{"id":46313,"date":"2010-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-05T14:40:42","modified_gmt":"2017-04-05T09:10:42","slug":"satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR\n\n\n                       Writ Petition No : 3227 OF 2002\n\n                               SATISH KUMAR KHARE\n                                       - V\/s -\n             STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS\n\nPresent :              Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              Ku. Namrata Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n              Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General                            for\n              respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.\n              Shri K.C.Ghildhyal, learned counsel for respondent no.4.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                                      ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                     ( 05-01-2010)<\/p>\n<p>       Challenging an order Annexure A-12 dated 11-03-2002, passed by<br \/>\nthe Collector, Tikamgarh denying wages for certain period and treating<br \/>\nthe said period on the principle of &#8216;No work No wages&#8217; the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.     Facts in brief are that the petitioner is a physically handicapped, he is<br \/>\nsuffering from Polio and the disability certificate available on record<br \/>\nindicates that he is permanently disabled to the extent of 40%.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.     Municipal Council, Tikamgarh, issued an advertisement for<br \/>\nappointment of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Against the post of Assistant<br \/>\nTeacher (Science) in Govt. Govt. Higher Secondary School, Tikamgarh,<br \/>\nthe petitioner submitted his candidature and vide order Annexure A-5<br \/>\ndated 09-03-1999, the petitioner was appointed. On being so appointed, the<br \/>\npetitioner submitted his joining to the Principal of the institute and                    he<br \/>\nwas permitted to join on 22-03-1999. The petitioner continued to work<br \/>\nupto 31-03-1999, when by oral order, the petitioner was prevented from<br \/>\nworking. The petitioner continued to visit the school and sign                        the<br \/>\nattendance register upto 20-04-1999. When he was prevented from doing<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>so, representation submitted having fallen on deaf ear, the petitioner filed<br \/>\nW.P. No. 3439\/1999 before this court and a Bench of this court vide order<br \/>\ndated 02-08-1999 (Annexure A-11) finding adequate alternative remedy<br \/>\navailable to the petitioner under M.P. Municipality Shiksha Karmi<br \/>\n(Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1998 directed the petitioner<br \/>\nto take recourse to the alternative remedy. Accordingly, the petitioner<br \/>\npreferred an appeal under Rule 12 of the said Rule before the Collector,<br \/>\nTikamgarh and the Collector, Tikamgarh vide order Annexure A-12 dated<br \/>\n11-03-2002 found action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner<br \/>\nfrom working to be illegal and directed for permitting him to join duties.<br \/>\nHowever, for the period intervening, the Collector directed that the same<br \/>\nshall be considered on the principle of &#8216;No work No wages&#8217;. Being<br \/>\naggrieved by this part of the order treating the intervening period on the<br \/>\nbasis of no work no wages, this petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    Ku. Namrata Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner taking<br \/>\nme through the order dated 11-03-2002 (Annexure P-12), passed by the<br \/>\nCollector emphasized that the Collector having found the action of the<br \/>\nrespondents to be illegal should have granted full salary for the intervening<br \/>\nperiod, when it was the case of the petitioner that he was always willing to<br \/>\nwork and it was the illegal action of the respondents which prevented the<br \/>\npetitioner from discharging his duties. Inter alia contending that in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the finding recorded<br \/>\nby the Collector, in the order in question treating the intervening period as<br \/>\nno work no wages       is not   sustainable, the        learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner seeks interference into the matter.          Placing reliance on the<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnataka<br \/>\nHousing Board Vs. C.Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689, learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case,<br \/>\nprinciple of &#8216;No work No wages&#8217; cannot be applied and it is a fit case<br \/>\nwhere considering the       physical       disability    of the petitioner, his<br \/>\nwillingness to discharge the duties and the illegal action of the respondents<br \/>\nin preventing the petitioner to discharge his duties relief sought for<br \/>\nshould be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>5.    Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and<br \/>\nShri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 have filed<br \/>\nreturn and have objected to the grant of relief mainly on the ground that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was receiving certain pension i.e. sum of Rs.150\/- per<br \/>\nmonth as     Samajik Suraksha       Pension.    That apart respondents by<br \/>\ncontending that the petitioner has not proved that he was not gainfully<br \/>\nemployed and therefore not entitled to salary for the intervening period.<br \/>\nFurther objection raised by the respondents is to the effect that petitioner<br \/>\nhas not discharged his duties, the Collector has not committed any error.<br \/>\nThat apart another objection raised is to the effect that the appointment of<br \/>\nthe petitioner is made by the Incharge Chief Municipal Officer and<br \/>\ntherefore the appointment being made by incompetent person cannot be<br \/>\nenforced.