{"id":52863,"date":"2010-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-29T06:48:15","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T01:18:15","slug":"rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                        W.P. No.4388\/2010\n6.5.2010\n      Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners.\n      Shri     Sudhir   K.Shrivastava,    Govt.    Advocate     for\nrespondents.<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Petitioners in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n<p>Constitution of India is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus<\/p>\n<p>directing the respondents not to charge tuition fee from petitioner<\/p>\n<p>No.1 and refund the tuition fee realized from them.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that<\/p>\n<p>the petitioners are entitled for exemption from payment of tuition<\/p>\n<p>fee as per Scheme of respondents under the Green Card Holder<\/p>\n<p>but this benefit has not been extended to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    The facts briefly stated are that petitioner No.1 is<\/p>\n<p>prosecuting his studies in Government Engineering College,<\/p>\n<p>Jabalpur.    Petitioner No.2 is mother of petitioner No.1. It is<\/p>\n<p>averred in the petition that parents of petitioner No.1 adopted<\/p>\n<p>family planning. Green Card Certificate was issued to them vide<\/p>\n<p>Card No.149 dated 23\/7\/2003.         Earlier petitioner No.1 was<\/p>\n<p>granted exemption from depositing tuition fee.        Thereafter on<\/p>\n<p>23\/1\/2007 a notice was issued by respondent No.3 stating therein<\/p>\n<p>that due to clerical mistake the benefit of green card holder was<\/p>\n<p>extended whereas, as per the policy of the State Government,<\/p>\n<p>petitioner No.1 is not entitled for any exemption from payment of<\/p>\n<p>tuition fee and directed him to deposit the tuition fee of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.1,20,000\/- @ 25,500\/- per annum, failing which appropriate<\/p>\n<p>disciplinary action will be taken against him. On 2\/2\/008 and<br \/>\n 26\/3\/2008 vide receipt No.015744 and 015748, petitioner No.1<\/p>\n<p>deposited the whole amount of tuition fee in compliance to notice<\/p>\n<p>dated 23\/1\/2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that<\/p>\n<p>vide circular dated 28\/10\/205, the petitioner is entitled for the<\/p>\n<p>benefit of exemption from paying tuition fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate drew my<\/p>\n<p>attention to the said circular and submitted that the State<\/p>\n<p>Government on 28\/10\/205 has reviewed the decision and now<\/p>\n<p>the benefit of previous scheme of green card holder had been<\/p>\n<p>made applicable to wards of all the persons who had undergone<\/p>\n<p>family planning operation prior to 13\/5\/2003. If the case of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners is covered by the order dated 28\/10\/2005, the<\/p>\n<p>respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners on filing a<\/p>\n<p>fresh representation in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the<\/p>\n<p>order of Division Bench of this Court dated 5\/1\/2010 passed in<\/p>\n<p>W.P. No.8360\/2009 (Aushutosh Singh V. State of M.P.and<\/p>\n<p>others) which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                            &#8220;O R D E R<\/p>\n<p>                  AS PER : ARUN MISHRA J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                    Writ petition has been filed by the<br \/>\n             petitioner for refund of tuition fee<br \/>\n             claiming the benefit of Green Card held by<br \/>\n             his father.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>             2-   It is averred in the petition that in<br \/>\n             the year 1989 the petitioner&#8217;s parents<br \/>\n             adopted the family planning. Certificate<br \/>\n (P\/1) was issued by the Department to the<br \/>\nparents of the petitioner of having adopted<br \/>\nthe family planning. Petitioner has<br \/>\nsubmitted that as per circular dt.9.4.2003<br \/>\nsuch incumbents are entitled for the<br \/>\nbenefit of exemption from paying the<br \/>\ntuition fee, in Autonomous medical college<br \/>\nalso they are entitled for examination from<br \/>\nmaking payment of tuition fee. Circular (P\/\n<\/p>\n<p>3)    dt.28.10.2005 has also been relied<br \/>\nupon. Department has issued the Green<br \/>\nCard (P\/4) on 7.8.2006 mentioning that<br \/>\nthe children or holder of Green Card are<br \/>\nexempted from the tuition fee in Medical<br \/>\nand Engineering colleges. Petitioner had<br \/>\nobtained admission in the Engineering<br \/>\ncourse in the year 2003-04, he had<br \/>\ndeposited the tuition fee of rs.95,000\/-<br \/>\nvide receipt (P\/5). Petitioner has submitted<br \/>\nrepresentation for refund of the tuition fee<br \/>\nin view of the circular, but, no heed has<br \/>\nbeen paid. Hence, petition has been<br \/>\npreferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>3-     In the return filed by the respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 it is contended that the circular<br \/>\ndt.9.4.2003 is not applicable to the<br \/>\npetitioner as he had already deposited the<br \/>\nfee on 7.4.2003 and the circular was<br \/>\nissued on 9.4.2003. At the time of<br \/>\nadmission Green Card was not held by the<br \/>\nparents of the petitioner. Thus, the<br \/>\npetitioner is not entitled for exemption.