{"id":174053,"date":"2008-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-02T06:27:13","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T00:57:13","slug":"ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 1185 of 2008()\n\n\n1. M\/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P)\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,\n\n3. UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,\n\n4. SMT.PADMINI, MUPPATTAKKUNNUMMEL HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :19\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         R. BASANT, J.\n           -------------------------------------------------\n                 Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008\n           -------------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008\n\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-8 order<\/p>\n
passed by the 1st respondent. Annexure-8 order, it<\/p>\n
appears, is passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.<\/p>\n
Reckoning the same as a conditional order under Sec.133<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., this Crl.M.C. has been initiated.<\/p>\n
    2. Annexure-8 order reveals that the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
herein had filed an application complaining about a<\/p>\n
construction which was undertaken by the petitioner<\/p>\n
herein for setting up a mobile telephone tower near the<\/p>\n
house of the 4th respondent.         On the complaint of the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent, the 1st respondent i.e., the Revenue Divisional<\/p>\n
 Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Officer, Kozhikode, appears to have entertained the<\/p>\n
satisfaction that the house of the 4th respondent is facing<\/p>\n
danger and insecurity. Accordingly, it was directed that the<\/p>\n
constructions of the tower may be shifted to an alternate<\/p>\n
site such that danger to the house of the 4th respondent is<\/p>\n
abated.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
the impugned order cannot be reckoned as a valid order<\/p>\n
under Chapter XB Cr.P.C.         It cannot be reckoned as a<\/p>\n
conditional order under Sec.133 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the<\/p>\n
essential requisites of such an order under Sec.133 Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
is not satisfied.  Since no proceedings under Chapter XB<\/p>\n
(Sec.133 Cr.P.C.) is initiated, the impugned order cannot<\/p>\n
also be reckoned as an interim order passed under Sec.142<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. also. In these circumstances, the proceedings are<\/p>\n
liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that in fact, it is not the Executive Magistrate who<\/p>\n
has initiated the proceedings under Annexure-8 and it is<\/p>\n
only the R.D.O. who has initiated the proceedings. It is not<\/p>\n
possible to discern from Annexure-8 whether the order is<\/p>\n
 Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
passed invoking the powers under Chapter XB Cr.P.C.       In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, the impugned order may be set aside.<\/p>\n
It may be clarified that it is not an order passed under<\/p>\n
Sec.133 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner is not liable to face any<\/p>\n
consequences reckoning Annexure-8 is an order under<\/p>\n
Sec.133 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The 3rd respondent is the local authority i.e.,<\/p>\n
Unnikulam Grama Panchayat.        The Panchayat had issued<\/p>\n
the requisite sanction (Annexure- 1) to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
undertake     the construction in question.         The 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent     stands by Annexure-1 sanction given for<\/p>\n
construction and virtually supports the prayer of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 submits that the impugned order<\/p>\n
cannot validly be supported as an order passed under<\/p>\n
Chapter XB (Sec.133 Cr.P.C.).          The learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor accepts that the same shall not be executed as<\/p>\n
though it is a conditional order under Sec.133 Cr.P.C. or an<\/p>\n
interim order under Sec.142 Cr.P.C. But the learned Public<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Prosecutor submits, and the 4th respondent supports that<\/p>\n
submission, that the S.D.M. may be given an option to take<\/p>\n
appropriate action, if necessary, under Chapter XB on the<\/p>\n
basis of the petition of the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
     6. I am satisfied that the impugned order – Annexure-8<\/p>\n
cannot in law be supported as either a conditional order<\/p>\n
under Sec.133 Cr.P.C. or an interim order under Sec.142<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, Annexure-8 order deserves<\/p>\n
to be set aside. The prayer of the Public Prosecutor can be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
the question of nuisance emanating from installation of a<\/p>\n
telecommunication tower for mobile phone communications<\/p>\n
has already been considered by a Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in Reliance Infocom Ltd. v. Chemanchery Grama<\/p>\n
Panchayat<\/a> (2006 (4) KLT 695). The learned counsel hence<\/p>\n
contends that the SDM is not competent to take any action<\/p>\n
under Chapter XB.       I am not going into that question in<\/p>\n
detail as the allegations made in the complaint by the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent covers      areas uncovered by the decision in<\/p>\n
 Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Reliance Infocom Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
     8. I the result:\n<\/p>\n
     (a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     (b) Annexure-8 order is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     (c) It is made clear that the setting aside of Annexure-<\/p>\n
8 order will not in any way fetter the right of the SDM to<\/p>\n
initiate fresh proceedings under Chapter XB (Sec.133<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.) in accordance with law if there are legal grounds to<\/p>\n
initiate such proceedings.    It is also made clear that the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s right to challenge any such proceedings<\/p>\n
initiated under Chapter XB will not also be fettered by any<\/p>\n
observations in this order.\n<\/p>\n
                                                Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n
               \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                   P.S. to Judge<\/p>\n
 Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                           R. BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
             ————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                   Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008\n<\/p>\n
             ————————————————-
\n             Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008<\/p>\n
                                ORDER<\/p>\n
      After discussions at the Bar, it is agreed that there can be a<\/p>\n
direction that status quo as on today shall be maintained and no<\/p>\n
further constructions shall be undertaken by the petitioners in<\/p>\n
the property in question. It is submitted by the petitioners that<\/p>\n
the construction of the tower is complete and the respondent<\/p>\n
insists that there may be a direction that no further<\/p>\n
constructions are undertaken.           Directions to that effect are<\/p>\n
issued. Call this petition in the usual course.<\/p>\n
                                             (R. BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Nan\/<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C. No. 1185 of 2008 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1185 of 2008() 1. M\/S.ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (P) … Petitioner Vs 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, … Respondent 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, 3. UNNIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, 4. SMT.PADMINI, MUPPATTAKKUNNUMMEL HOUSE, For […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-02T00:57:13+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T00:57:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":909,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T00:57:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - 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\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-02T00:57:13+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T00:57:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008"},"wordCount":909,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008","name":"M\/S.Essar Telecom ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T00:57:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-essar-telecom-vs-the-revenue-divisional-officer-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Essar Telecom … vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/174053","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=174053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}