{"id":137997,"date":"1973-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2"},"modified":"2016-01-19T08:12:57","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T02:42:57","slug":"state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2165, \t\t 1973 SCR (3) 770<\/div>\n
Author: A Alagiriswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Alagiriswami, A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MYSORE & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. G. JAGANNATH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/03\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nBENCH:\nALAGIRISWAMI, A.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2165\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 770\n 1973 SCC  (1) 730\n\n\nACT:\nMysore\tMotor  Vehicle Rules, 1963, r. 216(2)-Power  to\t fix\nminimum\t seating  capacity in a public\tservice\t vehicle--If\nvalid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRule  216(2)  of  the  Mysore  Motor  Vehicle  Rules,  1963,\nprovides  for the fixation of minimum seating capacity of  a\npublic\tservice vehicle.  Under a permit granted to him\t the\nrespondent  was running a bus with a. seating  capacity\t of\n30.  He wanted to replace the bus with a new one and applied\nforpermission to alter the seating capacity of the new bus\nfrom 40 to 30,but, the permission was refused.In a petition\nfor the issue of a writof mandamus, the High Court  struck\ndown  the rule and directed the Regional Transport  Officer\nto  grant the necessary permission.  Allowing the appeal  to\nthis Court,\nHELD  : (i) The power conferred by s. 70 of the Act is\twide\nenough\tto  enable  the making of the  impugned\t rule.\t The\nvalidity  of the rule has to be considered not\tmerely\tfrom\nthe  point  of view of the effect it has on  the  particular\nindividual like the respondent but from the point of view of\nthe generality of the motor vehicle operators as well as the\npublic.\t there is no reason for not accepting the  statement\nmade on behalf of the State that passenger traffic on  every\nroute\tin  the\t State\thad  increased\tconsiderably,\tthat\ngenerally  it was found that stage carriage  operators\twere\ncarrying  passengers  in  excess  of  the  seating  capacity\nspecified in the registration certificate and the permit  to\nthe serious inconvenience and discomfort of the\t travelling\npublic, in addition to causing loss of revenue to the State,\nand  that it was with a view to' eliminate such\t evils\tthat\nthe  impugned  rule  had  been\tframed.\t  It  is  true\tthat\nthe   .State_\thas  necessary\tmachinery  to\tcheck\tsuch\ncontravention, but it cannot always succeed in\tdoing  so.\n[774D; 775D- 776B-D]\n(2) There is no difficulty in getting the permit amended  in\norder  to allow for the increased capacity,  because,  under\nRule 131, the procedure for replacing any vehicle covered by\na permit by a vehicle of a different type or of a  different\ncapacity is made simple. [775B-C]\n(3)  The tax on a bus with a minimum capacity of 40 is\tmore\nthan  the  tax on a bus with a minimum capacity of  30;\t but\nthere  is  no  basis for the contention\t that  the  rule  is\nintended  to  secure more revenue indirectly;  because,\t the\nState can do it directly by increasing the rate of tax.\n[776A-D]\n(4)  The  High Court erred in holding  that  any  regulation\nregarding  the\tminimum\t number, being uncommon\t has  to  be\nspecially  defended.  The High Court also erred\t in  holding\nthat  the  State had not taken into account  the  prevailing\nconditions in the country with regard to the manufacture and\navailability  of  bus chassis.\tWhen a\tcertain\t chassis  is\ncapable\t of having a body constructed on it so that  it\t can\ncarry  a certain number of passengers to construct a  lesser\nnumber\t of  seats  is\twaste  of  valuable   transportation\nfacility. [774E-F; 776D-F]\n(5)  Stage  carriage operators, exclusively  in\t cities\t and\ntowns, form a class by themselves and the exemption in their\ncase  has a direct relation to the objectives sought  to  be\nachieved.  Therefore, there is no question\n771\nof  any arbitrary or excessive invasion of  the\t respondents\nrights.\t  The  rule  is one of general\tapplication  in\t the\ninterest of the general travelling passengers. [7.76F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal No. 141 of 1972
\nAppeal by special leave from the judgment and. order ‘dated.
