{"id":169005,"date":"1974-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974"},"modified":"2016-01-24T19:04:06","modified_gmt":"2016-01-24T13:34:06","slug":"k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","title":{"rendered":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 818, \t\t 1975 SCR (3)\t 91<\/div>\n
Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK.   BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN.   M. SAMBANDAMOORTHY CHETTY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/12\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\n\nCITATION:\n 1975 AIR  818\t\t  1975 SCR  (3)\t 91\n 1975 SCC  (1) 242\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1978 SC 349\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor Vehicles Act. 1939-S. 64B-Criteria for allotting marks\nfor  grant  of\tpermit-Public  interest-Considerations\t for\ndeciding-Extent\t of Jurisdiction of the High Court under  S.\n64B.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Regional Transport Authority granted a  stage  carriage\npermit\tto  the respondent as against the appellant  on\t the\nground\tthat the former was a single bus operator while\t the\nappellant  was\tan  operator  having  four  stage   carriage\npermits,  including  a\tstage  carriage\t permit\t which\t was\nrecently  granted  to him.  The\t State\tTransport  Appellate\nTribunal,  on  the  other  hand,  took\tthe  view  that\t the\nrespondent  did\t not have a pucca fire\tproof  building\t for\nworkshop,.  that  it  was  immaterial  whether\tthe   sector\nexperience  of the appellant was derived under\ta  temporary\npermit\tor  a  permanent  permit;  that\t the  appellant\t was\nentitled  to two marks even though the experience gained  by\nhim was by operation of temporary permits, that the  history\nsheet of the appellant was clean without any adverse  remark\nand  that  since  a portion of the  route  fell\t within\t the\ninterior roads it was desirable in public interest to prefer\n\"an  experienced operator instead of single  bus  operator\".\nThe Appellate Tribunal,. therefore, found that the appellant\nhad superior qualifications and was entitled to be preferred\nto others.\nOn a revision application under s. 64B of the Motor Vehicles\nAct,  1939  a single Judge of the High Court took  the\tview\nthat public interest required that in the socialist  pattern\nof society monopoly should as far as possible be avoided and\na smaller operator with one stage carriage permit should  be\npreferred  to a bigger operator having three or\t more  stage\ncarriage permits, that the appellant was a recent grantee of\nstage carriage permit; that a proper standard of  comparison\nof  the history sheets of the appellant and  the  respondent\nhad  not been made; and that the respondent was entitled  to\ntwo marks on account of sector experience.  The order of the\nRegional   Transport  Authority\t granting  permit   to\t the\nrespondent was, therefore, restored.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD  :\t (1) The High Court was not right  in  refusing\t two\nmarks  to the appellant.  Clause 3(c) of rule 155A  provides\nthat  two marks shall be awarded to the applicant,  who.  on\nthe  date  of the consideration of the\tapplication  by\t the\nRegional  Transport  Authority,\t has  been  plying  a  stage\ncarriage  permit on the entire route.  It does\tnot  contain\nany  restriction that in order to be entitled' to these\t two\nmarks the applicant should have been plying on the route  on\nthe  basis of a permanent permit.  What is material is\tthat\nthe applicant should have experience of plying on the  route\nand this experience would be there whether plying is done on\na temporary permit or a permanent permit. [94G-H]\n(2)  The paramount consideration to be taken into account in\ndetermining as to which of the applicants should be selected\nfor grant of permit always is public interest. [95 B-C]\n(3)  The  mere\tfact  that an applicant has  more  than\t one\npermit\tor  he\tis  a recent grantee  cannot  by  itself  be\nregarded  as a factor against him in the comparative  scale.