{"id":48447,"date":"2009-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-07-09T20:52:38","modified_gmt":"2015-07-09T15:22:38","slug":"union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                             CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                        L.P.A. No.164 of 2005\n                                        Date of decision:05. 02.2009\n\nUnion of India and another                        .....Appellants\n\n                              versus\n\nKrishan Gopal Dhawan                              ....Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR\n\n          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA\n\nPresent: None for the appellants.\n\n          Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the respondent.\n\n\n1.        Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to\n          seek the Judgment? Yes.\n\n2.        To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes.\n\n3.        Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes.\n\n\nM.M.KUMAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
          This appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent, is<\/p>\n
directed against judgment dated 27.04.2005 passed by the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No.1547 of 1999. The learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge has allowed the prayer of the petitioner-respondent and has<\/p>\n
issued directions to the appellant that the petitioner-respondent be<\/p>\n
rewarded 20% of the total amount of the contraband items seized by him<\/p>\n
in pursuance of the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985.<\/p>\n
          Brief facts of the case are that on the information supplied by<\/p>\n
the petitioner-respondent, 245 gold biscuits were seized by the Custom
\n L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                       -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
and Police Department on 17.01.1994.         Even the smugglers were<\/p>\n
arrested. In pursuance of the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985, the<\/p>\n
revenue accorded sanction for rewarding the petitioner-respondent a sum<\/p>\n
of Rs.7,14,000\/- and the same was paid to him on 30.05.1994. The<\/p>\n
petitioner-respondent was further informed that the final reward would<\/p>\n
be paid to him only after the case had been finally adjudicated upon by<\/p>\n
the competent authority. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs.3,00,000\/- has<\/p>\n
been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner-respondent.<\/p>\n
          The petitioner-respondent did not feel satisfied with the reward<\/p>\n
money paid to him and continued making representations to the<\/p>\n
appellant claiming that as per paragraph 3.1.1 of the Government<\/p>\n
instructions dated 30.03.1985 (P-1), he was entitled to the reward money<\/p>\n
of upto 20% of the market value of the contrabands involved and that he<\/p>\n
had received only a paltry amount. Eventually, the petitioner-respondent<\/p>\n
issued a legal notice through his counsel which did not elicit any<\/p>\n
response which led to the filing of C.W.P. No.1547 of 1999 before this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
          After taking into account the written statement filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant and weighing the rival contention, the learned Single Judge felt<\/p>\n
persuaded to take the view that although according to para 3.1.1 of the<\/p>\n
instructions, the maximum reward money could be 20% yet according to<\/p>\n
para 4.1 if the amount lesser than the 20% was to be paid then some<\/p>\n
reason must be spelt out by the competent authority at a stage prior to<\/p>\n
the payment of the reward. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to
\n L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
notice para 9 of the written statement and observed as under :-<\/p>\n
                                “It    is   indeed    surprising   that   the<\/p>\n
                    respondents, while accepting the information given<\/p>\n
                    by the petitioner, leading to the recovery, have held<\/p>\n
                    that the competent authority was of the opinion that<\/p>\n
                    only vague information had been supplied by the<\/p>\n
                    petitioner and that he had himself not come forward<\/p>\n
                    to apprehend the culprits and was therefore not<\/p>\n
                    entitled to the full reward amount. I, however, find<\/p>\n
                    that the reasons given in Paragraph 9 of the written<\/p>\n
                    statement are clearly irrelevant and an after thought.<\/p>\n
                    To say that the information given by the petitioner<\/p>\n
                    was vague, is to say the least clearly unacceptable.<\/p>\n
                    Moreover, it would be evident from the instructions,<\/p>\n
                    Annexure P-1, that the reward has to be given to an<\/p>\n
                    informer leading to the recovery of contraband and it<\/p>\n
                    is not the requirement of the instructions that he<\/p>\n
                    should participate in the apprehension of the<\/p>\n
                    smugglers, which was clearly the duty of the<\/p>\n
                    employees of the department.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                I had, at one stage toyed with the idea of<\/p>\n
                    remitting    the    matter   to   the   department    for<\/p>\n
                    reconsideration but in the light of the fact that the<\/p>\n
                    department had taken a firm stand in the written<\/p>\n
                    statement, challenging the petitioner’s claim, it<\/p>\n
                    would be futile exercise to do so. ”\n<\/p>\n
 L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
          We have perused the pleading of the parties and have<\/p>\n
examined the view taken by the learned Single Judge.           After close<\/p>\n
scrutiny, we have reached the conclusion that the view taken by the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge does not merit acceptance because the matter is no<\/p>\n
longer res integra. In the case of Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy-<\/a><\/p>\n
(2003) 12 SCC 627, the policy instructions dated 30.03.1985 were<\/p>\n
considered. The instructions have been revised on 30.03.1989. On<\/p>\n
17.01.1994, the information was supplied by the petitioner-respondent to<\/p>\n
the appellant-department, therefore, the revised instructions would<\/p>\n
govern the issue. It is pertinent to notice that paras 4 and 4.1 of the<\/p>\n
instructions in categorical terms clarifies that the reward is purely ex-<\/p>\n
gratia payment which subject to the guidelines, may be awarded on the<\/p>\n
absolute discretion of the authority.    Paras 4 and 4.1 of the policy<\/p>\n
instructions read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                    “4.         Reward should not be granted as a matter<\/p>\n
                    of routine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    4.1         Reward is purely an ex-gratia payment<\/p>\n
                    which subject to the guidelines, may be granted on<\/p>\n
                    the absolute discretion of the authority competent to<\/p>\n
                    grant rewards and cannot be claimed by anyone as a<\/p>\n
                    matter of right. In determining the reward will keep<\/p>\n
                    in mind the specificity and accuracy of the<\/p>\n
                    information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the<\/p>\n
