{"id":74129,"date":"2010-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-22T20:15:32","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T14:45:32","slug":"pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            \nSWP No. 1373 OF 2001    \nPritam Singh \nPetitioners\nSecretary to Govt. of Indian Union and others\nRespondent  \n!Mr. P.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate\n^Mrs. K.K. Pangotra, ASGI \n\nHonble Mr. Justice Hasnain MassodI, Judge \nDate: 18.09.2010 \n:J U D G M E N T :\n<\/pre>\n<p>The petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Runner (EDR) on 6th of<br \/>\nOctober 1982 and promoted as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (EDBPM)<br \/>\non 07.12.1984 for Post Office Jigni Coal Mines, Kalakote.  The Post Office was<br \/>\ninspected by Shri T.R. Anand, Assistant Superintendent of Post Office on 17th<br \/>\nDecember 1991. Shri Anand, on inspection, found the petitioner to have failed to<br \/>\nmake certain entries in the Post Office Book in respect of money transactions and to<br \/>\nhave withheld certain amounts, received from the customers. The petitioner was<br \/>\nput off the duties by Shri T.R. Anand with effect from 17.12.1991 and the action<br \/>\nwas confirmed by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jammu Division vide<br \/>\nMemo No.ED-613 dated 13th March 1992. The petitioner was relieved from the<br \/>\ncharge of EDBPM and the charge handed over to one Shri Raj Kumar, EDR.  The<br \/>\nrespondents, after lull of a few years, served a formal charge sheet on the petitioner<br \/>\non 27th of January 1997. The articles of charge were communicated to the petitioner<br \/>\nand an Inquiry Officer appointed to conduct disciplinary proceedings against<br \/>\npetitioner. The Inquiry Officer, after recording statement of as many as 12<br \/>\nwitnesses as also witnesses examined by the petitioner in his defence, found the<br \/>\ncharges to have been established against the petitioner. The Senior Superintendent<br \/>\nof Post Office Jammu Division recorded agreement with the findings of the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer and vide Memo No.F6\/52\/91 dated 14.5.1998, imposed penalty of removal<br \/>\nfrom service on the petitioner.  The petitioner, as provided under Extra<br \/>\nDepartmental Agents (Conduct &amp; Service) Rules 1974, preferred an appeal against<br \/>\norder dated 14.5.1998 before Chief Post Master General, J&amp;K. The appeal received<br \/>\non 18th February 2000 appears to have not been entertained and dealt with on the<br \/>\nground that it was not filed within three months i.e., period prescribed under Extra<br \/>\nDepartment Agents (Conduct &amp; Service) Rules 1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioner, through medium of present writ petition, seeks quashment of<br \/>\norder  memo No.F6\/52\/91 dated 14.5.1998. The petitioner, not aware of outcome<br \/>\nof appeal, preferred against the aforementioned order, has expressed his inability to<br \/>\ntake a stand in respect thereof.  The petitioner in alternative seeks any other writ<br \/>\norder or direction as the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The petitioners case is that the petitioner was taken ill in 1991 and duly<br \/>\napplied for grant of medical leave; that the respondents did not sanction leave in<br \/>\nfavour of the petitioner, coercing the petitioner to render his duties as Extra<br \/>\nDepartmental Branch Post Manager while suffering from disease diagnosed by<br \/>\nDoctors as maniac depression psychosis and behavioral disorder.  It is pleaded<br \/>\nthat the lapses committed by the petitioner during the period  May to December<br \/>\n1991, were attributable to the mental disorder suffered by the petitioner. The<br \/>\npetitioner, to establish his bonafides, claims to have deposited the amount withheld,<br \/>\nimmediately after it was detected on inspection by Assistant Superintendent of Post<br \/>\nOffice on 17th December 1991.  The petitioner assails the order dated 14th May<br \/>\n1998 on the ground that no inquiry was conducted with effect from 17th December<br \/>\n1991 i.e., the date the petitioner was put off the duty till charge sheet was served<br \/>\non the petitioner on 27.01.1997. The charge sheet, according to the petitioner, is<br \/>\nliable to be quashed on this ground alone. It is next pleaded that the petitioner was<br \/>\nnot allowed assistance of an Advocate during departmental inquiry and thus denied<br \/>\na reasonable opportunity to contest the charge sheet. The petitioner also disputes<br \/>\nauthority and competence of T.R. Anand, Assistant Superintendent, Police Office,<br \/>\nJammu, to put off the duty\/suspend the petitioner.  The petitioner complains that<br \/>\nthe petitioner was neither supplied the documents relied upon nor allowed to inspect<br \/>\nthe records, so as to enable the petitioner to organize his defence.  It is next urged<br \/>\nthat the order, impugned in the petition, is not based on the evidence adduced<br \/>\nbefore the Inquiry Officer.  The petitioner has taken pains to give a detailed account<br \/>\nof the evidence adduced in support of the charges and the evidence adduced by the<br \/>\npetitioner in defence, to substantiate his stand that the Inquiry Officer did not make<br \/>\nproper appreciation of the evidence produced before him. The next grievance of the<br \/>\npetitioner, as stated earlier, is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 25th of<br \/>\nAugust 1998 against impugned order dated 14.5.1998, has not been decided by the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority and the repeated reminders made by the petitioner, referred to<br \/>\nin Para XI of the petition, have had no effect on the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The respondents, in their objection  reply, have questioned maintainability<br \/>\nof the petition on the ground that the questions of fact were intended to be raised in<br \/>\nthe petition.  The respondents, admitting that the charge was served a few years<br \/>\nafter the occurrence, have referred to the evidence recorded by the Inquiry Officer,<br \/>\nto substantiate that all the articles of charge were proved against the petitioner. The<br \/>\nrespondents insist that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with rules<br \/>\nand adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to disprove the charges leveled<br \/>\nagainst him. It is pleaded that the petitioner participated in the inquiry with the<br \/>\nassistance of his Defence Assistant and that the petitioner was furnished copy of<br \/>\ninquiry report and the petitioner submitted his reply on 24th of March 2002,<br \/>\nwhereafter order imposing penalty of removal from service on the petitioner was<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Heard and considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The order dated 14th May 1998 is appealable under Extra Departmental<br \/>\nAgents (Conduct &amp; Service) Rules 1964. The Rules provide for an appeal against<br \/>\norder like subject matter of the present writ petition.  