\nApril 15, 1971 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ
\nPetition No. 5109 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
H. B. Datar, and R. B. Datar, for the appellants.
\nM. C. Setalvad and K. N.  Bhatt, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was devlivered by
\nALAGIRISWAMI,  J. This is an appeal against the judgment  of
\nthe  High Court of Mysore striking down Rule 216(2)  of\t the
\nMysore\tMotor  Vehicles\t Rules,\t 1963,\tintroduced  on\t 7th
\nOctober,  1969, on the ground that it violates\tArticle\t .19
\n(1) (g) of tic Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent,  who is a transport operator  plying  buses
\nbetween, Doddaballapur and Tumkur, wanted to replace one  of
\nhis  buses running on that route with a new one.  Under\t the
\npermit\tgranted to him,’ which was valid up  to\t 30-10-1975,
\nhis  bus  had a seating capacity of 30.\t  On  2-11-1970\t lie
\napplied\t to,  the  Regional  Transport\tOfficer,   Bangalore
\nRegion, for permission to alter the seating capacity of\t the
\nnew  bus,  which  lie had acquired’, from 40  to  30.\tThis
\napplication  having  been  rejected  he\t filed\ti   petition
\nfor  issue  of\ta writ of Mandamus  directing  the  Regional
\nTransport  Officer  to grant the necessary  permission,\t and
\nthat  petition having been allowed the State of Mysore\thas.
\ncome on appeal to this Court by special leave.
\nThe  contention of the operator was that the  impugned\trule
\nwhich fixed the minimum seating capacity of buses is  really
\nintended  indirectly  to, compel the operators to  pay\tmore
\ntaxes,\tthat he is already operating on a narrow  margin  of
\nprofit\tand  if lie is compelled to increase the  number  of
\nseats  in  his\tbus he would incur  losses  because  of\t the
\nadditional  tax\t which he will have to pay and\tthis  is  an
\ninterference  with  his\t right to carry\t on  his,  business.
\nAccording  to  the State the impugned Rule was\tintended  to
\neliminate  the\tevil of\t stage-carriage\t operators  carrying
\npassengers  in excess of the seating capacity  specified  in
\nthe registration certificate and the permit, to the  serious
\ninconvenience  and discomfort of the travelling\t public,  in
\naddition to causing loss of revenue to the State.  There  is
\nno  dispute  that  the bus in question can  have  a  seating
\ncapacity of 40.\n<\/p>\n
The impugned Rule, in so far as it is relevant, reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “216 (1)………………..\n<\/p>\n
772<\/span><\/p>\n
(2) The minimum seating capacity of a Public Service vehicle
\nshall  be  directly proportionate to the wheel base  of\t the
\nvehicle.   In all Public Service vehicles other\t than  motor
\ncabs the minimum number of seats to be provided shall be  as
\nspecified in column (2) of the Table below
\nProvided  that the operator may increase the  capacity\tcon-
\nsistent\t with the other rules relating to  seating  capacity
\nand with due regard to the type of the chassis on which\t the
\nbody is fitted
\n\t\t\t   TABLE\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
\t    Wheel base\t\t   No. of seats (Mini-\n\t\t\t\t  mum seating capacity)\n<\/pre>\n
—————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
      (1)\t\t\t       (2)\n<\/p>\n
—————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
      254 to 293 cm…………………16
\n      294 to 305 cm…………………20
\n     306 to 343 cm………………… 25
\n     344 to 407 cm………………….30
\n     408 to 432 cm………………….35
\n     433 to 496 cm………………….45
\n     497 to 534 cm………………….50
\n     above 535 cm…………………..55\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
——————————————————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
—\n<\/p>\n
.lm15
\n(3) Nothingin sub-rule, (2) shall apply to,-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  stage carriages proposed to be operated exclusively  in
\ntowns and cities; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii)  stage  carriages registered prior to the\tcoming\tinto
\nforce  of  the Mysore Motor Vehicles  (V  Amendment)  Rules,
