{"id":179860,"date":"2002-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002"},"modified":"2014-06-09T20:21:48","modified_gmt":"2014-06-09T14:51:48","slug":"p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 09\/07\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.23971 of 2002 and WRIT PETITION NO.23972\/2002\nAND\nW.P.M.P.NOS.32948 TO 32950 OF 2002.\n\nP.Ghouse Basha                         ..Petitioner in WP.23971\/2002\nM.Sivappa                               ..Petitioner in WP.23972\/2002\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Special Commissioner and\n  Commissioner of Civil Supplies and\n  Consumer Protection, Chennai-600 005.\n\n2.The Additional District Magistrate-cum-\n  The District Revenue Officer,\n  Dharmapuri.\n\n3.The Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk,\n  Dharmapuri District.          .. Respondents in both  Wps.<\/pre>\n<p>        Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India<br \/>\npraying to grant writs of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n!For petitioners in\nboth the Wps.           :  Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior counsel\n                        for M\/s.R.G.Narendhiran\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.S.Venkatesh, A.G.P.\n\n\n:COMMON ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>                Both the above writ petitions are filed praying to issue Writs<br \/>\nof  Certiorarified  Mandamus  to call for the records of the second respondent<br \/>\nrespectively  in  O.Mu.No.96160\/2001  and   O.Mu.No.94043\/2001,   both   dated<br \/>\n28.12.2001  and  quash  the  same  and  direct  the  respondents  to renew the<br \/>\npetitioners licences to  store  diesel  for  the  period  from  1.1.200  2  to<br \/>\n31.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.   On  a  perusal of the materials placed on record and upon<br \/>\nhearing the learned counsel for both, it comes  to  be  known  that  both  the<br \/>\npetitioners were granted licences by the second respondent under the Petroleum<br \/>\nAct  to  import  2000  litres  of petroleum Class-B on 28.7.1992 and they were<br \/>\nrenewed periodically; that when the second respondent cancelled their licences<br \/>\nby proceedings dated 21.6.1999, they filed W.   Ps.11239  and  11350  of  1999<br \/>\nbefore  this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by a common order<br \/>\ndated 14.9.1999 allowed both the writ petitions  on  ground  that  the  second<br \/>\nrespondent  has  not  issued  any notice to the petitioners, before cancelling<br \/>\ntheir licences, but, however, given liberty to  the  second  respondent\/D.R.O.<br \/>\nto  take further action, if necessary, after giving due opportunity and notice<br \/>\nto the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  It further comes to be known that thereupon, by the orders<br \/>\ndated 4.2.2000, the D.R.O.  cancelled the licences of the petitioners  relying<br \/>\non  a communication received from the first respondent dated 31.5.1 999, which<br \/>\nreads that the issue of licence for retail sale of motor spirit and high speed<br \/>\ndiesel by D.R.O.  is violative of Clause 3(vii) of Motor Spirit and High Speed<br \/>\nDiesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of  Malpractices)<br \/>\nOrder  1998  (hereinafter  referred to as the Control Order) and hence to take<br \/>\ncorrective action immediately.  Challenging the  said  cancellation  of  their<br \/>\nlicences,  the  petitioners  again  filed W.P.Nos.4413 and 4416 of 2000 before<br \/>\nthis Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 10.8.2000,<br \/>\nallowed the  said  writ  petitions  and  since  the  main  contention  of  the<br \/>\npetitioners therein is that though the respondents have relied on the order of<br \/>\nthe first respondent dated 31.5.1999, they have not been furnished with a copy<br \/>\nof the same, the learned Judge directed the authorities to furnish copy of the<br \/>\nsaid  proceedings  dated  31.5.1999  to  the petitioners and pass orders after<br \/>\ngiving opportunity to the petitioners.   Afterwards,  the  respondents  issued<br \/>\nnotices  to  the petitioners dated 25.10.2000 thereby furnishing a copy of the<br \/>\norder of the first respondent dated 31.5.1999, and the  petitioners  submitted<br \/>\ntheir explanations  on  16.11.2000.   Thereupon, the second respondent, by his<br \/>\nproceeding dated 13.12.2000 cancelled the licences issued to the  petitioners.<br \/>\nHowever,  the  petitioners, on 5.12.2001, have filed petitions seeking renewal<br \/>\nof their licences as though their licences were still in force,  in  spite  of<br \/>\nthe fact that their licences have been cancelled, as aforementioned, for which<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent  has  rejected their applications for renewal of their<br \/>\nlicences as per the impugned orders dated 28.12.2001  with  the  remarks  that<br \/>\nsince  their  very  licences  have  been  cancelled  as  per  his  order dated<br \/>\n13.12.2000 itself, the question of renewal of the same for a further term does<br \/>\nnot arise at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The main contention of the petitioners is that  they  were<br \/>\ngranted  the  licences  under the Petroleum Act and now, the second respondent<br \/>\ncancelled their licences pursuant to the order of the first  respondent  dated<br \/>\n31.5.1999,  which  says  that  granting of licences by the DRO is violative of<br \/>\nOrder 3 (vii) of the Control Order.  