{"id":178369,"date":"1975-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975"},"modified":"2017-11-23T04:54:26","modified_gmt":"2017-11-22T23:24:26","slug":"prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","title":{"rendered":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1093, \t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 315<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: N Untwalia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Untwalia, N.L.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPRABHAKAR &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/10\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nBENCH:\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 1093\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 315\n 1976 SCC  (2) 890\n\n\nACT:\n     Bombay Police  Officers (Combined\tCadre) Conditions of\nService Order,\t1954-Clause 7(1)  (a)-Rule  of\tfixation  of\nseniority by taking the date of the commencement of training\nis constitutionally  valid, not\t discriminatory and does not\noffend Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Appointments to  the posts of sub-inspectors (either to\nthe Distt.  Police Force  or the  Police  Force\t of  Greater\nBombay) in  the State  of Bombay,  prior to 1st of May 1939,\nwere after  a training\tof 18  months at the Police Training\nSchool at  Nasik. Between the period 1st May 1939 and 1st of\nJune 1949,  a new  training school  at\tNaigaum\t a  part  of\nGreater Bombay\twas started  wherein the  period of training\nvaried from  3 to  8 months and after the short training the\ncadets were  appointed straight\t away as  Sub-Inspectors  of\nPolice in  Greater Bombay.  Separate  seniority\t lists\twere\nmaintained for\tthe Distt.  force and  the city\t force.\t The\nNasik school  continued to exist side by side with 18 months\ntraining. On  the general principle of fixation of seniority\nwhen the combined cadre service order came into force w.e.f.\n1-8-54 the  two seniority lists were maintained on the basis\nof their  passing out  the training  and in  order of  merit\nobtained at  the passing  examination. After  the formation,\nwhen transfers were to be made, a difficulty arose in fixing\nthe inter-se  seniority of the officers appointed after full\n18 months  training and\t one appointed\tafter training for a\nshorter period and to avoid anomaly and hardship a provision\nwas made  in clause  7 whereby\tfor the purpose of seniority\n(i) in\tthe case of officers whose training commenced on any\ndate from  1-5-39 to  1-6-1949, the  date of commencement of\nthe training was taken and\n     (ii) in  other cases, the dote of successful completion\nof such\t a course  and inter-se\t the place  occupied in\t the\nresults of  the examination held at the end of such a course\nwas taken.\n     When  the\t constitutionality  of\tClause\t7(1)(a)\t was\nchallenged, the High Court of Bombay declared Clause 7(1)(a)\nof the\torder void, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of\nthe Constitution on three grounds:\n\t  (1)  That the Government had reduced the period of\n\t       training at  Naigaum School  as\tagainst\t the\n\t       resolution dated\t April 6, 1940 providing for\n\t       the establishment  of a\tTraining  School  at\n\t       Naigaum.\n\t  (2)  That according  to the  said  clause  of\t the\n\t       Order the commencement of the training period\n\t       of the  Mofussil officer\t was to be taken for\n\t       determination of\t his  seniority\t whereas  in\n\t       case of\tthe officer belonging to the Greater\n\t       Bombay  Police\tForce,\tthe   date  of\t his\n\t       appointment  was\t to  be\t taken\tand  in\t the\n\t       opinion of  the High  Court, this was clearly\n\t       discriminatory.\n\t  (3)  That in\tcase of\t a  cadet  whose  period  of\n\t       training had  been extended on account of his\n\t       failure\tat   the  examination  the  impugned\n\t       clause gave  an advantage  even to such a bad\n\t       officer.\n     Dismissing the  appeal appellant No. 3 and allowing the\nappeal of appellants Nos. 1 and 2. the Court\n^\n     HELD: (i)\tThe High Court has committed an error in the\ninterpretation of the provision contained in clause 7(1) (a)\nof the Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of\nService Order.\tOn  transfer  of  any  police  officer\tfrom\nGreater Bombay\tto  the\t District  and\tvice-versa,  if\t his\ntraining had com-\n316\nmenced on any date between the period of 1st May 1939 to 1st\nJune 1949  then his seniority was to be determined vis-a-vis\nthe police  officer of the force to which he was transferred\nwith  reference\t  to  the  dates  on  which  their  training\ncommenced. It is not that in one case it will be the date of\ncommencement of\t the training  and in  the other  it will be\ndate of appointment. [319-C-D].