\n1969:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that when the body of a stage carriage specified in
\nitem  (ii) is reconstructed, the seats shall be so  arranged
\nas  to\tface the front and maximum number of  seats  to\t the
\nsatisfaction   of  the\tRegistering  Authority,\t  shall\t  be
\nprovided.”\n<\/p>\n
773<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is agreed by both the parties that there are  only\tfour
\nmanufacturers of bus chassis in the country with wheel bases
\nand number of seats as given below
\n     Name\t\tWheel Base\t minimum number of
\n\t\t\t   in\t       seats to be provided
\n\t\t\t inches\t   Cms\tunder Rule 216 (2)
\n     Hindusthan………  179\t   455\t\t   45
\n”\t\t\t  216\t   549\t\t   55
\n     Tata Mercedes  …\t  166\t   422\t\t   35
\n       ”\t\t  190\t   482\t\t   45
\n       ”\t\t  205\t   520\t\t   50
\n     Fargo……..\t  165\t   419\t\t   35
\n      ”\t\t\t  185\t    469\t\t    45
\n      “…….\t\t  212\t   539\t\t   55
\n     Leyland\t\t  163\t   414\t\t   35
\n       “……\t\t  176\t    447\t\t    45
\n       ”\t\t  210\t    533\t\t    50\n<\/p>\n
————————————————————-
\nIt  will be noticed that the smallest bus available  in\t the
\nmarket can carry 35 passengers.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 70  of the Motor Vehicles Act enables rules  to  be
\nmade regulatingthe    construction,    equipment    and
\nmaintenance of motor vehicles. In   addition  there   is
\npower  to make rules regarding the seating  arrangements  in
\npublic\tservice vehicles.  Under section 48 (3) of  the\t Act
\nthere  is  provision  for  fixing  the\tmaximum\t number\t  of
\npassengers  that may be carried on any specified vehicle  or
\non  any vehicle of a specified type.  One of the  conditions
\nthat  may be attached to a permit under clause (xx) of\tthat
\nsection\t is that the conditions of the permit shall  not  be
\ndeparted  from,\t save  with the\t approval  of  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority.  Under section 60 of the Act a  permit
\nmay  be cancelled or suspended if the holder of\t the  permit
\nuses or causes or allows a vehicle to be used in any  manner
\nnot  authorised\t by the permit.\t Under section\t123  whoever
\ndrives\ta motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor  vehicle
\nto be used in contravention of any conditions of a permit in
\nregard\tto  the\t maximum number of passengers  that  may  be
\ncarried\t on the vehicle is also liable to punishment with  a
\nfine which may extend to one thousand, rupees for the first
\noffence\t and imprisonment that may, extend  to\tsix  months
\n‘or  with fine which may extend to, two thousand rupees,  or
\nwith  both for subsequent offences. Under Rule. 137- of\t the
\nMysore\tMotor  Vehicles Rules any of the conditions  of\t the
\npermit (which naturally includes
\n774<\/span>
\nthe  condition\tregarding the maximum number  of  passengers
\nthat might be carried can be varied only after following the
\nprescribe  procedure.  In view of these circumstances it  is
\ncontended  on  behalf  of the respondents  that\t it  is\t not
\npossible  for the transport operator to overload his  buses
\nin  contravention of the conditions of his permit  and\tthat
\nthat cannot be a reason for fixing a minimum number of seats
\nin a bus.  It is also argued that while there is a  specific
\nsection which enables the maximum number of passengers\tthat
\ncan  be carried on a bus to be prescribed, there is no\tsuch
\npower to prescribe the minimum number of passengers that can
\nbe carried in a bus.\n<\/p>\n
It  must be made clear that all that is insisted upon  under
\nthe  impugned  Rule  is the minimum number of  seats  to  be
\nprovided  in  the bus.\tIt has been urged on behalf  of\t the
\nState that the intention behind. providing buses with bigger
\nbodies with lesser number of seats than they can be provided
\nwith  is  really  intended  to\tcarry  a  larger  number  of
\npassengers and pay a lesser tax.  Though it is true that the
\nState\thas   the   necessary  machinery   to\tcheck\tsuch
\ncontravention\tit  cannot  always  succeed  in\t doing\t so.
