{"id":136841,"date":"2003-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003"},"modified":"2016-06-08T14:36:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T09:06:06","slug":"s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 27\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN\n\nWrit Petition No.6543 of 1997\n\n\nS. Srinivasan                          ..      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Additional Director\n   Export Inspection Agency-Chennai\n   213, Royapettah High Road\n   Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.\n\n2. The Director (I and Q\/C)\n   Export Inspection Council\n   (Ministry of Commerce, Govt. Of India\n   Pragati Towers, 11th Floor\n   26, Rajendra Place\n   New Delhi 110 008.                   ..      Respondents\n\n        Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for  a\nwrit of Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :       Mr.V.  Manohar\n\nFor Respondents        :       Mr.K.  Veeraraghavan, ACGSC\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner is admittedly appointed temporarily as casual labourer<br \/>\nin the  second  respondent  Council,  which  is  purely  an  autonomous  body.<br \/>\nContending  that  the  service  of the petitioner as casual labourer has to be<br \/>\nregularised  under  the  Casual  Labourers  (grant  of  temporary  status  and<br \/>\nregularisation  of service) Scheme evolved by the Ministry of Law, Finance and<br \/>\nPersonnel Administration , the petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus  to  direct<br \/>\nthe  respondents  to  regularise  his  service  from March 1991 and to pay the<br \/>\nwages, allowances and attendant benefits on par  with  the  regular  permanent<br \/>\nemployees doing identical work.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rights of<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  conferred  under  Articles  14,  16,  21  and  23(1)  of  the<br \/>\nConstitution of India would be violated, if the service of the  petitioner  is<br \/>\nnot regularised.    In  this regard, he relies upon the decision of this Court<br \/>\ndated 4.4.1997 in W.P.No.16080 of 1994, wherein E.  Padmanabhan, J,  following<br \/>\nthe  order  of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1003 of 1990, directed<br \/>\nthe respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Opposing  the  above  contentions  and  placing  reliance  on  the<br \/>\naverments  stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,<br \/>\nlearned Additional Central  Government  Standing  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\nrespondents  submits  that the Casual Labourers (grant of temporary status and<br \/>\nregularisation of service) Scheme is not applicable to the respondents, as the<br \/>\nrespondents are purely an autonomous body  and  that  the  respondents  having<br \/>\nidentified  the  surplus  manpower,  formulated  Voluntary Retirement Schemes,<br \/>\npursuant to which almost 800 employees retired voluntarily from the respondent<br \/>\norganisation.   In  any  event,  the  petitioner,  being  a  temporary  casual<br \/>\nlabourer,  is  not  entitled  to  seek  a writ of Mandamus as prayed for, as a<br \/>\nmatter of right.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  I have given careful consideration  to  the  submissions  of  both<br \/>\nsides.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  It is true that E.  Padmanabhan, J, in an identical case, by order<br \/>\ndated 4.4.1997 in W.P.No.16080 of 1994, directed the respondents to regularise<br \/>\nthe  service  of  the  petitioner therein, of course, following the order of a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1003 of 199 0.  But, it  is  trite  law<br \/>\nthat  it may not be proper for this Court to direct the employer to regularise<br \/>\nthe service of the temporary employees, particularly  when  the  scheme  under<br \/>\nwhich  temporary  employees  were  appointed come to an end, activities of the<br \/>\nemployer is brought down and surplus manpower are identified by the  employer,<br \/>\nthe voluntary retirement scheme is formulated, vide STATE OF H.P.  v.  ASHWANI<br \/>\nKUMAR reported in  AIR 1997 SC 352, HAFIQ AHMED &amp; ANR.  v.  STATE OF RAJASTHAN<br \/>\n&amp; ORS.  reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 221, and <a href=\"\/doc\/1642616\/\">RAMAKRISHNA KAMAT  &amp;  ORS.    v.<br \/>\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA  &amp;  ORS.<\/a>    reported  in JT 2003 (2) SC 88.  In the instant<br \/>\ncase, the respondents have taken a clear stand that they could not accommodate<br \/>\nthe petitioner in a regular post and they have identified the surplus manpower<br \/>\nin their organisation and also formulated a  voluntary  retirement  scheme  to<br \/>\nfacilitate the permanent employees to avail such scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   That  apart,  the law as to the rights of the temporary employees<br \/>\nseeking regularisation is now well settled by the Apex Court in STATE OF  H.P.