{"id":156351,"date":"1967-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967"},"modified":"2018-06-09T01:07:47","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T19:37:47","slug":"village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","title":{"rendered":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 183, \t\t 1968 SCR (1) 213<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nVILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF KANHAN PIPRI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTANDING COMMITTEE, ZILA PARISHAD, NAGPUR, AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/08\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSHELAT, J.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1968 AIR  183\t\t  1968 SCR  (1) 213\n\n\nACT:\nBombay Village Panchayat Act 1958 (Bombay Act 3 of 1958), s.\n124(5)--Maharashtra  Panchayats Taxes and Fees\tRules  1960,\nrr.  3, 4, 5, 21, 22--Levy of octrai by Panchayat  under  r.\n22--Procedure under rr. 3 & 4 followed--Collection of octroi\ncommenced  without Prior approval of octroi limits under  r.\n21  by Collector--such collection whether  valid--subsequent\napproval  by  collector whether\t validates  collection\tmade\nearlier--Appeal under r. 124(5)--Limitation Rule 5 providing\nfor  appeal against levy of octroi within 60 days of  notice\nunder r. 4--Scope and validity of r. 5.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant Panchayat levied octroi duty on goods  coming\nwithin\tits limits by following the procedure laid  down  in\nrr. 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes\t and\nFees  Rules 1960.  Although the resolution  finally  levying\noctroi was passed on February 25, 1963 and the octroi limits\nwere  fixed by resolution dated March 17, 1963 the  approval\nof  the Collector to the octroi limits as required by r.  21\nwas not obtained till January 14, 1964.\t When the  Panchayat\nbegan  collecting  octroi on April 1,  1963  the  respondent\ncompany\t appealed  under  s. 124(5) of\tthe  Bombay  Village\nPanchayat Act, 1958 to the Panchayat Samita.  The appeal was\nrejected as it was considered time-barred under r. 5 of\t the\nTaxes & Fees Rules which required an appeal under s.  124(5)\nof the Act to be filed within 60 days of the publication  of\nthe  notice  under  r. 4. On  further  appeal  the  Standing\nCommittee,  Zila Parishad, Nagpur decided in favour  of\t the\nrespondent company on the ground that the Panchayat had\t not\ncomplied  with r. 21.  The Panchayat filed a  writ  petition\nunder  Art. 226 of the Constitution.  The High Court  upheld\nthe  findIng of the Standing Committee as to the  effect  of\nnon-compliance with r. 21.  It however further held that  r.\n5 in requiring all appeals under a. 124(5) of the Act to  be\nfiled within 60 days of the publication of the notice  under\ns.  4 was arbitrary and destructive of the right  of  appeal\nand  therefore ultra vires.  The Panchayat appealed to\tthis\nCourt.\nHeld:\t  (i) Octroi can be validly levied under r. 22 after\nfollowing  the\tprocedure in rr. 3 and 4 Rule 3\t deals\tonly\nwith (i) selection of the tax and (ii) the rate at which  it\nis to be levied.  Rule 4 deals with final publication of the\nnotice levying octroi.\tThe levy of octroi under r. 22\tread\nwith  rr.  3 and 4 does not require prior  approval  to\t the\noctroi\tlimits by the Collector under r. 21. [219D-H;  220A-\nC].\n(ii) However the octroi cannnot be validly collected  before\nthe octroi limits are approved by the Collector under r. 21.\nCollections made earlier cannot be regularised by subsequent\napproval.   The\t plea on behalf of the\tappellant  that\t the\napproval of the Collector on January 14, 1964 should  relate\nback to April 1, 1963 could not be accepted. [220 D-E].\n(iii)\t  Rule 5 is not invalid as it does not apply to\t all\nappeals under, s. 124(5).  The rule follows rr. 3 and 4\t and\nis  headed \"appeal against levy of any tax or fee,\" and\t the\nperiod\tof sixty days of limitation commences from the\tdate\nof the publication of the notice\n214\nunder  r.  4  i.e. the notice following the  decision  of  a\nPanchayat to levy any tax or fee.  This date shows that r. 5\nis dealing only with appeals against levy of any tax and not\nwith  the assessment or imposition of a tax or\tany  further\nappeals\t to  the Panchayat Samiti under s. 124(5).   In\t its\ncontext and setting the heading of r. 5 brings out the scope\nof the rule, [220 F-H].\nAccordingly  the  appeal of the company to  the\t Samiti\t was\nwrongly\t dismissed  as time-barred.  It followed  from\tthis\nthat  the Standing Committee was entitled to deal  with\t the\nappeal on merits. [220 H].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1375 of 1966.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated October 22, 1965 of
\nthe   Bombay  High  Court  Nagpur  Bench  in  Special  Civil
\nApplication No. 355 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
M.   N. Phadke and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
\nB.   R. Agarwala and S. B. Nerkar, for respondent No. 1.
