{"id":72874,"date":"2004-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004"},"modified":"2016-03-21T07:29:37","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T01:59:37","slug":"prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004<\/div>\n
Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1257 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nPRAHALAD SHARMA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nBRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2004(2) SCR 594<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BRIJESH KUMAR, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a Division
\nBench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition preferred by
\nthe appellant challenging the order passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
\npurportedly in exercise of its revisional power under Rule 13 of U.P.
\nGovernment Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred
\nto as ‘the U.P. Rules of 1999’) setting aside the order passed by the
\nChairman of the U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation (for short ‘the
\nCorporation’) and restoring the order passed by the Managing Director
\nimposing penalty of dismissal against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The Corporation is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It is a
\nGovernment company. The appellant has been working as a Service Engineer in
\nthe said Corporation at Hapur. It is the case of the Corporation that the
\nappellant had committed serious financial irregularities which came to the
\nlight of the Corporation and in respect thereof the Managing Director of
\nthe Corporation instituted a departmental enquiry some time in October,
\n1997. The charges were found proved and ultimately the Managing Director
\npassed the order dated 29.7.2000 dismissing the services of the appellant
\nwith immediate effect. An appeal was preferred to the Chairman of the
\nCorporation against the order of punishment. The appellate authority by
\norder dated 14.9.2000 partly allowed the appeal and ordered for
\nreinstatement of the appellant with an observation that if the Managing
\nDirector desires he may inflict minor punishment of censure against the
\nappellant. It was also found by the appellate authority that no charges
\nwere proved against the appellant nor the Corporation has suffered any
\nfinancial loss. The conduct of the appellant, it has been observed, was
\n“infirm” in following the departmental rules and procedure and he has been
\ncareless in his dealings.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that against the order passed by the Chairman reinstating the
\nappellant, revisional power of the State Government as provided under Rule
\n13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999, was invoked by the Corporation. The State
\nGovernment allowed the revision and found that charges of serious financial
\nirregularities were proved against the appellant. The punishment of
\ndismissal as inflicted by the Managing Director was justified. The order
\npassed by the Chairman allowing the appeal was set aside and the order of
\npunishment was restored.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that before the State Government a plea was raised about the
\njurisdiction of the State Government to entertain the revision under Rule
\n13 of the U.P. Rules, 1999. In the revisional order, however, it is
\nmentioned that the above said U.P. Rules of 1999 were adopted by the Board
\nof Directors of the Corporation, in that view of the matter the State
\nGovernment was empowered to hear the revision. This point relating to the
\njurisdiction of the State Government, to exercise the power under Rule 13
\nwas raised before the High Court also. The High Court observed that by
\nmeans of a resolution dated 10.7.2001 the Corporation had mutatis-mutandis
\nadopted the U.P. Rules of 1999. Hence the provisions of the aforesaid rules
\nare applicable to the employees of the Corporation. After quoting the
\nprovisions for revision namely, rule 13, the High Court opined that since
\nthe aforesaid rules are adopted by the Corporation, the State Government
\nhas power to entertain the revision.\n<\/p>\n
We may straightaway address to the question about the exercise of
\nrevisional power by the State Government as provided under the U.P. Rules
\nof 1999. The Resolution dated 10.7.2001 passed by the corporation reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
“Additional Agenda No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
In respect of incorporating the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and
\nAppeal) Rules, 1999 in the Corporation Service Rules, 1984<\/p>\n
“Proposal is passed taking a decision that the U.P. Government Servant
\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 notified by the Special Secretary,
\nLabour Department – I vide notification no.!3\/9\/98-Ka-l-99 dated 9th June,
\n1999 along with necessary amendments will be made applicable to the
\nofficers\/employees of the Corporation and it is permitted to incorporate
\nthe same in the Service Rules, 1984 of the Corporation.”\n<\/p>\n
in view of the above resolution, the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been made
\napplicable to the officers\/employees of the Corporation and they were
\npermitted to be incorporated in the Corporation’s service rules of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 provides as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Revision – Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the
\nGovernment may of its own motion or on the representation of concerned
\nGovernment servant call for the record of any case decided by an authority
\nsubordinate to it in the exercise of any power conferred on such authority
\nby these rules; and<\/p>\n
(a)   confirm, modify or reverse the order passed by such authority; or<\/p>\n
(b)    direct that further inquiry he held in the case, or<\/p>\n
(c)    reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; or<\/p>\n
(d)  make such other order in the case as it may deem fit.”<\/p>\n
The U.P. Rules of 1999 relate to the employees of the State Government. The
\nrevisional power has thus been vested in the State Government to exercise
\nthe same on its own motion or on the representation of concerned government
\nservant. In exercise of this power the State Government could call for the
\nrecord of any case decided by an authority subordinate to it and pass
\nappropriate order confirming or modifying or reversing the order under
\nrevisional scrutiny besides other powers as provided for under the Rule.