The said Control Order, according to  the<br \/>\npetitioners,  cannot  have  any  overriding  effect over the Petroleum Act and<br \/>\nhence their licences cannot be cancelled based on such an order passed by  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  In support of their contention, the learned senior counsel<br \/>\nappearing  on behalf of the petitioners would rely on a judgment of the Bombay<br \/>\nHigh Court delivered in  <a href=\"\/doc\/528245\/\">THE  MUNICIPAL  CORPORATION  OF  GREATER  BOMBAY  vs.<br \/>\nBHARAT  PETROLEUM  CORPORATION  LIMITED AND OTHERS<\/a> reported in AIR 1993 Bombay<br \/>\n54, wherein by a notification No.P.104, dated 4.5.1950 issued under Section 31<br \/>\nof the Petroleum Act, 1934,  the  operation  of  Section  394  of  the  Bombay<br \/>\nMunicipal  Corporation  Act,  1888  was  restricted,  insofar as it related to<br \/>\nstorage and transportation of petroleum products and the Bombay High has held:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;There was a repugnancy between the Central Act i.e.  Petroleum  Act  and  the<br \/>\nState Act i.e.    The  Corporation  Act &#8230;  it is clear that to the extent of<br \/>\nnotified category,  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  two  enactments  and<br \/>\ntherefore  to  the  extent  of notified category, S.394 of the Corporation Act<br \/>\nwill have no application.  The Petroleum  Act  therefore  will  supercede  the<br \/>\nprovisions  of  S.394  of  the  Corporation  Act,  by virtue of Art.254 of the<br \/>\nConstitution.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  On 4.7.2002, when the above writ  petitions  came  up  for<br \/>\nadmission in the presence of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe  petitioners and the Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondents and resisting the same, emphasis was laid on  the  part  of<br \/>\nthe  petitioners  to  the  prayers of the writ petitions to quash the impugned<br \/>\norders dated 28.12.2001 and to renew the petitioners&#8217; licences to store diesel<br \/>\nfor the period from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  The impugned  orders  dated  28.12.2001  are  nothing  but<br \/>\nreplies  to  the  request  of the petitioners made on 5.12.2001 to renew their<br \/>\nlicences to keep diesel and petrol in the addresses mentioned  therein,  since<br \/>\ntheir licences were to expire on 31.12.2001, for a further term of three years<br \/>\ni.e.  till 31.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  In answer to the said renewal for three years requested by<br \/>\nthe petitioners as per their applications dated 5.12.2001, the impugned orders<br \/>\ndated  28.12.2001 have been passed by the second respondent not only revealing<br \/>\nthat as early as on 13.12.2000 itself, the  petitioners&#8217;  very  licences  were<br \/>\ncancelled  as seen in reference No.2 of the orders impugned but also asserting<br \/>\nthat the petitioners are not entitled to get anymore  licences  of  that  sort<br \/>\nsince  possession of the essential commodities such as diesel or petrol by the<br \/>\npetitioners or granting of the very licences by the authorities  is  violative<br \/>\nof Order 3 (vii) of the Control Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In the above scenario, the petitioners, in spite of having<br \/>\nknown  that  their  licences have been cancelled by the order of the authority<br \/>\ndated 13.12.2000 itself, after  one  year  of  such  cancellation,  had  filed<br \/>\napplications  to the same authority, the District Revenue Officer, for renewal<br \/>\nof the licences for a further period of three years, which is  nothing  but  a<br \/>\nfraud  and cheating perpetrated by the petitioners on the designated authority<br \/>\nin spite of knowing  that  their  licences  were  cancelled  as  early  as  on<br \/>\n13.12.2000  and  they  could  not  be  renewed  any further much less by those<br \/>\napplications made after one year of such cancellation.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  It  is  under  these  circumstances,  in  reply  to  such<br \/>\nfraudulent  applications  filed  on  the  part  of the petitioners, the second<br \/>\nrespondent\/District Revenue Officer and the Licensing Authority had passed the<br \/>\nimpugned orders stating thereby that since the licences issued in their favour<br \/>\nhad been repugnant to or violative of Order 3(vii) of the  Control  Order  and<br \/>\nfurther  on  account  of  the  same  reason  their  licences  had already been<br \/>\ncancelled, the question of renewing the same  does  not  at  all  arise,  thus<br \/>\nexpressing  his inability to renew the licences which were non-existent on the<br \/>\ndate of the applications of the petitioners for renewal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  It is relevant to note that many writ petitions have been<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioners in the past and directions have been issued in  every<br \/>\nsuch   writ  petition  to  the  second  respondent  and  ultimately,  in  full<br \/>\nconsideration of all the representations made on the part of the  petitioners,<br \/>\nthe  second respondent had passed the ultimate orders dated 13.12.2000 thereby<br \/>\ncancelling the licences of the petitioners and in spite of full  knowledge  of<br \/>\nthe  cancellation of the said licences, the petitioners had filed applications<br \/>\nfor renewal  of  the  cancelled  licences  as  per  their  applications  dated<br \/>\n5.12.2001 i.e.    roughly  after  one year of the cancellation of the licences<br \/>\nthereby giving an impression to the second respondent Licensing  Authority  as<br \/>\nthough  the  said  licences  had  been  in  force  and  were  only expiring on<br \/>\n31.12.2001, which is nothing but a calculated fraud played by the  petitioners<br \/>\nwith the Licensing Authority.  