{"id":76268,"date":"2010-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-20T22:25:45","modified_gmt":"2018-04-20T16:55:45","slug":"munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR\n\n                   Writ Petition No : 10886 of 2008(S)\n\n                               Smt. Pratibha Yadav\n                                     - V\/s      -\n                             State of MP and others.\n\n\n                   Writ Petition No : 12755 of 2008(S)\n\n                                 Munnalal Lodhi\n                                     - V\/s      -\n                              State of MP and others\n\nPresent :             Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              In W.P.No.10886\/2008(S):\n              Shri Puneet Shroti, Advocate for the petitioner.\n              Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for\n              Respondents 1 to 4.\n              Shri Praveen Verma, Advocate for respondent No.6.\n              Shri R.S. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.7.\n\n               In W.P.No.12755\/2008(S):\n               Shri Praveen Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.\n               Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for\n               Respondents 1 to 4.\n               Shri Puneet Shroti, Advocate for respondent No.6.\n               Shri R.S. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.7.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n        Whether approved for reporting:                              Yes \/ No.\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                    21\/09\/2010<br \/>\n              As the question involved in both these petitions are<br \/>\ncommon and challenge is made to an order-dated 29.8.08, passed by the<br \/>\nCommissioner Sagar Division, pertaining to appointment of Panchayat<br \/>\nKarmi to Gram Panchayat Kishanpura under Janpad Panchayat Shahgarh<br \/>\nin Tehsil Banda, District Sagar, both these petitions are being disposed<br \/>\nof by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>2-          Facts that have come on record, on a perusal of the original<br \/>\nrecords produced by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State,<br \/>\nindicates that in pursuance to the policy of the State Government dated<br \/>\n19.7.2007, available in the record of W.P.No.10886\/2008 as Annexure<br \/>\nP\/3, the Collector concerned issued instructions to the Gram Panchayat<br \/>\nfor appointment of a Panchayat Karmi. Accordingly, an advertisement<br \/>\nwas issued and on the basis of the same three persons applied. They<br \/>\nwere Shri Munnalal Lodhi &#8211; respondent No.7 in W.P.No.10886\/08 and<br \/>\npetitioner in W.P.No.12755\/08; Smt. Pratibha Yadav &#8211; petitioner in<br \/>\nW.P.No.10886\/08 and respondent No.6 in W.P.No.12755\/08; and Shri<br \/>\nArvind Pandey &#8211; respondent No.7 in both the cases. The Panchayat held<br \/>\na meeting to consider the candidature&#8217;s on 21.8.2007 and prepared a<br \/>\nmerit list in accordance to the marks obtained. Munnalal Lodhi with<br \/>\n69.2% marks was placed at Serial No.1; Smt. Pratibha Yadav with 53%<br \/>\nmarks was placed at Serial No.2; and, Arvind Pandey with 45.8% marks<br \/>\nwas placed at Serial No.3. However, one of the members of the<br \/>\nPanchayat pointed out that against Shri Munnalal Lodhi some criminal<br \/>\ncase is registered and, therefore, he should not be appointed. With regard<br \/>\nto Smt. Pratibha Yadav, it was indicated that on account of certain dues<br \/>\nof a Co-operative Bank against her in-laws and she being a lady, she<br \/>\nmay not be able to devote much time for the Panchayat. Accordingly, it<br \/>\nwas resolved that Arvind Pandey, who was the less meritorious<br \/>\ncandidate, may be appointed, he can devote much time for the work of<br \/>\nthe Panchayat. When the aforesaid resolution was sent to SDO, Banda<br \/>\nfor further confirmation by the competent authority, the SDO, Banda<br \/>\nfound that the resolution is not properly passed, the meritorious<br \/>\ncandidate has been ignored and the least meritorious candidate is<br \/>\nappointed, which is not in accordance to the Policies and Circulars of the<br \/>\nState Government dated 13.8.2007 &#8211; Annexure P\/13 in the record of<br \/>\nW.P.No.10886\/08. The SDO passed an order on 25.8.2007 quashing the<br \/>\nentire resolution dated 21.8.07 and directed the Panchayat to hold a fresh<br \/>\nmeeting on 30.8.2007 and decide the matter. Accordingly, the Panchayat<br \/>\nagain convened a meeting on 20.8.2007 and vide resolution &#8211; Annexure<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>P\/4, available in the record of W.P.No.10886\/08, so also in the original<br \/>\nfile produced by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, resolved to appoint Shri Munnalal<br \/>\nLodhi, the most meritorious candidate. Accordingly, the resolution was<br \/>\nforwarded to SDO, Banda, who registered a proceeding and from the<br \/>\nproceedings, which were held before the