{"id":58701,"date":"1987-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987"},"modified":"2018-02-23T13:06:39","modified_gmt":"2018-02-23T07:36:39","slug":"dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2186, \t\t 1988 SCR (1) 357<\/div>\n
Author: M Dutt<\/div>\n
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (U.P) &ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/09\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 2186\t\t  1988 SCR  (1) 357\n 1987 SCC  (4) 525\t  JT 1987 (3)\t670\n 1987 SCALE  (2)667\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India-Art. 226  When an authority acts\nwholly without\tjurisdiction,  the  High  Court\t should\t not\nrefuse to  exercise its\t jurisdiction under  Art. 226 on the\nground of existence of an alternative remedy.\n     Administrative Law-A  quasi-judicial  authority  cannot\nreview its  own order  unless power  of review\tis expressly\nconferred on  it by  the statute  under which it derives its\njurisdiction.\n     U.P. State\t Universities Act,  1973-The Vice Chancellor\nin considering\tan order of dismissal of a principal acts as\na quasi-judicial authority.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The appellant  was the principal of an institution, the\nmanagement of  which had  been entrusted  to  an  Authorised\nController under  s. 58\t of the U.P. State Universities Act,\n1973. Following\t upon certain  disputes and differences with\nregard to  the management  of the institution, the appellant\nwas suspended  by the Controller but the order of suspension\nwas stayed  by the  Vice Chancellor.  The Controller,  after\nholding an  ex-parte inquiry,  dismissed the  appellant from\nservice in  exercise of\t the power  vested  in\thim  by\t the\nUniversity Statute  17.06 which\t provided the  giving of  an\nopportunity of\tbeing heard  to the  teacher  concerned\t and\nprescribed a  procedure for inquiry. The Vice Chancellor, on\nthe ground  that the  charges against  the appellant did not\nwarrant her  dismissal, disapproved  the order\tof dismissal\nand  directed\treinstatement  of  the\tappellant,  granting\nliberty to  the Controller  to impose a lesser punishment on\nher. The  Controller passed  an order allowing the appellant\nto function  as the  Principal but at the same time imposing\nvarious restraints and constraints on her powers and duties,\nwhich was  challenged by  her in a petition filed under Art.\n226. The  High Court  quashed the said order with liberty to\nthe Controller to impose a minor penalty on the appellant in\naccordance with the order of the Vice Chancellor. Three days\nbefore the  High Court\tdelivered  its\tjudgment,  the\tVice\nChancellor had reviewed her earlier order at the instance of\nH\n358\nthe appellant, and, on the basis of two reports of the Joint\nDirector of Higher Education alleging that the appellant had\ncommitted grave\t financial irregularities,  had approved the\norder of dismissal passed earlier by the Controller; but the\nController, who\t was a\tparty to  the writ  petition did not\nbring it  to the  notice of  the High  Court. The  appellant\nchallenged the aforesaid order of the Vice Chancellor passed\nin review  by a\t petition under Art. 226 which was dismissed\nby  the\t High  Court  on  the  around  of  existence  of  an\nalternative  remedy   under  s.\t  68  of   the\tU.P.   State\nlUniversities Act.\n     Allowing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: It is well established that an alternative remedy\nis not\tan absolute  bar to  the maintainability  of a\twrit\npetition.  