{"id":5981,"date":"2004-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004"},"modified":"2018-08-19T02:46:33","modified_gmt":"2018-08-18T21:16:33","slug":"chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3700 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nChandigarh Administration &amp; Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNamit Kumar and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>[With CA No..6308\/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14342\/98,<br \/>\nCA No.6310\/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14639\/98, CA Nos.<br \/>\n.6311-6312\/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C)  No. 76-77\/99, CA<br \/>\nNo.6309\/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C)  No. 13994\/99 and CA<br \/>\nNo..6313\/2004 (Arising out of SLP (C)  No. 13720\/99] <\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 14342\/98, 14639\/98, 76-77\/99,<br \/>\n13994\/99 and 13720\/99.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn all these appeals challenge is to some of the directions given<br \/>\nby the Punjab and Haryana High Court while dealing with a public<br \/>\ninterest litigation filed by an advocate and two doctors. Their main<br \/>\ngrievance was that there was immense air and noise pollution, traffic<br \/>\ncongestion and unsystematic functioning of the various authorities.  It<br \/>\nwas specifically highlighted that there was increase in the number of<br \/>\nvehicular accidents which resulted from absence of proper traffic<br \/>\ncontrol.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCivil Appeal No. 3700\/1999 has been filed by the Chandigarh<br \/>\nAdministration. The appeals corresponding to SLP (C) No. 13994\/99 and<br \/>\nSLP (C) No. 14639\/98 relate to a direction for use of helmets by<br \/>\nladies. Appeals corresponding to SLP (C) Nos.76-77\/99 have been filed<br \/>\nby the Government of Haryana taking the stand that some of the<br \/>\ndirections cannot be implemented due to financial stringency.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Chandigarh Administration has called in question some of the<br \/>\ndirections which we shall deal with individually.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDirection no.10 relates to levy of parking charges.  The High<br \/>\nCourt directed that the concerned authorities shall provide parking<br \/>\nspace and properly utilize the existing space in and around the<br \/>\ncommercial and public places.  Additionally, it was directed that any<br \/>\nperson who enjoys the parking facilities should be charged keeping in<br \/>\nview the period for which such vehicle was parked in the prescribed<br \/>\nparking area.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration<br \/>\nsubmitted that though the direction is being implemented in letter and<br \/>\nspirit, some difficulties arise while fixing parking charges.<br \/>\nConsidering the difficulties highlighted, we modify the order to the<br \/>\nextent that it shall be for the Chandigarh Administration to fix the<br \/>\nquantum of parking charges taking into account all relevant factors.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as direction no.23 is concerned, the same relates to<br \/>\nintroduction of one way traffic in Sectors 24, 17 and institutional and<br \/>\ncommercial sectors. It is submitted that wherever there is a need for<br \/>\nintroducing one way traffic system, the same will be introduced.  There<br \/>\nis no difficulty in introducing the system in institutional and<br \/>\ncommercial sectors but liberty should be given to the Administration to<br \/>\nmake relaxation taking into account the relevant factors.  We modify<br \/>\nthe direction to the extent that proper traffic arrangements shall be<br \/>\nmade. If the Administration wants to relax the one way traffic system<br \/>\nin any sector, the same can only be done by indicating the special<br \/>\nfeatures which warrant such a departure. The reasons shall be recorded<br \/>\nand placed before the High Court so that it can be examined whether the<br \/>\nreasons indicated justify the departure.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as long term directions are concerned, in direction no.2<br \/>\nit has been stipulated that whatever suggestions are made by the High<br \/>\nPower Committee shall be treated as directions of the High Court. It<br \/>\nwas submitted that before these recommendations and suggestions are<br \/>\ntreated to be directions of the High Court, an opportunity be granted<br \/>\nto the Administration to have its say. We consider the prayer to be<br \/>\nreasonable. We modify the direction to the extent that whenever any<br \/>\nsuggestion is received from the High Power Committee the Administration<br \/>\nshall be given an opportunity to have its say and thereafter the High<br \/>\nCourt shall pass necessary orders either accepting the recommendations<br \/>\nor modifying the same suitably, if necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne of the major difficulties highlighted by the Chandigarh<br \/>\nAdministration relates to the utilization of vehicles of Chandigarh<br \/>\nTransport Undertaking. It was pointed out that to make the undertaking<br \/>\ncommercially and financially viable, operation of inter-state routes is<br \/>\na necessity.  It is submitted that a number of vehicles plying inside<br \/>\nthe territory are sufficient to meet the local demands.  In any event,<br \/>\nit is submitted that the need for catering to the needs of traveling<br \/>\npublic can also be considered while making the undertaking financially<br \/>\nand commercially viable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for respondent no.1 who was writ petitioner<br \/>\nsubmitted that the High Court while passing directions had taken note<br \/>\nof the ground realities and no modification is necessary.  Considering<br \/>\nthe rival contention we feel that it would be appropriate for the<br \/>\nChandigarh Administration to file an application before the High Court<br \/>\nindicating the factual details so that the Court can decide as to<br \/>\nwhether any modification of the direction is called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>One of the directions which was also termed as impracticable<br \/>\nrelated to the direction that parking space will be provided in all the<br \/>\nsectors but no vehicle should be permitted to be parked in any other<br \/>\narea more particularly on the main road or internal roads of the<br \/>\nsectors.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that<br \/>\nthe direction which is no.15 has to be read with the condition which<br \/>\nnotes that sufficient lane parking space can be used in all the areas<br \/>\nwherever it is possible and workable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant-Chandigarh Administration<br \/>\nsubmitted that if parking is not permitted, it would mean that even<br \/>\nold, disabled persons, children, and ladies have to walk long distance<br \/>\nto go their residential house.  