SDO, as is evident from the<br \/>\nproceedings available on record as Annexure P\/6, in W.P.No.12755\/08;<br \/>\nthe Panchayat was heard; Munnalal Lodhi, Smt. Pratibha Yadav and<br \/>\nArvind Pandey were also heard and after evaluating the entire<br \/>\ncircumstances, the SDO on 24.12.2007 recommended that as Munnalal<br \/>\nLodhi is facing a criminal trial for offence under sections 419, 420 read<br \/>\nwith 34 IPC and as the case is pending in the Sessions Court, he should<br \/>\nnot be appointed. Finding Smt. Pratibha Yadav to be a lady belonging to<br \/>\nthe OBC category and Serial No.2 in the merit list, recommendation was<br \/>\nmade to appoint her as a Panchayat Karmi. The recommendation was<br \/>\nplaced before the Collector and the Collector on 3.1.2008 ordered for<br \/>\nappointing Smt. Pratibha Yadav vide Annexure P\/6, and the powers of<br \/>\nsecretary were also conferred upon her. When this was done, two<br \/>\nappeals were filed &#8211; one by Munnalal Lodhi and another by Arvind<br \/>\nPandey. As far as Shri Arvind Pandey is concerned, he challenged the<br \/>\norder passed by the SDO on 25.8.2007, whereby his appointment made<br \/>\nvide resolution dated 21.8.07 was cancelled. The second appeal was filed<br \/>\nby Munnalal Lodhi, interalia contending that he was more meritorious<br \/>\nand therefore, he should be appointed and in rejecting his claim it was<br \/>\nstated that SDO has committed an error. Both these appeals have been<br \/>\ndecided by this common order available as Annexure P\/1 in<br \/>\nW.P.No.10886\/08 and the Commissioner found that in the light of<br \/>\ncertain orders passed by a Bench of this Court, in W.P.No.7752\/2008<br \/>\n(Akhilesh Jain Vs. State of MP and others), available in the record of<br \/>\nW.P.No.10886\/2008 as Annexure P\/12, order-dated 25.8.2007 passed by<br \/>\nthe SDO is unsustainable and, therefore, quashed the same. Thereafter, it<br \/>\nwas found that Munnalal Lodhi is facing a criminal case, therefore, he<br \/>\ncannot be appointed. Against Smt. Pratibha Yadav many of the office<br \/>\nbearers of the Panchayat had reservations with regard to the fact as to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>whether she can devote time to work for the Panchayat and finding<br \/>\nArvind Pandey to be the most suitable candidate, even though less<br \/>\nmeritorious, the Commissioner ordered for appointment of Arvind<br \/>\nPandey. This order is challenged by Munnalal Lodhi and Smt. Pratibha<br \/>\nYadav in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>3-           Shri Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner in<br \/>\nW.P.No.10886\/2008, emphasized that the subject matter of both the<br \/>\nappeals were different and, therefore, the Commissioner committed error<br \/>\nin clubbing together both the appeals and decided them. That apart, it<br \/>\nwas argued by him that the judgment of this Court in the case of<br \/>\nAkhilesh Jain (supra), had no bearing in the present case and, therefore,<br \/>\nit was not applicable. It was argued by him that in this case, this Court<br \/>\nhas not given any directions to make appointment contrary to the merit<br \/>\nconsideration, which is to be made as per Circular &#8211; Annexure P\/13,<br \/>\ndated 13.8.07. Accordingly, on this count Shri Puneet Shroti sought for<br \/>\ninterference into the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>4-           Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for Munnalal Lodhi in<br \/>\nW.P.No.12755\/08, submitted that as Munnalal Lodhi was the more<br \/>\nmeritorious candidate in accordance to the Circular &#8211; Annexure P\/13<br \/>\ndated 13.8.07, the more meritorious candidate should have been<br \/>\nappointed and by rejecting the claim of this petitioner on the ground that<br \/>\na criminal case is registered against him, illegality is committed and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the order passed by the Commissioner is unsustainable.<br \/>\n5-           That apart, both the counsel for the petitioners submit that<br \/>\nthe Commissioner committed a grave error in interfering with the<br \/>\nreasonable resolution of the Gram Panchayat and by directing for<br \/>\nappointment of Arvind Pandey, who had received only 45.8% marks and<br \/>\nwas the least meritorious candidate. It was emphasized that by<br \/>\nappointing the least meritorious candidate the Commissioner has<br \/>\ncommitted an illegality.\n<\/p>\n<p>6-           Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State, has<br \/>\nproduced the entire original records, including the record of the<br \/>\nPanchayat pertaining to passing of the resolutions dated 21.8.07 and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>30.8.07, emphasized that the Commissioner having taken a reasonable<br \/>\nstand, no interference is warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>7-           Shri R.