\n     (ii) Ordinarily  and generally  method of\tfixation  of\nseniority as provided in sub-clause (b) of clause 7(1)(a) of\nthe order  was the correct and proper method to be followed.\nBut because  of the special situation of appointment of some\npolice officers\t during the  period of 10 years on a shorter\nperiod of  training, a\tdeparture was  made as\tprovided  in\nclause (a). There was nothing wrong, illegal or unreasonable\nin making  a provision\tin sub-clause  (a) that\t in  such  a\nsituation the commencement of the period of training will be\ntaken as the date for the purposes of fixation of seniority.\nThere was  a reasonable\t nexus between\tthe object  and\t the\nrule. [319-H, 320 A-B]\n     (iii) It  was for\tthe rule  making authority to decide\nand to\tchoose\tin  such  a  situation-either  the  date  of\ncommencement of\t the training  or the  date of\tappointment.\nTaking the  former date\t in  the  special  circumstances  is\nreasonable and\tjustified. Such a provision is not violative\nof Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. [320 B-C]\n     (iv) To  hold clause  7(1) as ultra vires on the ground\nthat it gives any advantage even to such a bad officer whose\nperiod of  training had\t been extended\ton  account  of\t his\nfailure in  the examination  may be  theoretically  correct.\nClause 7(1)(a)\twas not meant to give any undue advantage to\na non-deserving\t police\t officer  who  failed  to  pass\t the\ntraining examination at the proper time. [320 C-D]\n     (v) Clause\t 7(1)(a) of  the order\tis  constitutionally\nvalid and not discriminatory. [320-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 721 of<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated the  25th August 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Spl.<br \/>\nCivil Appln. No. 1831 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>     V. M. Tarkunde, Sharad Manohar, V. N. Ganpule and P. C.<br \/>\nKapoor for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     M. N. Shroff for Respondents 1-3.\n<\/p>\n<p>     <a href=\"\/doc\/599555\/\">K. K.  Singhvi, R.\t K. Garg,  E. C.  Agarwal and  V. J.<br \/>\nFrancis<\/a> for Respondent No. 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     UNTWALIA,\tJ.-The\t only  point  which  falls  for\t our<br \/>\ndetermination in  this appeal  by special  leave is  whether<br \/>\nclause 7(1)(a)\tof  the\t Bombay\t Police\t Officers  (Combined<br \/>\nCadre) Conditions  of Service Order, 1954-hereinafter called<br \/>\nthe Order,  made by  the Government of Bombay in exercise of<br \/>\nthe powers  conferred by  clause (b)  of Section  5  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay Police  Act, 1951  is constitutionally  invalid being<br \/>\nviolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\nas has\tbeen held  by the  Bombay High\tCourt  in  the\tWrit<br \/>\nPetition filed by respondent no.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  Province or the State of Bombay, there were two<br \/>\nseparate police forces-the Mofussil police force governed by<br \/>\nthe Bombay  District Police Act, 1890 and the City Police of<br \/>\nBombay governed by the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">317<\/span><br \/>\nCity of Bombay Police Act, 1902. Some steps for inter-mixing<br \/>\nand inter-transfer  of officers\t of one\t force to  the other<br \/>\nwere taken  by making  some provisions\tin Bombay Act XVI of<br \/>\n1949 called  the Police\t Forces (Control and Direction) Act,<br \/>\n1949. The  Bombay Police  Act of  1951 repealed\t the earlier<br \/>\nActs. Under  the Order which came into force on and from the<br \/>\n1st August,  1954, provision was made in clause 4 empowering<br \/>\nthe State  Government whenever\tit thought  fit to order the<br \/>\ntransfer of  any police\t officer belonging  to the  combined<br \/>\ncadre from  Greater Bombay  to any  District and vice-versa.<br \/>\nThe combined cadre was sought to be formed under clause 3 of<br \/>\nthe Order.  Two separate lists of the officers in accordance<br \/>\nwith their  respective seniority  were, however,  maintained<br \/>\neven under  clause 3  of the Order. Previously there was one<br \/>\nPolice Training\t School at  Nasik where\t cadets for training<br \/>\nwere sent.  The period\tof their  training was 18 months. On<br \/>\npassing out  the training  the cadets  were appointed to the<br \/>\nposts of  Sub-Inspectors of  Police. Some  were appointed to<br \/>\nthe District  Police Force  and some were sent to the Police<br \/>\nForce of  Greater Bombay.  In the  year 1939  due to certain<br \/>\nexigencies of  administration such  as introduction  of\t the<br \/>\nscheme of  Prohibition and  the impending  second World\t War<br \/>\nmore Sub-Inspectors  were needed to be appointed for Greater<br \/>\nBombay. A  new Training\t School was opened at Naigaum a part<br \/>\nof Greater  Bombay. This  new Training\tSchool\tremained  in<br \/>\nexistence for  about a\tdecade from  the 1st of May, 1939 to<br \/>\n1st of\tJune, 1949.  