{"id":56889,"date":"2010-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-24T09:23:33","modified_gmt":"2018-07-24T03:53:33","slug":"smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 July, 2010<\/div>\n
Reserved\n\n\nWrit Petition No. 5931 (M\/B) of 2010\nSmt. Kamla Devi\nversus\nState of U.P. and others\n\n\nHon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.\n<\/p>\n
               (Delivered by Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.)<\/p>\n
       Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Mukund Tiwari,
\nlearned State counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
       Before proceeding with the hearing of this petition, we orally required the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner to reply that prima facie since this petition appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court,
\ntherefore, why exemplary costs be not awarded against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
       This writ petition is the off-shoot of an interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of
\n2010 in re: Smt. Kamla Devi versus State of U.P. and others, which has also been decided by the Court
\ntoday i.e. on 30.7.2010. The said writ petition was heard by a Bench consisting of one of us Pradeep
\nKant, J. and Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J. The writ petition has been allowed by the said Bench, and
\nthe impugned order dated 29.3.2010 ceasing the financial and administrative powers of Smt. Kamla Devi
\nas Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat, Pratapgarh has been quashed. The respondents have been directed to
\nallow the petitioner to function as Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat, Pratapgarh with immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n
       After the judgment was reserved in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010 and before the same
\ncould be pronounced, petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi filed this writ petition during vacations, alleging that in
\nthe aforesaid Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010, an interim order was passed on 6.4.2010 to the effect
\nthat in the meantime, the status and facilities of the petitioner as ‘Adhyaksha’ shall not be disturbed, but
\nshe was not being allowed to discharge the administrative and financial powers of Adhyaksha though she
\nwas supposed to have been permitted to do so in terms of the aforesaid interim order.\n<\/p>\n
       On 18.6.2010, a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
       “Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
       Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.\n<\/p>\n
             Sri I.B.Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri           S.M.Royekwar,           learned
\n counsel, has appeared.\n<\/p>\n
              Impleadment application filed by Sri S.M.Royekwar learned              counsel, on behalf of
\nRam Kishore, is taken on record.\n<\/p>\n
               The petitioner may file objection to the impleadment application      within a week.
\n               List in the week commencing 5.7.2010 along with Writ Petition         No. 3046 (M\/B) of
\n2010.\n<\/p>\n
               In the meantime, the petitioner shall be permitted to discharge       duty keeping in view
\nthe order dated 6.4.2010 passed by this Court till the next date of listing.\n<\/p>\n
               Sri Prashant Singh ‘Atal” learned counsel has appeared on behalf of O.P.No. 4.”\n<\/p>\n
        It appears that despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner was not allowed to function and
\ndischarge the administrative and financial powers of Adhyaksha; therefore, she moved an application
\nunder Article 215 of the Constitution. On 5.7.2010, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the
\npetitioner stated that he does not want to press the application filed under Article 215 of the Constitution.
\nA Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
        “Hon’ble Uma Nath Singh, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Sri I.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the C.M.Appl.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No. 62432 of 2010, filed under Article 215 of the      Constitution of India for initiating contempt
\nproceedings at this stage,      hence, the application is dismissed as not pressed.\n<\/p>\n
              However, learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the order                   dated
\n18.06.2010 has not been complied with and the petitioner has not been allowed to join.\n<\/p>\n
                He further states that the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, is       responsible         for
\nviolating the said order of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
                Sri Prashant Singh ‘Atal’, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4, states
\nthat he has already given his opinion to       Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat,
\nPratapgarh, to         comply with the order dated 18.06.2010 but so far he has not received any
\ninstruction.\n<\/p>\n
                Issue notice to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, as to why       contempt proceedings
\nbe not initiated against him for non compliance        of the order dated 18.06.2010.\n<\/p>\n
               List on 26.7.2010.”\n<\/p>\n
        The order, it appears, was not complied with and in the meantime, before the date fixed i.e.