\nPossession  of more than one permit also cannot, by  itself,\ndivorced   from\t other\tcircumstances,\tbe  regarded  as   a\ndisqualification. [96 F; H]\nAjantha Transports (P) Ltd. v. T. Y. K. Transports,<\/a> [1975] 2\nS.C.R. 166, followed.\nThe  High Court was in error in rejecting the claim  of\t the\nappellant to the grant of permit by mechanically relying  on\nthe circumstance that the\n92\nappellant  was\ta  multi  bus  operator\t having\t four  Stage\ncarriage   permits   including\ta   recent   grant   without\nconsidering  how  in  the  light  of  the  other  facts\t and\ncircumstances, it was correlated to the question of  public\ninterest.'  The\t four  stage  carriage\tpermits\t which\t the\nappellant  had were not on the same route and there  was  no\nquestion of any monopoly being created in his favour if\t the\npermit\tapplied for by him was granted.\t The  possession  of\nmore than one permit by the appellant was a circumstance  in\nhis.  favour because according to cl. 3(F) of rule  155A  an\napplicant operating more than four stage carriages would  be\nentitled to one mark. [97B-D]\n(4)  The  High Court was in error in holding that  the\tsame\nstandard  was not applied by the State\tTransport  Appellate\nTribunal  in comparing the history sheets of  the  appellant\nand the respondents. [97H]\n(5)  In\t the  instant case the, High Court  overstepped\t the\nlimits\tof  the\t revisional  jurisdiction  and\ttreated\t the\nrevision   application\tas  if\tit  were  an  appeal.\t The\njurisdiction  of the High Court under s. 64B is as  severely\nrestricted  as\tthat  under  s. 115 of\tthe  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  and\tit is only where there is  a  jurisdictional\nerror  or  illegality  or  material  irregularity  in\tthe-\nexercise  of jurisdiction that the High Court can  interfere\nunder section 64B with an order made by the State  Transport\nAppellate Tribunal. [98D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1672 of 1973.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nthe 9th January, 1973 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
\n2486 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
Y.   S. Chitale, C. S. Prakasa Rao and A. T. M. Sampath, for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.   S. Ramamurthy, V. Subramanian and Vineet Kumar, for the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBHAGWATI   J.-There  were  fifteen  applicants\tbefore\t the
\nRegional  Transport  Authority, Chingleput for\tgrant  of  a
\nstage carriage permit to ply a bus on the route Red Hills to
\nKancheepuram.  This route covers a distance of 501 miles  of
\n81.27 kilometers and is a ‘long :route,’ within the  meaning
\nof  that  expression  as  used in rule\t155A  of  the  Motor
\nVehicles  Rules, 1940.\tOut of fifteen applicants, only\t two
\nare  before  us, namely, the appellant and  the\t respondent.
\nThe appellant was applicant No. 7, while the respondent\t was
\napplicant  No.\t6. The Regional Transport  Authority,  after
\nconsidering the applications, made an order dated 19th June,
\n1971  granting\tthe  permit to\tthe  respondent,  though  on
\nmarking according to the provisions contained in clause\t (3)
\nof  rule  155A, the respondent obtained only 7.40  marks  as
\nagainst\t 9.00  marks obtained by the  appellant.   The\tmain
\nground ,on which the Regional Transport Authority  preferred
\nthe respondent to the appellant was that the respondent\t was
\na  single bus operator, while the appellant was a multi\t bus
\noperator  having  four stage carriage  permits\tincluding  a
\nstage carriage permit recently granted to him.