                    extent and nature of the help rendered by the<\/p>\n
                    informer, whether information gives clues to persons<\/p>\n
                    involved in smuggling, or their associates, etc. the
\n L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
                    risk involved for the Government servants in<\/p>\n
                    working out the case, the difficulty in securing the<\/p>\n
                    information, the extent to which the vigilance of the<\/p>\n
                    staff led to the seizure special initiative efforts and<\/p>\n
                    ingenuity displayed etc. and whether, besides the<\/p>\n
                    seizures        of        contraband         goods,     the<\/p>\n
                    owners\/organisers\/financers\/racketeers as well as the<\/p>\n
                    carriers have been apprehended or not. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          The aforesaid guidelines were reviewed and modified on<\/p>\n
30.03.1989 , which provided ‘that final reward should be paid only after<\/p>\n
actual realization of the Central Excise duty\/customs\/penalty\/fine etc.’<\/p>\n
          After noticing the aforementioned paras of the policy<\/p>\n
instructions, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in C.Krishna Reddy’ case held<\/p>\n
that many factors have to be taken into account by the competent<\/p>\n
authority before announcing the reward. It further held that the factors<\/p>\n
like specificity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble<\/p>\n
undertaken, the extent or the nature of help rendered by the informer,<\/p>\n
whether information gives clues of the person involved in smuggling or<\/p>\n
their associates, the difficulty in securing the information, the risk<\/p>\n
involved for the Government servants in working out the case and<\/p>\n
whether    apart   from   seizure        of   the   contraband     goods,   the<\/p>\n
owners\/organisers\/financers\/racketeers have been apprehended.               The<\/p>\n
Supreme Court went on to observe in para 12 as under :-<\/p>\n
                               “The High Court in writ jurisdiction<\/p>\n
                    cannot examine or weigh the various factors which<\/p>\n
                    have to be taken into consideration while deciding a
\n L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                       -6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
                    claim regarding grant of reward. These are matters<\/p>\n
                    exclusively within the domain of the authorities of<\/p>\n
                    the Department as they alone can weigh and examine<\/p>\n
                    the usefulness or otherwise of the information given<\/p>\n
                    by the informer. In the writ petition filed by the<\/p>\n
                    respondent, no details had been given on the relevant<\/p>\n
                    issues. If the grant of reward cannot be claimed as a<\/p>\n
                    mater of right it is not understandable as to how a<\/p>\n
                    writ of mandamus can be issued commanding the<\/p>\n
                    Government to give a particular amount by way of<\/p>\n
                    reward. ……………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          Hon’ble the Supreme Court further held that a writ of<\/p>\n
mandamus can only be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty<\/p>\n
imposed upon the officer concerned and failure on the part of that officer<\/p>\n
to discharge the statutory obligation. Therefore, it is required to be<\/p>\n
shown that a statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a<\/p>\n
legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court relied upon its earlier judgments rendered in the cases of Bihar<\/p>\n
Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi<\/p>\n
Singh, AIR<\/a> 1977 SC 2149;             Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvanai       v.<\/p>\n
Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 334 and<\/p>\n
Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 964.<\/p>\n
          The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.<\/p>\n
Krishna Reddy’s case when applied to the facts of the present case would<\/p>\n
show that no direction could be issued to the appellant for rewarding the<\/p>\n
full amount because the appellant has taken a categorical stand in para 9
\n L.P.A. No.164 of 2005                                        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the written statement that the petitioner-respondent was not entitled to<\/p>\n
any other relief as sufficient amount of over Rs.10 lakhs was rewarded<\/p>\n
for a vague information supplied by him. The further stand of the<\/p>\n
appellant in the written statement was that the petitioner-respondent did<\/p>\n
not come forward to apprehend the culprits nor his life was put to risk by<\/p>\n
the appellant-department. Therefore, we are of the considered view that<\/p>\n
the learned Single Judge committed error in law by issuing directions to<\/p>\n
the appellant because no mandamus could be issued on the basis of<\/p>\n
instructions dated 30.03.1985 as revised on 30.03.1989.     Secondly, the<\/p>\n
revised instructions have not been considered by the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge and thirdly, the reasons recorded by the officers of the appellant-<\/p>\n
department for announcing the award limiting the same to a particular<\/p>\n
sum could not be subjected to judicial review. Therefore, the appeal<\/p>\n
merits acceptance.      Consequently, the writ petition filed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner-respondent is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
          For the reasons aforementioned, the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
Single Judge dated 27.04.2005 is hereby set aside and the writ petition<\/p>\n
filed by the petitioner-respondent is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                   (M.M.KUMAR)
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                   (H.S.BHALLA)
\n                                                      JUDGE
\n05.02.2009
\nsanjeev\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.164 of 2005 Date of decision:05. 02.2009 Union of India and another …..Appellants versus Krishan Gopal Dhawan ….Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present: None […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - 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-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-09T15:22:38+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=\"8 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-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T15:22:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1547,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-09T15:22:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - 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-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-09T15:22:38+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T15:22:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009"},"wordCount":1547,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009","name":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-09T15:22:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-and-another-vs-krishan-gopal-dhawan-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India And Another vs Krishan Gopal Dhawan on 5 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/48447","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=48447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}