{"id":146644,"date":"1996-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-27T15:52:00","modified_gmt":"2016-06-27T10:22:00","slug":"shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7), 247\t 1996 SCALE (5)856<\/div>\n
Author: G Pattanaik<\/div>\n
Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRI NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t09\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nBENCH:\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (7)   247\t  1996 SCALE  (5)856\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nPATTANAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     Though this appeal is directed against the order of the
\nAdministrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, wherein the
\nlegality of  the Government order transferring the appellant
\nfrom  one   place  to\tthe  other  within  Bombay  and\t the
\nconsequential direction\t to  vacate  the  quarter  is  under
\nchallenge, on  going through  the materials  on record\tthis
\nCourt on  being satisfied  that a  straight  forward  police
\nofficer was  being harassed  by his superior officers at the
\nbehest of the proprietor of a hotel and bar issued notice to
\nthe Senior  Inspectors Shri  Tike and  Shri Raghuvanshi,  as
\nwell as\t to  the  Deputy  Commissioner\tof  Police  Shri  K,
\nRamachandran to\t file their show cause as to why appropriate
\nstrictures should  not be  made against\t them. The Court had
\nalso issued  notice to\tthe State of Maharashtra to indicate
\nwhy government\taction of imposing penalty and punishment on
\nthe appellant should not be considered to be illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant’s  case in  nutshell is  that  as  Police
\nInspector he  was attached  to Kurla  Police Station in 1976
\nand had been allotted a quarter in Kurla West in Block No. 2
\nin the\tyear 1979. Between 1979 to 1990 though the appellant
\nhad been  transferred  to  various  Police  Stations  within
\nBombay but  his residential  quarter remained  the  same  in
\naccordance with\t the  government  policy  for  allotment  of
\nquarters. In  1990 he  was  posted  at\tNehru  Nagar  Police
\nStation, Kurla\tEast and  near the Police Station lies Hotel
\nNaina, The  said hotel\tand its\t proprietor Shri Arun Shetty
\nwas indulging  in several illegal acts in flagrant violation
\nof the\trules. Having  high connections\t with senior Police.
\nOfficers no  action was being taken against the hotel. While
\nthe  appellant\t was  discharging  his\tofficial  duties  as
\nInspector of  Police Nehru  Nagar Police  Station, Kurla, he
\nreceived certain complaints against the hotel and raided the
\nhotel premises\tand had also recommended for cancellation of
\nthe licence of the said hotel. The Manager of the Hotel then
\nlodged a  complaint against  the  appellant  making  several
\nfalse allegations and on the basis of the said complaint the
\nappellant was  fined, which  of course,\t ultimately was\t set
\naside by  the Maharashtra Government on an application being
\nfiled by  the  appellant.  To  prevent\tthe  appellant\tfrom
\ndischarging his\t official duties  an order was passed by the
\nSenior Inspector  of Police  Shri Tike\tthat  the  hotel  in
\nquestion will be checked only by the officers above the rank
\nof Police  Inspector. Shri  Arun Shetty,  the Manager of the
\nhotel again  made a  complaint against the appellant in July
\n1993  which   complaint\t was  referred\tto  Lokayukta.\tSaid
\nLokayukta conducted  an ex-parte enquiry and after recording
\nthe statements\tof the\tsenior Inspector  of Police  and the
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t of  Police  who  were\tagainst\t the
\nappellant, a  report was  given by Lokayukta on the basis of
\nwhich the  appellant was transferred from Kurla to Bhoyawala
\nPolice Station.\t The appellant\tsubmitted his representation
\nagainst the aforesaid transfer but was of no consequence. On
\n28.12.1993 the\tAssistant Commissioner\tof Police  asked the
\nappellant to vacate his quarter by 31.12.1993. The appellant
\napprehending  dispossession   from  the\t  quarter  filed  an
