{"id":113473,"date":"2001-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001"},"modified":"2016-02-05T15:05:54","modified_gmt":"2016-02-05T09:35:54","slug":"state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D Wadhwa, C Chaudhry, J M Members, R Rao, B Taimni<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>B.K. Taimni, Member<\/p>\n<p>1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the State Commission<br \/>\nallowing the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant enjoyed an electricity connection<br \/>\nfrom the Appellants for running his Flour and Spice Mill. Problem steps with a notice<br \/>\ndated 21.1.93 issued by the appellant No. 4 to the Complainant to pay Rs. 45,352\/- or<br \/>\naccount of electricity charges. The break up of above amount was:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p> \t\t\t\t\t\t\t   Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<pre>Arrears\t\t1985-86\t\t\t \t\t 2428\/-\n\t\t1989-90 &amp; 1990-91\t\t\t23051\/-\n\t\tFrom July'91 to December,'92\t\t19873\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t-------\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t45,352\/-\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t-------\n\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n<p>3. Since some amount (Rs. 2428\/-), related to very old period, the Complainant<br \/>\nrequested on 2.2.93 for some time to locate his old records of 1985-86 and to see if he<br \/>\nhad already paid his bills or not. The appellant disconnected the electricity connection<br \/>\non 14.3.93 which was reconnected on 29.3.1993 after payment of Rs. 1968\/- as arrears<br \/>\nand Rs. 50\/- by way of cost of resolution. Nothing was settled about the rest of the<br \/>\namount. Again a bill of Rs. 70,152.80 was received by the Complainant on 4.4.94,<br \/>\nwhich according to the Complainant was not payable by him. A further notice was<br \/>\nissued by the appellants on 24.5.94 demanding payment of Rs. 1,34,365.50 comprising<br \/>\nthe previous outstanding unpaid arrears and fresh electricity charges and penalty for<br \/>\ndelayed payment on account of non-payment of any amount, the electricity was again<br \/>\ndisconnected on 7.6.94. It is in these circumstances that the Complainant approached<br \/>\nthe State Commission seeking relief amount ato Rs. 7,80,000\/- under various heads.<br \/>\nThe State Commission after hearing both the parties and after examining material on<br \/>\nrecord and provisions of the Electricity Act, and the Rules framed by the 1st Appellant<br \/>\non the subject, directed payment of Rs. 4,01,000\/- to the Complainant under<br \/>\nfollowing heads:\n<\/p>\n<p>                                          \t\t    Rs.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   On account of business loss\t\t\t1,50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   On account of Damage to goodwill and injury to\t1,50,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>     reputation of the complainant&#8217;s enterprise\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   On account of mental and emotional suffering\t1,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Cost of litigation\t\t\t\t\t1,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>4. This amount was to be paid within two months, failing which interest @ 10%<br \/>\nwas leviable. The appellants were further directed to give reconnection within 10 days<br \/>\nof the order and after making payment enquiry was to be ordered to ensure as to on<br \/>\naccount of whose fault the Complainant suffered and recover the amount from him. It<br \/>\nis against this order that appeal has been filed by the Appellants\/Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the awarded relief to<br \/>\nthe Complainant by the State Commission is totally arbitrary as no details are available<br \/>\nto substantiate the award. On the one hand reliefs referred to earlier have been given<br \/>\nas well direction to restore the electricity connection has been given but the order is<br \/>\nsilent on the amounts demanded by the appellant. It was stated that on payment of<br \/>\nRs. 1968\/- reconnection was given in March, 1993 with a clear understanding that<br \/>\nbalance of the payment shall be made in instalments. Meters were replaced from time<br \/>\nto time but was found to be &#8216;stopped&#8217; functioning between 19.12.90 &#8211; 31.1.94, hence<br \/>\nthe bills were raised on average consumption basis for several period and on the basis<br \/>\nof meter reading for other periods. The State Commission erred in appreciation athe<br \/>\nprovisions of the Section 26 of the India Electricity Act 1910. Average reading can be<br \/>\nlimited to six months only if the matter is referred to Electricity Inspector, which was not<br \/>\nthe case here. Hence, the very rationale of order of the State Commission is not<br \/>\nproperly conceived. Proper notice was given to the Complainant both the times before<br \/>\ndisconnection on account of non-payment of electricity bills raised by the appellant.<br \/>\nProvision of the Electricity Act were strictly observed. Under the conditions of supply,<br \/>\nthe licencee is obliged to pay the bill in full before eaising the dispute on the amount<br \/>\ncharged-which was not done in this case hence disconnection was as per rules. The<br \/>\norder of the State Commission is bad in law and on facts, hence need to be set aside.