\nHowever,  we  do not consider that the mere  possibility  of
\nsuch  ,overloading  can justify the making of  the  impugned
\nrule.\tIt  has been urged on behalf of the State  that\t the
\ndemand\tfor  transport has been rising by leaps\t and  bounds
\nevery year, whereas on behalf of the respondent it has be-en
\ncontended  that the average number of passengers carried  in
\nhis  bus on this, route is about 25.  The great\t demand\t for
\ntransport and the rush for seats in buses is too  well-known
\nto  need  emphasis.  It appears to us that  when  a  certain
\nchassis\t is  capable of having a body constructed on  it  so
\nthat  it  can  carry  a certain\t number\t of  passengers,  to
\nconstruct  on that body a lesser number of seats is a  waste
\nof  valuable  transportation facility.\tEven on\t this  route
\nthere are 14 buses plying between the two points in addition
\nto  longer  distance  buses,  of  which\t the  stage  between
\nDoddaballapur  and Tumkur forms a section.  So it cannot  be
\nsaid that the demand here is as little as is urged on behalf
\nof  the respondent.  There. is no reason to  disbelieve\t the
\naverment made on behalf of the State on this point.
\nThe  difference in taxation between a bus which\t carries  30
\npassengers  and\t a bus carrying 40 passengers is  about\t Rs.
\n400\/-per  quarter  or  Rs.  1600\/-  per\t year  whereas\t the
\ndifference  is Rs. 225\/- per quarter between a bus  carrying
\n30  and\t one carrying 35 passengers.  That is  because\tonly
\nfive  standing\tpassengers  are\t allowed in  a\tbus  with  a
\ncarrying  capacity  of\t30 and 10  standing  passengers\t are
\nallowed\t in a bus with a carrying capacity of 40 and  above.
\nThe tax payable in respect of standing passengers is Rs.  10
\nper quarter.  The tax payable under the Mysore Motor
\n775<\/span>
\nVehicles  (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961\tneed
\nnot  detain us for long because under that Act the  operator
\nis enabled to pass on the tax to the passengers.
\nThe  difficulty mentioned on behalf of the respondent  about
\nthe need to get the permit amended in order to allow for the
\nincreased  capacity  imposed by Rule 137  and  provision  of
\nsection\t 48  (3)  (xxi)\t regarding  the\t variation  of\t the
\nconditions of the permit need not detain us for long because
\nunder  the new section 59(2), as amended by Act 56 of  1969,
\nthe holder of a may, with the permission of the authority by
\nwhich the permit was granted replace any vehicle covered  by
\nthe  permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.   Under
\nRule 131 the procedure for replacing any vehicle covered  by
\na permit by a vehicle of a different type or of ‘a different
\ncapacity is, also. made clearly very simple and where it  is
\nof  the\t same  type or capacity the  variation\thas.  to  be
\ngranted\t within\t a week.  We are also of  opinion  that\t the
\npower  conferred by section 70 of the Act is wide enough  to
\nenable the making of the impugned Rule.\n<\/p>\n
The validity of the Rule at present has to be considered not
\nmerely\tfrom  the point of view of the effect it  has  on  a
\nparticular  individual\tlike the respondent.  It has  to  be
\nlooked.\t at from the point of view of the generality of\t the
\nmotor  vehicles\t operators as well as the public.   We\thave
\nshown  above  that the vehicles with  the  minimum  capacity
\navailable in this country can carry 35 passengers and if, as
\nis  alleged  by\t the  respondent,  the\taverage\t number\t  of
\npassengers. in buses over this route is only 25, the  proper
\nthing  to  do  in  due course is to  reduce  the  number  of
\nvehicles  plying  on this route.  Otherwise, it\t would\tmean
\nunnecessary waste of valuable transport space and  facility.
