{"id":67264,"date":"2009-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-30T05:25:52","modified_gmt":"2015-08-29T23:55:52","slug":"som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>                                      1\n\n                                           SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009\n                                          Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n\n\n               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009\n                             Som Nath Vig.\n                                  vs.\n                     State of Rajasthan and others.\n\n        Date : 29.4.2009\n\n                     HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Mr.Girish Sankhala, for the petitioner.<\/p>\n<pre>\n        Mr.Rajesh Joshi      ) for the respondents\n        Mr.IS Pareek         )\n                               - - - - -\nREPORTABLE\n<\/pre>\n<p>             Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>             The petitioner was appointed on 21.4.1981 as<br \/>\n        Pharmacist    with   the     respondent         Sri     Ganganagar<br \/>\n        Sahakari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Ltd. and his<br \/>\n        date of birth is 2.5.1951. The petitioner is going<br \/>\n        to attain the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years<br \/>\n        on 2.5.2009. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies<br \/>\n        issued the order on 17.9.2008 (Annex.3) under Rule<br \/>\n        39 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules,<br \/>\n        2003 (for short &#8216;the Rules of 2003&#8217;) whereby the<br \/>\n        societies     in   general    have        been      directed        to<br \/>\n        consider the matter regarding increase of age of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                             SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                            Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>superannuation from 58 years to 60 years. The said<br \/>\ndirection     issued       by      the       Registrar,            Cooperative<br \/>\nSocieties,        Jaipur     dated          17.9.2008         has    not    been<br \/>\ncomplied by the respondent society and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe petitioner was informed that he is to retire<br \/>\non 2.5.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>      According to the petitioner, the respondent<br \/>\nsociety      is    running      in          profits      for       last    three<br \/>\nfinancial years and is bound to take a decision by<br \/>\nway of resolution to be passed in the meeting of<br \/>\nBoard   of    Directors.           It        is    submitted         that    the<br \/>\ndecision     is     not    being        taken       by       the    respondent<br \/>\nsociety so that the petitioner may retire after<br \/>\nattaining the age of 58 years and there is every<br \/>\nlikelihood that the respondent society may take a<br \/>\nresolution thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The respondent society has submitted reply to<br \/>\nthe   writ    petition        and           annexed      a    statement       of<br \/>\nstrength of the employees to show that there is<br \/>\nsanctioned strength of 24 employees against which<br \/>\n25    are     working.        It        is        submitted         that     the<br \/>\nrespondent        in   view     of          the    above       fact       cannot<br \/>\nincrease      the      age      of          superannuation            of     the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                       SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                      Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>employees     from     58    to       60   years.        It     is   also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the order dated 17.9.2008 clearly<br \/>\nshows that it is only a desire of the Registrar<br \/>\nthat    in   certain    circumstances          only,      the    age    of<br \/>\nsuperannuation be increased from 58 to 60 years<br \/>\nand the society has decided not to increase the<br \/>\nage of superannuation. It is also submitted that<br \/>\nno mandamus can be issued to the society directing<br \/>\nthe society to pass resolution so as to increase<br \/>\nthe age of superannuation of the employees from 58<br \/>\nto 60 years. It is also submitted that the order<br \/>\ndated 17.9.2008 is not enforceable as the society<br \/>\nis free to take its own decision and no one can<br \/>\ntake the right of the society for increasing the<br \/>\nage of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Learned counsel for the petitioner in support<br \/>\nof his case relied upon the judgment of this Court<br \/>\ndelivered in the case of Basudev Singh vs. The<br \/>\nRajasthan State Cooperative Bank &amp; Anr. reported<br \/>\nin 1993(3) WLC 198, copy of which has been shown<br \/>\nto this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nalso    relied   upon       the   judgments         of    this       Court<br \/>\ndelivered in the cases of (1) Dharmi Lal Dama vs.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                        SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                       Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in 2009(1)<br \/>\nWLC (Raj.) 540 and (2) Board of Indian Medicine,<br \/>\nRajasthan    vs.     Rajasthan          Indian         Medicine         Board<br \/>\nKaramchari Sangh and another reported in 2008(3)<br \/>\nWLC (Raj.) 368.\n<\/p>\n<p>    I     considered       the         submissions           of    learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the parties and perused the facts of<br \/>\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Rule     39(1)    of    the    Rules          of    2003      reads    as<br \/>\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;39.     Officers          and        employees        of     co-<br \/>\n    operative societies .