\nA.   K.\t Sen, A. S. Bobde, G. L. Sanghi, and O.\t C.  Mathur,
\nfor respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
M.  S.\tK.  Sastri, R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayar\t for  R.  H.
\nDhebar, for respondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri,\tJ This appeal by certificate of fitness\t granted  by
\nthe  High  Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur  Bench)  is
\ndirected  against the judgment of that Court dismissing\t the
\npetition  filed\t under art. 226 of the Constitution  by\t the
\nVillage Panchayat of Kanhan Pipri, appellant before us.\t The
\nappellant  had\tin this petition prayed for the issue  of  a
\nwrit quashing the resolution dated April 6, 1964, passed  by
\nthe  Standing  Committee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur, and  for  a
\nwrit  of  mandamus directing the Standing Committee  not  to
\ninterfere  with\t the right of the appellant  to\t impose\t and
\ncollect\t the  octroi duty pursuant to its  resolution  dated
\nFebruary 25, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
In  order  to appreciate the points raised before us  it  is
\nnecessary   to\tgive  the  relevant  facts   and   statutory
\nprovisions.    The  Village  Panchayat\tof   Kanhan   Pipri,
\nhereinafter  referred  to as the Panchayat,  was  originally
\nconstituted under the C.P. & Berar Panchayat Act, 1946 (C.P.
\n&  Berar  Act No. 1 of 1947).  On June 1, 1959,\t the  Bombay
\nVillage\t Panchayat  Act,  1958\t(Bombay\t Act  III  of  1959)
\nhereinafter  referred  to  as the Act came  into  effect  in
\nVidharba region, and by virtue of this Act the appellant was
\ndeemed to be a Panchayat under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
On July 14, 1961, the Panchayat passed resolution No. 2 with
\na view to levy octroi duty.  The resolution, after  reciting
\nthe need
\n215<\/span>
\nfor   levying  octroi  duty  and  the\trelevant   statutory
\nprovisions, concludes:\n<\/p>\n
“……..  it passes the resolution to levy  minimum  octroi
\ntax  on the goods coming within its local limits as per\t the
\nSchedule No. 1 of the Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
On  November  17, 1962, resolution No. 5  was  passed  which
\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “5.  The\tmeeting considered the\tquestion  of
\n\t      imposition  of  octroi  duty.   It  has\tbeen
\n\t      unanimously   resolved  that  by\t virtue\t  of
\n\t      Grampanchayat Resolution No. 2, dated 14-7-61,
\n\t      that octroi duty shall be imposed on the goods
\n\t      coming  into its local limits,  the  committee
\n\t      accepts  the  same.   The\t matter\t of  levying
\n\t      octroi duty shall be undertaken in  accordance
\n\t      with the Panchayat Act and its rules.   There-
\n\t      fore  matter  of\tOctroi\tRules,\tcalling\t for
\n\t      objections for the tax and taking of decisions
\n\t      thereon after the consideration, number of the
\n\t      octroi  posts  and place etc.  should  be\t got
\n\t      decided  by the appropriate  authority.\tThis
\n\t      matter  may be taken into hand very  urgently.
