{"id":145693,"date":"1970-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970"},"modified":"2016-03-12T11:21:21","modified_gmt":"2016-03-12T05:51:21","slug":"chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","title":{"rendered":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 474, \t\t 1971 SCR (2) 871<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHINTA LINGAM & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n30\/11\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nSHAH, J.C.\nMITTER, G.K.\nHEGDE, K.S.\nRAY, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR  474\t\t  1971 SCR  (2) 871\n 1970 SCC  (3) 768\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1978 SC 597\t (223)\n R\t    1979 SC1803\t (41)\n R\t    1980 SC 962\t (13)\n R\t    1980 SC1382\t (83)\n F\t    1981 SC 873\t (52)\n\n\nACT:\nEssential  Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955),  s.\t3(1)\nand  s. 3(2)(d)-Opinion of Central Government under s.\t3(1)\nwhether\t must  be  recited in  Control\tOrder-Order  whether\ninvalid\t  without  such\t recital--Section  3(2)(d)   whether\nsuffers\t from excessive-delegation-Absence of provision\t for\nappeal\tor revision against order of District  Collector  or\nDeputy\tCommissioner  of  Civil\t Supplies  whether   creates\nunreasonable  restriction on the right to carry on  business\nunder Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(f).\nPractice-Plea  for  which adequate foundation has  not\tbeen\nlaid in the pleadings could not be entertained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t who  were adversely affected  by  the\tRice\n(Southern  Zone) Movement Control Order 1957,  the  Southern\nStates (Regulation of Exports of Rice) Order, 1964, and\t the\nAndhra\tPradesh\t Rice and Paddy\t (Restriction  of  Movement)\nOrder\t1965,  moved  petitions\t under\tArt.  226   of\t the\nConstitution  of India in the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh\nchallenging  the  validity of these orders.   The  petitions\nwere  dismissed\t by the High Court.  In appeal\tbefore\tthis\nCourt  by special leave as well as in a writ petition  under\nArt.  32 of the Constitution the following contentions\twere\nadvanced  before  this Court : (i) The said  Control  Orders\noffended  Art.\t303 of the Constitution in as much  as\tthey\nsuffered  from the vice of discrimination between one  State\nand  another and of preference to one State over  an  other;\n(ii) the orders were in the nature of executive instructions\nand   did  not\tfall  within  the  meaning  of\t subordinate\nlegislation;  (iii)  even  if  they  could  be\tregarded  as\nsubordinate  legislation  they could not be saved  under  s.\n303(2)\tin  the\t absence  of  the  declaration\tcontemplated\nthereby;   (iv)\t the  requisite\t opinion  of   the   Central\nGovernment within s. 3(1) of the Essential Supplies Act\t was\nnot  found  in\tany of the orders; (v)\tthe  Control  Orders\nimposed\t unreasonable  restrictions  on\t the  right  of\t the\npetitioners to carry on trade, as arbitrary powers had\tbeen\nconferred  in the matter of issuing or\twithholding  permits\nand there were no provisions for appeal or revision  against\nrefusal\t to grant a permit; (vi) S. 3 (2) (d)  suffers\tfrom\nexcessive delegation.\nHELD  :\t (i)  The  first  three\t contentions  could  not  be\nentertained  since  no\tfirm foundation\t had  been  laid  in\nrespect of them in the pleadings. [875 G-876 B]\n(ii)There  was\tno  necessity  of  reciting  the  requisite\nopinion within s.   3 (1) of the Act in the Control  Orders.\nit  is\timplicit in the recital in the Control\tOrders\tthat\nthey  were being made under s. 3 of the Act, that the  Cent-\nrat Government had formed the requisite opinion within subs-\ns. (1) of that section. [876B-C]\n(iii)The  permit could be granted either by  the  State\nGovernment  or\tby responsible officers of the rank  of\t the\nDistrict  Collector  or\t the Deputy  Commissioner  of  Civil\nSupplies.  If the State Government alone\n872\nhad  the  powers to issue the permits the challenge  on\t the\nground\t of  unreasonableness  of  the\trestrictions   would\nadmittedly not be available.  There is no bar to any of\t the\naggrieved parties approaching the State Government by  means\nof a representation for a final decision even if the  matter\nhas been dealt with by the District Collector or the  Deputy\nCommissioner of Civil Supplies in the first instance and the\npermit\thas  been  refused  or\twrongly\t withheld  by  those\nofficers.  