{"id":75149,"date":"2009-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-26T18:53:43","modified_gmt":"2019-03-26T13:23:43","slug":"md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.\n                             W.P. (C) No. 1309 of 2007\n                                              ...\n             Md. Salauddin @ Siwni                             ...     ...       Petitioner\n                                      -V e r s u s-\n             1. State of Jharkhand through the Labour Enforcement Officer, Chaibasa,\n             Singhbhum West.\n             2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Chaibasa.\n             3. Md. Kasimuddin\n             4. Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa\n                                                                     ...       Respondents.\n                                              ...\nCORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.\n                                              ...\n             For the Petitioner               : - Mr. Pandey Neeraj Roy, Advocate.\n             For the Respondent-State         : - J.C. to G.P. III.\n             For the Respondent No. 3         : - Mr. R. C. Khatri, Advocate.\n                                              ...\n7\/13.10.2009<\/pre>\n<p>         Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for the following reliefs: &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (a)     For quashing the order dated-14.02.2007<br \/>\n                                              (Annexure-9), passed in M.W. Appeal No. 1 of<br \/>\n                                              2006-07, by the court of Additional Deputy<br \/>\n                                              Commissioner,      West     Singhbhum,      Chaibasa,<br \/>\n                                              whereby the prayer of the petitioner filed in the<br \/>\n                                              appeal preferred by him under Section 20 (6A) of<br \/>\n                                              the Minimum Wages Act, for condoning the delay<br \/>\n                                              in filing the Appeal, has been rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (b)     For quashing the Notice dated-14.11.2006<br \/>\n                                              (Annexure-7), issued by the Certificate Officer in<br \/>\n                                              Certificate Case No. 01 (M.W.\/06-07) whereby a<br \/>\n                                              direction was issued to the petitioner to pay the<br \/>\n                                              certificate amount of Rs.1,39,041.57\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (c)     For issuance of a direction to the appellate<br \/>\n                                              court to consider the petitioner&#8217;s appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                              (d)     For staying the proceedings of the impugned<br \/>\n                                              orders, passed in the Certificate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>       2.      Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the private Respondent No. 3 as<br \/>\n       also the Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n<p>       3.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.      Mr. Pandey Neeraj Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing both<br \/>\n       the impugned orders, would submit that upon receipt of the notice in the certificate<br \/>\n       proceedings, the petitioner had filed his objections under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act. The<br \/>\n       impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit the Certificate amount was passed by<br \/>\n       the Certificate Officer purportedly under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, by way<br \/>\n       of an ex parte order with an observation that the petitioner had failed to appear in the<br \/>\n       proceedings on the date fixed. Learned counsel contends that even though the Certificate<br \/>\n       Officer could have passed an ex parte order but considering the fact that the petitioner<br \/>\n       had appeared in the proceedings and had filed his objections stating specific grounds in<br \/>\n                                      [2]<br \/>\n                                                               [W.P. (C) No. 1309 of 2007]<\/p>\n<p>support of such objection, the Certificate Officer could not have proceeded to impose the<br \/>\nfinancial liability by making the demand for payment of the certificate amount, without<br \/>\nfirst considering and discussing the objections raised by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>               As regards the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, learned counsel<br \/>\nexplains that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Authority in the proceedings<br \/>\nunder the Minimum Wages Act, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order.<br \/>\nThere being a delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner had filed a separate application<br \/>\npraying for condoning the delay on the ground that the delay was occasioned due to the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s illness. A medical Certificate was enclosed alongwith the petition for<br \/>\ncondonation of delay. The Appellate Authority, according to the learned counsel, has<br \/>\nerroneously refused to condone the delay merely on the ground that the bona fides of the<br \/>\ncertificate appears to be doubtful in view of the fact that the petitioner being a resident of<br \/>\nWest Singhbhum, had obtained the Certificate from the Doctor stationed at East<br \/>\nSinghbhum.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Learned counsel argues that the learned Appellate court below had failed<br \/>\nto consider the fact that though the Doctor concerned was employed as an Assistant Civil<br \/>\nSurgeon in East Singhbhum but is basically a resident of Chaibasa in West Singhbhum<br \/>\nand the petitioner being also a resident of the same town did have occasion to undergo<br \/>\ntreatment under the said Doctor.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner has categorically stated in<br \/>\nthe grounds of Appeal as also in the objections filed by him in the Certificate proceedings<br \/>\nthat he cannot under any circumstance be saddled with any liability to pay the wages as<br \/>\ndemanded by the Respondent No. 3 and if his appeal is not considered on merits, the<br \/>\npetitioner would suffer serious prejudice.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.     Mr. R. C. Khatri, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 would submit<br \/>\narguments in support of both the impugned orders and would want to explain that from<br \/>\nthe history of litigation between the petitioner and the Respondent No. 3, it would be<br \/>\napparent that this is not the first instance when the petitioner has approached this Court.<br \/>\nLearned counsel explains that on earlier occasion also, the petitioner had challenged the<br \/>\norder of the authority under the Minimum Wages Act. Though the impugned order of the<br \/>\nauthority under the Minimum Wages Act was set aside with a direction to pass a fresh<br \/>\norder, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act, in due compliance of this Court&#8217;s<br \/>\norder, had reconsidered the case and passed a fresh order holding that the petitioner is<br \/>\nliable to pay the wages together with arrears thereof to the Respondent No. 3. Upon the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s failure to comply with the order a certificate proceeding was initiated and the<br \/>\npetitioner upon receipt of a notice in the Certificate proceedings, had though appeared<br \/>\nand filed his objections but thereafter, had intentionally avoided to appear in the<br \/>\nproceedings and to participate in the same and under such circumstances, the Certificate<br \/>\n                                      [3]<br \/>\n                                                                [W.P. (C) No. 1309 of 2007]<\/p>\n<p>Officer was constrained to proceed and to pass the impugned order under Section 10 of<br \/>\nthe P.D.R. Act against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>               In respect of the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the Respondent No. 3 would submit that the explanations offered by the<br \/>\npetitioner as reasons for condoning the delay, having not been found