\n\t      It is so decided, by the majority.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  January  26, 1963, a public notice was issued  under  r.
\n3(b)  of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Taxes  and\tFees
\nRules,\t1960 hereinafter referred to as the Fees Rules.\t  On
\nFebruary  19,  1963, M\/s Brooke Bond of\t India\t(Pr.)  Ltd.-
\nhereinafter referred to as the Company-respondent before us,
\npreferred objections against the proposed levy of octroi. On
\nFebruary 25, 1963, resolution No.3 was passed. After setting
\nout  the  previous resolutions and the\tpublication  of\t the
\nnotice by beat of drum, and the various objections received,
\nit concludes:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Having considered all these above  objections
\n\t      and    suggestions   and\t having\t  given\t   a
\n\t      satisfactory  explanation for the\t same,\tthis
\n\t      Committee unanimously resolves that as per the
\n\t      above  resolution octroi should be  levied  on
\n\t      all  the goods coming into the limits  of\t the
\n\t      Panchayat,as  per schedule I item\t 1,and\tlevy
\n\t      the  minimum  octroi  as\tper  the  rules\t  in
\n\t      Schedule I item 2. This levy should come into\tfo
\nrce
\n\t      from  1-4-1963  and its final  publication  be
\n\t      done  on 1-3-1963 as per rules and  by  public
\n\t      notice  and by announcement by beat  of  drums
\n\t      (through loudspeakers.)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On March 17, 1963, resolution No. 3 was passed fixing octroi
\nlimits\tand  number of octroi nakas and\t their\tplaces.\t  On
\nMarch  18,  1963,  the Panchayat  wrote\t to  the  Collector,
\nNagpur, seeking his approval to the octroi limits, number of
\noctroi nakas and their places.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that the Panchayat started collecting octroi from
\nApril 1, 1963.\tOn May 29, 1963, the Company filed an appeal
\n216<\/span>
\nunder  s.  124(5) of the Act before  the  Panchayat  Samiti,
\nParseoni.   The\t Panchayat  Samiti,  however,  rejected\t the
\nappeal\tby  its resolution dated September  4,\t1963.\tThis
\ndecision  was  communicated to the Company by  letter  dated
\nSeptember  19,\t1963,  stating that  the  appeal  “has\tbeen
\nrejected  by  the  Samiti as per its  resolution  dated\t 4th
\nSeptember,  1963,  because  the same was  not  filed  within
\nlimitation as per the provisions of Bombay Village Panchayat
\nAct and Rule 5 of Taxes and Fees Rules of 1960.”
\nThe  Company thereupon filed an appeal before  the  Standing
\nCommittee, Zila Parishad, Nagpur-hereinafter, referred to as
\nthe  Standing  Committee-on  October 22,  1963.\t  While\t the
\nappeal\twas  pending, the Tehsildar Ramtek  on\tJanuary\t 14,
\n1964, approved the octroi limits and the number and location
\nof octroi nakas within the limits of the jurisdiction of the
\nPanchayat under r. 21 of the Fees Rules.  On April 6,  1964,
\nthe Standing Committee allowed the appeal of the Company  on
\ntwo grounds; first, that it was necessary for the  Panchayat
\nto  have  the octroi limits fixed with the approval  of\t the
\nCollector  before levying octroi under r. 21; and  secondly,
\nthat the Company was not importing tea within the limits  of
\nthe Panchayat for consumption, use or sale.  Thereupon,\t the
\nPanchayat,  as\talready stated, filed an  application  under
\nart. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.