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    By filing rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted<br \/>\nthe aforesaid objections and has pointed out that the petitioner has filed a<br \/>\nspecific affidavit before this court indicating the fact that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas never gainfully employed during the period in question when he<br \/>\nremained out of the employment. It is further stated that Samajik Suraksha<br \/>\nPension of Rs.150\/- which the petitioner was getting under the       special<br \/>\nscheme of the Ministry of Social Welfare Department is only given due<br \/>\nto the physical disability of the petitioner and that does not disentitle the<br \/>\npetitioner from claiming the salary for the intervening period. As far as<br \/>\nthe competence of the Incharge Chief Municipal Officer to issue the order<br \/>\nof appointment is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner invites<br \/>\nmy attention to the findings in this regard recorded by the Collector in the<br \/>\norder in question and pointed out that the Chief Municipal Officer who<br \/>\nwas incharge at the relevant time has made more than 27 appointments and<br \/>\nin all such cases the appointments were recognized and            given due<br \/>\nconsideration by the Municipal Council, all the persons are working and<br \/>\nin the case of the petitioner a different discrimination action cannot be<br \/>\nadopted, contending that the Collector has already addressed to the said<br \/>\nquestion which is just and reasonable, learned counsel         refuted   the<br \/>\nobjections raised by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>7.    Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration<br \/>\nof the facts that have come on record, it is clear that in the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Collector available on record as Annexure P-12 dated 11-03-1002, the<br \/>\nCollector has adverted to consider various aspects of the matter , finding<br \/>\nrecorded by the Collector is that the petitioner    was duly appointed, he<br \/>\nwas permitted to join duties on 22-03-1999 when all of a sudden without<br \/>\ncanceling his appointment       and    without passing any order he was<br \/>\nprevented from working, the Collector has found the aforesaid action of the<br \/>\nrespondents to be wholly illegal and contrary to the settled principles of<br \/>\nlaw, the Collector has also considered the objections of the respondents to<br \/>\nthe effect that the order of appointment is passed by an incompetent<br \/>\nofficer, the Collector has found that the Incharge Chief Municipal Officer<br \/>\nhas appointed more than 27 persons, all these persons are working and no<br \/>\naction is taken against them. That being so the Collector has recorded a<br \/>\nfinding that in appointing the petitioner, the Chief Municipal Officer, who<br \/>\nwas holding the post in the officiating     capacity as Incharge, has not<br \/>\ncommitted any error. The Collector has taken note of the fact that the order<br \/>\npassed by the said      authority was given effect to the petitioner was<br \/>\npermitted to join and      until and   unless the order is     cancelled   in<br \/>\naccordance to law, the petitioner is entitled to work. Accordingly, the<br \/>\nCollector finding the action of the respondents to be illegal and contrary<br \/>\nto law, directed for permitting the petitioner to join duties and discharge<br \/>\nfunctions in accordance to the appointment made . However, after having<br \/>\nso ordered the Collector without recording any reason has directed for<br \/>\ntreating the intervening period on the basis of no work no wages, no<br \/>\nreason or justification for the same is indicated in the order passed by the<br \/>\nCollector.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Normally when a action is found to be illegal and is set aside or<br \/>\ndirection issued to the contrary, the delinquent is entitled to all the<br \/>\nconsequential benefits, it is only under exceptional circumstances that<br \/>\nconsequential benefits of arrears of salary etc are denied. In the present<br \/>\ncase even though the Collector has not indicated any reason for denying<br \/>\nthe salary of the intervening period. The respondents in their reply have<br \/>\nraised three objections.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>8.    The first objection is that the order is passed by the      incompetent<br \/>\nperson i.e. Incharge Chief Municipal Officer and therefore, the petitioner<br \/>\ncannot take advantage of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    This objection of the respondents is already addressed          to and<br \/>\nanswered by the Collector as indicated hereinabove. The said order of the<br \/>\nCollector is not challenged by the respondents, it having attained finality<br \/>\nnow in this petition the said objection cannot be reconsidered.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   The second objection is that the petitioner has not indicated that he<br \/>\nhas not gainfully employed during the intervening period. Alongwith the<br \/>\nrejoinder filed, the petitioner has specifically filed an affidavit indicating<br \/>\nthat he is a physical handicapped and Samajik Suraksha Pension of<br \/>\nRs.150\/- which the petitioner was getting under the       special scheme of<br \/>\nthe Ministry of Social Welfare Department is only given to the physical<br \/>\ndisability of the petitioner and that does not disentitle the petitioner from<br \/>\nclaiming the salary for the intervening period.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.    