In terms of Rule 11 of the<br \/>\nRules, such appeal is to be filed before Chief Post Master General.  The petitioner,<br \/>\nas mentioned above, filed appeal against order dated 14th May 1998 on 25.8.1998<br \/>\ni.e., a few days after time prescribed under Rule 11 elapsed\/came to end.<br \/>\nRespondents, in their reply, have admitted that appeal was filed against order dated<br \/>\n14th May 1998 by the petitioner. The respondents, however, plead that the appeal<br \/>\nwas received in the office of Chief Post Master General, J&amp;K, on 18th February<br \/>\n2000. The reply  objections as a matter of fact refer to a reminder received by<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 and not the original appeal preferred on 25th of August 1998. The<br \/>\nreply does not make mention of the appeal dated 25th of August 1998, forwarded<br \/>\nvide Speed Post Parcel No.AD 2\/41 dated 26th August 1998. The respondents have<br \/>\nmerely stated that the appeal was not filed within three months as required in terms<br \/>\nof Rule 11.  The respondents neither in para vii nor in para xi of the reply, plead<br \/>\nthat the appeal was dealt with by the Appellate Authority.  The Appellate Authority<br \/>\neven where appeal is preferred, after prescribed period is over, is required to pass<br \/>\nformal order dismissing appeal as time barred.  The Appellate Authority may on<br \/>\nconsideration of the grounds taken in the appeal and the issues sought to be raised,<br \/>\nentertain an appeal even after the period of appeal is over. The Appellate Authority<br \/>\nin the circumstances has to look into appeal and not to refuse to even touch the<br \/>\nappeal, let alone go through grounds urged in the appeal, to assess whether any<br \/>\nimportant issues are raised. In the present case the Appellate Authority has not even<br \/>\nlooked at the appeal and failed to pass an order, dismissing the appeal as time<br \/>\nbarred or otherwise. In such a situation, appellant is not in a position to know the<br \/>\nreasons, for which appeal was dismissed or to know how grounds set out in the<br \/>\nappeal, were dealt with by the Appellate Authority.  In absence of such information<br \/>\nthe appellant is deprived of right to question the order of Appellate Authority<br \/>\nthrough appropriate proceedings.  In the present case as pointed out earlier, no order<br \/>\nhas been passed by the Appellate Authority on the appeal admittedly received from<br \/>\nthe appellant. Though Rule 11 provided an equally efficacious remedy to the<br \/>\npetitioner to question order, forming subject matter of the present petition, yet the<br \/>\nrespondents have practically denied the petitioner such right.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It is the Appellate Authority that in the event the appeal was entertained,<br \/>\nwould have been in a better position to deal with the grounds set up in the petition<br \/>\nand earlier in memo of appeal. It is for the Appellate Authority to hold  opine<br \/>\nwhether the petitioner was entitled to service of legal assistance as laid down in<br \/>\nMohan Chandran and others Vs. Union of India &amp; others (1986 (1) SLR 84 (MP) or<br \/>\nwhether because of delay in service of charge sheet, disciplinary proceedings were<br \/>\nvitiated as held in Subhash Chand Basu Vs. Bank of Baroda, (1991 (SLR)<br \/>\n38(Calcutta); State of MP Vs Bani Singh and another (1990 (2) SLR 798).\n<\/p>\n<p>      Again it is for the Appellate Authority to return finding on the plea that due<br \/>\nto non-supply of copy of documents relied upon and non-inspection of records,<br \/>\nprejudice was caused to the petitioner as held in Nathu Singh Vs Rajasthan SRTC<br \/>\nand others (1988 (6) SLR 754 (Rajasthan), or whether the suspension order was<br \/>\nineffective because of it not having been confirmed within 15 days from the date it<br \/>\nwas made, as held in Shambu Nath Panda Vs Union of India and others (1987(1)<br \/>\nSLR 741).\n<\/p>\n<p>      For the reasons discussed, the Appellate Authority  Chief Post Master<br \/>\nGeneral, J&amp;K, is directed to deal with and pass orders warranted under law on the<br \/>\nappeal, preferred by the appellant on 25th of August 1998.  Having regard to the fact<br \/>\nthat the grievance of the petitioner has gone unaddressed for last ten years, the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority shall as far as possible, decide the appeal within two weeks<br \/>\nfrom the date, copy of the order is made available to the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>( Hasnain Massodi )<br \/>\n         Judge<br \/>\nJammu<br \/>\n18\/09\/2010<br \/>\nAjaz Ahmad  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. SWP No. 1373 OF 2001 Pritam Singh Petitioners Secretary to Govt. of Indian Union and others Respondent !Mr. P.S. Bhardwaj, Advocate ^Mrs. K.K. Pangotra, ASGI Honble Mr. Justice Hasnain MassodI, Judge Date: 18.09.2010 :J U D [&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":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-74129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - 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\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T14:45:32+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T14:45:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T14:45:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - 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\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T14:45:32+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T14:45:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010"},"wordCount":1627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010","name":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T14:45:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pritam-singh-vs-unknown-on-18-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pritam Singh vs Unknown on 18 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/74129","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=74129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}