\nThe  High  Court held that the Panchayat  Samiti  could\t not
\ndismiss\t the  appeal  of  the Company  as  being  barred  by
\nlimitation  because r. 5 of the Fees Rules was\tultra  vires
\nthe  powers  of the rule-making authority.  The\t High  Court
\nfurther held that the octroi duty was not validly levied  by
\nthe  Panchayat as it had failed to fix the octroi limits  in
\naccordance  with law.  The High Court did not deal with\t the
\nquestion  whether  the company’s tea was imported  into\t the
\nlimits of the Panchayat for consumption, use or sale because
\nit  felt  that sufficient facts had not been  found  by\t the
\nStanding  Committee.  The High Court felt that it would\t not
\nbe proper to determine facts for itself.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant contends before us (1)
\nthat  r.  5 of the Fees Rules was intraviress (2)  that\t the
\nStanding Committee had no jurisdiction to decide the  appeal
\non  merits as the appeal to the Panchayat Samiti was  barred
\nby  limitation; (3) that the octroi duty has been levied  in
\naccordance  with  law; (4) that, at any rate, the  levy\t was
\ngood after the octroi limits were fixed on January 14, 1964;
\n(5)  that the approval of the octroi limits on\tJanuary\t 14,
\n1964,  relates back to April 1, 1963; and (6) that  the\t tea
\nwas imported into the Panchayat limits for consumption,\t use
\nor sale.\n<\/p>\n
Before we deal with these points it is necessary to set\t out
\nthe  relevant  statutory provisions.  Section 3(13)  of\t the
\nBombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 (Bombay Act III of  1959)
\ndefines\t “octroi”  or “octroi duty” to mean “a\ttax  on\t the
\n‘entry of goods into a village
\n217<\/span>
\nfor  consumption,  use\tor sale\t therein”.   Section  124(1)
\nempowers Panchayats to levy all or any of the taxes and fees
\nmentioned therein, and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “124(1).\tIt shall be competent to a panchayat
\n\t      to levy all or any of the following taxes and,
\n\t      fees  at\tsuch rates as may be decided  by  it
\n\t      (but subject to the minimum and maximum  rates
\n\t      which  may be fixed by the  State\t Government)
\n\t      and  in  such  manner  and  subject  to\tsuch
\n\t      exemptions as may be prescribed, namely:-
\n    …………………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(ii) octroi………………”\n<\/p>\n
Section 124(5) provides for appeals in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Any person aggrieved by the assessment,\tlevy
\n\t      or imposition of any tax or fee may appeal  to
\n\t      the   Panchayat  Samiti.\t A  further   appeal
\n\t      against  the  order of  the  Panchayat  Samiti
\n\t      shall  lie  to the Standing  Committee,  whose
\n\t      decision shall be final.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 176(1) enables the State Government to\t make  rules
\nfor  carrying into effect the purposes of the Act.   Section
\n176(2)(xxvi) provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “176(2) In particular but without prejudice to
\n\t      the generality of the foregoing provision, the
\n\t      State Government may make rules-
\n\t      (xxvi)under   section  124  laying  down\t the
\n\t      maximum  and the minimum rates and the  manner
\n\t      in  which and the exemption subject  to  which
\n\t      taxes and fees specified in the section  shall
\n\t      be leviable;………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In exercise of the powers under s.176 of the Act, the  State
\nGovernment  made  the rules called the\tMaharashtra  Village
\nPanchayat  Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960.\tPart I of  the\tFees
\nRules  is  headed “General”, and apart from  definitions  it
\nconsists of three rules, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “3.  Procedure for levying tax  or  fee.-Every
\n\t      panchayat before deciding to levy a tax or fee
\n\t      shall   observe\tthe   following\t  procedure,
\n\t      namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   The\t  Panchayat  shall,  by\t  resolution