<br \/>\nOn the other hand it was argued by the Respondents that the reconnection in March,<br \/>\n1993 was given on payment of Rs. 1968\/- i.e. as a result of scaling down of the bill and<br \/>\nas a full and final payment being accepted. This is also admitted by the Appellant in<br \/>\nhis memorandum of appeal. There is nothing on record to show that it was anything<br \/>\nelse. Notice given to the Complainant was to make payment within 7 days otherwise<br \/>\naction would be taken according to the Indian Electricity Act. This case not be said to<br \/>\nmean proper notice under provision of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act and the<br \/>\nState Commission was right in not accepting this as a proper notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Five meters were changed, but each of the meter was defective piece. There is<br \/>\nno ground to keep on charging him on average basis. The Appellants should have<br \/>\nensured that a proper and working meter is installed and demand made as per reading<br \/>\non the meter. Why should the appellant be raising bills for three months\/six<br \/>\nmonths period, and in one case, in January 1993, raised a demand relating to the<br \/>\nperiod in 1985. Second bill for the period 4.1.93 to 4.4.1994 for Rs. 75,153\/- was<br \/>\nraised which is abnormally high and for exceeds the average consumption during the<br \/>\npast period. Perhaps, the appellants were annoyed by the Complainant having moved<br \/>\nthe State Commission. This is no way of functioning of a Government body. The order<br \/>\nof the State Commission need to be upheld both on points of fact and law and the<br \/>\nappeal be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. There is no<br \/>\ndispute that the Complainant has been a consumer of the appellant since 1985. There<br \/>\nare two periods of dispute. The first emanating with the Memorandum dated 21.1.93,<br \/>\nwhich relates to the Billing period April-July, 1985, July, 1989, April, 1990, January,<br \/>\nApril, July, 1991 and July 1991 &#8211; December, 1992. The total amount of demand raised<br \/>\nis Rs. 45,352\/-. This memorandum states that if this amount is not paid within 7 days,<br \/>\nappropriate action as per Indian Electricity Act will be taken for such non-payment. The<br \/>\nsecond period of dispute relates to period 1991-92 (July, 1991) 1992-93 (July 1991 &#8211;<br \/>\nJanuary 1993) and 1993-94 (Jan 1993 &#8211; April 1994) for a total amount of<br \/>\nRs. 1,34,365.50\/-. This is contained in the Notice dated 24.5.94. Much has been<br \/>\nmade out by the Complainant\/Respondent before us that these cannot be deemed to<br \/>\nbe a notices for disconnection under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act. We see<br \/>\nno discrepancy on this score. Word &#8216;Notice&#8217; and not &#8216;Memorandum&#8217; could have made<br \/>\nsome difference, but the tenor is clear. Pay or face action. However, what we find<br \/>\ndifficult to understand is why have not the copies of the Bills, as at the time of issue<br \/>\nmonthly, quarterly, six monthly, whatever be the case &#8211; now purported to be recovered<br \/>\nfrom the Respondent, been produced before the State Commission or before us by the<br \/>\nAppellants. Two things we do not understand. In the year 1993, demand is raised for<br \/>\nthe period 1985 also? If the amount of Bills for the period July 1989 &#8211; April, 1991 were not<br \/>\npaid &#8211; what action was taken to recover these amounts. We are constrained to draw an<br \/>\nadverse inference that perhaps Bills for these periods were not raised\/sent at all.<br \/>\nAgain on record we see three bills, one for the period April-June, 91, and second for<br \/>\nJuly&#8217;91 to December, 1992 (18 months) and again for Jan., 1993 to April, 1994 (16<br \/>\nmonths) we see that any system of good governance has been given a go by &#8211; by the<br \/>\nappellants. We also see that the notice of Jan, 1993, comprise of the Bill amount,<br \/>\ncomprising the energy consumed, meter rent and a sort of penalty for delayed<br \/>\npayment. This is further augmented by penal charges. IF the regular Bills are not<br \/>\nraised how could the complainant be liable to pay penalty which appears to be<br \/>\ncompounded. We also see that five meters are replaced on different dates but as per<br \/>\nappellants own admission everytime they went to take reading, they found it stopped,<br \/>\nbetween 19.12.90 and 31.1.1994. If that was case that how come we see bills<br \/>\nraised on meter reading for the period 6.1.91 to 3.1.91 and 4.1.93 to 4.4.94? Be that<br \/>\nas it may, it is the duty of the appellant that meter installed is in working order unless<br \/>\nchallenged on the basis of any tempering by a licencee. This is not the case here.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. We see some merit in the contention of the appellant that they can raise bill on<br \/>\naverage consumption for same period, but can do it for six months in case the dispute<br \/>\nis referred to a the Electricity Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act.<br \/>\nSince in the instant case, matter was not referred to the Inspector, there is no bar in the<br \/>\nappellant to raise bills based on average consumption but this can not go on for an<br \/>\nundefinite period.