\n26.7.2010, an application for vacation of interim orders dated 18.6.2010 and 5.7.2010 was filed by the
\nState. This application under the roaster fixed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice was taken up by this Court on
\n15.7.2010 and thereafter again on the request of parties, it was posted for 16.7.2010, on which date
\narguments of counsel for the parties were heard and orders reserved, and till the pronouncement of the
\n order, the directions issued in both the aforesaid interim orders were kept in abeyance.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the State pressing his application for vacation of interim orders submitted that
\nthe writ petition itself is not maintainable as the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010
\nchallenging the order of cessation of administrative and financial powers of the petitioner as Adhyaksha
\nwas already reserved before summer vacations on 21.4.2010 and, therefore, no fresh writ petition could
\nhave been filed for implementing the interim order passed in that writ petition. He has also pleaded that
\nthe interim order dated 6.4.2010 did not allow the petitioner to discharge the administrative and financial
\npowers or to function as Adhyaksha but only her status and facilities as Adhyaksha were protected and,
\ntherefore, it was a misreading of the interim order, and a misleading plea raised in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the petitioner, in response, submitted that the interim order aforesaid, passed
\nin Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010, in substance meant that the petitioner should be allowed to
\nfunction and discharge her duties as Adhyaksha and exercise administrative and financial powers, and
\nsince despite the aforesaid interim order she was deprived of the administrative and financial powers, she
\nhad to file the instant writ petition during vacations. The argument is that the interim order could not
\nhave been allowed to be frustrated by deliberate act of the respondent State under the pretext that the
\njudgment in the earlier petition was reserved.\n<\/p>\n
       Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised a plea that this Bench cannot hear this matter as
\nthe order of a co-ordinate Bench cannot be modified or nullified by another Bench. The emphasis is that
\nin the instant case, a Division Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction suo motu issued contempt notice to the
\nDistrict Magistrate; therefore, that notice cannot be discharged by another Bench. The argument is that
\nthe matter should be sent to the same Bench.\n<\/p>\n
       We have no doubt nor can there be any debate that once the writ petition, wherein the substantive
\norder (impugned order dated 29.3.2010) was the subject-matter of challenge, was heard by a Division
\nBench having co-ordinate jurisdiction and the judgment was reserved, no fresh writ petition could have
\nbeen filed in respect of any matter which arises or flows either from the impugned order or from the
\ninterim order passed or direction issued in the said writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       It also cannot be a matter of argument that in a matter where the judgment is reserved by a
\nDivision Bench, no other Bench has jurisdiction to entertain any plea or to interpret any interim order
\notherwise, in a fresh writ petition, pending pronouncement of the judgment. In case there is any
\ngrievance with respect to compliance or non-compliance of any order passed in such a writ petition, an
\napplication can be moved before the same Bench, or if a case is made out, contempt proceedings can be
\n initiated, but a fresh petition can neither be filed nor can be entertained by another Bench having co-
\nordinate jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
       On merits also, we have to see what the interim order meant and what did it provide. The interim
\norder dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “Hon’ble Pradeep Kant,J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain,J.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by learned Chief
\nStanding Counsel and 4 by Sri Prashant Singh ‘Atal’.\n<\/p>\n
               List this case be listed on 15.4.2010 as fresh.\n<\/p>\n
               In the meantime the learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions in the matter.
\nLearned counsel for the Zila Panchayat Sri Prashant Singh ‘ Atal’ says that he may be allowed to file
\ncounter        affidavit in the meantime.\n<\/p>\n
               Let him do so.\n<\/p>\n
               The copy of the counter affidavit shall be served on the counsel    for the petitioner at
\nleast two days before the date fixed on which date the matter may be disposed of finally.\n<\/p>\n
               In the meantime the status and facilities of the petitioner as      ‘Adhyaksha’      shall
\nnot be disturbed.\n<\/p>\n
               Application for impleadment moved by Sri Raj Kumar is        allowed.\n<\/p>\n
               Let necessary incorporation be made out in the body of the petition.”\n<\/p>\n
       The aforesaid interim order was passed only for protecting the status and facilities of the
\npetitioner as Adhyaksha.      There was no direction for allowing her to work and discharge the
\nadministrative and financial powers of Adhyaksha. This is evident by the fact that the order impugned,
\nby means of which the powers of the petitioner were ceased, was not stayed by the Court nor any
\ndirection was issued to permit her to discharge such functions in presence of the said order. The
\nprotection of status and facilities was provided after arguments being heard on both the sides and it being
\nclear that merely by cessation of financial and administrative powers, the Adhyaksha cannot be deemed
\nto have been removed from office and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to occupy office-room
\nin Zila Panchayat with all facilities she was drawing coupled with the facility of vehicle etc. There is no
\nprovision under the Act or relevant rules which prohibits the Adhyaksha, whose administrative and
\nfinancial powers have been ceased, from styling himself\/herself as Adhyaksha nor does it provide that
\nfacilities and perks, which are attached to such office, can also be ceased.\n<\/p>\n
       The interpretation thus, as was made by the petitioner, does not flow from the interim order which
\nwas passed in the substantive writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       The interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010 was absolutely clear with no
\nambiguity and did not require any interpretation otherwise, by the petitioner or by another Bench.\n<\/p>\n
         On the plea that this Bench cannot hear the application for vacation of interim order, suffice
\nwould be to mention that by merely passing an interim order, the writ petition does not become ‘tied up’
\nnor the Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction having jurisdiction to deal with such matter, under the roaster
\nprepared by the Chief Justice, loses its power to vacate or modify the interim order. There cannot be any
\ndispute that the interim orders passed by a Bench can be vacated by another Bench having jurisdiction to
\ndeal with the matter.\n<\/p>\n
        There is one more aspect of the matter which creates doubt upon the bona fides of the petitioner
