{"id":71500,"date":"2008-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-26T15:30:58","modified_gmt":"2015-09-26T10:00:58","slug":"rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                     -1-\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                   AT CHANDIGARH\n                   ****\n                        Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987\n                               Date of Decision:15.09.2008\n\nRajpal Singh\n                                                        .....Petitioner\n            Vs.\n\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others\n                                                        .....Respondents\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL\n\nPresent:-   Mr. J.C. Verma, Senior Advocate with\n            Ms. Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the\n            petitioner.\n\n            None for the respondents.\n                        ****\nHARBANS LAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This petition is moved by Rajpal Singh under Articles 226\/227<\/p>\n
of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 1.5.1987<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-4).\n<\/p>\n
            The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Moman Ram<\/p>\n
Nai was employed in June, 1980 in the service of Rajpal Singh- petitioner at<\/p>\n
his agriculture farm as a tractor driver. He used to get Rs.500\/- per month.<\/p>\n
He served upto May, 1982. Rajpal Singh paid him Rs.3,000\/- only. The<\/p>\n
rest of the payment amounting to Rs.9,000\/- was withheld in spite of<\/p>\n
repeated requests made by him. Moman Ram Nai moved an application<\/p>\n
under sub-Section 2 of Section 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947<\/p>\n
(for short, `the Act’) for recovery of Rs.9,000\/-. The reference was made to<\/p>\n
the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ambala. After perusing the oral<\/p>\n
as well as documentary evidence, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court,<\/p>\n
Ambala passed the impugned order holding that Moman Ram Nai worked
\n Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
on the farm of Rajpal Singh from 1980 to 1982 at the monthly wages of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/-. He was paid only Rs.3,000\/- and Rs.9,000\/- remained outstanding.<\/p>\n
During pendency of the reference, Moman Ram Nai was murdered by elder<\/p>\n
brother of Rajpal Singh. So, widow and children of Moman Ram Nai since<\/p>\n
deceased are entitled to Rs.9,000\/-.    Feeling aggrieved with the award,<\/p>\n
Rajpal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the petitioner) has filed this<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
            The respondent did not file the written statement to this<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
            None has put in appearance on behalf of Naurati Devi, widow<\/p>\n
of late Moman Ram Nai, respondent.\n<\/p>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner besides<\/p>\n
perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the<\/p>\n
Labour Court with due care and circumspection.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. J.C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
of the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner is a small farmer<\/p>\n
cultivating his land measuring about 10 acres. Moman Ram Nai, deceased<\/p>\n
was inimically disposed towards the petitioner because of earlier litigation<\/p>\n
between the parties and even the proceedings under Section 107\/151 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C were initiated between the parties. The deceased Moman Ram Nai<\/p>\n
was a man of bad reputation. He wanted to grab the land of the younger<\/p>\n
brother of the petitioner. At the instance and provocation of the rival group,<\/p>\n
the deceased moved a false application under Section 33(c)(2) of the Act for<\/p>\n
claiming wages on the ground that he had worked for two years with the<\/p>\n
petitioner as a tractor driver and that Rs.9,000\/- were still due from the<\/p>\n
petitioner. As a matter of fact, he was never an employee of the petitioner,
\n Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
who had been dealing his own cultivation and he was owning tractor. He<\/p>\n
had produced the jamabandi and other evidence showing that the aforesaid<\/p>\n
relation did not exist between the parties. Moman Ram Nai has died,<\/p>\n
therefore, his widow Naurati Devi appeared on his behalf. From her as well<\/p>\n
as Pholla Singh’s statement, it transpires that no such relationship ever came<\/p>\n
to exist between the parties. It is further argued that `industry’ has been<\/p>\n
defined in Section 2(j) of the Act. There is no evidence on the record to<\/p>\n
prove that the petitioner, a small farmer as a unregistered company used to<\/p>\n
employ labourers. Thus, the agriculture operation being carried out by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in his own land does not fall within the ambit of `industry’. He<\/p>\n
further argued that the judgment relied upon by the Presiding Officer of the<\/p>\n
learned Labour Court is inapplicable to the facts of the instant case. In<\/p>\n
these premises, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
            I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival<\/p>\n
contentions. Naurati Devi, widow of the deceased Moman Ram Nai in her<\/p>\n
statement reproduced in the petition has testified that “I do not remember<\/p>\n
that the respondent (referring to her deceased- husband Moman Ram Nai,<\/p>\n
had been working at what place other than two years as mentioned above. I<\/p>\n
do not know that if I own any tractor or not of my husband. Strangely<\/p>\n
enough that she gave a evasive reply to a stark fact. Had her husband been<\/p>\n
not owning a tractor, she would have denied this fact. It is in her further<\/p>\n
evidence that if there is any land in the name of my husband “I do not<\/p>\n
know.” Again she has obviously equivocalised the answer to a very material<\/p>\n
question. It is very difficult to presume that she could not be cognizant of<\/p>\n
these facts. Seemingly, she deliberately eschewed to answer these questions<\/p>\n
in a specific and desirable manner. That being so, it has to be presumed that
\n Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                     -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
her husband did own tractor as well as the land. The testimony of Phoola<\/p>\n
Singh bears the fact that Moman Ram Nai had one Eicher Tractor and he<\/p>\n
used to cultivate his own land. This evidence further leads to an illation<\/p>\n
that Moman Ram Nai did own a tractor as well as land. The petitioner in his<\/p>\n
statement Annexure P.3 has solemnly affirmed that “Moman Ram used to<\/p>\n
do his own cultivation and owned six killas of land and a tractor.         I<\/p>\n
produced a copy of the jamabandi of his land as Ex.RW\/1. The respondent<\/p>\n
has never worked with us. We have since sold our tractor ourselves. The<\/p>\n