\napplication   before\tCentral\t  Administrative    Tribunal
\nchallenging the\t order on  the ground  of  mala\t fides.\t The
\nTribunal by the impugned order dated 24.3.1994 dismissed the
\nsame and thus this Appeal by Special Leave.\n<\/p>\n
     In the meantime, the appellant had filed an application
\nagainst the  order of  the Assistant  Commissioner of Police
\nimposing a  fine of Rs.100\/- and that appeal was disposed of
\nby the\tState Government  by order  dated 23.6.1994.  In the
\naforesaid  order   the\tAppellate   Authority  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that\t there is  substance in the points raised by
\nthe applicant  that the\t charge put  up against\t him is with
\nbiased and  prejudiced mind  and in  this  matter  the\tthen
\nSenior Inspector  of Police, Nehru Nagar Police Station Shri
\nTike had  played an  active role  for supporting  the  hotel
\nowner. The Appellate Authority further held in the aforesaid
\norder that  though Shri\t Tike was  having note\tof  previous
\nrecord of  the hotel  that Nehru  Nagar Police\tStation\t had
\ntaken action against hotel for 55 times and vigilance branch
\nhad also  raided the hotel on 27.4.1991 for illegal business
\nstill he  shielded the person who has no regards for law and
\nsubmitted a  false report  against the officer who had taken
\naction. This  order of\tthe Appellate  Authority was  passed
\nsubsequent to  the impugned  order  of\tthe  Tribunal  dated
\n24.3.1994.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  the  notice  issued  by  this\t Court\tShri
\nVijaysinh  Balaramsinh\tRaghuvanshi  filed  his\t show  cause
\nstating therein that after the transfer of Shri Tike he took
\nover as\t Senior Inspector  of  Police,\tNehru  Nagar  Police
\nStation. He  was the  Senior Inspector of Nehru Nagar Police
\nStation from 1.3.1999 to 30.8.1994 and during this period as
\nmany as\t 13 cases  had been  filed against  the Naina  Hotel
\nowner. It  was further\tstated that he had not submitted any
\nreport to  Hon’ble Lokayukta as alleged by the appellant and
\nin fact\t one Shri  Bobde  had  submitted  a  report  on\t the
\ncomplaint  lodged   by\tShri   Arun  Shetty   and  Lokayukta
\nrecommended  to\t  the  Police\tCommissioner  to  shift\t the
\nappellant from\tthe premises  to control  and  minimise\t the
\nconflict between  the hotel owner and the appellant. He also
\ndenied the  allegations of the mala fides and any conspiracy
\nbetween him and the hotel owner.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Laxmikant  Parvati Tike  in  his  show  cause\t had
\nstated that he had also taken action against the hotel owner
\nfor keeping the hotel open beyond the stipulated time but on
\n27.10.1991 one\tKJA Padmanabh  made a  complaint against the
\nappellant  for\t his  misbehaviour   and  ill-treatment\t  in
\nconnection with\t arrest and  detention of  Shri Daulat,\t the
\nHotel Manager,\tfor keeping  hotel open beyond 0.30 hours on
\n26.10.1991.  The  aforesaid  complaint\twas  accompanied  by
\nmedical reports\t of Municipal  Hospital\t stating  that\tsaid
\nDaulat had  suffered mentel  harassment\t and  nervous  break
\ndown. It  was also alleged in the complaint that the Manager
\nwas not\t released on  bail by  the officer concerned i.e the
\nappellant despite  the fact  they were\tprepared to  deposit
\nbail amount for offence of keeping open Hotel beyond certain
\ntime.  The   Senior  Inspector,\t  therefore,  recorded\t the
\nstatement of  all concerned  and submitted his report to his
\nsuperiors and  he felt\tthat the  appellant had exceeded his
\nfunction and  authority beyond\trequired limits. It was also
\nstated by Shri Tike in his affidavit that out of the medical
\nreport one  could see the seriousness of the treatment meted
\nout to\tthe accused.  Shri Tike\t also denied  the allegation
\nagainst him  for shielding  the hotel  Manager and indicated
\nthe action  taken by  him against  the Manager\tfrom time to
\ntime. He  also denied  the allegation that Shri Arun Shetty,
\nthe owner  of the  Hotel Naina,\t was very friendly with him.