<br \/>\nv.   ASHWANI  KUMAR  reported  in AIR 1997 SC 352, that the High Court was not<br \/>\nright in giving direction to  regularise  the  temporary  employees  who  were<br \/>\nengaged  only  for  the  project,  which  was  completed and closed due to the<br \/>\nnon-availability of funds, and  that  the  direction  of  the  High  Court  to<br \/>\nregularise  such  temporary employees by creating posts and continuing them in<br \/>\nspite of non availability of funds and work is absolutely illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Again, in HAFIQ AHMED &amp; ANR.   v.    STATE  OF  RAJASTHAN  &amp;  ORS.<br \/>\nreported  in 1999 (9) Supreme 221, the Apex Court has held that when the posts<br \/>\nare created temporarily for fulfilling the needs of a  particular  project  of<br \/>\nscheme  limited  in its duration come to an end on account of the need for the<br \/>\nproject itself having come to an end either because the project was  fulfilled<br \/>\nor  had  to  be  abandoned wholly or partially for want of funds, the employer<br \/>\ncannot by a w rit of Mandamus be directed to continue employing such employees<br \/>\nas have been dislodged because such a direction would  amount  to  requisition<br \/>\nfor  creation  of  posts  though not required by the employer and funding such<br \/>\nposts though the employer did not have the funds available for the purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The Apex Court, in a recent decision <a href=\"\/doc\/1642616\/\">RAMAKRISHNA KAMAT &amp; ORS.   v.<br \/>\nSTATE OF  KARNATAKA  &amp;  ORS.<\/a>    reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 88, reiterating the<br \/>\nviews taken in STATE OF H.P.  v.  ASHWANI KUMAR reported in AIR 199 7 SC  352,<br \/>\nand HAFIQ AHMED &amp;  ANR.    v.  STATE OF RAJASTHAN &amp; ORS.  reported in 1999 (9)<br \/>\nSupreme 221, held that it may not be proper to regularise the service  of  the<br \/>\ntemporary appointees.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   Applying  the  ratio  laid  down by the Apex Court in the case of<br \/>\ntemporary employees, I am satisfied that the petitioner  is  not  entitled  to<br \/>\nseek  a  writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to regularise his service,<br \/>\nas a matter of right, and therefore, the relief sought for by  the  petitioner<br \/>\ncannot  be  granted,  as such an exercise of power by this Court under Article<br \/>\n226 of the Constitution of India, is, time and again, deprecated by  the  Apex<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>        For  all  these  reasons,  the  writ  petition  fails  and the same is<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nIndex   :  Yes\nInternet        :  Yes\n\nTo\n\n\n\n\n1.  The Additional Director\nExport Inspection Agency-Chennai\n213, Royapettah High Road\nRoyapettah, Chennai 600 014.\n\n2.  The Director (I and Q\/C)\nExport Inspection Council\n(Ministry of Commerce, Govt.  Of India\nPragati Towers, 11th Floor\n26, Rajendra Place\nNew Delhi 110 008.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN Writ Petition No.6543 of 1997 S. Srinivasan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Additional Director Export Inspection Agency-Chennai 213, Royapettah High Road Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. 2. [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - 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\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-08T09:06:06+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\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T09:06:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":900,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\",\"name\":\"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-08T09:06:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - 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\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-08T09:06:06+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\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T09:06:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003"},"wordCount":900,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003","name":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-08T09:06:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasan-vs-the-additional-director-on-27-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Srinivasan vs The Additional Director on 27 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/136841","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=136841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}