{"id":131745,"date":"1975-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975"},"modified":"2018-01-05T14:08:16","modified_gmt":"2018-01-05T08:38:16","slug":"khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","title":{"rendered":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court<\/div>\n
Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 Raj 157<\/div>\n
Author: D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: D Gupta<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 D.P. Gupta, J.  <\/p>\n
1. The petitioner is an  existing operator of Ajmer-Mangaliawas-Pisangan route (hereinafter referred to as ‘the route’) which is 28 miles long. A scheme for the nationalisation of Ajmer-Jodhpur route via Mangaliawas, Beawar and Bilara as approved by the State Government, was published under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on August 31, 1962. That scheme was of partial exclusion of the existing operators and the petitioner and his co-operators of Ajmer-Mangaliawas-Pisangan route were allowed to ply their vehicles on the route. Thereafter the aforesaid scheme was modified under Section 68-E (1) read with Section 68-D of the Act by the order of the State Government dated April 30, 1964 and the permits of the petitioner and other operators of the route were rendered ineffective between Ajmer and Mangaliawas, which was the portion over-lapped by the notified route, meaning thereby that a restriction was imposed on the operators of the route in respect of picking up and setting down passengers on the Ajmer-Mangaliawas portion of the notified route. The modified scheme was published under Section 68-D (3) of the Act, by the notification dated July 1, 1964 in the Rajasthan Gazette dated September 3, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
 2. On July 20, 1974, the aforesaid nationalisation scheme relating to Ajmer-Jodhpur via Mangaliawas, Beawar and Bilara route, was proposed to be further modified by the State Government under Section 68-E (2) of the Act, by providing for the complete exclusion of private operators on the notified route or portions thereof. The consequence of this modification, if it is approved, would be that the permits of the petitioner and other operators of this route would be curtailed for the portion from Ajmer to Mangaliawas, which forms part of the notified route. The petitioner raised certain preliminary objections against the above-mentioned proposal for modification of the approved scheme and the same have been rejected by Shri Sudhindra Gemawat, Deputy Secretary, Home Department, for and on behalf of the State Government, by his order dated November 23, 1974 (Annexure P\/7). The present writ petition has been preferred against the aforesaid order rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 3. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents and the State Government as well as the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which is a State Government Undertaking has appeared in response to the show cause notice and have contested the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a nationalisation scheme modified under Section 68-E (1) of the Act could not be further modified under Section 68-E (2) of the Act. Learned counsel contends that if the State Government once approves a modification of the scheme on the proposal made by the State Transport. Undertaking under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E, it has no power to re-decide or review the matter again and further modify the modified scheme under; Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E,  <\/p>\n
 5. A perusal of Section 68-E of the Act shows that the two sub-sections of the aforesaid Section give absolutely independent powers to the State Government in respect of the modification of an approved scheme. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E, a modification can be proposed by the State Transport Undertaking, while under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E, the State Government may itself publish a proposal to modify an approved scheme, if it considers necessary to do so in public interest. There is no doubt that in both cases it is the State Government which has to pass final orders in respect of the modification of the approved scheme. But it may be observed here that Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E begins with a non obstante clause and provides that the power of modification, which has been given by that provision to the State Government was notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), meaning thereby that the provisions of Sub-section (2) shall have its full operation. Thus, it is clear from reading the two sub-sections of Section 68-E together that the powers conferred under Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section are in addition to and quite independent of the powers of modification which have been given to the State Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E. Under the newly added provision contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E, the State Government has been empowered to modify a nationalisation scheme which has either been proposed by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 68-C and is approved by the State Government under Section 68-D (2) or even a modified scheme of nationalisation, which was modified by the State Government on the proposal of the State Transport Undertaking made under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E. It may also be noted here that the procedure laid down in Section 68-C and Section 68-D would have to be followed when a proposal for the modification of an approved scheme is made by the State Transport     Undertaking under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E   and    the nationalisation scheme, as modified under Sub-section  (1) of    Section    68-E,   would have to be published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act, as if it was a scheme approved under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-D.    But under sub-section  (2) of Section 68-E an    additional    and    independant power is   given to   the    State Government for further modification, both of an  approved    scheme    under    Section 68-D (2) and a   scheme   modified   under Sub-section  (1)  of Section  68-E.    It may also be observed that an approved scheme is law within the meaning of Article    13 of the Constitution, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and it    cannot be visualised  that such an    approved scheme would remain static for all times to  come irrespective of current needs in public interest.   As such the law has provided a machinery for    making    suitable changes in the approved scheme in accordance    with the    changing    needs of the society.    It has, therefore, been provided by the two sub-sections of Section    68-E that the approved scheme of nationalisation may be modified from time to time as may be considered necessary in public interest.    If the State Transport    Undertaking was to make a proposal for modification of the approved scheme, then the same  shall   be dealt with Sub-section (1) of  Section  68-E  and  the very same  procedure, as is applicable to a scheme    initiated by such Undertaking under    Section 68-C shall be applicable.    But in case a  State  Transport Undertaking    fails    to make such a proposal for modification of the approved scheme, as may be    necessary in public interest, a further right has been  given  to    the    State    Government, under Sub-section (2)  of Section 68-E    to make a proposal for the further modification of an  approved  scheme or a scheme modified   under  Sub-section     (1)  of    Section 68-E,  if    the  same is    necessary    in public interest.    The only requirement for such  modification,   which  may  be     made by the    State    Government    under    Sub-section  (2)  of Section    63-E, is    that    an opportunity of being heard, in respect of the proposed modification, should be furnished   to  the  State Transport  Undertaking and other affected persons.    There is thus no question of any review in the matter. I am, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the nationalisation scheme relating to Ajmer-Jodhpur via Mangaliawas, Beawar and Bilara route has already been modified under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-E, the same could not be further modified by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Section.