{"id":55748,"date":"2010-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-27T16:14:29","modified_gmt":"2016-11-27T10:44:29","slug":"smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                                            1\n\n                                                                                  Court No.21\n\n\n\n\n                     Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29028 of 2009\n                                  Smt. Sunita Tiwari\n                                        Versus\n                               State of U.P. and others\n\n\n\nHon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the
\nvalidity of order dated 25.02.2009 passed by Additional District Magistrate
\n(Finance and Revenue), Deoria in case No.2, Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs. Executive
\nEngineer and others, holing that the claim application moved on behalf of the
\npetitioner was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
      Brief background of the case is that the petitioner is a widow of late Sri
\nPrakash Tiwari, who died on 04.05.2005 in fatal accident caused by broken
\nand hanging high tension electric wire at Pokharbinda, police station
\nRampurkarkhana, District Deoria. Qua the said incident in question information
\nwas given to the police, which was registered in G. D. No.14; inquest was done
\non 05.05.2005. Post mortem was also conducted and cause of death was
\nreported due to shock. The petitioner filed application on 21.09.2005 under
\nSection 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991. On the said application
\nnotices were issued and thereafter, said application has been dismissed as not
\nmaintainable. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
      In the present case, on presentation of writ petition on 30.06.2009, this
\nCourt passed following order:\n<\/p>\n
                    “Notice on behalf of respondent No.1 has been accepted
\n             by the Standing Counsel. Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
\n             represented by Sri Promod Bharadwaj, Advocate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Respondents pray for and are granted four weeks’ time to
\n             file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within
\n             one week thereafter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     List on 20th August, 2009.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Thereafter, on 15.02.2010 six weeks’ further time was accorded to Sri
\nH.P. Dubey, Advocate for filing counter affidavit. On 07.04.2010, this Court
\n                                                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
passed following order:\n<\/p>\n
             “Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel prays for one week and no
\n             more time to file a response to the writ petition, which raises a
\n             pure legal issue namely as to whether the Public Insurance
\n             Liabilities Act applies in cases of the accident as involved in the
\n             present case or not.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             List in the next cause list.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On 22.04.2010, the case was directed to be listed in the next cause list,
\nshowing the name of Sri Pramod Bharadwaj as counsel for the respondents.
\nOn the matter being taken up today, Sri Alok Saran Tiwari, learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner, has filed information slip, clearly mentioning therein that Sri
\nPramod Bharadwaj has refused to accept the notice. In such a situation and in
\nthis background, as anxiety of the court is that the matter should be decided,
\nthe case is being heard and disposed of exparte.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri Alok Saran Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with
\nvehemence that the view which has been taken by the authority concerned is
\ntotally incorrect view and is in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in the
\ncase of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. District Magistrate, Dehradun,<\/a>
\n1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344, wherein view has been taken that the “electricity”
\nfalls within the definition of “hazardous substance”, and as such proceedings in
\nquestion were maintainable under the provisions of Public Liability Insurance
\nAct, 1991, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, representing
\nrespondent Nos. 1 and 4, on the other hand, contended that rightful view has
\nbeen taken in the matter, as such no interference be made.\n<\/p>\n
      This Court in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. District
\nMagistrate, Dehradun,<\/a> 1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344, has already considered the
\nissue that electricity falls within the definition of “hazardous substance” and the
\naccident, caused on account of it, is covered under the provisions of the Public
\nLiability Insurance Act, 1991. Relevant extract of the judgment, as contained in
\nparagraphs 42 to 44, is being quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
             “42. Hence in my opinion ‘hazardous substance’ as defined in
\n             Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act is not to be confined to a substance
\n             specified in the notification issued by the Central Government,
\n             but it includes all substances which come under the definition of
\n             ‘hazardous substance’ under the Environment (Protection) Act,
\n             1986, with this exception that if any such substance is also
\n             notified by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the
\n                                                                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
            1991 Act then it will be a ‘hazardous substance’ only if it exceeds
\n            the quantity specified in the said notification. Thus the notification
\n            issued by the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the
\n            1991 Act can only narrow down the scope of ‘hazardous
\n            substance’ as defined under the Environment (Protection Act,
\n            1986, but substances which are not specified in the said
\n            notification will nevertheless be regarded as ‘hazardous
\n            substances’ under the 1991 Act if they come within the definition
\n            of ‘hazardous substances’ under the Environment (Protection)
\n            Act, 1986.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            43. I have already stated above that electricity is “hazardous
\n            substance” as defined under the Environment (Protection) Act,
\n            1986 and hence I reject the submission of the learned counsel
\n            for the petitioners that it is not a hazardous substance since it
\n            has not been included in the Notification dated 24-3-1992.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            44. THE principle of strict Liability Section 3 (2) of the 1991 Act
\n            places a strict liability (liability without fault) in cases of such
\n            accident due to ‘hazardous substances’ and it is not necessary
\n            for the claimant to plead that the death or injury was caused by
\n            wrong or negligent act of any person.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The High Court of Madhya Pradesh also in the case of M.P. State
\nElectricity Board, Jabalpur vs. Collector Mandla, 2003 AIR (MP)-0-156,
\nhas followed the aforesaid judgment in case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs.