<br \/>\nOther facts have not been traversed in the<br \/>\nreturn.\n<\/p>\n<p>4-     Shri Ashok Singh, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the petitioner has<br \/>\nsubmitted that on proper consideration of<br \/>\ncirculars (P\/2 &amp; P\/3) the benefit ought to<br \/>\nhave been extended to the petitioner. This<br \/>\nfact was not disputed that the family<br \/>\nplanning was adopted by the mother in the<br \/>\nyear 1989 as apparent from certificate (P\/\n<\/p>\n<p>1). The family planning operation was<br \/>\nperformed on 11.12.1989, thus, the<br \/>\npetitioner is entitled for exemption from<br \/>\ntuition fee.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5-     Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Addl.\n<\/p>\n<p>AG,     appearing   on    behalf   of    the<br \/>\nrespondents has submitted that the<br \/>\ncirculars (P\/2 and P\/3) are prospective in<br \/>\nnature, thus, the exemption from tuition<br \/>\nfee cannot be granted as the fee was<br \/>\ndeposited two days before issuance of<br \/>\ncircular (P\/2). Green Card has been issued<br \/>\nin the year 2006. In view of the aforesaid<br \/>\nthe petitioner cannot be said to be entitled<br \/>\nfor exemption from making payment of<br \/>\ntuition fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>6-     It is not in dispute that the family<br \/>\nplanning was adopted by the parents of<br \/>\nthe petitioner. Tubectomy surgery was<br \/>\nperformed of Smt. Kusum Singh, mother<br \/>\nof the petitioner on 11.12.1989. this fact<br \/>\nhas also been recognized by issuance of<br \/>\nGreen Card, though it has been issued in<br \/>\nthe year 2006, but, fact remains that the<br \/>\nentitlement is on the basis of family<br \/>\nplanning operation performed, it is<br \/>\nformality of issuance of Green Card which<br \/>\nhas been made later on. It is not in dispute<br \/>\nthat Smt. Kusum Singh, mother of the<br \/>\npetitioner is the holder of Green Card. It is<br \/>\nprovided in the Green Card that the wards<br \/>\nare entitled for exemption from tuition fee<br \/>\nin Medical\/Engineering Colleges. We find<br \/>\non perusal of the circular (P\/2) that the<br \/>\nPublic     Health   and    Family   Welfare<br \/>\nDepartment has taken a decision to extend<br \/>\nbenefit contained in circular dt.6.7.1990<br \/>\nbearing      No.1499\/3819\/17Medi-2.      The<br \/>\ncircular (P\/2) reemphasized that the State<br \/>\nGovernment has issued the aforesaid<br \/>\ncircular dt.6.7.1990 not to realize any<br \/>\ntuition fee from the wards of the Green<br \/>\nCard holder, as the certain colleges being<br \/>\ndeclared as autonomous were not giving<br \/>\nthe benefit contemplated in the aforesaid<br \/>\ndecision. Thus, it was ordered that in tune<br \/>\nwith the decision rendered by the Gwalior<br \/>\nBench of this Court in W.P. No.1614\/2001<br \/>\n(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Shrivastava Vs.<br \/>\nState of M.P. the benefit of aforesaid<br \/>\ncircular dt.6.7.1990 to be extended to the<br \/>\nchildren of the Green Card holder<br \/>\n obtaining    education     in   autonomous<br \/>\nmedical colleges. When we read the<br \/>\ncircular (P\/2) dt.9.4.2003 same makes it<br \/>\nclear that it has been issued in terms of<br \/>\ncircular dt.6.7.1990 and it is with<br \/>\nreference to the aforesaid circular<br \/>\ndt.6.7.1990 it has been mentioned that the<br \/>\nbenefit was provided not to charge tuition<br \/>\nfee from the children of the Green Card<br \/>\nholder in the engineering college also.<br \/>\nThus, we find no force in the submission<br \/>\nraised by Shri Naman Nagrath, learned<br \/>\nAddl. AG that for the first time such<br \/>\nbenefit    was    extended     by    circular<br \/>\ndt.9.4.2003, it was extended vide its<br \/>\ncircular dt.6.7.1990 as mentioned in<br \/>\ncirculars (P\/2 and P\/3) itself. It is not the<br \/>\ncase of grant of retrospective benefit, it<br \/>\nwas available to the petitioner in terms of<br \/>\nthe circular dated 6.7.1990. It was further<br \/>\nclarified that the persons who have<br \/>\nobtained their surgery performed before<br \/>\n13.5.2003 it will not be condition that they<br \/>\nshould be below poverty line. In view of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid circulars (P\/2 and P\/3) we<br \/>\nhave no hesitation to hold that the right<br \/>\nwas pre-existing. Thus, the petitioner has<br \/>\nrightly claimed exemption from tuition fee,<br \/>\nwhich benefit ought to have been<br \/>\nextended in the facts of the instant case,<br \/>\non facts, it is not in dispute that<br \/>\nTubectomy surgery was performed of the<br \/>\nmother of petitioner in the year 1989,<br \/>\nfamily planning was adopted, hence,<br \/>\npetitioner cannot be denied the benefit of<br \/>\nexemption from tuition fee, when Green<br \/>\nCard was issued in the year 2006, it<br \/>\nrecognizes the benefit conferred under the<br \/>\nCircular of the year 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>7-     Thus, we hold that the petitioner is<br \/>\nentitled for exemption from tuition fee.