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 68-E (2) is ultra vires, and void, being contrary to the principles of natural justice. Mr. R. R. Vyas, learned counsel, however, waived this objection today in view of the replies filed by the Corporation and the State Government, in response to the show cause notice issued by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The next objection raised by learned counsel is that no procedure has been laid down under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E of the Act and no rules have been made in respect of the hearing which has to be given by the State Government in respect of its proposal to modify a scheme published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D of the Act. It is not necessary to frame any rules or to prescribe a detailed procedure for such hearing under Section 68-E (2), so long as the principles of natural justice are followed. The only requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 68-E is that the State Transport Undertaking as well as the other affected persons should be afforded an opportunity of hearing in respect of the proposed modification. The State Government published the proposed modification in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 20, 1974 and invited objections in respect thereof from all interested and affected persons and the State Government further authorised Shri Gemawat, Deputy Secretary in the Home Department to hear and decide the objections, that may be preferred in respect of the proposed modification, for and on its behalf and the said officer is hearing the objections and has so far only decided the preliminary objections raised by the concerned operators. Thus so far there has been no breach of the principles of natural justice in this matter.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Then learned counsel for the petitioner argued that all objections in respect of the nationalisation schemes are being heard by the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2, as notified by the State Government vide notification dated December 6, 1973, published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extraordinary) dated December 14, 1973 and that the Deputy Secretary in the Home Department could not hear the objections in respect of the proposed  modification  of  the  approved    nationalisation scheme.    It may be mentioned in this connection that by the notification  dated  December  6,  1973,  the Joint Legal   Remembrancer  No.   2   to  the  Government of Rajasthan has been duly authorised to hear all objections under Section 68-D of the Act,  for and on behalf of the State    Government.    The proposal which  has  been     published  by the  State Government  vide  notification   dated  June 20, 1974, is not one under Section 68-C of the Act which has to be considered in accordance with     the procedure laid  down under  Section  68-D.     But    the     proposal for modification in  the instant  case    has been made    by    the    State    Government under Sub-section  (2) of Section 68-E and objections  have also     been invited under the aforesaid provision and, therefore, the notification dated December 6, 1973,  cannot govern  the  consideration  of  the    objections in respect of the proposed modification in the present case. Learned counsel   also  drew  my   attention  to   Item  No. 38, relating to law and Judicial    Department in Schedule I annexed to the Rules of Business  of  the  Rajasthan  State Government.    The aforesaid item also refers to the  consideration of objections in respect   of   approval     and     modification     of schemes  under Section 68-D of the Act. The   present  proposal   for   modification   is outside the purview of the aforesaid item. By a notification issued by the Stale Government on May 5. 1973 and published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated May 9,  1973 the  Governor     of  Rajasthan  has  ordered under  Rule  54  of the Rules of    Business made   under  Article   166  of  the  Constitution,   that  all     matters     and  proceedings under   Section   68-E   of  the  Act  will     be dealt  with  in  the   Home  Department  by an officer duly authorised in that behalf. By a subsequent notification dated April 15,  1974.  Shri  Sudhindra Gemawat.     Deputy  Secretary  to  the State  Government in the Home Department has been duly authorised to deal    with all matters and proceedings under Section 68-E    of    the Act, for and on behalf of the State Government.    In view of the two notifications issued by the State Government on May 5,   1973   and  April   15,   1974,   Shri  Gemawat is fully competent to hear and    decide the objections to the proposed modification  for  and  on  behalf  of    the  State Government, as  these    proceedings     are under Sub-section  (2) of Section 68-E of the Act. In these circumstances, I am unable to hold that the proceedings which are being conducted by Shri Gemawat, Deputy Secretary, Home Department are without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Learned counsel lastly submitted that no provision has been made, in the proposal for modification of the approved scheme, in respect of other alternative services, in case the curtailment of the services rendered by the existing operators on portions of the notified route is approved. This is a question which relates to the merits of the proposed modification and it is for the competent authority, who has been authorised to deal with the objections under Section 68-E (2) to decide whether the proposed modification would be in public interest or not, although no proposal has been made for providing alternative services on portions of the notified route, after the curtailment of the existing services plied thereon by the operators of the over-lapping routes. It would be premature for this Court to decide this objection at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
 10. NO other argument was advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 11. I, therefore, find no substance in the writ petition and the same is summarily dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Rajasthan High Court Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 Raj 157 Author: D Gupta Bench: D Gupta ORDER D.P. Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is an existing operator of Ajmer-Mangaliawas-Pisangan route (hereinafter referred to as ‘the route’) which is 28 miles long. A scheme […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,29],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-rajasthan-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - 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\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-05T08:38:16+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-05T08:38:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2148,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Rajasthan High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\",\"name\":\"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-05T08:38:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - 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\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-05T08:38:16+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975","datePublished":"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-05T08:38:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975"},"wordCount":2148,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Rajasthan High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975","name":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-05T08:38:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khushal-dass-vs-the-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-on-27-october-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khushal Dass vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 27 October, 1975"}]},{"@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\/131745","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=131745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131745\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}