In these circumstances the absence of a provision\nfor  appeal  or revision can be of no consequence.   It\t has\nbeen  pointed  out in more than one decision of\t this  Court\nthat  when  the\t power has to be exercised  by\tone  of\t the\nhighest officers the fact that, no appeal has been  provided\nfor is a matter of no moment. [876 D-877 B]\nM\/s.  Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh &<\/a>\n2  Ors. [1954] S.C.R. 803, K. L. Gupta v.  Bombay  Municipal\nCorporation  & Ors.<\/a> [1968] 1, S.C.R. 274, 297  and  Pannalal\nBiniraj v. Union of India,<\/a> [1957] S.C.R. 233, 257.  referred\nto.\n(iv)The question whether s. 3 (2) (d) suffers from the vice\nof  excessive delegation was no longer at large.   In  Bhana\nMal  Gulzari Mal's case the attack on s. 3 of the  Essential\nSupplies  (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 which was similar  in\nterms  to  s.  3  of the Act  on  the  ground  of  excessive\ndelegation  was\t repelled.  it was  held  that\tthe  Central\nGovernment had been given sufficient and proper guidance for\nexercising  its\t powers in effectuating the  policy  of\t the\nstatute. [877D-E]\nUnion of India & Ors. v. M\/s.  Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal & Ors.,<\/a>\n[1960] 2 S.C.R. 627, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 212 of 1969.
\nPetition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for\t the
\nenforcement of fundamental rights and
\nCivil Appeals Nos. 1802 to 1805 of 1969.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nApril  16,  1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  in\tWrit
\nPetitions Nos. 3657 and 3658 of 1967 and 8 and 48 of 1968.
\nShyamala  Pappu,  Bindra Thakur and Vineet  Kumar,  for\t the
\npetitioners and the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Jagadish  Swarup, Solicitor-General and R. N. Sachthey,\t for
\nrespondent No. 1 (in all the matters).\n<\/p>\n
P.Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos. 2 and
\n3  (in\tC.A. No. 1802 of 1969), respondent No. 2  (in  C.As.
\nNos. 1803 and 1804 of 1969) and respondents Nos. 2 to 4\t (in
\nC.A. No. 1805 of 1969).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGrover, J. The points involved in the writ petition and the
\nappeals by special leave relate to the constitutionality and
\nvalidity
\n\t\t\t    873<\/span>
\nof the provisions of three Control Orders issued under s.  3
\n(2)  (d)  of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Act  10  of
\n1955)  hereinafter  called the “act..” The  validity  of  s.
\n5(2)(d) of the act itself has also been assailed.
\nThe Control Orders which were promulgated under s. 3(2) (d)  of
\nthe Act were the following\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   The Rice (Southern Zone)Movement Control
\n\t      Order, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)The\tSouthern  States  (Regulation\tof
\n\t      Exports of Rice) Order, 1964; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii)The\t Andhra\t Pradesh  Rice\t and   Paddy
\n\t      (Restriction of Movement) Order, 1965.
\n\t      In  the a peals the appellants had  moved\t the
\n\t      High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 226 of
\n\t      the Constitution.\t There the petitioner;, were
\n\t      dealers  in  rice and rice  products  such  as
\n\t      puffed,  parched and beaten rice (beaten\trice
\n\t      is  known as powa’ while, parched and  puffed
\n\t      rice  is\tknown as Murmura’).   Some  of\tthe
\n\t      petitioners had applied for permits to  export
\n\t      powa,  murmura  and idling from the  State  of
\n\t      Andhra  Pradesh to other States  while  others
\n\t      had  applied for permits to transport  one  or
\n\t      other  of\t the rice products  to\tsome  places
\n\t      within  Andhra Pradesh.  The applications\t for
\n\t      permits  were’-either  rejected  or  were\t not
\n\t      disposed of by the authorities concerned.\t  In
\n\t      the writ petitions the High Court examined all
\n\t      the   contentions\t raised\t  exhaustively\t and
\n\t      repelled\tthe attack on the  constitutionality
\n\t      of  s.  3\t (2)  (d) of the  Act  as  also\t the
\n\t      relevant clauses of the Control Orders.