\nShri Bobde, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (security) has
\nfiled his  affidavit stating therein that he was incharge of
\nZone V\tfrom 5th  June 1993  to October\t 10, 1993 and during
\nthat period  the complaint lodged by Arun Shetty against the
\nappellant was  pending before  the  Hon’ble  Lokayukta.\t The
\nCommissioner of\t Police discussed  the\tcase  with  him\t and
\nassigned the  case to  him to attend the court behalf of the
\nCommissioner. The  report which\t he  had  given\t before\t the
\nLokayukta merely stated facts and he had not recommended any
\naction against\tthe appellant. On the contrary, he had given
\na report  which was  in favour of the appellant Shri Mehedi.
\nSo far\tas shifting  of the  appellant from  his quarter  at
\nKurla to  a quarter  at Central\t Bombay is  concerned,\tShri
\nBobde stated  that to  avoid any dispute between Shri Mehedi
\nand  the   hotel  owner\t and  since  Shri  Mehedi  had\tbeen
\ntransferred from  Kurla, he  had suggested  that Shri Mehedi
\nshould leave  the quarter  at Kurla.  In fact  the report of
\nsaid  Shri   Bobde  dated   28.8.93  to\t Hon’ble  Lokayukta,
\nMaharashtra, which  has been  annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to his
\nshow cause clearly indicates that he supported the action of
\nShri Mehedi  and further  indicated that the hotel owner was
\nin the\thabit of  making  applications\tagainst\t the  Police
\nOfficer\t with  whom  he\t was  having  grudges.\tIt  will  be
\nappropriate at\tthis stage  to extract\ta portion  from\t the
\naforesaid report of Shri Bobde:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  seen from\tthe  application
\n     made by  the applicant from time to
\n     time that\tthe hotel was charged in
\n     all 55  times, out\t of which only 9
\n     times were\t charged by  the  P.S.I.
\n     Mehandi and  the rest 46 times were
\n     charged by\t other officers of Nehru
\n     Nagar Police  Station. Hence  there
\n     is no  need for  the  applicant  to
\n     have grudge against P.S.I Mehedi.
\n\t  It appears  that the applicant
\n     is in  habit of making applications
\n     against  the  Police  Officer  with
\n     whom he is having grudges.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  thus clear\tthat Shri  Bobde at no point of time
\nhad even  suggested any\t action against Shri Mehandi and the
\napprehension of\t Shri Mehandi  is wholly misconceived so far
\nas Shri Bobde is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri  K.  Ramachandran,  the  Deputy  Commissioner\t CID
\n(Intelligence) who  was Deputy\tCommissioner of\t time in his
\naffidavit denied  allegations made  by the appellant in this
\nCourt. He  further indicated  that on  the recommendation of
\nMr. Tike, the then Senior Police Inspector,he had sanctioned
\n5 rewards  to the  appellant from  30th August,\t 1991 to 9th
\nSeptember, 1991.  He had  also stated  in his affidavit that
\nrecord of the appellant revealed that he had been punished 6
\ntimes and  was reprimanded  once for  disobeying the  senior
\nofficers and  now he  is posing\t to be\ta  crusader  against
\nillegality. It was also stated that the enquiry conducted by
\nShri Tike  clearly revealed  the ill-treatment\tgiven by the
\nappellant to Mr. Daulat and Mr. Padmanabha which lead him to
\nbelieve that  the  appellant  had  really  ill-treated\tShri
\nDaulat and Shri Padmanabha and therefore, he issued a notice
\nto the\tappellant to  show cause  why  fine  should  not  be
\nimposed upon him and after considering the appellant’s reply
\nand finding  the same  to be unsatisfactory and relying upon
\nMr. Tike’s  report he awarded the punishment in question. So
\nfar as the episode culminating in the report of Lokayukta is
\nconcerned, Shri\t Ramachandran stated that he was no where in
\nthe picture  as he  left Zone V on 5th December 1992 and the
\ncomplaint of  the hotel\t owner to the Lokayukta, was made on
\n21.3.1993. According  to him  there was no reason either for
\nhim or\tfor Mr.\t Tike to  shield the hotel and was forced to
\nleave his  quarter. The transfer of the appellant from Kurla
\nis nothing  but a  mala fide  action  on  the  part  of\t the
\nAppellate Authority  and the  direction by  the Authority to
\nthe appellant  to vacate his quarter at Kurla is the outcome
\nof such\t malice and the Tribunal, therefore, committed gross
\nerror in  dismissing the  application. The  learned  counsel
\nalso urged  that the  findings of  the Appellate  Authority,
\nnamely, the  State Government  while allowing the appeal and
\nsetting\t aside\t the  order   of  punishment   unequivocally
\nvindicates the\tstand of  the appellant\t and in no uncertain
\nterm it\t has  been  found  that\t the  senior  officers\thave
\nshielded the  illegal acts  of\tthe  hotel  owner  and\thave
\nimposed the  punishment on the appellant with a biased mind.