This objection raised to the effect    that the petitioner was getting<br \/>\ncertain pension under    Samajik Suraksha Pension Scheme and therefore<br \/>\nnot entitled to the salary is not sustainable. Samajik Suraksha Pension of<br \/>\nRs.150\/- per month is being granted to the petitioner due to physical<br \/>\ndisability of the petitioner on the basis of certain policy and      schemes<br \/>\nformulated by the State Govt. and implemented by the Ministry of Social<br \/>\nWelfare Department      and if the petitioner, considering his       physical<br \/>\ndisability is granted the said pension, salary cannot be denied to the<br \/>\npetitioner merely because     he is getting certain pension, the aforesaid<br \/>\nground and objection raised by the respondents              is found to be<br \/>\nunsustainable and rejected. It may further be taken note that the said<br \/>\namount of Rs.150\/- which the petitioner was getting when he was out of<br \/>\nemployment, but after reinstatement of the petitioner in pursuance to the<br \/>\norder passed by the Collector, the pension has been discontinued.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.   The third objection is regarding gainful employment             of the<br \/>\npetitioner, in the present case except for making vague and unspecific<br \/>\naverments and allegations, particularly of the employment, the nature of<br \/>\nwork performed, the establishment where the petitioner was working are<br \/>\nnot indicated and no material is adduced by the respondents to show as to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>how and      in what manner the petitioner was gainfully employed and<br \/>\nearned his wages. In the absence of material to show that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas gainfully employed and earned wages during the intervening period<br \/>\nthe benefit of salary to the petitioner cannot be denied. The respondents<br \/>\nhaving failed to prove gainful employment of the petitioner cannot now<br \/>\nraise the ground without supporting documentary or other material to<br \/>\nsubstantiate their contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.    The Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner,Karnataka<br \/>\nHousing Board(supra) has laid down the principles that in a given case if<br \/>\nit is found that the person was willing to work and he was illegally and<br \/>\nunlawfully prevented for working         then the principle of no work no<br \/>\nwages may be deviated         and in such circumstances direction can be<br \/>\nissued to the parties concerned to pay salary to the petitioner. In the<br \/>\npresent case this court has to take note of certain peculiar circumstances<br \/>\ni.e. the petitioner is physical handicapped and he was appointed to the<br \/>\npost in question, the appointment is in      existence    and has not been<br \/>\ncancelled in accordance with law, he was willing to work and in fact he<br \/>\nwas permitted to join and discharge duties for a particular period of time<br \/>\nand thereafter the finding recorded is that he was illegally prevented from<br \/>\nworking. That being so it is a fit case where the salary for the intervening<br \/>\nperiod should be granted to the petitioner as it is a case where even though<br \/>\npetitioner was willing to discharge his duties and earn his wages, it was the<br \/>\nillegal action of the respondents which prevented the petitioner from<br \/>\ndischarging his duties.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.   Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case this court is<br \/>\nof the considered view that in denying the wages to the petitioner for the<br \/>\nintervening period and declining the same on the principle of no work no<br \/>\nwage, the Collector       concerned has committed a      grave   error which<br \/>\nwarrant interference and to that extent the order dated 11-03-2002 passed<br \/>\nby the Collector warrants modification and is accordingly modified. This<br \/>\npetition is allowed. The Municipal Council respondent nos. 3 and 4 are<br \/>\ndirected to pay salary and allowance to the petitioner for the post in<br \/>\nquestion during the period        when the petitioner remained out of<br \/>\nemployment i.e. from 1st April 1909 till his joining in pursuance to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>order passed by the Collector on 11-03-2002. The aforesaid amount be<br \/>\npaid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt<br \/>\nof the certified copy of this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.    The petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid<br \/>\nwithout any order so as to cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          (RAJENDRA MENON)<br \/>\n                                              JUDGE<br \/>\nhsp.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 3227 OF 2002 SATISH KUMAR KHARE &#8211; V\/s &#8211; STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Present : Hon&#8217;ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- Ku. Namrata Kesharwani, [&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-46313","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>Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 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\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-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=\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-05T09:10:42+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-05T09:10:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2155,\"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\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-05T09:10:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 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":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 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\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-05T09:10:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-05T09:10:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010"},"wordCount":2155,"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\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010","name":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-05T09:10:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-khare-vs-the-state-of-m-p-and-ors-on-5-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Kumar Khare vs The State Of M.P. And Ors on 5 January, 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\/46313","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=46313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}