When\t  an  authority\t has  acted  wholly  without\njurisdiction, the  High Court  should not refuse to exercise\nits jurisdiction  under Art.  226 on the ground of existence\nof an alternative remedy. [362C-D]\n     In the  instant case,  the Vice Chancellor had no power\nof review  and the  exercise of\t such a\t power\tby  her\t was\nabsolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by\nthe Vice  Chancellor on\t review was a nullity; such an order\ncould surely  be challenged  before  the  High\tCourt  by  a\npetition under\tArt. 226 and, in our opinion, the High Court\nwas not\t justified in  dismissing the  writ petition  on the\nground that  an alternative  remedy  was  available  to\t the\nappellant under\t s. 68\tof the\tU.P. State Universities Act.\n[362D-E]\n     2. It  is now  well established  that a  quasi judicial\nauthority cannot  review its  own order\t unless the power of\nreview is  expressly conferred\ton it  by the  statute under\nwhich it  derives its  jurisdiction. The  Vice Chancellor in\nconsidering  the   question  of\t approval  of  an  order  of\ndismissal  of\tthe  Principal,\t acts  as  a  quasi-judicial\nauthority. It  is not  disputed that  the provisions  of the\nU.P. State  Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the\nUniversity do  not confer  any power  of review\t on the Vice\nChancellor. In\tthe circumstances,  it must be held that the\nVice  Chancellor   acted  wholly   without  jurisdiction  in\nreviewing her  order dated  January 24,\t 1987 by  her  order\ndated March 7, 1987. [361H; 362A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2468 of
\n1987<\/span>
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated  13.5.1987  of\t the
\nAllahabad High Court in W.P. No. 1822 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
359<\/span><\/p>\n
     R.K. Jain and R.P. Gupta for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S.N. Kacker,  Dileep Tandon, R.B. Mehrotra, P.N. Bhatta
\nand R.A. Gupta for the Respondents
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DUTT,  J.\t Both  the   parties  have   made  elaborate
\nsubmissions at\tthe preliminary hearing of the special leave
\npetition filed\tby the appellant Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta. The
\nspecial leave  is granted  and we  proceed to dispose of the
\nappeal on merit.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is directed  against the  judgment  of\t the
\nAllahabad High\tCourt dismissing  the writ  petition of\t the
\nappellant on  the ground  of  existence\t of  an\t alternative
\nremedy under  section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act,
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant,  Dr. Smt.  Kuntesh Gupta,  was appointed
\nthe Principal  of Hindu\t Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P.,
\non June 4, 1984 and was confirmed in the said post on May 4,
\n1985.  In  view\t of  existence\tof  two\t unrecognised  rival
\nCommittees of  Management the  State Government, in exercise
\nof its power under section 58 of the U.P. State Universities
\nAct, appointed one of the Additional District Magistrates of
\nthe District  the Authorised  Controller of the Institution.
\nThe Authorised\tController was\tentitled to exercise all the
\npowers of the Committee of Management.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the appellant, as the Principal of the
\nInstitution, and the Authorised Controller could not see eye
\nto  eye\t  with\teach  other  and  there\t were  disputes\t and
\ndifferences between  them in regard to the management of the
\nInstitution. The  differences between them reached to such a
\ndegree that  the Authorised  Controller by  his order  dated
\nJanuary 27,  1986 suspended  the  appellant.  The  order  of
\nsuspension was,\t however, stayed  by the  Vice-Chancellor of
\nthe University\ton  January  29,  1986.\t After\thearing\t the
\nappellant and the Authorised Controller, the Vice-Chancellor
\nmaintained  the\t  stay\torder.\tThereafter,  the  Authorised
\nController held\t an ex\tparte enquiry and by his order dated
\nApril 21,  1986 dismissed  the\tappellant  from\t service  in
\nexercise of  the powers\t of the Managing Committee vested in
\nhim by\tStatute 17.06  of the  Statutes of  the\t University.