\n\t      Section 3 of the Act provides
\n\t      (1)   If the Central Government is of  opinion
\n\t      that it is necessary or expedient so to do for
\n\t      maintaining  or  increasing  supplies  of\t any
\n\t      essential\t commodity  or\tfor  securing  their
\n\t      equitable\t distribution and  availability\t at
\n\t      fair  prices  or for  securing  any  essential
\n\t      commodity\t for  the defence of  India  or\t the
\n\t      efficient\t conduct of military  operations  it
\n\t      may,  by\torder,\tprovide\t for  regulating  or
\n\t      prohibiting     the     production,     supply
\n\t      distribution  thereof and trade  and  commerce
\n\t      therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)   Without  prejudice to the generality  of
\n\t      the,  powers  conferred by subsection  (1)  an
\n\t      order made thereunder may provide-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)………………..\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)………………..\n<\/p>\n
\t      874<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (c)………………..\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   for\t regulating by licences, permits  or
\n\t      otherwise\t    the\t    storage,\t  transport,
\n\t      distribution,  disposal, acquisition,  use  or
\n\t      consumption of, any essential commodity;
\nThe 1957 Control Order extends to the States of Andhra\tPra-
\ndesh, Kerala, Madras, Mysore and Pondicherry which has\tbeen
\ncalled\tthe Southern Zone.  According to cl. 3(1) no  person
\ncan  export or attempt to export or abet the export of\trice
\nfrom any place within the Southern Zone except under and  in
\naccordance  with  a permit issued by  the  State  Government
\nconcerned  or any officer authorised in this behalf by\tthat
\nGovernment  subject to the condition that such export  shall
\nbe  regulated in accordance with the export quotas fixed  by
\nthe  Central  Government.   Now this control  order  made  a
\ndivision  into\tSouthern Zone or regions in  the  matter  of
\nexport\tof rice.  By the Control Order of 1964 the  Southern
\nZone  or  regions were further divided into  four  specified
\nareas  i.e.,  States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala,\t Madras\t and
\nMysore.\t Clause 3 of this order prohibited the export by any
\nperson\tof rice from any place within a specified area to  a
\nplace outside that area except under and in accordance\twith
\nthe  permit  issued by the State Government  or\t an  officer
\nauthorised by that Government in that behalf.  The rice\t was
\ndefined by cl. 2(b) to include broken rice and paddy as also
\nbroken rice and paddy products other than bran or husk.\t The
\nControl\t Order of 1965 imposed further restrictions  on\t the
\nmovement of rice and paddy.  By, clause 3 restrictions\twere
\nplaced on the movement of these commodities from any  place
\nin any block to any place outside that block even within the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
Mrs.  Shyamala Pappu on behalf of the writ  petitioners\t and
\nthe  appellants\t before\t us made an  attempt  to  raise\t the
\nfollowing contentions in respect of the Control Orders :\n<\/p>\n
\t      1.All  the three Control\tOrders\toffended
\n\t      Art.  303 of the Constitution.  They  suffered
\n\t      from  the vice of discrimination\tbetween\t one
\n\t      State,  and another and of preference  to\t one
\n\t      State over another.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.These  orders  were  in\t the  nature  of
\n\t      executive Instructions and did not fall within
\n\t      the meaning of subordinate legislation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      3.Even if the Control Orders could be regarded
\n\t      as subordnate legislation they were not  saved
\n\t      by   Art.\t 303(2)\t in  the  absence   of\t the
\n\t      declaration contemplated thereby,
\n\t\t\t\t   875<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4.The  requisite opinion of  the\tCentral-
\n\t      Government wit hin s. 3 (1) of the Act was not
\n\t      to be, found in any of the Orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.The Control Orders imposed unreasonable res-
\n\t      trictions\t on the right of the petitioners  to
\n\t      carry  on trade as arbitrary powers  had\tbeen
\n\t      conferred\t  in  the  matter  of\tissuing\t  or
\n\t      withholding  permits and there were no  provi-
\n\t      sions  for appeal or revision against  refusal
\n\t      to grant a permit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Art.  301  in  Part XIII of the\t Constituion  declares\tthat
\nsubject to the other provisions of this Part trade, commerce
\nand  intercourse throughout the territory of India shall  be
\ntree.\tUnder  Art. 302 Parliament may by  law\timpose\tsuch
\nrestrictions  on freedom of trade. commerce  or\t intercourse
\nbetween\t one  State and another or within any  part  of\t the
\nterritory of India as may be required inthe\t public
\ninterest.  Article 303 reads :-\n<\/p>\n
\t       “(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 302,
\n\t      neither  Parliament nor the Legislature  of  a
\n\t      State shalt have power to make any law  giving
\n\t      or authorising” the giving of, any  preference
\n\t      to  one  State  over another,  or\t making,  or
\n\t      authorise\t the making of,\t any  discrimination
\n\t      between  one State and another, by  virtue  of
\n\t      any  entry relating to trade and\tcommerce  in
\n\t      any of the Lists. in the, Seventh Schedule.