\nIn the\tcircumstances the  learned counsel  urged  that\t the
\nCourt should issue strictures against those police officers.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri KTS  Tulsi, learned  Additional Solicitor  General
\nappearing for  the State  of Maharashtra,  on the other hand
\nsubmitted, that\t the records would reveal that the appellant
\nhad been  obsessed with the feeling that every senior police
\nofficer has  been trying  to protect  the hotel owner and in
\nthe process  the appellant  has been  harassed. According to
\nMr.  Tulsi   when  many\t  police  officers  like  Shri\tTike
\nrecommended in favour of the appellant on the basis of which
\nthe  appellant\twas  given  5  awards  it  is  difficult  to
\ncomprehend that\t the senior  police officer  had any  animus
\nagainst the  appellant. The  learned Additional Solicitor or
\nGeneral however,  fairly stated that any direction the Court
\nthinks fit  and proper\tin the circumstances of the case can
\nbe given  in the  matter of  allotment of  quarter  and\t the
\ngovernment would  try to accommodate the appellant as far as
\npossible.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Agrawala,  learned counsel  appearing for Mr. Tike
\nand Shri  Ramachandran, on  the other  hand, argued that the
\nentire allegations made by the appellant against his clients
\nare out-come  of an  abnormal mind  and according to him the
\nappellant thinks himself to be the only honest officer while
\nrest of\t the world  around him\tare either  corrupt  or\t are
\ntrying to  shield the  hotel owner  and in  the process\t the
\nappellant has  been harassed. Shri Agrawala, learned counsel
\ntook us\t through affidavits filed both by Shri Tike and Shri
\nRamachandran and  urged that  the material  on\trecord\tonly
\nreveals an  honest assessment of situation and, therefore, a
\nsenior officer\tShri Tike  thought that it was not proper on
\nthe part of the appellant to misbehave or illtreat the hotel
\nManager while  in Police lock-up, According to Shri Agrawala
\nneither this  conclusion is  said to be mala fide nor can it
\nbe said\t that  senior  officer\tshielded  the  hotel  owner.