-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the<br \/>\n        bye-laws     of    any     society,            no    co-operative<br \/>\n        society shall appoint any person as its paid<br \/>\n        officer      or    employee          in    any       category      of<br \/>\n        service,          unless         he            possesses          the<br \/>\n        qualifications and furnishes the security,<br \/>\n        if so specified by the Registrar from time<br \/>\n        to time, for such category of service in the<br \/>\n        society,     or    for     the       class      of    society     to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                       SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                      Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> which it belongs. The conditions of service<br \/>\n including          discipline             and    control          of     the<br \/>\n employees of the societies shall be such as<br \/>\n specified by the Registrar.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)No    co-operative            society          shall       retain       in<br \/>\n service any paid or employees, if he does<br \/>\n not acquire the qualifications or furnish<br \/>\n the security as is referred to in sub-rule<br \/>\n (1) within such time as the Registrar may<br \/>\n direct.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)The       Registrar          may       for     special          reasons,<br \/>\n relax       in     respect       of      any     paid       officer      or<br \/>\n employee,          the    provisions             of    this       rule    in<br \/>\n regard        to       the     qualifications                he    should<br \/>\n possess or the security he should furnish.<br \/>\n(4)Where       it       comes        to    the     notice          of     the<br \/>\n Registrar that a paid officer or servant of<br \/>\n a      society         has      committed             or     has        been<br \/>\n otherwise responsible for misappropriation,<br \/>\n breach        of       trust        or        other     offence,          in<br \/>\n relation to the society, the Registrar may,<br \/>\n if     in    his       opinion,          there    is       prima       facie<br \/>\n evidence           against          such        paid        officer      or<br \/>\n servant          and     the    suspension             of    such       paid<br \/>\n officer          or    servant           is     necessary         in     the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                           6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                               SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                              Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p> interest of the society direct the committee<br \/>\n of the society pending the investigation and<br \/>\n disposal of the matter, to place or clause<br \/>\n to be placed       such paid officer or servant<br \/>\n under suspension from such date and for such<br \/>\n period as may be specified by him.<br \/>\n(5)On   receipt     of        a        direction    from       the<br \/>\n Registrar under sub-rule (4), the committee<br \/>\n of the society shall, notwithstanding any<br \/>\n provision to the contrary in the bye-laws,<br \/>\n place or cause to be placed the paid officer<br \/>\n or servant under suspension forthwith.<br \/>\n(6)The Registrar may direct the committee to<br \/>\n extend   from     time       to       time   the   period      of<br \/>\n suspension and the paid officer or servant<br \/>\n so suspended shall not be reinstated except<br \/>\n with the previous sanction of the Registrar,<br \/>\n whose decision shall be final.\n<\/p>\n<p>(7)If the committee fails to comply with the<br \/>\n direction   issued       under          sub-rule    (4),      the<br \/>\n Registrar   may    make          an    order   placing      such<br \/>\n paid   officer    or     servant          under    suspension<br \/>\n from such date and for such period, as he<br \/>\n may specify in the order and thereupon the<br \/>\n paid officer or servant, as the case may be,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                            SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                           Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>         shall be under suspension.\n<\/p>\n<p>      (8)Immediately             after       placing       the      employee<br \/>\n         under suspension under sub-rule (4) or (7)<br \/>\n         as    the    case       may       be,    the     society       shall<br \/>\n         initiate         disciplinary           action      against        the<br \/>\n         suspended         employee          under        the     prevalent<br \/>\n         service\/disciplinary rules applicable on the<br \/>\n         employee.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      Rule 39 of the Rules of 2003 clearly provides<br \/>\nthat the condition of service including discipline<br \/>\nand   control        of    the    employees          of    the    societies<br \/>\nshall be such as specified by the Registrar and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the Registrar has ample jurisdiction to<br \/>\nissue    such   direction to               the    society.       The     order<br \/>\npassed    by    the       Registrar        dated     17.9.2008        is    not<br \/>\nunder challenge. Even after this position, learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the respondent society is<br \/>\nright in saying that the order dated 17.9.2008 is<br \/>\nonly a direction to the society to consider the<br \/>\ncase of increase in the age of superannuation by<br \/>\ntaking into account the relevant consideration and<br \/>\nthereafter, the society may take a decision and<br \/>\nthe order dated 17.9.2008 is not a direction to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                         SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                        Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>the society to increase the age of superannuation<br \/>\nfrom    58   to    60     years.    