\n\t      (2)   Nothing  in\t clause\t (1)  shall  prevent
\n\t      Parliament  from\tmaking any  law\t giving,  or
\n\t      authorising  the giving of, any preference  or
\n\t      making,  or  authorising the  making  of,\t any
\n\t      discrimination  if it is declared by such\t law
\n\t      that it is necessary to do so or the  purpose
\n\t      of  dealing  with\t a  situation  arising\tfrom
\n\t      scarcity of goods in any part of the territory
\n\t      of India.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Now the Control Orders were made under s. 3 of the Act.\t The
\nobject\tessentially was to regulate the export and  movement
\nof  rice  and of rice and paddy products from  the  Southern
\nStates.\t  These Control Orders were laid before both  Houses
\nof Parliament as required by sub-s. (6) of s. 3 of the\tAct.
\nIt has not been shown how this form of legislation would  be
\nmere  executive\t instruction and would not  constitute,\t law
\nmade  by  Parliament  within the  meaning  of  s.  302.\t  No
\nfoundation was laid in the pleadings either before the\tHigh
\nCourt  or  in  the writ petition before us  as\tto  how\t the
\nrestrictions  which were imposed by the Control Orders\twere
\nnot in the public interest.  It is significant that even  on
\nthe
\n876<\/span>
\npoint of preference to one State over another or discrimina-
\ntion  between one State and another State there is  complete
\nabsence\t of pleading in the writ petition filed\t before\t us.
\nThe  High Court adverted to the matter but we have not\tbeen
\nshown  that  any proper or firm foundation was laid  in\t the
\nwrit  petitions\t before the High Court on  the\tquestion  of
\npreference   or\t discrimination\t within\t Art.  303(1)..\t  No
\nargument,  therefore, can be entertained on  these  matters.
\nWe are unable to see the necessity of reciting the requisite
\nopinion\t within s. 3 (1) of the Act in the  Control  Orders.
\nIt  is\timplicit in the recital in the Control\tOrders\tthat
\nthey were being made under s. 3 of the Act that the  Central
\nGovernment  had formed the requisite opinion  within  sub-s.
\n(1)  of\t that  section.\t This disposes\tof  the\t first\tfour
\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n
As regards the 5th point it is noteworthy that the permit is
\nto  be\tissued\tby the State  Government  concerned  or\t any
\nofficer authorised in this behalf by that Government.  It is
\ncommon\tground\tthat the officers authorised  by  the  State
\nGovernment  are\t the  District\tCollector  and\tthe   Deputy
\nCommissioner  of Civil Supplies.  These officers cannot but
\nbe regarded as fairly high in rank  who’  are  expected to
\ndischarge  their  duties in a responsible  In-Messrs  Dwarka
\nPrasad\tLaxmi  Narain  v. The State of\tUttar  Pradesh\t&<\/a>  2
\nOthers(1)  in which the provisions of cl. 4(3) of  the\tU.P.
