{"id":136383,"date":"2007-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-11T13:57:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-11T08:27:00","slug":"v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 27110 of 2007(B)\n\n\n1. V.MITHRADAS,PROPRIETOR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY,\n\n3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :01\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            Dated this the 1st October, 2007\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The prayers in this writ petition are to quash<br \/>\nExt.P6 and to direct the 2nd respondent to not to issue<br \/>\nany temporary permit until a decision is taken by the<br \/>\n1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.  There was a default vacancy in Nettayam &#8211;<br \/>\nKulathara, a city route in Thiruvananthapuram while the<br \/>\npetitioner was operating on a temporary permit in that<br \/>\ndefault vacancy, there were other applicants for this<br \/>\nroute.    In Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed to<br \/>\nconsider and pass orders on all applications received<br \/>\nand grant permit to the applicant who is found to be<br \/>\nthe most meritorious one.     Accordingly, applications<br \/>\nwere considered and eventually temporary permit was<br \/>\ngranted to the 3rd respondent.     This was challenged<br \/>\nbefore   the  Tribunal  and  in  Ext.P2  judgment,  the<br \/>\nTribunal allowed the appeal and directed that all<br \/>\napplications   be  considered  by   the  1st respondent<br \/>\nexcluding the one submitted by the 3rd respondent.<br \/>\nExt.P2 judgment was challenged in Writ Petition (Civil)<br \/>\nNo.15009 of 2007 and connected cases and the cases were<br \/>\ndisposed   of  by  Ext.P3  judgment  directing the  1st<br \/>\nrespondent   to  consider  all  fresh  applications  in<br \/>\naccordance with law.  In pursuance to Ext.P3, among the<br \/>\napplicants, the 2nd respondent chose the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>and Ext.P6 is the temporary permit issued for the<br \/>\nperiod      from     24.08.2007   to  12.09.2007.    It  is<br \/>\nchallenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition has been<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.      3rd  respondent    would submit that  the  writ<br \/>\npetition has become infructuous since the period of<br \/>\nExt.P6 Temporary Permit has expired on 12.09.2007 and a<br \/>\nfurther temporary permit (Ext.R3(1)) valid to till<br \/>\n02.10.2007 was issued.           It is also stated that in<br \/>\npursuance to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent       has    considered all applications  in  its<br \/>\nmeeting held on 19.09.2007 and that orders are awaited.<br \/>\nIt is also contended that despite the contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the 3rd respondent is ineligible to be<br \/>\nissued temporary permit, while disposing of the cases<br \/>\nby Ext.P3 judgments, there was no direction to exclude<br \/>\nthe application of the 3rd respondent and hence the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent is entitled to be issued the Temporary<br \/>\nPermit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.      The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner<br \/>\nraised mainly three contentions.        According to him, in<br \/>\nterms of provisions of the Act and the Rules, the<br \/>\nrespondents are bound to assess the comparative merit<br \/>\nof the applicants before granting permit and that such<br \/>\nan assessment of merit has not been done in this case<br \/>\nbefore issuing the Temporary Permit.             It is also<br \/>\ncontended that by Ext.P3 judgment, while disposing of<br \/>\nthe writ petitions filed against Ext.P2, this court had<br \/>\ndirected the 1st respondent to consider the applications<br \/>\nand that inspite of it, without placing the matter<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent granted<br \/>\npermit which is unauthorized.           He also argued that<br \/>\nExt.P6      temporary    permit  has   been  granted  to   do<br \/>\nsubstitute service and that such a permit can be<br \/>\ngranted only in circumstances to which Rule 182 of the<br \/>\nKerala Rules apply.         These contentions are refuted by<br \/>\nthe counsel for the 3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.      I have considered the submissions made, it is<br \/>\ntrue that Ext.P6 does not show that there has been an<br \/>\nassessment of comparative merits of the applicants.<br \/>\nThis, in my view, should have been done.           In Ext.P3<br \/>\njudgment, this court had directed that all applications<br \/>\nreceived        shall     be    considered   by    the    RTA<br \/>\nThiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent in that case.<br \/>\nTherefore, the RTA itself should have considered the<br \/>\napplications and even if the Secretary is competent by<br \/>\ndelegation that was irrelevant in so far as this case<br \/>\nis concerned.        From Ext.P6 it is obvious that Temporary<br \/>\nPermit     has    been   issued by  the  Secretary,  the  2nd<br \/>\nrespondent herein.         On the other hand he should have<br \/>\nplaced the matter for the consideration of the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent which has not been done.        Ext.P6 also shows<br \/>\nthat    the    3rd   respondent  has  been  permitted to   do<br \/>\nsubstitute        service   in  place   of  KL   01\/D   9953.<br \/>\nSubstitute service is permissible only in terms of Rule<br \/>\n182 of the Kerala Rules and the facts show that the<br \/>\nsaid rule is inapplicable.        If that be so, a temporary<br \/>\npermit, could not have ben granted to do substitute<br \/>\nservice. Thus, I find force in the submissions made by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007     4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     6.      Be that as it may, it is evident from Ext.P6<br \/>\nitself that the period of this permit has expired on<br \/>\n12.09.2007 and the 3rd respondent has been granted<br \/>\ntemporary permits for subsequent periods as well.      In<br \/>\nthe meantime, the RTA has also concluded hearing on<br \/>\n19.09.2007.         If that be so, there is no point in<br \/>\nquashing Ext.P6, at this distance of time.     Petitioner<br \/>\nhas also not sought any prayer to quash Ext.R3(a) or<br \/>\nsubsequent temporary permit, if any, granted to the 3rd<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In these circumstances I dispose of the writ<br \/>\npetition directing that, if any temporary permit is<br \/>\nhereafter granted for the route Nettayam &#8211; Kulathara<br \/>\nthe same shall be done considering the relative merits<br \/>\nof   the     applicants   and that too  only by  the  1st<br \/>\nrespondent and in any event not by the 2nd respondent.<br \/>\nWrit petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<br \/>\npr\/jan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 27110 of 2007(B) 1. V.MITHRADAS,PROPRIETOR, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI The Hon&#8217;ble MR. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-11T08:27:00+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T08:27:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":890,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\",\"name\":\"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-11T08:27:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-11T08:27:00+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T08:27:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007"},"wordCount":890,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007","name":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-11T08:27:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-mithradas-vs-the-regional-trasport-authority-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Mithradas vs The Regional Trasport Authority on 1 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/136383","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=136383"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136383\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}