<br \/>\nThe tuition fee realized from him shall be<br \/>\nrefunded to him within a period of 3<br \/>\nmonths. We decline to grant interest in<br \/>\nview of the fact that the petition has been<br \/>\npreferred in the year 2009 and admission<br \/>\nwas obtained in the year 2003-04. Writ<br \/>\npetition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                No costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     In this view of the decision of the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n<p>Court in the case of Aushutosh Singh Vs. State of M.P.and<\/p>\n<p>others (supra), this writ petition stands finally disposed of with the<\/p>\n<p>following directions :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               (i) The     petitioner       may       file     a        fresh<br \/>\n                  representation         to        respondent           No.2<br \/>\n                  claiming the benefit under the scheme of<br \/>\n                  Green Card Holder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (ii) Respondent     No.2        on    receipt       of    the<br \/>\n                  aforesaid representation shall consider<br \/>\n                  and decide the same expeditiously as<br \/>\n                  early as possible within a period of 30 days<br \/>\n                  from     the    date        of    receipt        of    the<br \/>\n                  representation in the light of the order of<br \/>\n                  Division Bench of this Court in the case of<br \/>\n                  Aushutosh Singh (supra) and if it is found<br \/>\n                  that petitioner No.1 is entitled for the<br \/>\n                  benefit, the said benefit shall be extended<br \/>\n                  to him forthwith and the amount deposited<br \/>\n                  by     the   petitioner      on       2\/2\/008          and<br \/>\n                  26\/3\/2008 shall be refunded to him within<br \/>\n                  a period of two months from the date of<br \/>\n                  passing of the order, failing which the<br \/>\n                  petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per<br \/>\n                  annum from the date of order till its<br \/>\n                  realisation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.     With the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed and<\/p>\n<p>disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p> (P.K. JAISWAL)<br \/>\n     JUDGE\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010 W.P. No.4388\/2010 6.5.2010 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sudhir K.Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard. Petitioners in this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is praying for issuance of writ of [&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-52863","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T01:18:15+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\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T01:18:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"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\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T01:18:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T01:18:15+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\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T01:18:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010"},"wordCount":1567,"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\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010","name":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 6 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T01:18:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rahul-rai-vs-secretary-the-state-of-madhya-on-6-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rahul Rai vs Secretary The State Of Madhya &#8230; on 6 May, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/52863","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=52863"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52863\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52863"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52863"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52863"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}