\nBuses  so released could be used elsewhere to much.  greater
\nadvantage  to the travelling public.  There are\t many  areas
\nand  many\\ routes crying for transport facilities land\tthey
\nwould  be better served.  We are unable to place any  weight
\non  the\t basis\tof  an argument which  affects\tone  or\t two
\nindividuals,  where  by insisting upon this provision  of  a
\nminimum seating capacity the larger public interest will  be
\nserved.\t   If  it  causes  some\t inconvenience\tto   a\t few
\nindividuals  like the respondent they have got to  face\t the
\nsituation.   It appears from the additional affidavit  filed
\nby  the\t petitioner (respondent herein) at he has  got\tfour
\nbuses running between Doddaballapur and Tumkur.\t If it is
\nfound that the average number of passengers is only 25,\t the
\nproper thing to do would be for him to cut down his buses on
\nthis route from four to three.\tIn that case there can be no
\nquestion  of his suffering any losses or his being  affected
\nin any way in the matter of his carrying on his business.
\nThough\tit  is not in evidence it may be presumed  that\t the
\ncost of operation of a bus whether it is provided with 30 or
\n40 seats
\n776<\/span>
\nmay  not  be  very much different and  there  will  be\tthe,
\nadditional facility available to the public, if the bus\t has
\nmore  seats.   Moreover,  as  traffic grows,  as  it  has  a
\ntendency  to  grow  everywhere, the public  will  be  better
\nserved.\t We, are ‘,unable to, accept the contention that the
\nRule  providing for minimum number of seats is\tintended  to
\nsecure\tmore  revenue  indirectly.   The  State\t can  do  it
\ndirectly by increasing the rate of tax.\t It is really a rule
\nintended  for the benefit of the travelling public.  We\t see
\nno reason not to accept the statement made on behalf of\t the
\nState that the passenger traffic on every route in the State
\nhas  increased\tby leaps and bounds, that generally  it\t was
\nfound  that  the  stage\t carriage  operators  were  carrying
\npassengers  in excess of the seating capacity  specified  in
\nthe  Registration Certificate and the permit to the  serious
\ninconvenience  and  discomfort of the travelling  public  in
\naddition to causing loss of revenue to the State, and it was
\nwith  a view to eliminate the above evils that the  impugned
\nRule has been framed.\n<\/p>\n
We  are unable to agree with the High Court that as  usually
\nthere  are only regulations regarding the maximum number  of
\nseats, any regulation regarding the minimum number of  seats
\nbeing  very uncommon has to be specially defended.  We\thave
\nshown above that the regulation is really in the interest of
\nthe  general  travelling public.  Nor are we able  to  agree
\nwith  the  High\t Court that the State  has  not\t taken\tinto
\naccount the prevailing conditions in the country with regard
\nto  the manufacture’ and availability of bus  chassis.\t The
\nminimum\t number\t of  seats insisted upon  defends  upon\t the
\nchassis.   In  this  very case itself as we  have  seen\t the
\nrespondent  really wants to provide 30 seats in the  chassis
\nwhich  can  provide 40 seats.  It is not  necessary  to\t say
\nanything regarding the luxury buses which were considered by
\nthe High Court because that matter was not argued before us.
\nApparently  the\t State\thas decided to\tmake  the  necessary
\nprovision in this regard.Stage\t carriage,    operators
\nexclusively in cities and towns form a\tclass by  themselves
\nand the exemption in their case has a direct relation to the
\nobjective sought to be achieved.  There is no question\there
\nof  any arbitrary or excessive invasion of the\trespondent’s
\nrights.\t The Rule is one of general application which can be
\njustified  as  being in, the interest of  the  general\ttra-
\nvelling public.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  is,  therefore, allowed and the  order  of\t the
\nMysore High Court is set aside\tThe respondent will pay\t the
\nappellants’ costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Appeal allowed..\n<\/p>\n
777<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2165, 1973 SCR (3) 770 Author: A Alagiriswami Bench: Alagiriswami, A. PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: K. G. JAGANNATH DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/03\/1973 BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. CITATION: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - 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\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\" \/>\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=\"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-19T02:42:57+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T02:42:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\"},\"wordCount\":2365,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\",\"name\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-19T02:42:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - 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\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-19T02:42:57+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973","datePublished":"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T02:42:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2"},"wordCount":2365,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2","name":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-19T02:42:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-anr-vs-k-g-jagannath-on-27-march-1973-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mysore & Anr vs K. G. Jagannath on 27 March, 1973"}]},{"@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\/137997","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=137997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}