We feel the High Court can consider<br \/>\nwhether any viable arrangement can be worked out taking into account<br \/>\nsuggestions made by the Chandigarh Administration and other parties<br \/>\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne of the directions which has been assailed by several<br \/>\nappellants relates to direction no.14 regarding use of helmets.  The<br \/>\nexemption has only been extended to Sikh women while driving. All<br \/>\nothers including women are required to wear helmets. Stand of the<br \/>\nappellants is that such direction is contrary to several statutory<br \/>\nprescriptions.  Particular reference has been made to Section 85A of<br \/>\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short the &#8216;Old Act&#8217;) and Section 129<br \/>\nof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;New<br \/>\nAct&#8217;). It appears that Clause 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Protective<br \/>\nHeadgears) Rules, 1980 exempts Sikh women from wearing helmets.<br \/>\nReliance is also placed on Rule 193 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules,<br \/>\n1989 and Rule 193 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 to<br \/>\ncontend that Sikh women are exempt from wearing the helmets, and,<br \/>\ntherefore the High Court could not have given the direction contrary to<br \/>\nthe suggestion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt appears that the Rules were not brought to the notice of the<br \/>\nHigh Court. We, therefore, direct that if any exemption is granted to<br \/>\nany person including Sikh women from any of the Motor Vehicles Rules<br \/>\nrelating to different States or areas or under any Statutory Rule the<br \/>\nsame shall operate notwithstanding the directions of the High Court<br \/>\nthat all persons including women shall wear helmets.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne other direction which has been assailed relates to the use of<br \/>\nblack films on the glasses.  It is submitted that Central Motor<br \/>\nVehicles Rules, 1989 (in short &#8216;Central Rules&#8217;) provide for the measure<br \/>\nto be taken in such cases.  We find that sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 of<br \/>\nthe said Rules deals with the issue.  We, therefore, modify the<br \/>\ndirection of the High Court to the extent that while carrying out the<br \/>\ndirections, the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 100 shall be kept in<br \/>\nview.  This shall be in addition to any security requirement as may be<br \/>\nlaid down by the law and order enforcing agencies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe direction has been given for demolition of booths. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the Chandigarh Administration submitted that these are not<br \/>\non the main road but were on the diversion used when the roads were not<br \/>\noperational. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that records<br \/>\nwere produced before the High Court for which strong exception was<br \/>\ntaken.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe feel that the materials which were not produced before the<br \/>\nHigh Court shall be brought to the notice of the High Court so that<br \/>\nnecessary orders can be passed after consideration.  We make it clear<br \/>\nthat we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAppeals relating to SLP (C) Nos. 76-77\/99 are by the State of<br \/>\nHaryana.  Direction nos. 20 and 24 were sought to be modified as the<br \/>\nstaff position is not adequate even to meet the normal functioning. We<br \/>\npermit the State of Haryana to move the High Court for modification and<br \/>\nplace materials in support of the stand. The High Court shall consider<br \/>\nthe request in its proper perspective and pass necessary orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt has been submitted that directions have been given to remove<br \/>\nall advertisements facing the highway, main roads and the side roads.<br \/>\nThe stand of the Government is that the same would result in huge loss<br \/>\nof revenue by way of license fees for the licenses which have been<br \/>\ngranted for the purpose.  It was pointed out that persons who would be<br \/>\naffected were not heard.  Though while dealing with issues like<br \/>\nenvironmental pollution and road hazards there is no need for giving<br \/>\nnotice to all the persons affected, it shall be open to the State<br \/>\nGovernment or licencee to bring to the notice of the High Court that<br \/>\nthere is no safety hazard involved.  The High Court shall consider<br \/>\nthem, if raised, in the proper perspective.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne of the directions also relates to the providing of sign<br \/>\nboards. The learned counsel for the State submitted that it will not be<br \/>\npossible to implement the direction immediately and the State<br \/>\nGovernment would do it in a phased manner.  It is open to the State<br \/>\nGovernment to approach the High Court for modification of the<br \/>\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn appeal relating to SLP(C) No. 13720\/99, the direction is for<br \/>\nfulfilling all conditions in terms of Section 66 of the New Act. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that certain institutions using the vehicle are exempt from<br \/>\npermit in terms of sub-section (3)(h) of Section 66 of the New Act.<br \/>\nBut we find that sub-section (3) of Section 66 has been deleted w.e.f.<br \/>\n11.8.2000. Therefore, the plea relating to exemption has no substance.<br \/>\nThe appeal relating to SLP 13994\/99 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAll other appeals are disposed of as indicated above. There will<br \/>\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3700 of 1999 PETITIONER: Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors RESPONDENT: Namit Kumar and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-18T21:16:33+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-18T21:16:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1720,\"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\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-18T21:16:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-18T21:16:33+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-18T21:16:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004"},"wordCount":1720,"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\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004","name":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-18T21:16:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-administration-ors-vs-namit-kumar-and-ors-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandigarh Administration &amp; Ors vs Namit Kumar And Ors on 27 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/5981","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=5981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}