\n\t      passed  at  its meeting, select a tax  or\t fee
\n\t      which   it  proposes  to\tlevy  and  in\tsuch
\n\t      resolution shall specify the rate at which  it
\n\t      is to be levied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   The\t Panchayat shall then notify to\t the
\n\t      public the proposal together with that Part of
\n\t      these rules
\n218<\/span>
\n\t      which  relates to that tax or fee by  beat  of
\n\t      drum  in the village and by means of a  notice
\n\t      affixed in the office of the panchayat and, at
\n\t      the  village  chavdi or  chora,  specifying  a
\n\t      date,  not  earlier than one month  after\t the
\n\t      date  of such publication, on or\tafter  which
\n\t      the  panchayat  shall take the  proposal\tinto
\n\t      consideration.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   Any inhabitant of the village  objecting
\n\t      to the levy of the tax or fee proposed by\t the
\n\t      panchayat may send his objection or suggestion
\n\t      in writing on or before the date specified  in
\n\t      the notice, published under clause (b).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   On or after the date fixed under  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b),   the   panchayat  shall   consider\t all
\n\t      objections  and suggestions made under  clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c) and may finally select a tax or a fee\t and
\n\t      decide the rate at which it is to be levied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.   Final publication of rules relating to tax or fee to be
\nlevied.-Where a panchayat finally decides to levy any tax or
\nfee  the rules in that Part, of these rules which relate  to
\nsuch  tax or fee, together with a notice stating the tax  or
\nfee to be levied and the rate thereof, shall be published by
\nthe  panchayat by affixing a copy thereof in the  office  of
\nthe  panchayat.\t It shall also announce by beat of  drum  in
\nthe village the fact of such publication.\n<\/p>\n
The  tax or fee shall accordingly be levied from.  the\tdate
\nwhich  shall be specified in the notice and which shall\t not
\nbe  earlier than one month after the date of publication  of
\nthe notice.\n<\/p>\n
5.   Appeal against levy of any tax or fee-A person desiring
\nto  make  an appeal under sub-section (5)  of  section\t124,
\nshall  do so within sixty days from the date of\t publication
\nof the notice under rule 4.\n<\/p>\n
The  scheme of the Fees Rules is first to prescribe  general
\nrules  and  then to deal individually  with  various  taxes.
\nPart II deals with tax on Buildings and Lands; Part III with
\nOctroi; Part IV with Pilgrim Tax; Part V with tax on  Fairs,
\nFestivals and Entertainments; Part VI with taxes on Bicycles
\nand  on\t Vehicles  drawn  by Animals; and  so  on.   We\t are
\nconcerned with Part ITT.  This Part consists of rules 21  to
\n35, and two Schedules.\tThe important rules are rules 21, 22
\nand 23, and may be set out in full:\n<\/p>\n
“21.  Fixing of octroi limits and nakas.-A Panchayat  shall,
\nwith  the  approval  of\t the Collector\tor  of\tany  officer
\nauthorised by the Collector not below the rank of  Mamlatdar
\nTehsildar,  Naib Tehsildar or Mahalkari, fix  octroi  limits
\nand the number and location of octroi Nakas within
\n219<\/span>
\nthe limits of its jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t      22.   Rate of octroi-Octroi may be levied by a
\n\t      panchayat,   after  following  the   procedure
\n\t      prescribed in rules 3 and 4, on all or any  of
\n\t      the goods specified in column 1 of Schedule 1,
\n\t      annexed, to this Part, which are imported into
\n\t      the octroi limits for consumption, use or sale
\n\t      therein and at such rates as may be decided by
\n\t      it but not below the minimum and not exceeding
\n\t      the  maximum rates specified in columns 2\t and
\n\t      3, respectively, of that Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
\t      23.   Payment  of\t octroi on  introduction  of
\n\t      goods,  etc.-The octroi shall be paid  at\t the