\nThe question for consideration is as to whether or not this revisional
\npower is available to the State Government in relation to the employees of
\nthe Corporation. In this connection it may be observed that a Corporation
\nor any other organization may adopt the rules on any subject, as may be
\napplicable in the State Government or any other organization. But by doing
\nso only the rules are adopted not the authorities unless specifically
\nprovided for. Otherwise it would result in a queer situation where the
\nauthorities of the organization whose rules on a particular subject have
\nbeen adopted by another organization would start exercising those powers in
\nrelation to the matters of the organization adopting the rules, which would
\nobviously not be permissible. If the organisation adopts the rules
\npertaining to disciplinary matters as prevalent in the government or other
\norganization, it would only mean that same procedure would be applicable in
\nrespect of the employees of the organization adopting the rules namely, the
\nmanner of holding an enquiry into the charges, opportunity of hearing,
\nprovision for appeal or revision would be applicable in respect of the
\nemployees of the organization adopting the rules but such powers would be
\nexercisable by the corresponding authorities in the organization adopting
\nthe rules. If some power is vested in a particular authority, for example,
\nin this case in the state government or for that matter it could be with
\nany other officer or functionary of the state government, would not subject
\nthe employees of a corporation or organization to the control of those
\nauthorities of the organization whose rules have been adopted. If an appeal
\nis provided to be preferred against an order of punishment, to an authority
\nwho is higher than the punishing authority, that remedy may be available to
\nthe employees of the organization adopting the rules for preferring the
\nappeal to the higher authority of his own organization but not that the
\nappellate authority would also be the same belonging to the organization
\nwhose rules are adopted. Similarly, if any authority corresponding or
\nparallel to the state government is available in the corporation such
\nauthority mayexercise revisional powers as conferred upon the state
\ngovernment in the U.P. Rules of 1999. The authorities of a foreign
\norganization cannot be vested with such powers merely because of adoption
\nof the rules on a particular subject as applicable to other organizations.
\nThe same procedure or protection will be applicable and available to the
\nemployees of the corporation as may be provided under the U.P. Rules of
\n1999 but the corresponding authorities would obviously be different.
\nOtherwise authorities of the other department whose Rules are adopted may
\nget wide powers like looking into any records of the organization adopting
\nthe rules and exercising powers like in this case vested under rule 13,
\nupsetting, modifying, reversing orders passed by the authorities of the
\nadopting organization.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant also draws our attention to rule 13
\nto indicate that if the rule is to be applicable, as it is, then the
\ngovernment will have power to revise the order only in case it has been
\npassed by an authority subordinate to it. The Managing Director or the
\nChairman are the authorities and functionaries of the corporation.
\nIncumbent of such offices may even though some times be Govt. servants on
\ndeputation but while working as Chairman or the Managing Director or any
\nauthority in the organization or the corporation, they would not be
\nsubordinate to the government. It is again to be noticed that then perhaps
\nthe right to invoke” the revisional powers may be available only to the
\n“concerned government servant” as provided under rule 13 and may not be
\navailable to the employee of the corporation. Therefore, it is submitted
\nand in our view, rightly, that adoption of rules are implemented in a
\nmanner as they fit in the structure of the adopting organization and not as
\na straight jacket application to the adopting organization. It has also
\nbeen pointed out that according to the provisions of the rule 13, as it is,
\nan order can be subjected to the revisional power of the State only if the
\norder has been passed in exercise of any power conferred under rules of
\n1999. It is submitted that the orders passed by the Managing Director or
\nthe Chairman cannot be said to be orders passed under the U.P. Rules of
\n1999 and not under the rules as adopted by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant has placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1970 (1) SCC
\n177, Dr. S.L. Aggarwal v. The General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd., In<\/a>
\nthis case services of an officer of Hindustan Steel Ltd. were terminated.
\nHe sought protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. This
\nCourt held that the appellant was an employee of the Hindustan Steel Ltd.