\nThe appellant and seven other applicants, who were aggrieved
\nby  the\t decision  of  the  Regional  Transport\t  Authority,
\ngranting  a  permit  to the  respondent,  preferred  appeals
\nbefore the State Transport Appellate Tribunal impleading the
\nrespondent as the opposite party in the appeals.  The  State
\nTransport  Appellate  Tribunal took the. view that  at\ttile
\ndate  of  the  consideration  of  the  applications  by\t the
\nRegional Transport
\n93<\/span>
\nAuthority,  the respondent had a workshop but it was  housed
\nonly  in  a  thatched shed and not in  a  pucca\t fire  proof
\nbuilding and the respondent was, therefore, not entitled  to
\ntwo  marks under clause (3) (E) of rule 155A and  his  total
\nmarks  should, therefore, have been 5.40 and not  7.40.\t The
\nRegional Transport Authority had refused to grant two  marks
\nto  the appellant on account of sector qualification on\t the
\nground that he had been plying only on temporary permits but
\nthis  view  did\t not find favour with  the  State  Transport
\nAppellate  Tribunal which held that under clause (3) (C)  of
\nrule  155A it was immaterial whether sector  experience\t was
\nderived\t by  an\t applicant under a  temporary  permit  or  a
\npermanent permit and the appellant was, therefore,  entitled
\nto  two\t marks\tunder  that  clause  on\t account  of  sector
\nexperience  even  though gained by  operation  on  temporary
\npermits.  So far as the past record was concerned, the State
\nTransport Appellate Tribunal relied heavily on the fact that
\nthe  history  sheet of the appellant was clean\twithout\t any
\nadverse entry while the respondent had one adverse entry  in
\nthe history sheet relating to his single stage carriage\t and
\nfour  adverse entries in the history sheet relating  to\t his
\nlorry  operation.   The State Transport\t Appellate  Tribunal
\nalso pointed out that a portion of the route fell within the
\ninterior  roads and it was, therefore, desirable  in  public
\ninterest  to  prefer  “an experienced  operator\t instead  of
\nsingle bus operator”.  Having regard to these considerations
\nthe  State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the  order
\nof  the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to\t the
\nrespondent.   The  State Transport Appellate  Tribunal\tthen
\nproceeded  to consider who amongst the appellants before  it
\ndeserved to be granted permit.\tAfter considering the  claim
\nof  the appellants before it, the State Transport  Appellate
\nTribunal  took the view that since the appellant had  higher
\nmarks which reflected his superior qualifications and was an
\nexperienced  operator  with a clean history  sheet,  he\t was
\nentitled to be preferred to the other appellants and in this
\nview,  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by  an  order
\ndated 23rd September, 1972, granted permit to the appellant.
\nThe respondent thereupon preferred a revision application to
\nthe High Court under section 64B of the Madras Vehicles Act,
\n1939.\tThe  learned Single Judge, who\theard  the  revision
\napplication,   held  that  the\tState  Transport   Appellate
\nTribunal had acted with material irregularity in exercise of
\nits   jurisdiction  in\tpreferring  the\t appellant  to\t the
\nrespondent for the grant of permit. There were in the  main
\nfive  reasons which prevailed with the learned Single  Judge
\nin taking this view in favour of the respondent.  First, the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\theld that though  according  to\t the
\nprovisions for marking contained’ in clause (3) of rule 155A
\nthe appellant had admittedly more marks than the respondent,
\nthat  was not’ a determinative factor because rule155A\twas
\nitself\tsubject\t to the overriding consideration  of  public
\ninterest  emphasised in section 47(1) of the Act and  public
\ninterest  required that in the socialist pattern of  society
\nwhich  we had adopted monopoly should as far as possible  be
\navoided\t and  a\t smaller operator with\tone  stage  carriage
\npermit should be preferred to a bigger operator having three
\nor  more  stage\t carriage permits.   This  important  consi-
\nderation  was  ignored\tby  the\t State\tTransport  Appellate
\nTribunal in
\n94<\/span>
\npreferring  the appellant to the respondent.  Secondly,\t the
\nState Transport Appellate Tribunal had over looked the, fact
\nthat the appellant was a recent grantee of a stage  carriage
\npermit\tthough it was a relevant circumstance which  weighed
\nagainst the appellant in the process of comparison with\t the
\nrespondent.   Thirdly, a proper standard of  comparison\t was
\nnot applied in considering the rival claims of the appellant
\nand  the respondent.  Though the history sheet of  the\tres-
\npondent\t in regard to his performance, as a  lorry  operator
\nwas scanned by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal over a
\nperiod\tof ten years, no such scrutiny was made in the\tcase
\nof the appellant of the history sheet relating to his  stage
\ncarriage operation for the past ten years and this  vitiated
\nthe  order  of\tthe  State  Transport  Appellate   Tribunal.
