{"id":100576,"date":"1964-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964"},"modified":"2017-03-01T02:07:54","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T20:37:54","slug":"subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","title":{"rendered":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1275, \t\t 1965 SCR (1) 350<\/div>\n
Author: M R.<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSUBHAS CHANDRA AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/09\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nBENCH:\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1275\t\t  1965 SCR  (1) 350\n\n\nACT:\n  Punjab  Municipal Act (Punj.\tIII of 1911), ss.  232,\t 235\nand 236 Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The  now defunct Municipal Committee of Delhi\tresolved  in\nNovember  1957 that a graduate allowance should be  paid  to\nits  graduate  clerks in the junior  grade.   The  Municipal\nCommittee was replaced by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi\nunder Act 66 of 1957 and the Commissioner of the Corporation\nadmitted  the  claim  only of those  graduate  junior  grade\nclerks who were granted permission to pursue higher  studies\nbefore\tJuly 1954.  The petitioners who were other  clerical\nemployees serving the Corporation moved the Supreme Court by\na  petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution alleging\tthat\nthe  order  of the Commissioner was  discriminatory  because\nthere  was  no- rational basis for excluding them  from\t the\nbenefits of the resolution.  The respondents contended\tthat\nthe  Chief Commissioner of Delhi by his order dated  October\n30, 1956, passed under s. 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act (3\nof  1911), had prohibited the granting of such special\tpays\nor other pecuniary benefits and so, the impugned order being\nitself\twithout\t jurisdiction  the  petitioners\t could\t not\ncomplain of being discriminated against.\nHELD  : The Order of the Chief Commissioner  'was  perfectly\nlegal  and  in\tview of that Order it was not  open  to\t the\nCommittee to sanction the payment of any allowance to any of\nits  employees\tin  November  1957.   The  resolution  being\nwithout\t jurisdiction, the Commissioner of  the\t Corporation\ncould  not treat it as a basis for sanctioning the  graduate\nallowance  to  a graduate employee.  The order of  the\tCom-\nmissioner being thus illegal, no question of  discrimination\narises and the petition should be dismissed. [359 B-D].\nBy  virtue  of the provisions of the Delhi  Laws  Act  1912,\nAdaptation  of\tLaws Order, 1950, and s. 3  of\tthe  General\nClauses\t Act,  1897, the Chief Commissioner could  make\t the\norder  under s. 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act,  1911.\t  He\nhad  two  sources of power under a. 232 and s. 236  and\t was\nfree  to  avail\t himself  of  either  source.\tSection\t 232\ncertainly  empowered  him  to prohibit\tthe  Committee\tfrom\ngranting  special  pay or other pecuniary advantage  to\t its\nemployees  when it was \"about to\" do so.  When the doing  of\nan  act was so prohibited, the Committee ceased to have\t any\npower  to do it and a resolution passed by it that such\t act\nmay be done can have no legal validity.\t The precise meaning\nthat  should be given to the expression \"about\tto\"  depends\nupon  the  context  in which it is used,  but  there  is  no\ndifficulty  in\tthe instant case because, the  order  itself\nmentions   that\t it  was  made\tto  appear  to\t the   Chief\nCommissioner  that  the Municipal Committee was\t \"about\t to\"\ngrant special pay or other pecuniary benefits to some of its\nemployees.  Though no opportunity was given to the Committee\nas  required  'by s. 235 of the Punjab\tMunicipal  Act,\t the\nCommittee  can acquiesce and waive such non-compliance,\t and\nsince  the  section  does not require  that  an\t opportunity\nshould be given to the parties affected by\n 351\nthe  Order of the Chief Commissioner, they are not  entitled\nto  say\t the Order is bad.  Further, the  section  would  be\ninapplicable  in  a case where the Order was passed  by\t the\nChief  Commissioner himself. [354DG; 355A-C..  D-F;  357D-G;\n358F-G].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\t Writ Petition No. 33 of 1964.
\nPetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for\t the
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
K.   Baldev Mehta, for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
S.   G. Patwardhan and O. C. Mathur for the respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMudholkar  J.  Eleven clerical employees  serving  the\tCor-
\nporation of Delhi have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the
\nConstitution  for quashing an order dated November  5,\t1958
\nmade  by  the Commissioner of the Corporation of  Delhi\t and
\nissuing a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,  order
\nor  direction requiring the respondents to give effect to  a
\nresolution dated November 1\/8, 1957 passed by the  Executive
\nand  Finance  Sub-Committee  of the  now  defunct  Municipal
\nCommittee  of Delhi.  The main ground on which\tthe  reliefs
\nare claimed is that the action of the Commissioner in making
\nthe  order  has\t resulted  in  discrimination  against\t the
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
In  order  to  appreciate the point some facts\thave  to  be
\nstated.\t  Prior\t to the year 1948  the\tMunicipal  Committee
\nrecruited matriculates and non-matriculates as clerks in the
\njunior\tgrade  of  Rs. 35-2-65-3-95.  In  order\t to  attract
\nbetter\tqualified  persons they offered Rs. 45\tas  starting
\nsalary\t for  graduates\t in  this  grade.   Thereafter\t the
\nCommittee,  by\tits  resolution dated  September  16,  1948,
\nrevised the grades and scales of pay for its entire staff on
\nthe  basis  of\tthe  recommendations  of  the  Central\t Pay
\nCommission  appointed by the Government of India.   By\tthis
\nresolution  the\t Committee  created two\t junior\t grades\t for
\nrecruitment  of clerks, a grade of  Rs.\t 55-3-85-4-125-5-130
\nfor matriculates and the grade of Rs. 45-2-55-3-95-4-105 for
\nnon-matriculates.\n<\/p>\n
According  to  the petitioners the Committee,  in  order  to
\nattract\t  graduates   and   persons   of   higher   academic
\nqualifications\tand  for giving an impetus to  the  clerical
\nemployees  for pursuing higher studies, decided by the\tsame
\nresolution, inter alia, that graduates working in the junior
\ngrade  would be paid a “graduate allowance” of Rs.  20\tp.m.
\nFurther, according to them, this was sanctioned by the Chief
\nCommissioner,  Delhi  by Memo No. F.  2(102)48-L.S.G.  dated
\nJuly 26\/27, 1949.\n<\/p>\n
352<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is common ground that by resolution No. 447\t dated\tJuly
\n16,  1954  as amended by resolution No. 550 dated  July\t 30,
\n1954 the Committee stopped payment of the graduate allowance
\nto future recruits but continued its payment to such of\t the
\npermanent  and temporary -employees in the junior grade\t who
\nwere  already in recipt of the allowance.  Thirty  employees
\nof  the\t Committee  made representations  to  the  Committee
\nagainst confining the payment of the allowance only to those
\npersons who were already in receipt of it and demanded\tthat
\nthis  allowance should be paid to every employee who  passed
\nhis B.A. examination after 1954 as well as to every graduate
\nemployee   recruited   after  1954.    This   representation
\nsucceeded  and by resolution No. 693 dated November 1,\t1957
\nthe  Committee\tresolved  that\tthe  system  of\t payment  of
\npersonal  pay of Rs. 20 per mensem to all graduates  in\t the
\njunior\tgrade be revived and that the necessary sanction  of
\nthe  Chief  Commissioner to this proposal be  obtained.\t  On
\nNovember  8,  1957  the\t Committee  amended  the   aforesaid
\nresolution by resolution No. 701 and directed that the words
\n“Necessary  sanction of the Chief Commissioner be  obtained”
\nappearing   at\tthe  end  of  the  resolution  be   deleted.
\nAccording  to  the petitioners, therefore,  this  resolution
\ncame into operation immediately and they became entitled  to
\npayment of Rs. 20, with retrospective effect.