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. The above discussions lead us to conclude that there has been deficiency on<br \/>\nboth the sides. The appellant not raising the bills in time, not providing meter properly<br \/>\nfor reading raising accumulated demand through one or two bills. The deficiency on<br \/>\nthe part of the complainant is not to make the payment of Bill when raised. Even it is<br \/>\nconceed as contended, that the first reconnection was done on payment aof Rs. 1968\/-,<br \/>\nwe see nothing on record as to what did he do to pay or get reconnection after his<br \/>\nsupply line was disconnected as a result of notice served on 24.5.94. As per<br \/>\nConditions of Supply, the appellants were within right to disconnect for non payment of<br \/>\nthe energy bill after notice, which was done in this case. This should have been paid<br \/>\nand then the dispute raised to be settled either by mutual discussions or by referring to<br \/>\narbitration as per the India Electricity Act. No such effort was made. Inspite of that all<br \/>\nwe see nothing on record to support\/substantiate the damages claimed and much less<br \/>\nthe grounds\/basis for grant of reliefs awarded by the State Commission. However, the<br \/>\nloss of business amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakh proved\/arrived at is not on record. Similar is<br \/>\nthe case with reliefs granted in respect of injury to reputation and mental and emotional<br \/>\nsuffering. We see no proof\/evidence on record in support of the reliefs awarded. We<br \/>\nare also unable to appreciate the silence in the order of the State Commission on the<br \/>\npayments demanded by the appellant and yet directing him to restore electricity<br \/>\nconnection and not saying a word on the payment of electricity charges. It is not the<br \/>\ncomplainant&#8217;s case that the period for which bills were demanded\/raised, he did not<br \/>\nuse the electricity or his factory did not function. The period of dispute relates to early<br \/>\n1990&#8217;s and as per our interim order dated 1.12.95, connection would have been<br \/>\nrestored. What remains to be settled is the question of payment of electricity bill by<br \/>\nthe Respondent and payment of damages by the appellants, if any. In our view ends of<br \/>\njustice shall be met if the complainant is directed to pay the electricity bills less the<br \/>\npenalties imposed. We see on record that of the three bills in question &#8211; i.e.<br \/>\nreferred to in the Notice dated 24.5.1994, the first two are based on average of<br \/>\nconsumption and the third bill is raised on meter reading. The amount thus<br \/>\npayable shall be Rs. 97,539\/- covering period spread over three and a half<br \/>\nyear i.e. July, 1991 to April, 1994, of which as per our order dated 1.12.95, Rs. 15,000\/-<br \/>\nwould already have been paid by the complainant to the appellant we also see that<br \/>\nthere have been deficiencies on the part of the appellant. We also see that the unit of<br \/>\nthe Complainant remained closed from April, 1994 to December, 1995. Even when no<br \/>\ndetails are on record but presumption cannot be denied that the Complainant would<br \/>\nhave suffered losses, in the light of which we can sustain only Rs. 1.5 lakhs granted by<br \/>\nthe State Commission by way of business loss. Only to this extent the appeal is<br \/>\nallowed. Any amount shall become payable by either side, after adjusting the<br \/>\noutstanding amount of electricity bill as per our orders above, as well payment of one-half<br \/>\nof compensation awarded by the State Commission as per our interim order dated<br \/>\n1.12.95. The Complainant shall also be entitled to cost of Rs. 5,000\/- to be payable by<br \/>\nthe appellant to the respondent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Consumer Disputes Redressal State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 Bench: D Wadhwa, C Chaudhry, J M Members, R Rao, B Taimni ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member 1. This appeal arises out of the order passed by the State Commission allowing the complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case are [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113473","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - 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\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-05T09:35:54+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T09:35:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2091,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\",\"name\":\"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T09:35:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - 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\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-05T09:35:54+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001","datePublished":"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T09:35:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001"},"wordCount":2091,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001","name":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T09:35:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tripura-and-ors-vs-joyshankar-saha-on-28-september-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tripura And Ors. vs Joyshankar Saha on 28 September, 2001"}]},{"@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\/113473","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=113473"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113473\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113473"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113473"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}