\nCoal  Control Order 1953 which gave the licensing  authority
\nabsolute power to grant or refuse to grant any-licence\twere
\nstruck\tdown  on  the  ground  that  a\tlaw which  confers
\narbitrary  and uncontrolled power upon the executive in\t the
\nmatter of regulating trade or business in normally available
\ncommodities  must  be held to be  unreasonable.\t  There\t the
\npower  could  be exercised by any person to whom  the  State
\nCoal  Controller  might choose to delegate  the\t same.\t The
\nmatter\twhich has been stressed before us relates  generally
\nto  the\t absence  of any provision  relating  to  appeal  or
\nrevision in the Control Orders if the District Collector  or
\nthe Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies refuses to grant a
\npermit\tunder clause 3 of the Order.  In Dwarka\t Prasad’s(1)
\ncase  the  delegation  could be made to any  one  which\t was
\ncertainly a relevant factor in judging the reasonableness of
\nthe  impugned  provision.  But in the cases  before  us\t the
\npermit is to be granted either by the State Government or by
\nresponsible  officers of the rank of the District  Collector
\nor the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies.  Indeed,\tMrs.
\nPappu  quite  properly agreed that if the  State  Government
\nalone  had the power to issue the permits the  challenge  on
\nthe ground of unreasonableness of the restrictions-would not
\nbe available. We consider that there is no bar to any of the
\naggrieved parties approaching the State Government by  means
\nof a representation
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 803.\n<\/p>\n
877<\/span><\/p>\n
for a final decision even if the matter has been dealt\twith
\nby  the\t District Collector or the  Deputy  Commissioner  of
\nCivil  Sup-plies  in the first instance and the\t permit\t has
\nbeen  refused  or wrongly withheld by  these  officers.\t  In
\nthese circumstances the absence of a provision for appeal or
\nrevision can be of no consequence.  At any rate it has\tbeen
\npointed\t out  in more than one decision of this\t Court\tthat
\nwhen  the, power has to be exercised by one of\tthe  highest
\nofficers the fact that no appeal has been provided for is  a
\nmatter\tof  no\tmoment;\t (See K.  L.  Gupta  v.\t The  Bombay
\nMunicipal Corporation & Ors<\/a> (1).  It may also be  remembered
\nthat emphasis was laid in Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India<\/a>
\n(  2 ) on the power being vested not in any  minor  official
\nbut in top-ranking authority.  It was said that though:\t the
\npower\twas  discretionary  but\t it  was   not\t necessarily
\ndiscriminatory\tand  abuse  of power  could  not  be  easily
\nassumed.   There  was  moreover a  presumption\tthat  public
\nofficials  would  discharge  their duties  honestly  and  in
\naccordance with rules of law.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly an effort was made to agitate the point that s. 3 (2)\n<\/p>\n
(d)   of  the  Act  suffers  from  the\tvice  of   excessive
\ndelegation.   This question is no longer at large.   In\t The
\nUnion of India & Others v.    Messrs.  Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal
\n& Others<\/a>(3) the attack on s.  3\t of the\t Essential  Supplies
\n(Temporary Powers) Act 1946 which was similar in terms\tto
\ns.  3 of the Act on the ground of excessive  delegation\t was
\nrepelled.  It was held- that the Central Government had been
\ngiven  sufficient  and proper guidance\tfor  exercising\t its
\npowers in effectuating the policy of the statute.
\nIn  the\t result the writ petition and the appeals  fail\t and
\nthey are dismissed with costs.\tOne set of hearing-fee.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed\n(1) [1968] 1 S.C.R. 274 at p. 297.\n (2) (1957) S.C.R. 233 at p. 257\n(3)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 627.\n878<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 474, 1971 SCR (2) 871 Author: A Grover Bench: Shah, J.C., Mitter, G.K., Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N., Ray, A.N. PETITIONER: CHINTA LINGAM & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/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-145693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - 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\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-12T05:51:21+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T05:51:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\"},\"wordCount\":2064,\"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\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\",\"name\":\"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-12T05:51:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - 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\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-12T05:51:21+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970","datePublished":"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T05:51:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970"},"wordCount":2064,"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\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970","name":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-12T05:51:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-lingam-ors-vs-government-of-india-ors-on-30-november-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970"}]},{"@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\/145693","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=145693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}