of   the   kind   of   the <\/p>\n
         appellant   spends   huge   public   funds   for   constructing <\/p>\n
         quarters  for their employees both for the convenience  of <\/p>\n
         the   management   as   well   as   of   the   employees.   The <\/p>\n
         investment  thus made in constructing and maintaining the <\/p>\n
         quarters will be a waste if they are to lie unoccupied. The <\/p>\n
         HRA   is   not   a   matter   of   right.   It   is   in   lieu   of   the <\/p>\n
         accommodation not made available to the employees. This <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
    being   the   case,   it   follows   that   whenever   the <\/p>\n
    accommodation   is   offered   the   employees   have   either   to <\/p>\n
    accept it or to forfeit the HRA, The management cannot be <\/p>\n
    saddled   with   double   liability,   viz.,   to   construct   and <\/p>\n
    maintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA. This is the <\/p>\n
    rationale   of   the   provisions   of   paragraph   4   of   the   said <\/p>\n
    Government   Office   Memorandum.   It   is   for   this   reason <\/p>\n
    again that paragraph 4 [b] (I) provides that the HRA shall <\/p>\n
    not   be   admissible   to   those   who   occupy     accommodation <\/p>\n
    provided   for   them   as   well   as   to   those   to   whom <\/p>\n
    accommodation has been offered but who have refused  it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   In para 9, Honourable Supreme Court further <\/p>\n
     observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “9.     The   HRA   would   be   covered   by   the   definition   of <\/p>\n
     Compensatory   Allowance.     It   is   compensation   in   lieu   of <\/p>\n
     accommodations.     This   definition   itself   further   makes   it <\/p>\n
     clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as a <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
           source   of  profit.     It   is  given  only  to  compensate   for  the <\/p>\n
           amenities   which   are   not   available     or   provided   to   the <\/p>\n
           employee.     The   moment,   therefore,   the   amenities   are <\/p>\n
           prodiced or offered, the employee should cease to be   in <\/p>\n
           receipt   of   the   compensation   which   is   given   for   want   of <\/p>\n
           it….”\n<\/p>\n
    5.               Thus it appears that HRA is a statutory right, and can be <\/p>\n
    subjected   to   restrictions   which   are   reasonable.       Furthermore,   it <\/p>\n
    appears clear that  the employee must have a right  to get House Rent <\/p>\n
    Allowance   (HRA   )   as   per   existing   Rules   or   Decisions   of   The <\/p>\n
    Government of India  which have binding force or a contract.  It is not <\/p>\n
    a   matter   of   right,   it   is   an   compensatory   allowance   given   by   an <\/p>\n
    employer to an employee towards the rental accommodation expenses <\/p>\n
    of   the  employee  when  Government  is unable  to provide   residential <\/p>\n
    accommodation   suitable   for   the   residence   of   it’s   employee.   The <\/p>\n
    employee   if   own   his   property   he   may   not   be   entitled  to   claim   the <\/p>\n
    HRA,  because HRA is paid to Central Govt. employees to compensate <\/p>\n
    them partly for the especially higher rents which they have to pay for <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
    hired or rented residential accommodation in big cities, but not as a <\/p>\n
    source of profit..  HRA is paid at different slab rates in different cities <\/p>\n
    and for this purpose cities have been classified with reference to  their <\/p>\n
    growth and population. For the drawl of HRA, a Govt. servant has to <\/p>\n
    incur   some   expenditure   on   rent\/contribute   towards   rent   or <\/p>\n
    pay\/contribute towards house or property tax and furnish a certificate <\/p>\n
    to that effect as per Annexure-II in Para.8 of Swamy’s Compilation of <\/p>\n
    FR   &   SR,   Part-V,   HRA   and   CCA.     In   our   opinion     the   Central <\/p>\n
    government regulations  which are in force unless they are declared as <\/p>\n
    arbitrary   or   illegal     would   govern   the     Central   government <\/p>\n
    Employees.  In our opinion unless a binding law or specific Regulation <\/p>\n
    governing   is pointed out   for payment of HRA to the respondents <\/p>\n
    employees of Ordanance Factories the Petitioner-Union of India, (viz., <\/p>\n
    the Ordanance factory Board )   the respondents are not   entitled to <\/p>\n
    claim House Rent Allowance (HRA)   as a matter of right after they <\/p>\n
    had constructed their own respective houses by arranging loans and <\/p>\n
    after shifting to their own accommodation without obtaining the ‘No <\/p>\n
    Accommodation Certificate’  (NAC) from the Estate officer concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Prima facie in our opinion the pre-requisite  of NAC as laid down  in <\/p>\n
    the office memorandum  as operative in city of Nagpur  when Central <\/p>\n
    government   accommodation   is   available   in   surplus     and   Central <\/p>\n
    government is required to spend huge amounts towards  Construction <\/p>\n
    and maintenance   Of Government buildings is neither arbitrary nor <\/p>\n
    malafide   .The   policy   decision     in   this   regard   must     be   left   to   the <\/p>\n
    Government’s   sound discretion.   The Court ought not   to substitute <\/p>\n
    the   judgment   of   the   executive   by   it’s   own   opinion   merely   because <\/p>\n
    another view may be possible. The interference   in writ jurisdiction <\/p>\n
    may   be   justified   only   if   the   administrative   authority   concerned <\/p>\n
    transgressed it’s constitutional limits or statutory power.\n<\/p>\n
    6.              For the above reasons   and in the facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
    disclosed   before   us,   the   impugned   Order   is   unsustainable   and <\/p>\n
    therefore     quashed   and   set   aside     as   Original   applications   were <\/p>\n
    wrongly allowed   by the impugned Order. We direct dismissal of the <\/p>\n
    Original Applications  in terms of Prayer (1) in the Writ petition.  The <\/p>\n
    Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is thus made absolute.   In the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to <\/p>\n
    costs .\n<\/p>\n
            A. P. BHANGALE, J                           B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n    joshi\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                               \n                              \n         \n      \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:46:18 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, A.P. Bhangale 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5950 of 2010. Petitioners : 1) Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, D (Fy-II), Sena Bhawan, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 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\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-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=\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-10T07:17:19+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\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T07:17:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1885,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-10T07:17:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 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":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 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\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-10T07:17:19+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\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T07:17:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011"},"wordCount":1885,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011","name":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-10T07:17:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-m-m-rangari-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs M. M. Rangari on 26 September, 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\/40853","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=40853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}