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the Arvind Pandey,<br \/>\nsupported the case of respondent No.7 in both the cases, and submitted<br \/>\nthat as both Munnalal Lodhi and Smt. Pratibha Yadav were disqualified,<br \/>\nfor reasons indicated by the Panchayat, in the resolution passed on<br \/>\n21.8.07, there is no illegality in the matter and the petitions are liable to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8-           I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the<br \/>\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n<p>9-           Before adverting to consider the rival submissions, it is<br \/>\nthought appropriate to take note of the preliminary objection of Shri<br \/>\nPuneet Shroti with regard to clubbing together of both the appeals and<br \/>\ndeciding them by a common order, passed by the Commissioner.<br \/>\n10-          Appointment in question pertains to the same Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat and in both the petitions petitioners were the claimant to the<br \/>\npost and as the appointment were to the same post and both the<br \/>\npetitioners and Shri Arvind Pandey were claiming the said post, I am of<br \/>\nthe considered view that in deciding the appeals together by a common<br \/>\norder, the Commissioner has not committed any error and on that ground<br \/>\nthe order of the Commissioner does not warrant any interference.<br \/>\n11-          As far as the ground raised by the petitioners with regard to<br \/>\nnon-applicability of the principles laid down in the case of Akhilesh<br \/>\nJain (supra), is concerned, a perusal of Annexure P\/12 and the order-<br \/>\ndated 7.7.2008 passed by the learned Bench of this Court in the said writ<br \/>\npetition indicates that appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi was<br \/>\ninitiated by Gram Panchayat Bandri and by resolution passed on<br \/>\n22.8.2007, one Shri Akhilesh Jain was directed to be appointed as a<br \/>\nPanchayat Karmi. When the resolution was sent to SDO, Khurai, District<br \/>\nSagar for confirmation. The SDO quashed the resolution and remanded<br \/>\nthe matter to the Panchayat to conduct fresh proceeding. After taking<br \/>\nnote of the provisions of section 85(1) and 85(2) of the Panchayat &amp;<br \/>\nGram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, learned Judge in the said writ petition<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>recorded a finding that the SDO under law i.e&#8230; under section 85 of the<br \/>\nPanchayat Raj and Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993, has no jurisdiction or<br \/>\nauthority to quash a resolution of the Gram Panchayat. It was held that<br \/>\nhe can only suspend the resolution and thereafter under section 85(2)<br \/>\nforward the resolution to the State Government or the nominated officer<br \/>\nfor its confirmation, revision, modification etc. Accordingly, holding<br \/>\nthat the SDO had no authority to set aside the resolution of the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat and remand the matter back for reconsideration, the writ<br \/>\npetition was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>12-         In the present case also similar factual and legal question is<br \/>\nexisting. When the Gram Panchayat passed the first resolution on<br \/>\n21.8.07 and when it went to SDO, Banda for confirmation, the SDO<br \/>\nquashed the resolution and remanded the matter back to the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat for holding a fresh meeting on 30.8.2007. Keeping in view<br \/>\nthe principle laid down in the case of Akhilesh Jain (supra), vide order<br \/>\npassed on 7.7.08, the Commissioner found that the SDO could not do so<br \/>\nand, therefore, he quashed the order-dated 25.8.07 passed by the SDO,<br \/>\nsetting aside the first resolution passed on 21.8.07 with regard to<br \/>\nappointment of Shri Arvind Pandey. Even though the order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Commissioner is not very happily worded, but in sum and<br \/>\nsubstance the Commissioner has held that the SDO while exercising<br \/>\npower under section 85(1) cannot quash a resolution of the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat and it was for this reason that he followed the principle laid<br \/>\ndown in the case of Akhilesh Jain (supra) and quashed the resolution<br \/>\ndated 25.8.07. In doing so, the Commissioner has not committed any<br \/>\nerror. However, thereafter the Commissioner considered the second<br \/>\nresolution dated 30.8.07, and the merits of the candidates and ordered for<br \/>\nappointment of Arvind Pandey on the ground that Munnalal Lodhi is<br \/>\nfacing a criminal case; Pratibha Yadav&#8217;s appointment is not approved by<br \/>\nmost of the Panchas and, therefore, Shri Arvind Pandey may be<br \/>\nappointed. This in the considered view of this Court was not a proper<br \/>\napproach. Once the resolution dated 21.8.07 was quashed, then the<br \/>\nfurther direction of the SDO to hold a fresh meeting on 30.8.2007 would<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>also be illegal in view of the order-dated 25.8.07 being illegal, the<br \/>\nCommissioner, therefore, should have remanded the matter back to the<br \/>\nGram Panchayat for conducting a fresh meeting and decide the question<br \/>\nafresh in accordance with law. Instead, the Commissioner took note of<br \/>\nthe resolution dated 30.8.07 and by giving various reasons, which were<br \/>\nalready available in the first resolution dated 21.8.07, ordered for<br \/>\nappointment of Arvind Pandey. Even though the resolution dated<br \/>\n21.8.07 did recommend for appointment of Arvind Pandey, but as this<br \/>\nresolution was passed by giving a total go by to the merit criteria and the<br \/>\nrequirement of the circular &#8211; Annexure P\/13 dated 13.8.07, the<br \/>\nCommissioner should not have ignored the reasons given by the Gram<br \/>\nPanchayat in its resolution dated 30.8.07 and should have infact<br \/>\nremanded the matter back to the Gram Panchayat. Even in the resolution<br \/>\ndated 30.8.07, the Gram Panchayat has recommended for appointment of<br \/>\nMunnalal Lodhi on the ground that he is more meritorious, but the fact<br \/>\nof the pending criminal case and his entitlement for appointment inspite<br \/>\nthereof is not considered.\n<\/p>\n<p>13-             Accordingly, the question now is what is the relief that can<br \/>\nbe granted by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>14-             Admittedly, the Gram Panchayat in both the resolutions,<br \/>\nwhich were passed on 21.8.07 and 30.8.07, had misdirected itself. The<br \/>\nmerit criteria has not been followed, which is the requirement of circular\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Annexure P\/13 dated 13.8.07 and thereafter the claim of Pratibha<br \/>\nYadav is rejected without their being any justification, cogent in nature,<br \/>\nfor doing so.\n<\/p>\n<p>15-             Considering the totality of the circumstances and the fact<br \/>\nthat the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat is not in accordance<br \/>\nto the requirement of the circular and policies of the State Government &#8211;<br \/>\nAnnexure P\/13 dated 13.8.07, and is not by considering the merit<br \/>\nproperly. As such, it is not a fit case where the order passed by the<br \/>\nCommissioner and the resolutions should be quashed and the matter<br \/>\nremanded back to the Gram Panchayat for convening a meeting afresh<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and decide the claim for appointment to the post of Panchayat Karmi<br \/>\nafresh in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>16-              Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Order<br \/>\nimpugned &#8211; Annexure P\/1 dated passed by the Commissioner on 29.8.08<br \/>\nis quashed. The resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat on 21.8.07<br \/>\nand 30.8.07 are also quashed and the SDO, Banda is directed to convene<br \/>\na meeting of the Gram Panchayat and ensure passing of a resolution for<br \/>\nappointment on the post of Panchayat Karmi in accordance to law,<br \/>\nwithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy<br \/>\nof this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>17-              Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, the person, who<br \/>\nis working on the post as on date by virtue of the interim orders passed<br \/>\nby this Court, shall continue to work.\n<\/p>\n<p>18-              Petitions stand allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                               ( RAJENDRA MENON )<br \/>\n                                                      JUDGE<br \/>\nAks\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madhya Pradesh High Court Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No : 10886 of 2008(S) Smt. Pratibha Yadav &#8211; V\/s &#8211; State of MP and others. Writ Petition No : 12755 of 2008(S) Munnalal Lodhi &#8211; V\/s &#8211; State [&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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-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=\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-20T16:55:45+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T16:55:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2320,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-20T16:55:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-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":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-20T16:55:45+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T16:55:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010"},"wordCount":2320,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010","name":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-20T16:55:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munnalal-lodhi-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munnalal Lodhi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 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\/76268","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=76268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}