\nFourthly,  the\trespondent  was entitled  to  two  marks  on
\naccount\t of workshop under clause (3) (E) of rule  155A\t and
\nthese  had  been  wrongly  denied  by  the  State  Transport
\nAppellate  Tribunal,  and  lastly,  the\t appellant  was\t not
\nentitled to two marks on account of sector experience  under
\nclause\t(3)  (C) of rule 155A since  the  sector  experience
\nclaimed\t by him was on the basis of operation  on  temporary
\npermits.   The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed\t the
\nrevision  application and set aside the order of  the  State
\nTransport   Appellate  Tribunal\t granting  permit   to\t the
\nappellant.   The result was that the order of the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority granting permit to the respondent was
\nrestored.   The\t appellant was obviously aggrieved  by\tthis
\norder  made by the learned Single Judge and  he\t accordingly
\npreferred  the\tpresent appeal with special  leave  obtained
\nfrom this Court.\n<\/p>\n
We  will  first\t dispose  of  the  last\t two  reasons  which
\nprevailed with the learned Single Judge in interfering with
\nthe order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  So far
\nas the claim of the respondent ‘for two marks in respect  of
\nworkshop under clause (3) (E) of rule 155A is concerned,  we
\nagree  with  the  learned  Single  Judge  that\tthe   ‘State
\nTransport  Appellate Tribunal was in error in refusing\tthat
\nclaim.\t ‘The Regional Transport Officer under\tinstructions
\nfrom the Regional Transport Authority inspected the workshop
\nof  the\t respondent and found that it was in  a\t pucca\tfire
\nproof  building and the respondent was accordingly  entitled
\nto  two marks under clause (3) (E) of rule 155A.   But\tthat
\nwould  not make any difference because even with  these\t two
\nmarks, the total number of marks of the respondent would not
\nexceed 7.40 as against 9 marks of the appellant.   Moreover,
\n,these\t9  marks,  do not include two marks  on\t account  of
\nsector\texperience under clause (3) (C) of rule\t 155A.\t The
\nState  Transport  Appellate Tribunal gave two marks  to\t the
\nappellant  on account of sector experience but\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge took a different view.  We do not\t think\tthe
\nlearned\t Judge\twas  right  in refusing\t two  marks  to\t the
\nappellant  on  this  count.  Clause (3)\t (C)  of  rule\t155A
\nprovides  that two marks shall be awarded to  the  applicant
\nwho  on the date of consideration of the application by\t the
\nRegional  Transport  Authority\thas  been  plying  a   stage
\ncarriage  on  the entire route:.  It does  not\tcontain\t any
\nrestriction that in order to be entitled to these two  marks
\nthe  applicant should have been plying on the route; on\t the
\nbasis  of a permanent permit.  It is immaterial whether\t the
\napplicant  has\tbeen  plying ton the route  on\ta  temporary
\npermit or a permanent permit.  What is
\n95<\/span>
\nmaterial  is  that the applicant should have  experience  of
\nplying\ton  the\t route and this experience  would  be  there
\nwhether\t plying\t is  done  on a temporary  permit  or  on  a
\npermanent permit.  The appellant was, therefore, entitled to
\ntwo  marks  on\taccount of sector  experience  under  clause
\n(3)(C) of rule 155A and that would raise his total number of
\nmarks  to  11.\t The  position,\t therefore,  was  that\t the
\nappellant  was entitled to 11 marks as against 7.40  of\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
But  that  by  itself  would not  be  determinative  of\t the
\ncontroversy.   The paramount consideration to be taken\tinto
\naccount in determining as to which of the applicants  should
\nbe  selected for grant of permit always is public  interest.
\nSection\t 47(1) provides in so many words that  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority shall, in considering an application for
\na  stage  carriage permit have regard inter  alia,  to\t“the
\ninterest   of\tthe  public  generally”,  and  this   is   a
\nconsideration  which must necessarily outweigh\tall  others.