\nBefore\tthis resolution could be implemented  the  Municipal
\nCommittee of Delhi was replaced by the Municipal Corporation
\nof  Delhi by the coming into force of the Delhi\t Corporation
\nAct,  1957  (66\t of  1957).   The  petitioners,\t  therefore,
\napproached the Commissioner of the Corporation and requested
\nhim to give effect to the resolution of November 1, 1957  as
\namended by the resolution dated November 8, 1957.  By Office
\nOrder  No.  1343  EST  (58)  dated  November  5,  1958\t the
\nCommissioner  admitted\tthe claim for  payment\tof  graduate
\nallowance  to  those  graduate junior grade  clerks  of\t the
\nerstwhile  Delhi  Municipal Committee who had  been  granted
\npermission  to pursue higher studies before July  30,  1954,
\nbut  not to the remaining 18 persons.  The grievance of\t the
\npetitioners  is that this Order of the Commissioner is\tdis-
\ncriminatory because there is no rational basis for excluding
\nthem  from the benefit of the aforementioned  resolution  of
\nthe Committee.\tThe petitioners then moved a petition  under
\nArt. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Punjab
\nbut  eventually\t withdrew it.  They have now  come  to\tthis
\nCourt under Art. 32 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners’ application is resisted on behalf  of\t the
\nCorporation  on two main grounds.  The first ground is\tthat
\nthey
\n 353<\/span>
\nhave  come  to this Court after a long delay and  the  other
\nground\tis that the impugned order of the  Commissioner\t was
\nitself without jurisdiction and, therefore, the\t petitioners
\ncannot complain of being discriminated against.
\nThe  petitioners admit that there was a delay of about\tfive
\nyears  in  making  this\t petition but  they  explain  it  by
\npointing  out that all this was occasioned by reason of\t the
\nfact  that their writ petition remained pending in the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Punjab for almost five years and that they had  to
\nwithdraw it ultimately because the learned Judge before whom
\nthe petition went for final hearing pointed out that in view
\nof a previous decision of the High Court a joint petition of
\nthe kind was not entertainable.\t Further, according to them,
\nwhere  a person seeks to enforce a fundamental\tright  under
\nArt.  32 of the Constitution mere delay cannot stand in\t his
\nway.  In our opinion, it is not necessary to pronounce\tupon
\nthis  point  because  the petition must fail  on  the  other
\nground urged on behalf of the respondents.
\nIt is true that no resolution of the Committee nor any\trule
\nor  bye-law  has been brought to our notice  which  requires
\nthat  an  employee  must, before  pursuing  higher  studies,
\nobtain the permission of the Committee and, therefore, there
\nwas  no\t reasonable  basis  for\t treating  the\t petitioners
\ndifferently from the 12 persons whose claim to the allowance
\nwas  admitted  by  the Commissioner.  But  the\tquestion  is
\nwhether the Commissioner could legally admit the claim\teven
\nof  those  12 persons.\tMr. Patwardhan,\t appearing  for\t the
\nrespondents,  contends that the Chief Commissioner of  Delhi
\nby his Order dated October 30, 1956 made in exercise of\t the
\npowers vested in him by s. 232 of the Punjab Municipal\tAct,
\n1911  (hereafter  referred  to as the  Act)  prohibited\t all
\nmunicipal  and notified area Committees within the State  of
\nDelhi, from among other things, revising the existing scales
\nof  pay of any of their employees and granting\tany  special
\npay or any other pecuniary benefits to them.  The  Committee
\nwas  therefore, according to Mr. Patwardhan, incompetent  to
\npass the resolution No. 693 dated November 1, 1957 and\tthen
\namend it by resolution No. 701 dated November 8, 1957.\t Mr.