\nwhich has its independent existence. Thus rules and provisions relating to
\nthe government employees could not be applicable to those employees. In
\nparagraph 10 of the judgment it is held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“……We must, therefore, hold that the corporation which is Hindustan<\/p>\n
Steel Limited in this case is not a department of the Government nor are
\nthe servants of it holding posts under the State. It has its independent
\nexistence and by km relating to Corporations it is distinct even from its
\nmembers.”\n<\/p>\n
It was also observed that even though a corporation may be completely owned
\nby the government or the directors may be appointed by the President of
\nIndia, nevertheless in the eye of the law the company was a separate entity
\nand had a separate legal existence.\n<\/p>\n
The other decision which has been referred by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant is reported in 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 385. Maharashtra State Co-
\noperative Cotton Growers’ Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. v. Employees ‘
\nUnion and Anr. In this case, in the appointment letter which was issued to
\nthe seasonal employees, it was specified therein that their conditions of
\nservice shall be governed by Model Standing Orders. Some of the provisions
\nof the Model Standing Orders provided for making the services of some
\ncategories of employees permanent. The seasonal employees also claimed the
\nsame benefit. It has been held that it was incorrect to say that all the
\nModel Standing Orders would be applicable to the seasonal employees. It has
\nbeen observed that the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to the
\nseasonal employees mutatis-mutandis. It is further observed that the Model
\nStanding Order no.4-B in particular, will be inapplicable to the seasonal
\nemployees because of the very nature of their employment and hence it could
\nnot be read into service conditions of the seasonal employees even though
\nit was mentioned in their letter of appointments that they shall be
\ngoverned by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders. It was further
\nheld that only such conditions of service would be applicable which could
\nbe applied to the seasonal employees and not the other conditions. It has
\nalso been observed that the Model Standing Orders would be applicable to
\nthe seasonal employees mutatis-mutandis.\n<\/p>\n
The expression “mutatis-mutandis”, itself implies applicability of any
\nprovision with necessary changes in points of detail. The rules which are
\nadopted, as has been done in the present case, make the principles embodied
\nin the rules applicable and not the details pertaining to particular
\nauthority or the things of that nature. In the present case, we find that
\nthe High Court has found that the U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted
\nmutatis-mutandis. Therefore, in our view, the revisional power which has
\nbeen vested in the state government in respect of the employees of the
\nstate may be exercisable by an authority parallel or corresponding thereto
\nin the Corporation in regard to employees of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the revision was
\nfiled before the state government prior to the resolution dated 10.7.2001
\nby which U.P. Rules of 1999 have been adopted by the corporation. On that
\nground also, the state government had no power to interfere in the matter
\nsince the appeal had already been decided in the year 2000 which order had
\nbecome final before adoption of U.P. Rules of 1999. It is also submitted
\nthat since it is provided under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of 1999 that the
\nrevisional powers would be exercisable in respect of the orders passed
\nunder the U.P. Rules of 1999 also leads to the inference that they are
\nprospective in nature and would not be applicable to the orders which have
\nnot been passed under the U.P. Rules of 1999. We, however, find no
\nsubstance in this submission as learned counsel for the respondent has
\ndrawn our attention to the resolution dated February 16, 1991 passed by the
\nBoard of Directors of the Corporation. The office order dated February 16,
\n1991 in relation to the decision of the Board of Directors of the
\nCorporation as taken on 21.6.1990 vide resolution no.7 is quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
“24(A) Disciplinary action, suspension and subsistence allowance, payment
\nrelated rules and orders of the U.P. Government will be applicable on
\nofficers and employees of the Corporation”.\n<\/p>\n
In pursuance of the above noted resolution rule 24-A was substituted in
\nChapter I of General Service Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation. Rule
\n24-A, as substituted, reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“24(A) Disciplinary action, suspension and subsistance allowance payment
\nrelated rules and orders of the U.P. Government will be applicable on
\nofficers and employees of the Corporation.”\n<\/p>\n
In view of the decision of the Board of Directors and the resolution and
\nlater on as a consequence thereof substitution of Rule 24-A in the General
\nService Regulations of 1984 of the Corporation, it is clear that the rules
\nas applicable to the employees of the U.P. Government, in the matters
\nrelating to disciplinary action, suspension or subsistence allowance etc.
\nwere made applicable to the employees of the Corporation. It appears that
\nsince for the employees of the state government some new rules were
\npromulgated namely, the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
\nRules, 1999, a second resolution was passed on 10.7.2001 specifically
\nincorporating those rules for the purposes of disciplinary matters against
\nthe employees of the Corporation. In this light of the matter the question
\nof giving retrospective effect to the U.P. Rules of 1999 does not arise. We
\nfeel that even if no specific resolution was passed for incorporation of
\nU.P. Rules of 1999 on 7.10.2001 even then it would not have made any
\ndifference since rule 24-A was substituted in the regulations of 1984 in
\nthe year 1991 itself by virtue of which U.P. Rules 1999 would also be
\napplicable without any further resolution as whatever rules as may apply to
\nthe employees of the state government in the matters relating to
\ndisciplinary action etc. would be applicable to the employees of the
\ncorporation.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the judgment of the High Court holding that the revisional
\npower as vested in the state government under rule 13 of the U.P. Rules of
\n1999 shall be available in respect of the employees of the Corporation is
\nerroneous and not sustainable. The High Court abruptly formed the opinion
\nwithout examining the question at all.\n<\/p>\n
We, however, need not go into the question, as sought to be raised, as to
\nwho would be an authority parallel or corresponding to the state government
\nin the Corporation to whom a revision may lie, since it is not involved in
\nthis case.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the
\nHigh Court as well as the order dated 15.9.2001 passed by the state
\ngovernment in revision, having been passed without jurisdiction. There
\nwill, however, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1257 of 2004 PETITIONER: PRAHALAD SHARMA RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/02\/2004 BENCH: BRIJESH KUMAR & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2004(2) SCR 594 The Judgment of […]<\/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-72874","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPrahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - 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\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-21T01:59:37+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T01:59:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2868,\"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\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-21T01:59:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 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":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - 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\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-21T01:59:37+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T01:59:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004"},"wordCount":2868,"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\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004","name":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-21T01:59:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prahalad-sharma-vs-state-of-u-p-and-ors-on-24-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prahalad Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 24 February, 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\/72874","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=72874"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72874\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72874"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72874"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72874"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}