\nIt  is ultimately on the touchstone of public interest\tthat
\nselection  of  an  applicant for grant\tof  permit  must  be
\njustified.  Clause (3) of rule 155A undoubtedly provides for
\ngiving\tof marks to the rival applicants but the  number  of
\nmarks obtained by each applicant can only provide a  guiding
\nprinciple  for the grant of permit.  It can  never  override
\nthe consideration of public interest which must dominate the
\nselection  in  all cases.  In fact clause (4) of  rule\t155A
\nconcedes  that after the applicants are ranked according  to
\nthe  total marks obtained by them the applications shall  be
\ndisposed  of  in accordance with the provisions\t of  section
\n47(1).\tThe fact that the appellant had 11 marks as  against
\n7.40 of the respondent would certainly be a factor in favour
\nof  the appellant, but notwithstanding his higher marks,  if
\npublic\tinterest so requires, he may have to yield place  to
\nthe  respondent\t in  the matter of selection  for  grant  or
\npermit.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  two  circumstances  were relied upon  by\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge for outweighing the higher marks\tobtained  by
\nthe  appellant\tand justifying the grant of  permit  to\t the
\nrespondent  in\tpublic\tinterest.  The first  was  that\t the
\nrespondent was a single bus operator while the appellant was
\na multi bus operator having four stage carriage permits\t and
\nthe  second was that one of the stage carriage\tpermits\t was
\nrecently granted to the respondent and hence he was in terms
\nof  the\t ‘motor vehicle jurisprudence’ a  “recent  grantee”.
\nBoth these circumstances by themselves are not sufficient to
\nconstitute  such  requirement  of  public  interest  as\t  to
\noutweigh  the higher marks obtained by the appellant.\tThis
\nCourt  had  occasion to consider in Ajantha  Transports\t (P)
\nLtd.,  Coimbatore v. M\/s.  T. V. K.  Transport,\t Pulampatti,
\nCoimbatore Dist.<\/a>(1) the relevance of possession of more than
\none  permit as also recent grant in selecting  an  applicant
\nfor  grant of permit and Beg, J., speaking on behalf of\t the
\nCourt, stated the law on the subject in the following  words
\n:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  should be clear when the main object,  to
\n\t      which other considerations must yield in cases
\n\t      of  conflict,  of the  permit  issuing  powers
\n\t      under sec. 47 of the Act is the service of
\n(1)  [1975] 2 S.C.R. 166.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
96<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      interest\tof  the public generally,  that\t any
\n\t      particular  fact or circumstances, such  as  a
\n\t      previous\t recent\t grant\tin  favour   of\t  an
\n\t      applicant\t or the holding of other permits  by
\n\t      an operator, cannot by itself, indicate how it
\n\t      is related to this object.  Unless, there\t are
\n\t      other  facts  and circumstance which  link  it
\n\t      with  this  object  the  nexus  will  not\t  be
\n\t      established.   For instance, an applicant\t may
\n\t      be a recent grantee whose capacity to  operate
\n\t      a transport service efficiently remains to  be
\n\t      tested  so  that a fresh grant to him  may  be
\n\t      premature.  In such a case, another  applicant
\n\t      of tested efficiency may be preferred.  On the
\n\t      other hand, a fresh grantee may have within  a
\n\t      short  period, disclosed such  superiority  or
\n\t      efficiency   or\toffer  such   amenities\t  to
\n\t      passengers  that a recent grant in his  favour
\n\t      may be no obstacle in his way at all.   Again,
\n\t      the fact that an applicant-is operating  other
\n\t      motor  vehicles on other permits may,  in\t one
\n\t\t\t    case,   indicate  that  he\thad  excee
\nded   the
\n\t      optimum,\tor, has a position comparable  to  a
\n\t      monopolist,  but,\t in  another  case,  it\t may
\n\t      enable,-\tthe  applicant\tto  achieve   better
\n\t      efficiency by moving towards the optimum which
\n\t      seems  to be described as a “viable  unit”  in
\n\t      the rules framed in Madras in 1968.  Thus,  it
\n\t      will be seen that, by itself, a recent grant
\n\t      or the possession of other permits is  neither
\n\t      a\t  qualification\t  nor\ta   disqualification
\n\t      divorced from other circumstances which  could
\n\t      indicate\tlow  such a fact is related  to\t the
\n\t      interests of the public generally.  It is only
\n\t      if  there\t are other  facts  establishing\t the
\n\t      correlationship and indicate its advantages or
\n\t      disadvantages to the public generally that  it
\n\t      will become a relevant circumstance.  But,  in