satisfactory by the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority, the delay was not condoned and there being no impropriety or<br \/>\nillegality in the order, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioner in this writ<br \/>\napplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>               Learned counsel adds further, that by indulging in such dilatory tactics, the<br \/>\npetitioner has been denying and depriving the Respondent No.3 of the fruits of the<br \/>\nAward, which was passed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act in<br \/>\nhis favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      More or less, similar arguments have been advanced on behalf of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the Respondent-State by reference to the statements contained in their counter<br \/>\naffidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      From the rival submissions, the following facts emerge:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                                                The impugned order (Annexure-7), which<br \/>\n                                         was passed by the Certificate Officer, is admittedly<br \/>\n                                         an ex parte order. From perusal of the order, it<br \/>\n                                         appears that the Certificate Officer had proceeded to<br \/>\n                                         declare that the petitioner is liable to pay the<br \/>\n                                         Certificate amount. Such declaration has though<br \/>\n                                         been passed ex parte, but without making any<br \/>\n                                         discussions whatsoever on the objections raised by<br \/>\n                                         the petitioner under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.      Section 10 of the P.D.R. Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the<br \/>\nCertificate Officer in cases where the objections under Section 9 of the Act is filed by<br \/>\nthe   Certificate debtor and it contemplates hearing and determination of the issues<br \/>\ninvolved in the proceedings. The Certificate Officer, if necessary, may take evidence and<br \/>\ndetermine whether the Certificate-debtor is liable for payment of the whole or any part of<br \/>\nthe amount for which the Certificate was signed. The provisions also envisage that if the<br \/>\njudgment debtor fails on any occasion to discharge his duties as per the orders of the<br \/>\nCertificate Officer then the Certificate Officer shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte but<br \/>\nonly after deciding the matter under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act as contemplated under<br \/>\nthe provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.      It is apparent from a bare reading of the impugned order (Annexure-7) that no<br \/>\ndiscussion on the grounds of objections raised by the petitioner was made at all by the<br \/>\nCertificate Officer before imposing the liability upon the petitioner to pay the Certificate<br \/>\namount. The impugned order therefore, suffers from impropriety and betrays lack of<br \/>\n                                              [4]<br \/>\n                                                                        [W.P. (C) No. 1309 of 2007]<\/p>\n<p>      application of mind and also betrays that the order has been passed without adhering to<br \/>\n      the duty cast on the officer under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act. The impugned<br \/>\n      order of the Certificate Officer being not sustainable under the law, is hereby quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10.     As regards the impugned order of the Appellate Authority, it appears that prayer<br \/>\n      for condoning the delay has been rejected only by doubting the genuineness of the<br \/>\n      medical certificate produced by the petitioner. The circumstances under which the<br \/>\n      petitioner had undergone medical treatment under the Doctor who had issued the Medical<br \/>\n      Certificate, do not appear to have been considered by the Appellate Authority, before<br \/>\n      rejecting the petitioner&#8217;s prayer for condoning the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>                      In the light of the explanations offered by the petitioner that the Doctor<br \/>\n      who had issued the Certificate is essentially a resident of Chaibasa in the district of West<br \/>\n      Singhbhum and the petitioner is also a resident of the same town, it would not be a matter<br \/>\n      of surprise or disbelief that the petitioner had undergone medical treatment under the<br \/>\n      Doctor and to treat the medical certificate as not genuine. I am satisfied that the<br \/>\n      impugned order has been passed by the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation<br \/>\n      of the explanations offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the Appeal and has<br \/>\n      been passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11.     For the aforesaid reasons, finding the impugned order of the Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      to be unjust and suffering from impropriety, the same is also hereby quashed. The<br \/>\n      Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider the matter and to pass an appropriate order<br \/>\n      after hearing the appeal on merits and dispose of the same within a reasonable time,<br \/>\n      preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order. The petitioner in his<br \/>\n      turn shall also ensure his due participation in expediting the disposal of the appeal within<br \/>\n      the period stipulated hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12.     Considering the fact that the petitioner claims to have raised several grounds in<br \/>\n      support of his positive stand that he is not liable to pay any amount towards minimum<br \/>\n      wages to the Respondent No. 3 and also considering the fact that the Appeal filed by him<br \/>\n      against the order of the authority concerned under the Minimum Wages Act is yet to be<br \/>\n      considered and decided, the further proceedings in the Certificate case against the<br \/>\n      petitioner shall remain stayed and no action including any action on the basis of warrants<br \/>\n      issued, if any, pursuant to the impugned order (Annexure-7), shall be taken against the<br \/>\n      petitioner till the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      13.     With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>      14.     Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                             (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)<br \/>\nAPK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI. W.P. (C) No. 1309 of 2007 &#8230; Md. Salauddin @ Siwni &#8230; &#8230; Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. State of Jharkhand through the Labour Enforcement Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum [&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":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 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\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-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=\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-26T13:23:43+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\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T13:23:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1725,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T13:23:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 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\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-26T13:23:43+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\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T13:23:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009"},"wordCount":1725,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009","name":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T13:23:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/md-salauddin-siwni-vs-state-of-jharkhand-ors-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Md.Salauddin @ Siwni vs State Of Jharkhand &amp; Ors on 13 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/75149","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=75149"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75149\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}