\n\t      octroi  Naka at the time when the articles  in
\n\t      respect  of which it is leviable are  imported
\n\t      into the octroi limits of a panchayat.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rules  30, 31, 32 and 33 deal with  refund  of
\n\t      octroi.\n<\/p>\n
We  may first deal with the question of the validity of\t the
\nlevy  of octroi duty.  It seems to us that the\toctroi\tduty
\nhas been levied in accordance with law.\t It would be noticed
\nthat  the  rule which authorises the levy is  r.22,  but  it
\nenjoins\t that the procedure prescribed in rr.3 and 4  should
\nbe  followed before the octroi duty can be levied.  When  we
\nturn  to  rr.3 and 4, it would be noticed that\tthese  rules
\nprescribe  the procedure for levying tax or fee and are\t not
\nconfined  to octroi duty only.\tRule 7 which deals with\t tax
\non  buildings and lands also prescribes that  the  panchayat
\nshall  follow the procedure prescribed in rr.3 and 4  before
\nlevying a tax on buildings and lands.  Similarly, r.37 which
\ndeals  with  tax  on pilgrims provides\tthat  the  procedure
\nprescribed  in\trr.3 and 4 should be  followed.\t  Again,  in
\nr.53, which deals with tax on vehicles, a reference is\tmade
\nto rr. 3 and 4. Rule 71 which deals with tax on\t professions
\nalso  contains\ta reference to rr. 3 and 4.  Rule  84  which
\ndeals with fee on markets and weekly bazars has a  reference
\nto  rr.3 and 4. Rule 93 which deals with fee  on  cartstands
\nand  tonga-stands makes the procedure in rr.3 and  4  appli-
\ncable.\tThe scheme of the Fees Rules accordingly seems to be
\nthat the general procedure for levying taxes or fees is laid
\ndown and then this procedure is made applicable to the\tlevy
\nof various taxes mentioned in the other parts of the  Rules.
\nViewed\tin this background, it seems to us that r.3(b)\tdoes
\nnot  require the Panchayat to fix the octroi limits  in\t the
\nresolution  passed  under  r.3(a). It only  deals  with\t two
\nitems; (1) selection of the tax and the rate at which it  is
\nto  be\tlevied.\t Rule 3(c) has to be  similarly\t read.\t The
\ninhabitants of the village would be entitled to object\tonly
\nto these two matters, namely, (1) the tax or fee imposed and
\nthe  rate  at  which it is levied.  Under  r.3(d)  what\t the
\npanchayat does is to consider objections and suggestions and
\nthen  finally make the choice as regards two  things,  i.e.,
\nthe tax or fee to be imposed and the rate at which it is  to
\nbe levied.\n<\/p>\n
220<\/span><\/p>\n
This interpretation is reinforced by a proper reading of  r.\n<\/p>\n
4. Rule 4 requires a notice stating two things; (1) the\t tax
\nor  fee\t to  be levied and (2) the rate.   But\tthe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the Company, Mr. Ashok Sen, argues  that\tthis
\ninterpretation\tis  not correct because para 2 of  r.4\tsays
\nthat the tax shall accordingly be levied from the date which
\nshall  be specified in the notice, and he says that  if\t the
\noctroi\tlimits\thad  not been approved of by  the  time\t the
\nresolution  is passed, how could the tax be levied from\t the
\ndate  specified\t in  the notice.  But r.4  has\tto  be\tread
\nalongwith  r.21, and if so read, it would mean\tthat  before
\nthe  octroi  duty  can\tstart being  levied,  r.21  must  be
\ncomplied with.\tIn other words, para 2 of r.4. must be\tread
\nto  mean  that\tthe octroi will be  levied  from  that\tdate
\nprovided r.21 had been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
We  are, however, unable to agree with the  learned  counsel
\nfor the appellant that before the octroi limits are approved
\noctroi can be collected.  We consider that the fixing of the
\noctroi\tlimits\twith  the approval of the  Collector  is  an
\nessential  condition precedent to the levy of  octroi  duty.
\nThe learned counsel for the appellant says that the approval
\nof  the\t Collector on January 14, 1964,\t relates  back\tand,
\ntherefore,  the\t levy  of octroi from  April  1,  1963,\t was
\nregularised.   We are unable to agree with this\t submission.