\nin filing the present petition and rather it supports the plea of the respondents that the petition was filed
\nonly with a view to procure an order from the Court in her favour under the pretext of the interim order
\npassed in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010, knowing fully well that the interim order does not allow
\nher to discharge the administrative and financial powers. The interim order was passed on 6.4.2010 and
\nthe judgment was reserved on 21.4.2010. No such complaint was made at any point of time regarding
\nnon-compliance of the aforesaid interim order nor the matter was brought to the notice of the Court
\nbefore summer vacations. It was as late as on 18.6.2010 during vacations i.e. after a lapse of more than
\ntwo months from the date of passing of the interim order that this writ petition was filed. In case the
\npetitioner was aggrieved or was of the view that that under the aforesaid interim order she has been
\npermitted to discharge functions of Adhyaksha, she could have moved an application as promptly as it
\ncould be. The very fact that no such application was moved before vacations, proves beyond doubt that
\nthe petitioner very well understood the text and meaning of the interim order and the effect thereof. But
\nonly with a view to obtain an order for being allowed to discharge the administrative and financial
\npowers, took a chance, by this innovative method, that too by misinterpreting the interim order passed in
\nthe earlier writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy the Court as to how this writ petition was
\nmaintainable in the facts and circumstances stated above and for allegedly enforcing the interim order
\npassed in other writ petition (No. 3046 (M\/B) of 2010) in which judgment was reserved and which did
\nnot permit the petitioner to discharge her administrative and financial powers.\n<\/p>\n
        We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek
\nan order from the Court under the pretext of the interim order passed in other writ petition, judgment in
\nwhich was reserved and that too, which did not flow from the said order, was not a bona fide act but a
\ntotal abuse of the process of the Court. The filing of instant petition was wholly uncalled for, ill-advised,
\nand a case of obtaining favourable order, by misleading the Court. Neither the writ petition was
\nmaintainable nor the other Bench was having jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        In regard to the plea that suo motu notice of contempt has been issued by another Division Bench,
\n therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to discharge or set aside the order issuing notice of contempt,
\nsuffice would be to observe that this plea loses its significance for the reason that once the interim order
\nissued by the Court is recalled and the writ petition is dismissed, there would be no occasion for
\nproceeding with the contempt and taking action against the District Magistrate. The order dated 5.7.2010
\nissuing notice for initiating contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, thus, cannot
\nbe sustained nor it survives.\n<\/p>\n
       In view of the discussion held above, this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
\n       This is a case, where the petitioner, on her part, made a full-fledged calculated effort to regain her
\nauthority for exercising her administrative and financial powers by filing the present writ petition despite
\nthe fact, that there existed no such direction in the interim order passed in Writ Petition No. 3046 (M\/B)
\nof 2010 and though she could not succeed in getting the fruits of the interim order passed in the present
\nwrit petition, such an attempt ought to have been thwarted by dismissing this writ petition at the
\nthreshold, we, therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, under the facts and circumstances stated
\nabove, find it expedient that the petitioner be saddled with costs which we assess as Rs.20,000\/-. The
\ncosts shall be deposited in this Court within one month. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount,
\nwithin the time prescribed, the said amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the District
\nMagistrate on recovery certificate being issued by the Registrar of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        On deposit so being made, the same shall be remitted to the account of the Mediation Centre of
\nthis Court at Lucknow.\n<\/p>\n
       Before parting with the judgment, we would also like to mention that though Sri Mukund Tiwari,
\nlearned State Counsel has expressed his apology, but we express our displeasure on the manner in which
\nthe application for vacation of stay order has been drafted and the language used therein. The concerned
\nofficers of the State should have exercised necessary restraint in choice of words while drafting the said
\napplication and placing it before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                               30-7-2010
\nLN\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 July, 2010 Reserved Writ Petition No. 5931 (M\/B) of 2010 Smt. Kamla Devi versus State of U.P. and others Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J. Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. (Delivered by Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.) Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior […]<\/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-56889","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 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-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-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=\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-24T03:53:33+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=\"13 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-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T03:53:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2625,\"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-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-24T03:53:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 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. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 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-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-24T03:53:33+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T03:53:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010"},"wordCount":2625,"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-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010","name":"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. ... on 30 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-24T03:53:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kamla-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-through-prin-secy-on-30-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kamla Devi vs State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. … on 30 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\/56889","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=56889"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56889\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56889"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56889"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56889"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}