\nBaldev\tMehta appearing for the petitioners  challenges\t the
\nvalidity  of  the  order of the Chief  Commissioner  on\t the
\ngrounds\t that it was beyond the scope of s. 232 of  the\t Act
\nand that no opportunity was given to the Committee to  offer
\nan explanation as contemplated by s. 235 of the Act nor\t was
\nany order ultimately made under that section.\n<\/p>\n
354<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the\t first place, according to him, s. 232\tof  the\t Act
\ncould not be resorted-to by the Chief Commissioner but\tonly
\nby  the Deputy Commissioner.  Before the passing  of  Punjab
\nAct 34 of 1933 -this section read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “232.  The Commissioner or the Deputy  Commis-
\n\t      sioner  may by order in writing,\tsuspend\t the
\n\t      execution\t of  any resolution or\torder  of  a
\n\t      committee, or joint committee or prohibit\t the
\n\t      doing of any act which is about to be done, or
\n\t      is  being done in pursuance of or under  cover
\n\t      of  this Act, or in pursuance of any  sanction
\n\t      or permission granted by the committee in\t the
\n\t      exercise\tof its powers under the Act, if,  in
\n\t      his opinion the resolution, or order or act
\n\t      is in excess of the powers conferred by law or
\n\t      contrary\tto  the interests of the  public  or
\n\t      likely, to cause waste or damage of  municipal
\n\t      funds  or\t property, or the execution  of\t the
\n\t      resolution or order, or the doing of the\tact,
\n\t      is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, to
\n\t      encourage\t lawlessness or to cause  injury  or
\n\t      annoyance\t to  the public or to any  class  or
\n\t      body of persons.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By  the aforesaid Act the words “Commissioner or  the”\twere
\ndeleted.   It  has not been brought to our notice  that\t the
\namending  Act was applied to the State of Delhi.   We  must,
\ntherefore,   proceed   on   the\t footing   that\t  the\tword
\n“Commissioner”\twas  still  there in S. 232 of\tthe  Act  as
\napplied to the State of Delhi.\tBy virtue of the  provisions
\nof  the\t Delhi\tLaws Act, 1912 contained in  Schedule  B  as
\nadapted\t  by  the  Adaptation  of  Laws\t Order,\t 1950,\t the
\nexpression  “the Commissioner” used in any enactment  appli-
\ncable  to  the State of Delhi has to be read as\t “the  State
\nGovernment of Delhi”.  The expression “State Government”  as
\ndefined\t in sub-s. (60) of s. 3 of the General Clauses\tAct,
\n1897 shall as respects anything done after the\tcommencement
\nof  the\t Constitution  and before the  commencement  of\t the
\nConstitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 mean, in a Part C
\nState,\tthe  Central Government.   “Central  Government”  is
\ndefined\t in  sub-s.  (8) of s. 3 of that Act  and  meant  in
\nrelation   to  a  Part\tC  State  like\tDelhi,\t the   Chief
\nCommissioner   thereof.\t  Clearly,  therefore,\t the   Chief
\nCommissioner  could  make an order of the kind\twe  have  to
\nconsider here under S. 232 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Mehta,  however, contends that what the  Chief  Commis-
\nsioner\t could\tdo  under  the\tsection\t before\t the   Delhi
\nCorporation  Act of 1957 came into force was to suspend\t the
\nexecution  of  a  resolution  or order\tof  a  Committee  or
\nprohibit the doing of an act which was about to be done\t and
\nthat it did not empower him to prohibit
\n 355<\/span>
\nthe  Municipal Committee from passing a resolution.   It  is
\ntrue that the section did not enable the Chief\tCommissioner
\nto  prohibit a Committee from passing a particular  kind  of
\nresolution  but it certainly empowered him to  prohibit\t the
\nCommittee  from\t doing an act which was about  to  be  done.
\nHere,  the order of the Chief Commissioner to which we\thave
\nadverted, in fact prohibited the Committee from, among other
\nthing-,,  granting  special  pay  or  any  other   pecuniary
\nadvantage to any of its employees.  What was thus’ expressly
\nprohibited  was\t the doing of an act but not  passing  of  a
\nresolution.  Even so, we think that when the doing of an act
\nwas prohibited the Committee ceased to have any power to  do
\nthat  act and a resolution passed by it to the\teffect\tthat
\nthe act be done, can have no legal validity.
\nBut, Mr. Mehta said, the power of the Chief Commissioner was
\nexercisable  only when the Municipal Committee was about  to
\ndo  something and not to prohibit something in\tthe  distant
\nfuture.\t  In this regard he has referred us to\tthe  meaning
\ngiven  to  the expression “about to”  in  Stroud’s  Judicial
\nDictionary  and to an English decision referred to  therein.