\nApart  from  the fact that it may in  certain  circumstances
\nlead to illegal levies, there is nothing in the language  of
\nr.21  which indicates that the Collector can  regularise  an
\nimposition made without the authority of law.  The Collector
\nmay in particular cases enlarge the octroi limits or  reduce
\nthe  octroi limits and it would lead to great  confusion  if
\neither\tof the things happens after the Panchayat  had\tbeen
\ncollecting octroi duty within the octroi limits submitted by
\nit to collector for approval.\n<\/p>\n
We  may here deal with a minor point which was mentioned  in
\nthe  course of arguments.  The High Court held that  “r.3(b)
\nmust therefore be interpreted as requiring the Panchayat  to
\nnotify to the public not only the the proposal about the tax
\nselected by it for levy, but also the rules relating to that
\ntax  which must mean the action taken under the Act and\t the
\nrules.”\t On  the  language  of\tr.3(b)\twe  are\t unable\t  to
\nappreciate  how action taken under the Act and the rules  is
\nrequired to be notified to the public.\tThere is nothing  in
\nthe language to warrant such a construction.
\nIn  conclusion\twe  hold that the octroi  duty\twas  validly
\nlevied\tand  that  it could be imposed\tand  collected\twith
\neffect from January 14, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Sen  raised another point not dealt with  by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\tHe urges that there was no proper publication  under
\nr.4. We are unable to allow him to raise this point at\tthis
\nstage.\t He says that this point was raised before the\tHigh
\nCourt but it has not been
\n221<\/span>
\nA    dealt  with  by  it.  He points out a  passage  in\t the
\njudgment  of the High Court but we are unable to agree\twith
\nhim  that  the High Court has implied that  this  point\t was
\nraised before it.  He further says that this point was taken
\nin the return filed on behalf of the Company.  Para 2 of the
\nreturn only alleged:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “This respondent says that at that\ttime
\n\t      no copy of the Rules required to be  published
\n\t      by  Rule\t4 of the Rules was  exhibited  along
\n\t      with the said Notice.  This respondent is\t not
\n\t      aware  and,  does not admit that the  fact  of
\n\t      publication  of  the Notice under Rule  4\t was
\n\t      announced by beat of drum in the village.”
\n     This allegation is reiterated in para 9 of the  return.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No such specific point was taken in the grounds of appeal to
\nthe  Panchayat\tSamiti.\t  It was  broadly  stated  that\t the
\nprocedure  required to be followed for imposing\t octroi\t had
\nnot  been followed in imposing the same.  Similarly, in\t the
\ngrounds\t  of  appeal  to  the  Standing\t  Committee,   vague
\nallegations were made “that the village Panchayat has  erred
\nin law in not following the procedure contemplated by law in
\nthe matter of imposing the octroi and has acted contrary  to
\nthe principles of natural justice on an assumption that\t the
\nformalities  contemplated  by law were\tcomplied  with.”  He
\nrelies on the notice which is on the record to show that  as
\na matter of fact the publication was not in accordance\twith
\nlaw.   In  the circumstances noted above we  are  unable  to
\nallow him to raise this point at this stage.