above said application has been moved because of groupism in the village.<\/p>\n
The respondent was a man of very bad reputation and character. I do not<\/p>\n
owe anything to him. I do know Naurati Devi. She is not related to Moman<\/p>\n
Ram.” It is in his cross-examination that “Moman still owns a tractor,<\/p>\n
which can be proved by me. Moman owned 8\/10 killas of land. There were<\/p>\n
107\/151 Cr.P.C proceedings between me and Moman previously, copy of<\/p>\n
which is with me at Karnal and that can be produced.” Firstly, by not filing<\/p>\n
the written statement, the above reproduced statements of Naurati Devi as<\/p>\n
well as Phoola Singh have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. The above<\/p>\n
discussed evidence tendered by Naurati Devi before the learned Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer of the Labour Court gives a inkling that she is not the widow of<\/p>\n
Moman Ram deceased for the reason that had she been so, by all<\/p>\n
probabilities she would have been in the know of the above-referred facts.<\/p>\n
The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has put too much<\/p>\n
premium on her statement by believing it. As noted supra, the petitioner had<\/p>\n
also produced a copy of the jamabandi Ex.RW.1 showing the deceased<\/p>\n
Moman Ram Nai to be owner of the land. If he owned land as well as<\/p>\n
tractor it would be begging the question to hold that he was employed as
\n Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                       -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
driver by the petitioner. More importantly, when the parties were at logger<\/p>\n
head how it could be assumed that the petitioner would have engaged<\/p>\n
Moman Ram Nai as a tractor driver. To add further to it, as per the<\/p>\n
statement of Rajpal Singh, (Annexure P.3), they used to ply their own<\/p>\n
tractor. If they were having their own tractor, where was the necessity for<\/p>\n
this small farmer to employ a tractor driver. The learned Presiding Officer<\/p>\n
appear to have not appreciated the evidence as per the rules of evidence. In<\/p>\n
the ultimate analysis, there can be no hesitation to hold that the relationship<\/p>\n
of employer and workman did not subsist between the parties. The Apex<\/p>\n
Court in re:- Harinagar Cane Farm v. State of Bihar and others<\/a>, AIR<\/p>\n
1964 Supreme Court 903 ruled as under:-\n<\/p>\n
            “It has been urged by the respondents that this decision<\/p>\n
            supports their argument that S.2(j) includes all agriculture and<\/p>\n
            agricultural operations, and in support of this proposition, they<\/p>\n
            have invited our attention to the statement in the judgment<\/p>\n
            delivered by Chandrasekhara Aiyar J., where it is observed that<\/p>\n
            the concept of industry in the ordinary non-technical sense<\/p>\n
            applies even to agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture and so on<\/p>\n
            and so forth. We are not impressed by this argument. The<\/p>\n
            context in which this sentence occurs shows that the Court was<\/p>\n
            there dealing with the ordinary non-technical sense according<\/p>\n
            to what is understood by the man in the street as the denotation<\/p>\n
            of the word `industry’ or business, and so, the observations<\/p>\n
            made in that connection cannot be taken to amount to the broad<\/p>\n
            and unqualified proposition that agriculture of all kinds is<\/p>\n
            included in S.2(j).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987                     -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
             It can be culled out from these observations that agriculture of<\/p>\n
all kinds is not included in Section 2(j) of the Act. The learned Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer of the Labour Court has also relied upon this ruling, but without<\/p>\n
analyzing the observations with due care and caution made therein. In re:<\/p>\n
Maheswar Rao and others v. State of Orissa and others<\/a>, 1974 LAB. I.C.<\/p>\n
1512, it has been observed that “from these decisions it would appear that<\/p>\n
unless agriculture is adopted as a business or calling, the operations in the<\/p>\n
hands of petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 cannot partake the character of industry.<\/p>\n
It would, therefore, follow that that the petitioners do not run any industry<\/p>\n
and any dispute in regard to employment under them would not constitute<\/p>\n
“industrial dispute” within the definition of that term under the Industrial<\/p>\n
Disputes Act.    The referring authority without application of mind and<\/p>\n
without examining the facts of the case suddenly proceeded to make the<\/p>\n
reference in exercise of powers vested in it under the Act.” In the instant<\/p>\n
case, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has not held that<\/p>\n
agriculture was being adopted by the petitioner as a business or calling. So,<\/p>\n
in my view, the deceased- respondent’s case is not covered by the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Industrial Disputes Act.\n<\/p>\n
             In view of the above discussion, the interference in the<\/p>\n
impugned order under Articles 226\/227 of the Constitution of India is<\/p>\n
warranted. Sequelly, the impugned order dated 1.5.1987 (Annexure P-4) is<\/p>\n
set aside by allowing this petition.\n<\/p>\n
             Disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
September 15, 2008                                      ( HARBANS LAL )\nrenu                                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.6181 of 1987 Date of Decision:15.09.2008 Rajpal Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71500","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-26T10:00:58+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\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T10:00:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1699,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-26T10:00:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - 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\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-26T10:00:58+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\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T10:00:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"},"wordCount":1699,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008","name":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-26T10:00:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajpal-singh-vs-presiding-officer-on-15-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajpal Singh vs Presiding Officer on 15 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/71500","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=71500"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71500\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71500"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71500"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71500"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}