{"id":125797,"date":"2010-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-04T20:14:38","modified_gmt":"2016-04-04T14:44:38","slug":"hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>Court No. - 24\n\nCase :- WRIT - A No. - 34904 of 2008\n\nPetitioner :- Hiral Al\nRespondent :- Union Of India And Others\nPetitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare\nRespondent Counsel :- Govind Saran\n\nHon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent Railways.\n<\/p>\n<p>A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The submission advanced by Sri Khare is that the order<br \/>\nimpugned proceeds on an erroneous assumption and upon<br \/>\nwrong application of Rule 161 of the Railway Protection<br \/>\nForce Rules, 1987. The petitioner has been dismissed from<br \/>\nservice on the charge that he was allegedly harassing<br \/>\nrailway passengers and realizing money from them while on<br \/>\nescort duty. The petitioner has been dismissed without<br \/>\nholding any enquiry which is the admitted position. The<br \/>\nreason for not holding the enquiry as indicated in the<br \/>\nimpugned order is that there is every likelihood of the<br \/>\npetitioner influencing the witnesses including the passengers<br \/>\nwho might be produced as witnesses during the course of<br \/>\nthe enquiry and even otherwise the petitioner being a<br \/>\nmember of the disciplinary force such conduct of the<br \/>\npetitioner was reprehensible and therefore the only option<br \/>\nwas to dismiss him by applying the Rule 161 read with<br \/>\nSection 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act 1987.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel submitted that the<br \/>\naforesaid reason assigned in the impugned order is<br \/>\nuntenable in as much as the order itself indicates that there<br \/>\nwas a checking team comprising of officials of the<br \/>\ndepartment to verify the aforesaid allegations on the spot<br \/>\n and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. He<br \/>\nsubmits that the said officers apart from passengers are very<br \/>\nmuch available and there is no occasion for the respondents<br \/>\nto presume that the petitioner will intimidate the said<br \/>\nwitnesses or tamper with them during the course of the<br \/>\nenquiry. He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in<br \/>\nthe case of Chief Security Officer and others Vs. Singasan<br \/>\nRabi Das, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 729.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the Railways contends that the charges<br \/>\nare so serious and even otherwise the conclusion drawn for<br \/>\nrecording the satisfaction is so evident that there is no<br \/>\noccasion to interfere with the order impugned. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat it is quite possible that the passengers who had been<br \/>\nharassed may not depose before the enquiry proceedings<br \/>\nand therefore in view of the conduct of the petitioner the<br \/>\npunishment imposed is justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having heard learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion,<br \/>\nthe reason for dispensing with the enquiry is in clear teeth<br \/>\nthe of law pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of<br \/>\nChief Security Officer (supra) in Para 5 thereof quoted<br \/>\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In our view it is not necessary to go into the submission<br \/>\nmade by Dr. Anand Prakash because we find that in this<br \/>\ncase the reason given for dispensing with the enquiry is<br \/>\ntotally irrelevant and totally insufficient in law. It is common<br \/>\nground that under Rules 44 to 46 of the said Rules the<br \/>\nnormal procedure for removal of an employee is that before<br \/>\nany order for removal from service can be passed the<br \/>\nemployee concerned must be given notice and an enquiry<br \/>\nmust be held on charges supplied to the employees<br \/>\nconcerned. In the present case the only reason given for<br \/>\ndispensing with that enquiry was that it was considered<br \/>\n not feasible or desirable to procure witness of the<br \/>\nsecurity\/other railway employees since this will expose<br \/>\nthese witnesses and make them ineffective in the future.<br \/>\nIt was stated further that if these witnesses were asked to<br \/>\nappear at a confronted enquiry they were likely to suffer<br \/>\npersonal humiliation and insults and even their family<br \/>\nmembers might become targets of acts of violence. In<br \/>\nour view these reasons are totally insufficient in law. We<br \/>\nfail to understand how if these witnesses appeared at a<br \/>\nconfronted enquiry, they are likely to suffer personal<br \/>\nhumiliation and insults. These are normal witnesses and<br \/>\nthey could not be said to b e placed in any delicate or<br \/>\nspecial position in which asking them to appear at a<br \/>\nconfronted enquiry would render them subject to any<br \/>\ndanger to which witnesses are not normally subjected<br \/>\nand hence these grounds constitute no justification for<br \/>\ndispensing with the enquiry. There is total absence of<br \/>\nsufficient material or good grounds for dispensing with<br \/>\nthe enquiry. In this view it is not necessary for us to<br \/>\nconsider whether any fresh opportunity was required to<br \/>\nbe given before imposing an order of punishment. In the<br \/>\nresult the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no<br \/>\norder as to costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The rules applicable to the present controversy namely Rule<br \/>\n161 is quoted bellow:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;161.    Special    Procedure      in  certain     cases.-<br \/>\nNotwithstanding anything contains anywhere in these rules-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) Where are punishment is imposed on an enrolled<br \/>\nmember of the Force on the ground of conduct which has<br \/>\nled to his conviction on a criminal charge or;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)   Where the authority competent to impose the<br \/>\n punishment is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it<br \/>\nin writing that is not reasonably practicable to hold an<br \/>\ninquiry in the manner provided in these rules;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) Where the President is satisfied that in the interest of<br \/>\nsecurity of State and the maintenance of integrity in the<br \/>\nForce, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner<br \/>\nprovided in these rules;\n<\/p>\n<p>the authority competent to impose the punishment may<br \/>\nconsider the circumstances of the case and make such<br \/>\norders thereof as it deems fit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>A perusal of the Sub Rule (ii) leaves no room for doubt that a<br \/>\nsatisfaction which has to be recorded by the competent<br \/>\nauthority is to be supported by reasons to be recorded in<br \/>\nwriting that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an<br \/>\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the instant case the reason given in support of such<br \/>\nsatisfaction does not satisfy the test of law as indicated<br \/>\nherein above.\n<\/p>\n<p>The checking team constitutes of officials and there is no<br \/>\nplausible explanation as to why they could not be produced<br \/>\nto testify the incident during enquiry. The satisfaction<br \/>\ntherefore as recorded is no satisfaction in the eyes of law<br \/>\nand does not hold water nor does it appeal to reason. In<br \/>\nsuch a situation and in view of the similar interpretation of<br \/>\nlaw given with regard to similar set of rules under the U.P.<br \/>\nPolice Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and<br \/>\nAppeal) Rules, 1991 as pronounced in the case of Ram<br \/>\nBabu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2009<br \/>\n(5) ADJ 581 and Ravindra Raghav Vs. State of U.P. and<br \/>\nothers, reported in 2005 (3) AWC 2409 the order impugned<br \/>\nis unsustainable. Accordingly the impugned order dated 10th<br \/>\n April 2007 is quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above the consequential orders of appeal and<br \/>\nreversion dated 8th October, 2007 and 28th April, 2008 are<br \/>\nalso quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>It shall be open to the authority to proceed to hold an enquiry<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner in accordance with the rules<br \/>\napplicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>The writ petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- 12.8.2010<br \/>\nSahu\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010 Court No. &#8211; 24 Case :- WRIT &#8211; A No. &#8211; 34904 of 2008 Petitioner :- Hiral Al Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- Govind Saran Hon&#8217;ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. [&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":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 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\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-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=\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T14:44:38+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T14:44:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1153,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T14:44:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 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\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-04T14:44:38+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T14:44:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010"},"wordCount":1153,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010","name":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T14:44:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiral-al-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-12-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hiral Al vs Union Of India And Others on 12 August, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125797","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=125797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}