\n\t      cases  where  everything\telse  is  absolutely
\n\t      equal  as between two applicants,\t which\twill
\n\t      rarely  be the case, it could be said that  an
\n\t      application of principle of equality of oppor-
\n\t      tunity, which could be covered by Article\t 14,
\n\t      may enable a person who is not a fresh grantee
\n\t      to obtain a preference.”\n<\/p>\n
It  would,  therefore, be seen that the mere  fact  that  an
\napplicant has more than one permit or he is a recent grantee
\ncannot by itself be regarded as a factor against him in\t the
\ncomparative  scale.   It would all depend on the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances of each case.  As ‘pointed out by Beg, J.,  in
\nthe case just cited : “an applicant may be a recent  grantee
\nwhose  capacity to operate a transport\tservice\t efficiently
\nremains\t to  be tested so that a fresh grant to him  may  be
\npremature on the other hand. a fresh grantee may have within
\na  short period disclosed such superiority or efficiency  or
\noffer  such amenities to passengers that a recent  grant  in
\nhis  favour may be no obstacle in his way at  all–a  recent
\ngrant  could  not,  considered by  itself  and\tsingly,\t be,
\nconverted  into a demerit”.  Similarly, possession  of\tmore
\nthan  one permit also cannot by itself, divorced from  other
\ncircumstances, be regarded as a disqualification.  It may in
\na given case show that the applicant has already reached the
\nviable\tunit  of  five stage  carriages\t contemplated  under
\n‘clause (3) (F) of rule 155A or that the effect of  granting
\npermit\tto  him\t would be to make him a\t monopolist  on\t the
\nroute–a result disfavoured by the decision of this Court in
\nSri Rama
\n97<\/span>
\nVilas  Service (P) Ltd. v. C. Chandrasekharan &\t Ors.(1)  as
\nbeing inconsistent with the interest of the general  public-
\nor,  on\t the  other hand, it may be a  circumstance  in\t his
\nfavour enabling him to achieve greater efficiency by  moving
\ntowards\t the  optimum of viable unit.\tThe  learned  Single
\nJudge,\twas, therefore, in error in rejecting the  claim  of
\nthe appellant to the grant of permit by mechanically relying
\non  the\t circumstance  that the appellant was  a  multi\t bus
\noperator  having  four stage carriage permits,\tincluding  a
\nrecent\tgrant  without considering how in the light  of\t the
\nother  facts  and circumstances, it was\t correlated  to\t the
\nquestion of public interest.  There was nothing to show that
\nthis  circumstance would have, any prejudicial\tor  adverse
\nimpact\ton  public interest, if permit were granted  to\t the
\nappellant  notwithstanding  it.\t The  four  stage  carriage,
\npermits\t which the appellant had were not on the same  route
\nand there was no question of. any monopoly being created  in
\nhis  favour if the permit applied for by him  were  granted.
\nIn fact, possession of more than on& permit by the appellant
\nwas  a\tcircumstance  in his favour,  because  according  to
\nclause\t(3)(F) of rule 155A an applicant operating  in\tmore
\nthan four stage carriages would be entitled to one mark\t for
\neach  stage carriage in order to have a viable unit of\tfive
\ncarriage.  The principle laid down in clause (3) (F) of rule
\n155A  proceeds on the hypothesis that an applicant would  be
\nable to achieve greater efficiency if he has a larger number
\nof  stage  carriages,  but it sets a  limit  of\t five  stage
\ncarriages as it was thought that that would be sufficient to
\nconstitute  a  viable  unit  which  could  legitimately\t  be
\npermitted to an applicant, consistently with the requirement
\nof  a  socialistic pattern of society that there  should  be
\ndistributive  or  social  justice  and\tno  undue   economic
\ndisparities.   So long, therefore, as an applicant  has\t not
\nmore  than  four  stage carriages, it cannot  by  itself  be
\nregarded as a factor against him and, as pointed out by Beg,
\nJ.,  in the case cited above, the rule in clause (3) (F)  of
\nrule 155A providing for giving of one mark to the  applicant
\nfor each stage carriage operated by him should be taken into
\naccount\t unless there is good enough reason to\tdepart\tfrom
\nit.   “Every additional stage carriage upto four would\tgive
\nan applicant an additional mark so as to help him to make up
\na  viable  unit\t of five”.  The\t State\tTransport  Appellate
\nTribunal was, therefore, right, in the circumstances of\t the
\ncase,  in  not regarding possession of four  stage  carriage
\npermits\t by  the appellant, including a recent grant,  as  a
\ncircumstance against him, but treating it as a\tcircumstance
\nin  his favour by adding four marks under clause (3) (F)  of
\nrule 155A, and the learned Single Judge acted erroneously in