\nAccording to Shri Agrawala the appellant is taking advantage
\nof the\tfindings of  the Appellate  Authority but  the\tsaid
\nfindings  were\tnot  known  to\teither\tShri  Tike  or\tShri
\nRamachandran and,  therefore, no  steps have  been taken  by
\nthem in\t this regard.  The learned counsel urged that in the
\nfacts and  circumstances of the case no strictures from this
\nCourt is  called for  as against  the  two  police  officers
\nparticularly when  they themselves  have  booked  the  hotel
\nowner  on   several  occasions\tas  indicated  in  different
\nannexures and affidavits.\n<\/p>\n
     After considering the rival submissions and after going
\nthrough the  affidavits of different police officers as well
\nas all\tother connected and relevant documents on record, we
\nhave  no  doubt\t in  our  mind\tthat  Shri  Bobde  and\tShri
\nRaghuvanshi have  not acted either against the appellant nor
\nhave done  anything  which  could  give\t any  impression  of
\nshielding the  owner of the hotel Naina. At the same time we
\nhave no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Shri Tike,
\nthe senior  inspector of  police has  keen  instrumental  in
\nmaking false  and frivolous  report  against  the  appellant
\nwhich  ultimately   became  the\t  basis\t for  initiation  of
\ndepartmental proceeding\t wherein appellant  was punished. It
\nis of  course true that in the meantime the State Government
\nhad set aside the orders of all the departmental authorities
\nand the\t punishment  awarded  against  the  appellant.\tShri
\nRamachandran though  is not  directly involved in any way in
\npursuing the appellant but he has tried to support Shri Tike
\nwhich has  emboldened the senior inspector Shri Tike to make
\nfalse and  frivolous report  against the appellant. The mere
\nfact that  Shri Tike  had also challenged the hotel owner on
\nearlier\t occasions,   cannot  be  a  ground  to\t come  to  a
\nconclusion that\t he had\t not supported\tthe hotel  owner  as
\nagainst the  appellant. Similarly  merely  because  of\tShri
\nTike’s recommendation  appellant has  been rewarded  on some
\noccasions, it  cannot be said that in the instant case there
\nwas no reason for Shri Tike to go against the appellant. The
\nentire episode\temanated from the action of the appellant on
\n27.10.91 at 1.15 hrs. when it was found that hotel Naina was
\nstill open  contrary to\t the rules.  A\tcustomer  was  found
\ndrinking in  the hotel and, therefore, the appellant brought
\nthe Manager Shri Daulat to tho Police Station and the action
\ntaken by Shri Mehedi – appellant against the hotel owner for
\nkeeping the  hotel open beyond the prescribed time is wholly
\njustified as  has been found not only by Shri Bobde and Shri
\nRaghuvanshi but\t also by  Shri Tike  himself in\t his  report
\ndated 21.11.1991.  But unfortunately Shri Tike in his report
\ndated 21.11.1991 also stated that the treatment given to the
\nManager at  the Police Station was disgraceful to the police
\ndepartment and\tAccording to  him Shri Mehedi needs to amend
\nhis conduct  with public.  The aforesaid  conclusion of Shri
\nTike is\t supposed to  have been\t based upon  the  statements
\nrecorded by  him of different police officers on receiving a
\ncomplaint from\tthe  hotel  Manager  Shri  Daulat.  We\thave
\ncarefully considered  the statements  recorded\tand  to\t our
\nutter surprise\twe could  not find  a word  in any  of those
\nstatements which  could even  remotely support\tthe ultimate
\nconclusion of  Shri Tike  that tehri  Mehedi at any point of
\ntime had  misbehaved with  Shri Daulat,\t the Manager  of the
\nHotel at  the Police  Station. On  the other  hand,  records
\nclearly indicate  that Shri  Mehedi after bringing the hotel
\nManager Shri Daulat to the Police Station and putting him in
\nlack up\t left the Police Station immediately. Shri Tike also