The period of training was reduced from<br \/>\n18 months  to a\t much shorter  period varying  from 3  to  8<br \/>\nmonths. Thus  cadets of\t particular batches after completion<br \/>\nof training for a shorter period were straightaway appointed<br \/>\nas Sub-Inspectors  of Police in Greater Bombay. This went on<br \/>\nfor a  period of  about 10  years as  already stated. On the<br \/>\nother hand,  almost invariably, the training period at Nasik<br \/>\nSchool remained\t of 18\tmonths. On  the general principle of<br \/>\nfixation of  seniority, the  two seniority  lists which were<br \/>\nmaintained separately  even under the Order, were maintained<br \/>\non the\tbasis of their passing out the training and in order<br \/>\nof merit  obtained at  the passing  examination.  But  since<br \/>\nafter the  formation of\t the combined  cadre under the Order<br \/>\ntransfers were\tto be  made under clause 4, a difficulty was<br \/>\nfelt in\t the matter  of fixation  of seniority vis-a-vis the<br \/>\nofficer who  had been  appointed after\tcompletion  of\tfull<br \/>\ntraining period\t and the  one who  had been appointed on the<br \/>\ntraining of  a shorter\tperiod. To  avoid this\tanomaly\t and<br \/>\ndifficulty, a  provision was  made in  clause 7 of the Order<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;7.  (1)  When  an  officer  who  was\t in  service<br \/>\n     immediately before\t the formation of the Combined Cadre<br \/>\n     is transferred  under clause  4,  his  seniority  among<br \/>\n     Police Officers  of equivalent  ranks in Greater Bombay<br \/>\n     or in  the Districts,  as the  case  may  be  shall  be<br \/>\n     determined in  the case of an officer who was appointed<br \/>\n     to a  post either in Greater Bombay or in the Districts<br \/>\n     after  a  course  of  training  at\t a  Police  Training<br \/>\n     School,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (a) if  the training commenced on any date between<br \/>\n     the period\t from Ist  May 1939  to 1st  June 1949 (both<br \/>\n     inclusive) with reference to the date on which training<br \/>\n     commenced;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">318<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (b) in  other cases,\twith reference to successful<br \/>\n     completion of  such a  course and\tinter se  the  place<br \/>\n     occupied in  the results of the examination held at the<br \/>\n     end of such a course.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Respondent No.  4 was a Police Officer appointed in the<br \/>\nyear 1948  after a  short training period at Naigaum School.<br \/>\nHe challenged  by a writ application the vires of the entire<br \/>\nOrder on  certain grounds.  He prayed  for  a  direction  to<br \/>\nrespondents 1  to 3  for not  giving affect to the Order and<br \/>\nfor re-fixation\t of seniority.\tThere was some dispute as to<br \/>\nthe seniority  of a  police officer  appointed in  a regular<br \/>\nmanner and  the one  appointed to  the police force from the<br \/>\nExcise\tDepartment.   The  High\t  Court\t allowed   the\twrit<br \/>\napplication in part, declared clause 7(1)(a) of the Order as<br \/>\nconstitutionally invalid and also directed the adjustment of<br \/>\nplaces of  seniority as between the police officers who came<br \/>\nby regular  appointments and  those who came from the Excise<br \/>\nDepartment. Some  officers of  the Department were impleaded<br \/>\nas respondents\tin the\twrit application in their respective<br \/>\ncapacity. The  two such\t officers made\tparties in  the writ<br \/>\napplication were  respondents 4 and 5 of the Mofussil Police<br \/>\nForce. Respondents  6 and 7 therein were police officers who<br \/>\nhad come  from the  Excise Department. Appellants 1 and 2 in<br \/>\nthe present  appeal are\t two other  police officers  of\t the<br \/>\nMofussil Police\t Force and  appellant  No.  3  is  a  Police<br \/>\nofficer\t who   came  from  the\tExcise\tDepartment.  He\t was<br \/>\nrespondent 6  in the writ application. The order of the High<br \/>\nCourt made  against appellant  No. 3  could not\t be assailed<br \/>\nbefore us.  Appellant No.  3, is not, therefore, entitled to<br \/>\nany relief in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     So far  the case of appellants 1 and 2 is concerned, it<br \/>\nmust be\t noted that  the High Court has declared clause 7(1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) of\tthe Order void being violative of Articles 14 and 16<br \/>\nof the Constitution on three grounds:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (1)  That the Government had reduced the period of<br \/>\n\t       training at  Naigaum School  as\tagainst\t the<br \/>\n\t       resolution dated\t April 6, 1940 providing for<br \/>\n\t       the establishment  of a\tTraining  School  at<br \/>\n\t       Naigaum.