\nupsetting  this view taken by the State Transport  Appellate
\nTribunal.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Single Judge was also in error in  holding,
\nthatthe\t same  standard\t was  not  applied  by\tthe   State
\nTransport AppellateTribunal in comparing the history sheets
\nof the appellant and therespondent.  The history  sheet\t of
\nthe appellant related only to hisperformance   as    stage
\ncarriage operator and the entire history sheetwas before
\nthe State Transport Appellate Tribunal and it showedthat
\nthe  appellant had     a clean record.\tOn the\tother  hand,
\nthe respondent
\n(1) [1964] 5 S.C.R. 869.\n<\/p>\n
-L379 Sup.CI\/75
\n98<\/span>
\nhad  two history sheets, one relating to his performance  as
\nstage  carriage\t operator  and the  other  relating  to\t his
\nperformance  as lorry operator and both the  history  sheets
\nshowed adverse entries.\t It can hardly be disputed that this
\ncomparison  with  reference to the past performance  of\t the
\nappellant and the respondent was relevant to the question as
\nto  who\t between  the two should be selected  for  grant  of
\npermit.\t It may be that the history sheet of the  respondent
\nas  lorry  operator related to a period of ten\tyears  while
\nthat of the appellant as a stage carriage, perator covered a
\nshorter\t period, but that cannot be helped.  The  comparison
\nhas to be made on the basis of the available material and if
\nthe  history  sheet of the respondent, which may  be  for  a
\nlonger\tperiod,\t shows\tthat the  past\tperformance  of\t the
\nrespondent ‘was not satisfactory while the history sheet  of
\nthe  appellant, though for a shorter period, shows  that  he
\nhas had a clean record of performance, that would  certainly
\nbe a relevant circumstance to lie taken into ;account.\t The
\nState  Transport  Appellate Tribunal was  plainly  right  in
\nrelying\t on  this  circumstance,  amongst  others,  for\t the
\npurpose of preferring the appellant to the respondent.
\nBefore\twe  part with this case we may point  out  that\t the
\nlearned\t  Single,  Judge  overstepped  the  limits  of\t his
\nrevisional jurisdiction and treated the revision application
\nbefore\thim  as\t if it wore an\tappeal.\t  That\twas  clearly
\nimpermissible  as  the revisional jurisdiction of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  under section 64B is as severely restricted  as\tthat
\nunder section  115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it  is
\nonly where there is a jurisdictional error or illegality  or
\nmaterial  irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction\tthat
\nthe  High  Court can interfere under section  64B  ,with  an
\norder made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
\nWe  must, therefore, set aside the judgment of\tthe  learned
\nSingle\tJudge  and  restore  the order\tmade  by  the  State
\nTransport   Appellate  Tribunal\t granting  permit   to\t the
\nappellant.    The  appeal  is  accordingly   allowed.\t The
\nrespondent will pay the costs to the appellant.
\nP.B.R.\tAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
99<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1975 AIR 818, 1975 SCR (3) 91 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: K. BALASUBRAMANIA CHETTY Vs. RESPONDENT: N. M. SAMBANDAMOORTHY CHETTY DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/12\/1974 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN UNTWALIA, N.L. […]<\/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-169005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - 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\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\"},\"wordCount\":3464,\"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\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\",\"name\":\"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - 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\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974","datePublished":"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974"},"wordCount":3464,"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\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974","name":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-24T13:34:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-balasubramania-chetty-vs-n-m-sambandamoorthy-chetty-on-20-december-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Balasubramania Chetty vs N. M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty on 20 December, 1974"}]},{"@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\/169005","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=169005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}