\nin his report indicated that hotel Manager Shri Daulat is an
\neducated person\t and hails  from a  respectable family\tand,
\ntherefore, the treatment given to him by PSI Shri Mehedi was
\nhorrible. Inspite of our best efforts to find any supporting
\nmaterials on  the basis\t of which  a man  could come  to the
\nconclusion we  are unable to find any such material. Even in
\nthe show  cause filed by filed by Shri Tike in this Court he
\nhas not\t indicated what were the materials, available to him
\non the\tbasis of  which he  could  reasonably  come  to\t the
\naforesaid conclusion.  The so-called  complaint made  by the
\nhotel owner  Shri Shetty  is also  a false one in as much as
\nthe statements\trecorded by  Shri  Tike\t in  the  course  of
\nenquiry reveal\tthat Shri Daulat was called on to go on bail
\nby furnishing  the necessary  bail bond but he refused to go
\nwith the  sole object  of harassing  the appellant  who\t had
\nbrought him  from the  hotel and  put him in the lock up. It
\nmay be\tnoticed that  when Shri\t Daulat\t had  been  produced
\nbefore the  Magistrate no  complaint had been made by him of
\nany  ill-treatment.   Yet  on\tthe  basis  of\tthe  medical
\ncertificate furnished  to  Shri\t Daulat\t by  the  doctor  on
\n3.11.91 was  relied upon by Shri tike to hold that appellant
\nmisbehaved  with   Shri\t Daulat.   The\taforesaid  materials
\nunhesitatingly indicate\t that Shri  Daulat while  inside the
\npolice\tlock  up  during  the  night  of  27th\tOctober,1991
\nconceived  the\tidea  of  harassing  a\tsincere\t and  honest
\nofficer, like  the appellant and Shri Tike the Senior police
\nInspector in  promoting the  said object of the\t hotel owner
\nsubmitted a  false and\tfrivolous report about the so called
\nill treatment  of Shri\tDaulat at  the Police Station by the
\nappellant which\t not only  ultimately became  the source  of
\ngreat mental  agony and harassment to the appellant but also
\nwas responsible\t for shifting  of  the\tappellant  from\t the
\nPolice Station and ultimately dispossession from his quarter
\nat Kurla  and  the  entire  family  including  school  going
\nchildren suffered  miserably.  When  a\tsincere\t and  honest
\npolice officer\tis harassed by the senior officers like Shri
\nTike at\t the behest  of a  wealthy hotel owner, one can well
\nimagine the  mental  torture  and  agony  of  the  concerned
\nofficer. That  Shri Tike  wanted to  shield  the  restaurant
\nowner is  apparent from\t the order passed by him on 28.10.91
\nprohibiting the\t Inspector of Police like the appellant from
\nchecking the  restaurant  and  only  permitting\t the  Senior
\nInspector of  Police to\t check the  restaurant even  if\t the
\nhotel contravened  the provisions  of law  and\tindulged  in
\nnefarious  activities.\t No  justifiable   reason  has\tbeen
\nadvanced for  passing such order, and to us it appears, that
\nit was\tpurposely  passed  to  prevent\tthe  appellant\tfrom
\ndischarging his\t lawful duties in the matter of checking the
\nhotel. Shri  Ramachandran who  was the Senior Police Officer
\ndid not\t check the  correctness of  the report\tsubmitted by
\nShri Tike  and on  the other  hand blindly accepted the same
\nand  pursued   the  appellant\tby  initiating\tdepartmental
\nproceedings. The  materials on\trecord pursuade us to accept
\nthe contentions\t of the\t learned counsel  appearing for\t the
\nappellant that Shri Ramachandran, the Deputy Commissioner of
\nPolice joined  hands with  Shri Tike  and  supported  action
\ntaken by  Shri Tike  against the  appellant which ultimately
\nresulted in  serious harassment\t to the appellant. We really
\nfail to\t understand how\t a senior  police officer  like Shri
\nRamachandran could  accept the\treport of  Shri Tike without
\nverifying the  correctness of  the facts  mentioned therein.
