{"id":17277,"date":"2007-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-11T17:58:48","modified_gmt":"2017-05-11T12:28:48","slug":"g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4809-4810 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nG.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/10\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha &amp; Harjit Singh Bedi\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9380-9381 of 2005)<\/p>\n<p>S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe State of Uttar Pradesh acquired land for the appellant company.<br \/>\nVarious land acquisition proceedings therefor were initiated.  The Special<br \/>\nLand Acuqisition Officer, the acquiring authority, expressed its intention to<br \/>\nengage some daily wagers to look after the pending acquisition cases and<br \/>\nasked the appellant to meet the said expenses or depute one of its staff for<br \/>\nthe said purpose.  Appellant agreed to the proposal of the Special Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Officer that a person on daily wages may be appointed on an ad<br \/>\nhoc basis.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer, inter alia, engaged three<br \/>\npersons on daily wages.  Their wages were paid from the fund provided for<br \/>\nby the appellant.  Appointments of the said employees were for a temporary<br \/>\nperiod and so long as their services were necessary for the purpose of<br \/>\nlooking after the land acquisition cases, services of the said employees were<br \/>\nnecessary for the period 1.5.1981 to 6.3.1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe services of the respondent having been terminated with effect<br \/>\nfrom 6.3.1982, an industrial dispute was raised.  The State of Uttar Pradesh<br \/>\nreferred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer,<br \/>\nLabour Court, Lucknow :\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether the termination\/removal of Shri Jai<br \/>\nPrakash Srivastava, Case-Clerk, son of Shri Gomti<br \/>\nPrasad Srivastava, from services by the<br \/>\nManagement w.e.f. 6.3.1982, is just and legal ?  If<br \/>\nnot, then to what benefit\/relief the workman is<br \/>\nentitled entitled?<\/p>\n<p>4.\tWhereas the contention of the first respondent was that there existed a<br \/>\nrelationship of employer and employee by and between the appellant and<br \/>\nhimself; the contention raised on the part of the petitioner was that there did<br \/>\nnot exist any such relationship.  The validity of the reference made by the<br \/>\nState was also questioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tIn its award dated 30.9.1996, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UP,<br \/>\nLucknow, in Award Dispute No.28 of 1985 recorded that the first<br \/>\nrespondent was appointed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for<br \/>\nconducting pairvi on behalf of the project in the cases of land acquisition.<br \/>\nThe learned Labour Court, however, was of the opinion that as the salary of<br \/>\nthe first respondent was made available to the Land Acquisition Officer from<br \/>\nthe funds provided for by the appellant, a relationship of employer and<br \/>\nemployee came into being, holding :\n<\/p>\n<p>From the documents available on record, it is<br \/>\nvery well proved that although the appointment of<br \/>\nthe applicant-workman Shri Jai Prakash was not<br \/>\nmade on the basis of any appointment letter issued<br \/>\nindependently by the Chief Project Manager of<br \/>\nTanda Thermal Power Project, but was made by<br \/>\nthe Special Land Acquisition Officer on daily<br \/>\nwages on the basis of the approval given by the<br \/>\nChief Project Manager on the request\/proposal<br \/>\nmade by the Special Land Acquistiion Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Management had also approved extension of<br \/>\nthe above appointment from time to time and also<br \/>\ncame to a decision for not continuing the services<br \/>\nof the applicant-workman and the Chief Project<br \/>\nManager had duly informed the Special Land<br \/>\nAcquistiion Officer for discontinuing the services<br \/>\nof the applicant-workman.  Finally the services of<br \/>\nthe applicant-workman were terminated.  It is also<br \/>\nproved from the evidence that the applicant-\n<\/p>\n<p>workman was doing the work of pairvi in the cases<br \/>\nrelating to the Tanda Thermal Power Project and<br \/>\nthe payment of his salaries was also made from the<br \/>\nfunds made available by Management.  In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it is proved that the appointment of<br \/>\nthe applicant-workman was made on the basis of<br \/>\napproval given by Management.<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOpining that the first respondent worked for more than 240 days<br \/>\nduring the aforementioned period and as no notice pay as also retrenchment<br \/>\ncompensation had been paid to the workman, he was directed to be<br \/>\nreinstated with back wages.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe writ petition filed by the appellant thereagainst before the<br \/>\nLucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which was marked as Writ<br \/>\nPetition No.222 of 1998, was dismissed on the premise that the disputed<br \/>\nquestion of fact could not be determined by the High Court in exercise its<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe Division Bench of the High Court on an intra court appeal<br \/>\npreferred by the appellant refused to interfere therewith stating that the<br \/>\nSpecial Appeal was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAppellant is, thus, before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tMr. Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner, would submit that the High Court committed an error in passing<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that<br \/>\nthere did not exist any relationship of employer and employee by and<br \/>\nbetween the petitioner and the first respondent; appointment of the first<br \/>\nrespondent having been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tOur attention has not been drawn to any statute or statutory rules in<br \/>\nterms whereof such an appointment could be made by a revenue authority.<br \/>\nIt was, therefore, only an ad hoc employment.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tLands are acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition<br \/>\nAct.  It is for the authorities concerned to conduct the cases relating to<br \/>\nacquisition of land in the courts of law.  Although the appellant was<br \/>\nproviding for the funds for meeting the expenditure in relation to payment of<br \/>\nwages etc. to the first respondent herein, evidently, the relationship between<br \/>\nan employer and employee did not come into being between the appellant<br \/>\nand the first respondent. It did not require the services of the appellant.  It<br \/>\ndid not require the services of the appellant.  The Special Land Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer did. The offer of appointment was issued by the Special Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Officer.  First respondent was working under his supervision<br \/>\nand control.  His services were being taken by the Special Land Acquisition<br \/>\nOfficer for a particular purpose, namely, looking after the land acquisition<br \/>\ncases.  When the purpose for which the first respondent was appointed<br \/>\nceased to exist, his services were terminated.  If there did not exist any<br \/>\nrelationship of employer and employee, the question of the appellants<br \/>\nfulfilling the obligations required in terms of the UP Industrial Disputes Act,<br \/>\nnamely, payment of retrenchment compensation or one months pay in lieu<br \/>\nof notice did not and could not arise.  If the first respondent was a workman<br \/>\nworking under the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the question of<br \/>\ncompliance of the said provisions by the said authority would also not arise.<br \/>\nThe High Court, therefore, in our opinion, committed a serious error in<br \/>\nrefusing to interfere in the matter.  When existence of the relationship of<br \/>\nemployer and employee is disputed, the same was required to be determined<br \/>\nin presence of all the parties who are interested in the subject matter of<br \/>\nreference.  The Special Land Acquisition Officer was not a party to the<br \/>\nreference.  The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, UP, Lucknow<br \/>\nneither went into the question as regards the nature of duties required to be<br \/>\nperformed by the first respondent and also other relevant factors, namely,<br \/>\nwho had issued the offer of appointment; who used to supervise and control<br \/>\nthe work of the respondent; or who was the authority to grant leave and take<br \/>\ndisciplinary action etc.  The said questions were relevant.  {<a href=\"\/doc\/1506370\/\">See Workmen of<br \/>\nNilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.<\/a> [(2004) 3<br \/>\nSCC 514]}.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe High Court, furthermore, committed a serious error insofar as it<br \/>\nfailed to take into consideration that a direction for reinstatement cannot be<br \/>\nissued when there does not exist any post.  Requirement of the Special Land<br \/>\nAcquisition Officer to have the services of some employees was for a short<br \/>\nperiod.  No such post was created by the competent authority.  The services<br \/>\nof the first respondent were necessary for looking after the land acquisition<br \/>\ncases of the petitioner.  Even in a case where the workman is appointed on<br \/>\ncontractual basis, the industrial court would ordinarily not direct for<br \/>\nreinstatement.  Subject to statutory interdict, the agreement between the<br \/>\nparties in this behalf must be given due weight.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tFor the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be<br \/>\nsustained.  The same is set aside accordingly.  Appeal is allowed.  As<br \/>\nnobody has appeared on behalf of the first respondent, there shall be no<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4809-4810 of 2007 PETITIONER: G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project RESPONDENT: Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/10\/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha &amp; [&hellip;]<\/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-17277","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-11T12:28:48+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T12:28:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1389,\"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\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\",\"name\":\"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-11T12:28:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-11T12:28:48+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T12:28:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007"},"wordCount":1389,"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\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007","name":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-11T12:28:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-m-tanda-thermal-power-project-vs-jai-prakash-srivastava-anr-on-11-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.M. Tanda Thermal Power Project vs Jai Prakash Srivastava &amp; Anr on 11 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/17277","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=17277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}