\nWhat precise meaning should be given to the expression\tmust
\nnaturally depend upon the context in which it is used but it
\ndoes  involve the element of anticipation.  To this  extent,
\ntherefore, Mr. Mehta is right that s. 232 does not authorise
\nthe   authorities  mentioned  therein  to  make\t a   blanket
\nprohibition  as to the doing of an act or a series  of\tacts
\nunless\tthe  authority anticipated that such acts  would  be
\ndone. There is, however, no difficulty in the case before us
\nbecause\t  the order itself mentions that it had been made to
\nappear to the  Chief   Commissioner  ‘that   the   Municipal
\nCommittee  of  Delhi,  amongst other things,  was  about  to
\nrevise the existing scales of pay of its employees, creating
\nposts  and  granting advance increments or  special  pay  or
\nother pecuniary benefits to some of its existing  employees.
\nThe  obvious  reason  for making this  order  was  that\t the
\nMunicipal  Committee  was  soon to cease to  exist  and\t the
\nCorporation   of  Delhi\t to  take  its\tplace.\t The   Chief
\nCommissioner, therefore, did not want the Committee to enter
\ninto commitments which would bind its successor.  A  perusal
\nof  the\t proceedings of the Committee  during  the  relevant
\nperiod\tshows  that  the Committee had\tbefore\tit  numerous
\nproposals  relating to the emoluments of its  employees\t and
\nthe Chief Commissioner must have known about them.
\nMr. Mehta then contended that if upon its true construction
\ns.   232  permitted  the Chief Commissioner to\tsuspend\t the
\nexecution of   any  resolution or order of a  Committee\t but
\ndid not prohibit
\n356<\/span>
\nthe  passing  of  a  resolution\t the  Committee\t was   quite
\ncompetent to pass the resolutions of November I and 8,\t1957
\nand  in this connection he referred us to the  decisions  of
\nthe  Punjab  High  Court  in  Mistri  Mohammad\tHussain\t  v.
\nMunicipal  Committee,  Sialkot(1),  Lahore  Municipality  v.
\nJagan  Nath (2)\t and Mahadeo Prasad v. U.  P. Government<\/a>(3).
\nNone  of these cases helps him but one of them goes  against
\nhis  contention.  In the first case the Deputy\tCommissioner
\nhad  ordered  the  suspension of a resolution  passed  by  a
\nCommittee sanctioning the construction of a platform  ,after
\nthe platform had been constructed.  In order to give  effect
\nto  the\t order\tthe  Committee\tordered\t under\tS.  172\t the
\ndemolition of the platform.  The High Court held that as the
\nplatform could not be said to have been constructed  without
\nsanction  its demolition could not be ordered under s.\t172.
\nIn  the\t second\t case the High Court,  following  the  above
\ndecision, held that under S. 232 the Deputy Commissioner can
\nprohibit  the doing of an act or suspend the execution of  a
\nresolution before the act was done or the resolution carried
\nout.   In  the\tthird case the\tAllahabad  High\t Court\thad,
\namongst other provisions, to consider S. 34(1) of the U.  P.
\nMunicipalities Act, 1916 where under the District Magistrate
\ncould  prohibit\t the  execution or further  execution  of  a
\nresolution passed by a Municipal Committee.  The High  Court
\npointed out that this provision did not, as  did\t the
\ncorresponding provision in an earlier Act, empower     the
\nDistrict-Magistrate to make an order in anticipation of\t  an
\nact  which  was\t about\tto  be\tdone.\tThis  case  is\tthus
\ndistinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
Then there is the objection of Mr. Mehta that no opportunity
\nwas  given to the Municipal Committee to show cause  against
\nthe order of the Chief Commissioner as required by s. 235 of
\nthe Act.  It is obvious that s. 235 applies to a case  where
\nan  order was made by an authority subordinate to the  State
\nGovernment and does not, in terms, apply to an order made by
\nthe State Government (here, the Chief Commissioner)  itself.