\nEven the  Appellate Authority,\tnamely, the State Government
\nhas found  while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant
\nagainst the order of punishment –\n<\/p>\n
     “the then\tSenior\tInspector  of  Police,\tNehru  Nagar
\nPolice Station,\t Shri Tike  has played\tan active  role\t for
\nsupporting the\thotel owner  and has shielded the person who
\nhas no\tregard for  law and submitted a false report against
\nthe officer  (present appellant)  who has  taken  the  legal
\naction.”\n<\/p>\n
     In the  facts and\tcircumstances of the present case we
\nare not\t in a  position to sustain the arguments advanced by
\nShri KTS  Tulsi, learned  Additional Solicitor\tGeneral that
\nthe conduct of the appellant exhibits a state of mind of the
\nappellant himself that he is the only honest officer and all
\nother officers\taround him  are either\tout to\tharassing or
\nsupporting and shielding the illegal activities of the hotel
\nowner. On  going through  the entire  materials on record we
\nhave no\t doubt in  our mind  that Shri\tTike has pursued the
\nappellant a  Junior officer and by submitting a false report
\non nonexistent\tmaterial has caused enough harassment to the
\nappellant. The\tconduct of  the Senior Police Inspector Shri
\nTike is\t highly reprehensible  and we cannot but condemn the
\nsame particularly when we find that the appellant was trying
\nto enforce  the law but Shri Tike has tried to malign him of
\nmisbehaviour with the Manager of the hotel inside the police
\nlock up\t which obviously must have been at the behest of the
\nhotel owner  Shri Shetty and\/or the Manager Shri Daulat. The
\nconduct of  the Deputy\tCommissioner Shri  Ramachandran also
\ncannot but  be depreciated in view of his approach to shield
\nand support  the report\t of Shri  Tike without examining the
\nrelevant   material    and   initiating\t  the\tdepartmental
\nproceeding.  A\tdepartmental  proceeding  for  a  government
\nservant brings\tuntold misery,and  in the  case in  hand not
\nonly the  servant concerned was fined and thereby humiliated
\nin the\teyes of\t his colleagues, friends and relations which
\nhe could  vindicate only  when the  Government set aside the
\nsame  in   appeal.  It\t is  not   expected  from  a  Deputy
\nCommissioner of\t Police like  Shri Ramachandran\t to  blindly
\naccept the  report of  Shri Tike  without even examining the
\nstatements recorded  by Shri  Tike in  course of enquiry and
\nhad he\texamined the same, we have no doubt in our wind that
\nhe would not have relied upon the false and frivolous report
\nsubmitted by  Shri Tike.  In  the  circumstances  though  we
\nexonerate Shri Bobde and Shri Raghuvanshi but we condemn the
\nrole of Shri Tike and Shri Ramachandran for having illegally
\npursued an  honest police officer to protect the interest of
\na wealthy  hotelier. Our  condemnation of  these two  police
\nofficers should\t be entered  in their  respective Character-
\nrolls which  will  be  a  message  to  other  errant  police
\nofficers  in   the  organization   who\twould\tamend  their
\nbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n
     Notwithstanding\tour    aforesaid    direction\t and
\nobservations,  so   far\t as   the  role\t of  Shri  Tike\t and
\nRamachandran is\t concerned is concerned, we are not inclined
\nto interfere  with the\timpugned order of the Administrative
\nTribunal since\tthe order  of transfer of the appellant from
\nKurla was  in 1993  and 3 years have passed in the meantime.
\nBesides the  transfer in  question is within the Bombay city
\nitself\tand  not  to  any  other  place\t in  the,  State  of
\nMaharashtra. While we decline to interfere with the order of
\ntransfer of the appellant, we would recommend the Government
\nof Maharashtra\tto provide  a  residential  quarter  to\t the
\nappellant near\tthe place  of his  posting so  that  he\t can
\ndischarge his  duties as  a police  officer  faithfully\t and
\nsincerely and  his family  members will\t not be\t put to\t any
\nfurther\t harassment.  We  are  not  inclined  to  issue\t any
\ndirection to  the State\t to allow the appellant to re-occupy
\nthe quarter  at Kurla  since some  other police\t officer now
\nposted at Kurla will be occupying the same and it will cause
\na serious dislocation.\n<\/p>\n
     With these\t observations and  directions the  appeal is
\ndisposed of  and the  Registry is directed to send a copy of
\nthe order  to the  Chief  Secretary  to\t the  Government  of
\nMaharashtra  and   Commissioner\t of   Police,\tBombay\t for
\nappropriate action at their end.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7), 247 1996 SCALE (5)856 Author: G Pattanaik Bench: G.B. Pattanaik (J) PETITIONER: SHRI NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/08\/1996 BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK […]<\/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-146644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - 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\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4100,\"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\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\",\"name\":\"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - 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\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996"},"wordCount":4100,"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\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996","name":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T10:22:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-najamal-hussain-mehadi-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-9-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Najamal Hussain Mehadi vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 1996"}]},{"@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\/146644","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=146644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}