\nDistrict Magistrate, Dehradun,<\/a> 1997 UPLBEC (2) 1344 and has taken the view
\nthat electricity is “hazardous substance”. Relevant extract of the judgment, as
\ncontained in paragraphs 15 to 20 of the said judgment, is being excerpted
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
            “15. Brother Justice Dipak Misra while deciding Writ Petition No.
\n            2165\/2001 has not only relied upon the decision in the case of U.P.
\n            State Electricity Board, AIR 1998 All 1 (supra) but has held that
\n            “electricity” is a “hazardous substance”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            16. From the above discussion it is clear that the electricity is a
\n            “hazardous substance”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17. The next question for consideration is whether a notification is
\n            required to be made by the Central Government quantifying the
\n            electricity by notification as mentioned in Section 2 (d) of the Public
\n            Liability Insurance Act, 1991. The definition of “hazardous
\n            substance” has been given in Section 2 (d) of the Public Liability
\n            Insurance Act, 1991 which is as under :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “2 (d) – “hazardous substance” means any substance or
\n            preparation which is defined as hazardous substance under the
\n            Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and exceeding such quantity
\n            as may be specified, by notification, by the Central Government.”
\n            The definition of “hazardous substance” has been borrowed from
\n            Section 2 (e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. As per
\n            Section 2 (e) of the said Act, definition of “hazardous substance”
\n            reads as under :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “2(e) – ‘hazardous substance’ means any substance or preparation
\n            which, by reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or
\n            handling, is liable to cause harm to human beings, other living
\n            creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            18. The submission of Shri V. Rusia, learned counsel for the
\n            petitioner is that until and unless the electricity is notified by the
\n                                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
Central Government, it cannot fall within the meaning of hazardous
\nsubstance and definition has been carved out especially for the
\npurpose of Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
19. “Hazardous Substance” has been defined in Section 2 (e) of
\nthe Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, according to which it
\nmeans any substance or preparation which, by reason of its
\nchemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to
\ncause harm to human beings. Physico-chemical properties of
\nelectricity are definitely liable to cause harm to human beings and
\nother living creatures, plants, micro-organism etc. Thus, it has to
\nbe regarded as “hazardous substance” within the meaning given in
\nSection 2 (e) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and once
\nwhen something is hazardous irrespective of quantity, In my
\nopinion it is not necessary for the Central Govt. to issue a
\nnotification as it is not necessary to notify electricity as required in
\nSection 2 (d) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 as it is
\nhazardous irrespective of its quantity. A thing which is known as
\nintensely hazardous has to be treated as hazardous substance so
\nas to effectuate the purposes for the enactment of the Act of 1991.
\nWhatever irrespective of proportion is hazardous has to be treated
\nas hazardous one. Some article may not be hazardous in small
\nquantity but electricity is not one of such article. Only these
\nhazardous substances have to be notified which may be
\ndangerous on exceeding such quantity then it becomes necessary
\nto specify the quantity. In my opinion it is not necessary for the
\nelectricity to be notified under Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1991 as in
\nany quantity electricity is hazardous. It has to be taken as
\nhazardous substance within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act
\nof 1991. Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1991 does not have effect
\nnarrowing down the meaning of “hazardous substance” as defined
\nin Section 2 (e) of the Act of 1986. Similar question was answered
\nin U.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1998 All 1 (supra) and in M.P.