\nStatute 17.06  provides for  the giving of an opportunity of
\nbeing heard  to\t the  teacher  concerned  and  prescribes  a
\nprocedure for enquiry which, according to the appellant, was
\nnot followed by the Authorised Controller. A copy of
\n360<\/span>
\nthe said  order of  dismissal was  sent to  the Director  of
\nEducation  and\tto  the\t Vice-Chancellor  for  approval,  as
\nrequired under Statute 17.06(3).\n<\/p>\n
     The Vice-Chancellor  after hearing\t the parties, by her
\norder dated  January  24,  1987\t disapproved  the  order  of
\ndismissal of  the appellant  on the  ground that the charges
\nagainst the  appellant did  not warrant\t her dismissal\tfrom
\nservice and directed that the appellant should be allowed to
\nfunction as Principal of the College forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tsaid order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor
\nreinstating  the  appellant  and  granting  liberty  to\t the
\nAuthorised Controller  to impose  lesser punishment  on\t the
\nappellant, if  deemed necessary,  the Authorised  Controller
\nwithout passing\t any lesser  punishment, by  his order dated
\nJanuary 27,  1987 allowed  the appellant  to function as the
\nPrincipal, but put various restraints and constraints on her
\npowers and  duties as  Principal and  directed her to vacate
\nthe quarters  in which\tshe was residing. Feeling aggrieved,
\nthe appellant  moved the High Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution  of   India  against  the\timposition  of\tsuch
\nrestraints and\tconstraints on\ther powers and duties as the
\nPrincipal of  the College. The High Court, after considering
\nthe fact  and circumstances  of the  case, by  its  judgment
\ndated March  10, 1987  quashed the  said order dated January
\n27, 1987  of the  Authorised Controller\t and directed him to
\nallow  the   appellant\tto   function  as  the\tfull-fledged
\nPrincipal of  the Institution  in accordance  with law.\t The
\nHigh  Court   further  granted\tliberty\t to  the  Authorised
\nController to  go ahead with the imposition of minor penalty
\non the\tappellant in  accordance with law and as provided in
\nthe said order of the Vice-Chancellor.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears that while the matter was pending before the
\nHigh Court,  at the  instance of  the appellant,  the  Vice-
\nChancellor passed  an order  dated March 7, 1987, that is to
\nsay, three  days before the date of the judgment of the High
\nCourt,\treviewing   her\t earlier   order  disapproving\t the
\ndismissal of  the appellant from service. By the order dated
\nMarch 7, 1987 passed on review, the Vice-Chancellor approved
\nthe  order  of\tthe  Authorised\t Controller  dismissing\t the
\nappellant from\tservice on  the basis  of two reports of the
\nJoint Director\tof Higher  Education, U.P., one dated August
\n1, 1986\t and the  other dated  July 18, 1986, alleging great
\nfinancial  irregularities   committed  by   the\t  appellant.
\nAlthough the  said order  dated March  7, 1987 was passed by
\nthe Vice-Chancellor on review three days before the delivery
\nof the\tjudgment by  the High  Court, no steps were taken by
\nthe Authorised\tController, who\t was a\tparty  in  the\twrit
\npetition, to  bring to the notice of the High Court the said
\norder of the Vice-Chancellor dated March 7, 1987
\n361<\/span>
\n     It is  alleged by the appellant that the said order was
\npassed\tby   the  Vice-Chancellor   in\tcollusion  with\t the
\nAuthorised Controller  with a  view to\trendering  the\twrit
\npetition of  the appellant and also the judgment of the High
\nCourt infructuous.  While we  reject the  allegation of\t the
\nappellant that\tthe said  order\t was  passed  by  the  Vice-
\nChancellor in  collusion with the Authorised Controller, for
\nthere  is   no\tmaterial   whatsoever  in  support  of\tthat
\nallegation,  we\t  are  of   the\t view  that  the  Authorised
\nController should  have brought\t to the\t notice of  the High
\nCourt the order of the Vice-Chancellor passed on review.\n<\/p>\n
     Be that  as it  may, the  appellant again\tfiled a writ
\npetition under\tArticle 226  of the  Constitution  of  India
\nagainst the  said order\t dated March  7, 1987  of the  Vice-
\nChancellor passed  on review.  The High Court, however, took
\nthe view  that the  impugned order  could be challenged on a
\nreference to  the Chancellor  of University under section 68
\nof the\tU.P. State  Universities Act, 1973 and, accordingly,
\ndismissed the writ petition on the ground of existence of an
\nalternative remedy. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     It has  been strenuously  urged by\t Mr. Jain,  learned.
\nCounsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the Vice-
\nchancellor had\tno power of review under the Statutes of the
\nUniversity or  under the  U.P. State  Universities Act, 1973
\nand, as\t such,\tthe  Vice-Chancellor  acted  wholly  without
\njurisdiction in entertaining an application for review filed
\nby the\tAuthorised Controller.\tOn the\tother  hand,  it  is
\nsubmitted by Mr. Kacker, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the Vice-Chancellor, that as the two reports dated August
\n1, 1986\t and July  18, 1986  of the Joint Director of Higher
\nEducation,   U.P.,    alleging\t certain   grave   financial
\nirregularities, were  not before  the  Vice-Chancellor,\t the
\nVice-Chancellor was  entitled to  review her order and after
\nconsidering the said reports reviewed her order and approved
\nthe order  of  dismissal  of  the  appellant  from  service.