\nMr. Mehta, however, contends that the essential\t requirement
\nof S. 235 is that the Committee must be given an opportunity
\nto  be heard and such opportunity cannot be  dispensed\twith
\neven if the original order under S. 232 is made by the State
\nGovernment.  According to him, the non-compliance with\tthis
\nrequirement has rendered the order void and ineffective.  In
\nsupport\t of  this contention he relies on  the\tdecision  in
\nAbdul  Gaffoor\tv. State of Madras(4).\tThat was a  case  in
\nwhich a Municipal
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1936 Lahore 689.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  I.L.R. [1948] All. 512.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1939 Lahore 581.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.T.R. 1952 Mad. 555.\n<\/p>\n
 357<\/span><\/p>\n
Committee  had\tgranted the application\t of  the  petitioner
\nunder s. 250 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920
\nand permitted him to instal an oil engine to run his  cinema
\nbut  had  rejected  a  similar\tapplication  by\t the  second
\nrespondent.   The  Government, acting under s.\t252  of\t the
\nMadras Act, set aside the resolution of the Municipality and
\ndirected it forthwith to accord its permission to respondent
\nNo.  2 to instal an oil engine.\t The High Court quashed\t the
\norder  of the Government on the ground that  the  Government
\ncould  not make such an order without giving an\t opportunity
\nto  the petitioner, who was affected by the order, to  offer
\nan explanation as contemplated by the first proviso to s. 36
\nof  the Act.  This decision cannot afford any assistance  to
\nthe  petitioners before us as there is no provision  in\t the
\nPunjab\tMunicipal  Act\tanalogous  to  the  above  provision
\nrequiring the Government to afford an opportunity to all the
\npersons\t affected,  to offer an\t explanation.\tSection\t 235
\nrequires the State Government to give an opportunity to\t the
\nmunicipality  and to none else.\t No grievance is alleged  to
\nhave  been  made  by the Committee of the  omission  by\t the
\nGovernment  to\tgive it the opportunity contemplated  by  s.\n<\/p>\n
235.  It has to be borne in mind that an order under s.\t 232
\ntakes  effect  immediately  and its operation  is  not\tmade
\ndependent upon the action contemplated under s. 235.   Where
\nan  order is made thereunder by an authority other than\t the
\nState  Government that authority has to report to the  State
\nGovernment.   But, though such authority is bound to make  a
\nreport its order is not inoperative or inchoate.  It has  to
\nbe  given effect to by the Committee.  It is true that\ttill
\nthe  procedure set out in s. 235 is complied with it  cannot
\nbe regarded as final.  But want of finality does not vitiate
\nthe  order under s. 232.  The order is, unless\tmodified  or
\nannulled  by  the State Government,  legally  effective\t and
\nbinding\t on  the Committee.  The  Committee  can,  therefore
\nacquiesce  in  it and waive the noncompliance by  the  State
\nGovernment with the provisions of s. 235.  Since section 235
\ndoes  not  require  an opportunity to be  given\t to  parties
\naffected  by  the  order other\tthan  the  Municipality\t the
\npetitioners  are not entitled to say that the order is\tbad.