Learned        counsel       for     the<br \/>\nrespondent society also submitted that since the<br \/>\nrespondent        society    has        not    taken       decision       to<br \/>\nincrease the age of superannuation from 58 to 60<br \/>\nyears, therefore, the petitioner cannot get any<br \/>\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n<p>       So far as the issue involved in this writ<br \/>\npetition with respect to the fact that whether the<br \/>\nsociety can refuse to take a decision in pursuance<br \/>\nof the directions issued by the Registrar dated<br \/>\n17.9.2008 is concerned, from the reply as well as<br \/>\nstand taken by the respondents, I do not find that<br \/>\nthe respondent society&#8217;s board ever considered the<br \/>\nresolution        dated    17.9.2008          in   its     meeting       and<br \/>\ndecide not to increase the age of superannuation.<br \/>\nThe    respondent&#8217;s        power    to      pass     any    appropriate<br \/>\norder in its own meeting has not been taken away<br \/>\nby the order dated 17.9.2008 nor it is proposed to<br \/>\nbe taken by the order of this Court. The order<br \/>\npassed by the Registrar cannot be ignored and the<br \/>\nrespondents should have considered the matter in<br \/>\nits board meeting objectively and without any bias<br \/>\nand    should      have     taken       a     decision      whether       to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                               SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                              Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>increase the age of superannuation or not ?\n<\/p>\n<p>       In    this        case,       learned             counsel        for     the<br \/>\npetitioner pointed that the petitioner is working<br \/>\nas   Pharmacist          and       sanctioned            post   is      five    and<br \/>\nagainst      this,        only      three          are    working,        is    the<br \/>\nadmitted case in view of the stand taken by the<br \/>\nrespondent society and the document Annexure-R.3\/1<br \/>\nproduced by the respondent society itself. Looking<br \/>\nto the totality of the facts, when the Registrar<br \/>\nis an authority under the Rajasthan Cooperative<br \/>\nSocieties      Act        and       has        ample       power     to       issue<br \/>\ndirections         in    relation         to       service      matters,        the<br \/>\nrespondent may be directed to convene the meeting<br \/>\nto   consider           the    issue          of   increase        of     age    of<br \/>\nsuperannuation of its employees.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In view of the above, this writ petition is<br \/>\nallowed      and    it        is   directed         that    the      respondent<br \/>\nshall       convene       the       meeting          of    the       Board      and<br \/>\nconsider the directions issued by the Registrar on<br \/>\n17.9.2008 and shall take a decision and since the<br \/>\npetitioner is going to retire on 2.5.2009 and in<br \/>\nsuch    a    short       period,       the         Board    cannot        take    a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                       SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009<br \/>\n                                      Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>decision by convening the meeting, therefore, any<br \/>\norder if passed, then it be passed taking into<br \/>\naccount    that    the    petitioner&#8217;s         right      how    can    be<br \/>\nsafeguarded,      if     the   Board      decides       to     take    the<br \/>\ndecision    to    increase      the     age    of    superannuation<br \/>\nfrom 58 to 60 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The respondent shall convene the meeting in<br \/>\naccordance       with    its   bye-laws        and     expeditiously<br \/>\npass the resolution in either way within a period<br \/>\nof one month and convey it to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In case, any order adverse is passed against<br \/>\nthe   petitioner,       the    petitioner will            be    free    to<br \/>\napproach this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (PRAKASH TATIA), J.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.Phophaliya\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rajasthan High Court &#8211; Jodhpur Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009 Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Raj. &amp; Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3039\/2009 Som Nath Vig. vs. State of Rajasthan and others. Date : 29.4.2009 HON&#8217;BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-67264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court-jodhpur"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - 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\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-29T23:55:52+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\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T23:55:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1666,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-29T23:55:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - 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\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-29T23:55:52+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\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T23:55:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009"},"wordCount":1666,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009","name":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-29T23:55:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/som-nath-vig-vs-state-of-raj-ors-on-29-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Som Nath Vig vs State Of Raj. &amp; Ors on 29 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/67264","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=67264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}