\nFurther, it  is submitted  by the  learned Counsel  that the
\nHigh Court  was\t justified  in\tnot  entertaining  the\twrit
\npetition of  the appellant,  as\t there\twas  an\t alternative
\nremedy under  section 68  of the U.P. State Universities Act
\nand the\t impugned  order  could\t be  challenged\t before\t the
\nChancellor of  the University on a reference of the question
\nto the Chancellor under the provision of section 68.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  now\t well  established  that  a  quasi  judicial
\nauthority cannot  review its  own order, unless the power of
\nreview is  expressly conferred\ton it  by the  statute under
\nwhich it  derives its  jurisdiction. The  Vice-Chancellor in
\nconsidering the question of approval of an order of
\n362<\/span>
\ndismissal  of  the  Principal,\tacts  as  a  quasi  judicial
\nauthority. It  is not  disputed that  the provisions  of the
\nU.P. State  Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the
\nUniversity do  not confer  any power  of review on the Vice-
\nChancellor. In\tthe circumstances,  it must be held that the
\nVice-Chancellor\t acted\t wholly\t without   jurisdiction\t  in
\nreviewing her  order dated  January 24,\t 1987 by  her  order
\ndated March 7, 1987. The R said order of the Vice-Chancellor
\ndated March 7, 1987 was a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question that  falls for our consideration is
\nwhether the  High Court was justified in dismissing the writ
\npetition of  the appellant  on the ground of availability of
\nan  alternative\t remedy.  It  is  true\tthat  there  was  an
\nalternative remedy  for challenging  the impugned  order  by
\nreferring the question to the Chancellor under section 68 of
\nthe U.P. State Universities Act. It is well established that
\nan  alternative\t remedy\t is  not  an  absolute\tbar  to\t the
\nmaintainability of  a writ  petition. When  an authority has
\nacted wholly without jurisdiction, the High Court should not
\nrefuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution on\t the ground  of existence  of an alternative
\nremedy. In  the instant\t case., the  Vice-Chancellor had  no
\npower of  review and the exercise of such a power by her was
\nabsolutely without jurisdiction. Indeed, the order passed by
\nthe Vice-Chancellor  on review\twas a nullity; such an order
\ncould surely  be challenged  before  the  High\tCourt  by  a
\npetition under\tArticle 226  of the Constitution and, in our
\nopinion, the  High Court was not justified in dismissing the
\nwrit petition  on the  ground that an alternative remedy was
\navailable to  the appellant  under section  68 of  the\tU.P.
\nState Universities Act.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  impugned order  of\t the  Vice-Chancellor  is  a
\nnullity, it  would be a useless formality to send the matter
\nback to\t the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on
\nmerits. We  would, accordingly,\t quash the impugned order of
\nthe Vice-Chancellor  dated March  7,  1987  and\t direct\t the
\nreinstatement of  the appellant\t forthwith to  the  post  of
\nPrincipal of the Institution. The judgment of the High Court
\nis set aside and the appeal is allowed. There will, however,
\nbe no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     We, however, make it clear that the respondents will be
\nat liberty to initiate a departmental proceeding against the
\nappellant, if  they so think fit and proper, on the basis of
\nthe allegations\t as made  in the  said reports\tof the Joint
\nDirector of Higher Education, U.P.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n363<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 2186, 1988 SCR (1) 357 Author: M Dutt Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J) PETITIONER: DR. SMT. KUNTESH GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHAVIDYALAYA, SITAPUR (U.P) &ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/09\/1987 BENCH: DUTT, M.M. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - 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\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-23T07:36:39+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T07:36:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1702,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\",\"name\":\"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-23T07:36:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - 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\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-23T07:36:39+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987","datePublished":"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T07:36:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987"},"wordCount":1702,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987","name":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-23T07:36:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-smt-kuntesh-gupta-vs-management-of-hindu-kanya-on-25-september-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya … on 25 September, 1987"}]},{"@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\/58701","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=58701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}