\nThe decision relied on thus does not assist them.   Besides,
\nas  we have already pointed out, in the present case s.\t 235
\nis  wholly  inapplicable because the order in  question\t has
\nbeen passed by the Chief Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
Then, according to him, the Chief Commissioner or the  State
\nGovernment could not resort to s. 232 of the Act which is  a
\ngeneral\t provision but could act only under s.\t236,  sub-s.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
L2Sup.\/64-10
\n358<\/span>
\nread  with  sub-s.(1) which is a special  provision  dealing
\nwith the powers of the State Government.  The provision runs
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “236(1).\tThe State Government and Deputy Com-
\n\t      missioners  acting  under the  orders  of\t the
\n\t      State  Government, shall be bound\t to  require
\n\t      that the proceedings of committees shall be in
\n\t      conformity  with\tlaw and with  the  rules  in
\n\t      force  under any enactment for the time  being
\n\t      applicable  to Punjab generally or  the
\n\t      areas   over   which   the   committees\thave
\n\t      authority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   The\t State Government may  exercise\t all
\n\t      powers  necessary for the performance of\tthis
\n\t      duty, and may among other things, by order  in
\n\t      writing, annul or modify any proceeding  which
\n\t      it  may consider not to be in conformity\twith
\n\t      law  or with such rules as aforesaid,  or\t for
\n\t      the reasons which would in its opinion justify
\n\t      an  order\t by the\t Deputy\t Commissioner  under
\n\t      section 232.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Comparing  them\t with those of s. 232 it would\tbe  apparent
\nthat though there is a certain amount of overlapping when we
\nread   in   s.\t232  the  words\t  ‘State   Government’\t for
\n‘Commissioner’, the ambit of the two provisions is not quite
\nthe  same.  The overlapping is due to the fact that the\t two
\nprovisions are contained in an Act which was passed in 191 1
\nfor being applied in the former Province ,of Punjab and that
\nit was by virtue of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 that they\twere
\napplied\t to  the erstwhile province of\tDelhi  with  certain
\nmodifications.\tIn its original form the power under s.\t 232
\nwas  not  exercisable by the Provincial Government.   It  is
\nonly  because  of the modification made in s. 232  that\t the
\nwords  “the Provincial Government of Delhi” and\t later\t“the
\nState  Government  of  Delhi” had to be read  for  the\tword
\n“Commissioner”\tin s. 232.  As a result of  the\t overlapping
\nbetween\t the two sets of provisions in their application  to
\nthe State of Delhi what has happened is that two sources  of
\npower,\tone under s. 232 and another under S. 235,  are\t now
\navailable  to the State Government and it was free to  avail
\nitself of either source.\n<\/p>\n
Finally,  according to Mr. Mehta the proper provision  under
\nwhich action could be taken by the authorities was s. 42 and
\nthis  provision\t rendered s. 232 inapplicable.\t Under\tthat
\nprovision  a  Deputy  Commissioner  can\t check\t extravagant
\nexpenditure  by\t the Committee and order it  to\t reduce\t the
\nremuneration  of any of its employees but that action  under
\nit  cannot  be taken in anticipation.  No  ground  has\tbeen
\nraised in the petition in regard to this.  That apart,\there
\nwe are concerned with the competence of the State
\n 359<\/span>
\nGovernment to make an order of the kind which the Chief Com-
\nmissioner  made on October 30, 1956.  That  provision  could
\nnot  have been resorted to by him and cannot, therefore,  be
\nregarded   as  a  special  provision  which   excluded\t the
\nutilisation  of s. 232.\t Further, it cannot be so  construed
\nas  to disentitle the authorities mentioned in s.  232\tfrom
\nprohibiting in anticipation an action such as increasing the
\nemoluments of its employees.\n<\/p>\n
We  are satisfied that the order of the\t Chief\tCommissioner
\ndated  October 30, 1956 was perfectly legal and in  view  of
\nthat order it was not open to the Committee to sanction\t the
\npayment of an allowance to any of its employees\t thereafter.
\nThe  resolution\t passed\t by  it on  November  1,  1957\twas,
\ntherefore,  beyond  its jurisdiction  and  consequently\t the
\nCommissioner  of  the Corporation could not treat  it  as  a
\nbasis  for sanctioning the allowance of Rs. 20 p.m.  to\t any
\ngraduate employee of the Municipal Committee who was not  in
\nreceipt\t of  the  allowance till then.\t The  order  of\t the
\nCommissioner  dated November 5, 1958 being thus\t illegal  no
\nquestion of discrimination arises.\n<\/p>\n
The  petition is dismissed; but in the circumstances of\t the
\ncase we make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
360<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1275, 1965 SCR (1) 350 Author: M R. Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: SUBHAS CHANDRA AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANOTHER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-28T20:37:54+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T20:37:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3623,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\",\"name\":\"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T20:37:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-28T20:37:54+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964","datePublished":"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T20:37:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964"},"wordCount":3623,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964","name":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 25 September, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T20:37:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhas-chandra-and-others-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-25-september-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhas Chandra And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi … on 25 September, 1964"}]},{"@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\/100576","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=100576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}