\nState Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Collector, Mandla in W.P. No.
\n2165\/2001 decided on 15-4-2002. In U.P. State Electricity Board
\n(supra), it was held in Para 42 as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“42. Hence in my opinion ‘hazardous substance’ as defined in
\nSection 2 (d) of the 1991 Act is not to be confined to a substance
\nspecified in the notification issued by the Central Government, but
\nit includes all substances which come under the definition of
\n‘hazardous substance’ under the Environment (Protection) Act,
\n1986, with this exception that if any such substance is also notified
\nby the Central Government under Section 2 (d) of the 1991 Act
\nthen it will be a ‘hazardous substance’ only if it exceeds the
\nquantity specified in the said notification.\n<\/p>\n
 @page-MP161
\nThus the notification issued by the Central Government under
\nSection 2 (d) of the 1991 Act can only narrow down the scope of
\n‘hazardous substance’ as defined under the Environment
\n(Protection Act, 1986, but substances which are not specified in
\nthe said notification will nevertheless be regarded as ‘hazardous
\nsubstances’ under the 1991 Act if they come within the definition of
\n‘hazardous substances’ under the Environment (Protection) Act,
\n1986.”\n<\/p>\n
In the case of M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur (supra) it was held
\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“On a reading of aforesaid two definitions it cannot be construed
\nthat the substance which is not notified by the Central Government
\ncannot be regarded as a ‘hazardous substance’. The terms used
\nunder Section 2 (d) of the Act are of wide amplitude and of
\nimmense magnitude. They are not to be understood in a narrow,
\nrestricted or confined manner. On the contrary, it covers a large
\ncanvas. The dictionary clause does not lay down a postulate that
\nunless a substance is notified it cannot be regarded as a
\n                                                                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
              hazardous substance. The definition in the Act refers to
\n              Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. I have reproduced the
\n              aforesaid definitions hereinabove. The said definition is in a broad
\n              spectrum. It cannot be encompassed in a small region. If both the
\n              definitions are read together it is quite pronounced that the
\n              electricity should come within the ambit and sweep of the
\n              definition, and certain substances may become hazardous if they
\n              are notified as required under the provisions. Thus, notification by
\n              the Central Government is not the sine qua non to make a
\n              substance hazardous.\n<\/p>\n
              20. Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1991 speaks about the strict liability
\n              without fault in case of such accidents involving death due to
\n              hazardous substance and it is not necessary for the claimant to
\n              plead and establish that the death, injury or damage in respect of
\n              which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act,
\n              neglect or default of any person. No policy was taken out by the
\n              Board. That will not affect the liability of the owner. The main aims
\n              and objects of the Board to generate, transform and transmit the
\n              electricity and these are its activities. It cannot escape from its
\n              liability by saying that no policy was taken by the Board.”\n<\/p>\n
      The issue, thus raised, has already been answered by this Court and
\nfollowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, holding that the electricity is
\n“hazardous substances” and the notification issued by the Central Government
\nis not a sine qua non to make the substance hazardous. Once such view has
\nbeen taken by the Courts in respect of welfare legislation, then the order which
\nhas been passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue)
\non 25.02.2009 holding that the application was not maintainable under Section
\n6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, cannot be approved of.\n<\/p>\n
      Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order
\ndated 25.02.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The application moved by
\nthe petitioner under Section 6 of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, shall
\nbe decided afresh by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and
\nRevenue) , Deoria, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from
\nthe date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
21.07.2010.\n<\/p>\n
SRY\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 1 Court No.21 Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.29028 of 2009 Smt. Sunita Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the validity of order dated 25.02.2009 […]<\/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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - 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\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-27T10:44:29+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\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T10:44:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2146,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-27T10:44:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 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":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - 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\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-27T10:44:29+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\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T10:44:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010"},"wordCount":2146,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010","name":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-27T10:44:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sunita-tiwari-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sunita Tiwari vs State Of U.P. & Others on 21 July, 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\/55748","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=55748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}