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (2)  That according  to the  said  clause  of\t the<br \/>\n\t       Order the commencement of the training period<br \/>\n\t       of the  Mofussil officer\t was to be taken for<br \/>\n\t       determination of\t his  seniority\t whereas  in<br \/>\n\t       case of\tthe officer belonging to the Greater<br \/>\n\t       Bombay  Police\tForce,\tthe   date  of\t his<br \/>\n\t       appointment  was\t to  be\t taken\tand  in\t the<br \/>\n\t       opinion of  the High  Court, this was clearly<br \/>\n\t       discriminatory.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (3)  That in\tcase of\t a  cadet  whose  period  of<br \/>\n\t       training had  been extended on account of his<br \/>\n\t       failure\tat   the  examination  the  impugned<br \/>\n\t       clause gave  an advantage  even to such a bad<br \/>\n\t       officer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In our  opinion, none  of the grounds forming the basis<br \/>\nof the judgment of the High Court is sustainable. The attack<br \/>\non Rule\t 7(1)(a) was  not  specifically\t made  in  the\twrit<br \/>\napplication as originally presented<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">319<\/span><br \/>\nby respondent  No. 4.  He laid the foundation for the attack<br \/>\nin   his   re-joinder\tapplication.   A   counter-affidavit<br \/>\nthereafter was\tfiled by  the State  stating the facts which<br \/>\nled to the framing of clause 7(1)(a). Respondent No. 4 filed<br \/>\na further  rejoinder. It  was not disputed, rather, admitted<br \/>\non all\thands that at Naigaum School the training period was<br \/>\nmuch shorter than the period of 18 months which continued at<br \/>\nNasik. If  during the period of 10 years cadets on the basis<br \/>\nof a shorter period of training were appointed to the Bombay<br \/>\nPolice Force  without any  specific order  of the Government<br \/>\n(although it  must not\tbe the\tcase) it might have affected<br \/>\nthe validity of their appointment but not the fact that they<br \/>\nhad been so appointed on a shorter period of training.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The  High\t Court\thas   committed\t an   error  in\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation of the provision contained in clause 7(1) (a)<br \/>\nof the Order. On transfer of any police officer from Greater<br \/>\nBombay to  the District\t and vice versa, if his training had<br \/>\ncommenced on any date between the period of 1st May, 1939 to<br \/>\nIst June, 1949, then his seniority was to be determined vis-<br \/>\na-vis the  police officer  of the  force  to  which  he\t was<br \/>\ntransferred with  reference to\tthe  dates  on\twhich  their<br \/>\ntraining commenced.  It is  not that  in one case it will be<br \/>\nthe date of commencement of the training and in the other it<br \/>\nwill be\t the date  of appointment,  as seems  to  have\tbeen<br \/>\nwrongly thought\t by the\t High Court. To explain, we may take<br \/>\nan example.  Suppose a\tSub-Inspector A\t whose training\t had<br \/>\nmenced-say on  Ist April,  1947 resulting in his appointment<br \/>\non Ist on Ist November, 1947 was transferred to the Mofussil<br \/>\nwhere, let  us suppose\tagain, a  police officer B was there<br \/>\nwhose  training\t  had  commenced-say   on  lst\tApril,\t1947<br \/>\nresulting in  his appointment  on 1st  October, 1948 then in<br \/>\nsuch a\tcase B\twill be\t senior to  A because  his  training<br \/>\ncommenced earlier even though he was appointed later. But if<br \/>\nthere be  an officer,  suppose\tC,  in\tthe  Mofussil  whose<br \/>\ntraining commenced-say\ton 1st\tApril, 1947 resulting in his<br \/>\nappointment on\t1st December, 1948, then he cannot be senior<br \/>\nto A by taking 1st June, 1947 as the date of commencement of<br \/>\nhis training  and comparing with 1st November, 1947 the date<br \/>\nof appointment\tof A.  This interpretation of the rule which<br \/>\nwe have put was accepted to be the correct interpretation on<br \/>\nall hands  including the  Government.  Learned\tcounsel\t for<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t4,  however,  submitted\t that  the  impugned<br \/>\nseniority list\thad not\t been prepared\tby the Government on<br \/>\nsuch an\t interpretation of  clause  7(1)(a),  but  the\tlist<br \/>\nprepared is  on the basis of the interpretation given by the<br \/>\nHigh Court.  On behalf of the State we were informed that it<br \/>\nwas not\t so. We have no doubt in our mind that even if there<br \/>\nbe any mistake or discrepancy in the seniority list which is<br \/>\nfound to be not in conformity with the interpretation put by<br \/>\nus to  clause 7(1)(a), then that mistake or discrepancy will<br \/>\nhave to\t be removed sooner than later and the seniority list<br \/>\nwill be set at right accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Ordinarily and  generally the  method  of\tfixation  of<br \/>\nseniority as provided in sub-clause (b) of clause 7(1)(a) of<br \/>\nthe Order  was the correct and proper method to be followed.