\nComing to the question of the vires of r.5,- it seems to  us
\nthat  the  High Court has placed a wrong  interpretation  on
\nr.5.  The  High Court has held that as r. 5 applies  to\t all
\nappeals\t under s.124(5) of the Panchayat Act, the fixing  of
\nthe commencement of the period of limitation as the date  of
\npublication  of\t the  notice under r.4 for  all\t appeals  is
\narbitrary and destructive of the right of appeal.  But\tthis
\ninterpretation, with respect is not correct, if r.5 is\tread
\nin  the\t setting in which it occurs.  Rule 5  follows  imme-
\ndiately rr.3 and 4 and is headed “Appeal against levy of any
\ntax  or\t fee”, and the period of sixty\tdays  of  limitation
\ncommences  from\t the date of the publication of\t the  notice
\nunder  r.4,  i.e., the notice following the  decision  of  a
\nPanchayat to levy any tax or fee.  This date shows that\t r.5
\nis dealing only with appeals against levy of any tax and not
\nwith  the assessment or imposition of a tax or\tany  further
\nappeals to the Panchayat Simiti under s. 124(5).  It is true
\nthat  the  opening sentence makes a reference to  an  appeal
\nunder sub-s. (5) of s. 124, and this opening sentence  would
\ncover all II appeals under sub-s. (5) of s. 124, but in\t the
\ncontext\t and  setting, the heading of r. 5  brings  out\t the
\nscope  of the rule.  Accordingly. the appeal of the  Company
\nto  the\t Samiti was wrongly dismissed  as  time-barred.\t  It
\nfollows\t from this that the Standing Committee was  entitled
\nto deal with the appeal on merits.\n<\/p>\n
222<\/span><\/p>\n
The  only point that remains is whether the Company  brought
\ntea into the octroi limits of the Panchayat for consumption,
\nuse  or\t sale, therein.\t As we have pointed  out,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  felt difficulty in dealing with the question  because
\nneither the Panchayat Samiti nor the Standing Committee\t had
\nfound  sufficient  facts  to  enable it\t to  deal  with\t the
\nquestion.  Mr. Sen says that he is willing to take the facts
\nas  stated  at\tthe  bar by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant.  But we consider that it is an unsatisfactory way
\nof dealing with questions of fact.  Before this question can
\nbe dealt with satisfactorily, all the relevant facts must be
\nfound  by  the\tStanding  Committee, It\t is  true  that\t the
\nStanding Committee inspected the premises of the Company but
\nin  their order they have given very scanty facts,  They  do
\nnot  say  whether the tea is crushed, processed\t or  treated
\nchemically  to convert it into a marketable commodity.\t The
\nlearned counsel for the Panchayat contends that these things
\nare  done  and\tthat the  resultant  product  is  completely
\ndifferent  from the tea imported into octroi limits.  It  is
\nalso  not quite clear whether the tea which is\timported  by
\nthe  Company  is  known\t in trade  circles  as\ta  different
\ncommodity  from the tea actually sent out in boxes.  In\t the
\ncircumstances we must also decline to deal with this point.
\nIn the result the appeal is allowed, and it is declared that
\nthe Panchayat could validly impose octroi duty from  January
\n14, 1964, in accordance with the resolutions dated  February
\n25,  1963, and March 17, 1963.\tThe case is remanded to\t the
\nHigh  Court  to deal with the question whether\tthe  Company
\nimported  tea  for the purpose of consumption, use  or\tsale
\nwithin\tthe octroi limits of the Panchayat.  The High  Court
\nmay  either remand the case to the Panchayat Samiti or\tdeal
\nwith  it  as it may consider best in  accordance  with\tlaw.
\nUnder  the circumstances there will be no order as to  costs
\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n223<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1968 AIR 183, 1968 SCR (1) 213 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: VILLAGE PANCHAYAT OF KANHAN PIPRI Vs. RESPONDENT: STANDING COMMITTEE, ZILA PARISHAD, NAGPUR, AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/08\/1967 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. […]<\/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-156351","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVillage Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - 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\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T19:37:47+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T19:37:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3827,\"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\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\",\"name\":\"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T19:37:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - 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\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T19:37:47+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967","datePublished":"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T19:37:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967"},"wordCount":3827,"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\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967","name":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila ... on 17 August, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T19:37:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/village-panchayat-of-kanhan-pipri-vs-standing-committee-zila-on-17-august-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Village Panchayat Of Kanhan Pipri vs Standing Committee, Zila … on 17 August, 1967"}]},{"@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\/156351","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=156351"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156351\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156351"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156351"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156351"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}