<br \/>\nBut because  of the special situation of appointment of some<br \/>\npolice officers during the period of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">320<\/span><br \/>\n10 years  on a\tshorter period\tof training  a departure was<br \/>\nmade as provided in sub-clause (a). A cadet who received his<br \/>\nfull training for 18 months at Nasik for no fault of his was<br \/>\nappointed later\t than a\t cadet who started training later at<br \/>\nNaigaum but was appointed earlier than the former. There was<br \/>\nnothing wrong, illegal or unreasonable in making a provision<br \/>\nin sub-clause  (a) that in such a situation the commencement<br \/>\nof the\tperiod of training will be taken as the date for the<br \/>\npurposes of  fixation of  seniority. There  was a reasonable<br \/>\nand rational  nexus between  the object and the rule. It was<br \/>\nfor the\t rule making  authority to  decide and\tto choose in<br \/>\nsuch a\tsituation-either the  date of  commencement  of\t the<br \/>\ntraining or  the date of appointment. Taking the former date<br \/>\nin the\tspecial circumstances  seems to\t be  reasonable\t and<br \/>\njustified. Such\t a provision  cannot be said to be violative<br \/>\nof Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The third\tground for  declaring clause  7(1)(a)  ultra<br \/>\nvires given  by the High Court theoretically was correct but<br \/>\nmaterials were\tplaced before us from the various affidavits<br \/>\nto show\t that hardly there was such a case which had got the<br \/>\nadvantage  of\tthe  clause   even  after   failure  in\t the<br \/>\nexamination. There  was one  such case\tof hardship  of\t not<br \/>\npassing out  the examination  in time  due to reasons beyond<br \/>\nthe control  of the  cadet. Clause  7(1)(a), in our opinion,<br \/>\nwas not meant to give any undue advantage to a non-deserving<br \/>\npolice officer\twho failed  to pass the training examination<br \/>\nat the\tproper time. No specific instance was brought to our<br \/>\nnotice where such advantage had been accorded.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the  reasons stated above, the appeal of appellants<br \/>\n1 and 2 is allowed and that of appellant No. 3 is dismissed.<br \/>\nIt  is\t held  that   clause  7(1)(a),\t of  the   order  is<br \/>\nconstitutionally   valid   and\t not   discriminatory.\t The<br \/>\ndirections given  to respondents  1 and\t 3 to  set right the<br \/>\nseniority list by the High Court on the basis of the alleged<br \/>\ninvalidity of  clause 7(1)(a)  of the order is set aside. In<br \/>\nthe circumstances, we shall make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed in part.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">321<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 1093, 1976 SCR (3) 315 Author: N Untwalia Bench: Untwalia, N.L. PETITIONER: PRABHAKAR &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/10\/1975 BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. GOSWAMI, P.K. CITATION: [&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-178369","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>Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - 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\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\" \/>\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=\"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-22T23:24:26+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T23:24:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\"},\"wordCount\":2151,\"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\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\",\"name\":\"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-22T23:24:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - 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\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-22T23:24:26+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975","datePublished":"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T23:24:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975"},"wordCount":2151,"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\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975","name":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-22T23:24:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhakar-ors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-22-october-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhakar &amp; Ors vs State Of Maharashtra &amp; Ors on 22 October, 1975"}]},{"@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\/178369","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=178369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}