In the above circumstances, the lower authority<br \/>\nhas  not only declined to pass any order on such renewal applications but also<br \/>\nhas disclosed the fraud perpetrated on the part of the petitioners making  the<br \/>\nLicensing  Authority  believe that their licences (which had been cancelled as<br \/>\nearly as on 13.12.2000) were still in force and were going to expire  only  on<br \/>\n31.12.2001  thus  seeking the renewal of the same, which must be taken serious<br \/>\nnote of.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  While such being the fact,  the  learned  senior  counsel<br \/>\nappearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners  would strive hard to convince the<br \/>\nCourt, citing a judgment of the Bombay High Court reported  in  A.I.R.    1993<br \/>\nBombay  53 wherein by a notification dated 4.5.1950 issued under Section 31 of<br \/>\nthe Petroleum Act, 1934, the operation of Section 394 of the Bombay  Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation  Act,  1888  was  restricted  insofar as it related to storage and<br \/>\ntransportation of petroleum products and the said  High  Court  observed  that<br \/>\n`there was  a  repugnancy  between the Central Act i.e.  Petroleum Act and the<br \/>\nState Act i.e.  The Corporation Act&#8217; further remarking that `it is clear  that<br \/>\nto  the  extent  of  notified  category,  there  is a conflict between the two<br \/>\nenactments and therefore to the extent of notified category,  Section  394  of<br \/>\nthe  Corporation  Act  will  have  no  application  and the Petroleum Act will<br \/>\nsupercede the provisions of Section 394 of the Corporation Act  by  virtue  of<br \/>\nSection 254 of the Constitution of India.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>                13.   The  above judgment has absolutely no application to the<br \/>\ncases in hand since there is neither repugnancy nor conflict between a Central<br \/>\nlegislation and the State legislation in the cases in hand.  It  is  only  the<br \/>\nPetroleum  Act  and  the  directive issued by the Commissioner, civil Supplies<br \/>\npursuant to Clause 3(vii) of the Control Order which are relevant in the cases<br \/>\nin hand and the said Control Order has been passed well  in  exercise  of  the<br \/>\npowers  conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, which is<br \/>\nyet another Central legislation.  Therefore, citing  the  above  judgment  and<br \/>\narguing  as  though  the  Central legislation and the State legislation are in<br \/>\nconflict with each other so as to bring in  the  arguments  of  repugnancy  or<br \/>\nconflict  are  absolutely  of  no  application  to  the  context of the cases.<br \/>\nFurther more, the  petitioners  have  neither  seem  to  have  challenged  the<br \/>\ncancellation order dated 13.12.2000 nor had the said orders been cancelled and<br \/>\ntherefore  they  have  become  final  and  holds  good till date, much less on<br \/>\n5.12.2001 when the petitioners filed their  renewal  applications  before  the<br \/>\nLicensing Authority, the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   Moreover,  the  petitioners  having  committed fraud and<br \/>\ncheating of the Government authority in seeking renewal of licences that  were<br \/>\nalready  cancelled  and  dead,  does  not have locus standi either to file the<br \/>\nabove writ petitions or to testify the validity of the law on the  subject  as<br \/>\nthey have done in the above writ petitions.  Having failed to perpetrate their<br \/>\nfraudulent acts with the Licensing Authority and the District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\nDharmapuri,  now  the  petitioners  have come up to play the same fraud on the<br \/>\nHigh Court by means of the above writ  petitions  and  hence  the  above  writ<br \/>\npetitions deserve only to be dismissed with exemplary costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>In result,<\/p>\n<p>(i)Both  the  above writ petitions are not only absolutely devoid of merit but<br \/>\nalso an attempt to play fraud on the judicial process and  therefore  each  of<br \/>\nthe  above writ petitions is dismissed, at the admission stage itself, with an<br \/>\nexemplary cost of Rs.10,000\/= (Rupees Ten Thousand Only).\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)The District Revenue Officer, Dharmapuri, the second respondent herein, is<br \/>\nhereby directed to initiate prosecutions against the petitioners  through  the<br \/>\nCivil Supplies  C.I.D.   Police, Dharmapuri District within two weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.32948 to  32950  of  2002  are  also<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<br \/>\nRao<br \/>\n9.07.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Special Commissioner and<br \/>\nCommissioner of Civil Supplies and<br \/>\nConsumer Protection, Chennai-600 005.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional District Magistrate-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>The District Revenue Officer,<br \/>\nDharmapuri.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Tahsildar, Krishnagiri Taluk,<br \/>\nDharmapuri District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Civil Supplies C.I.D.,<br \/>\nDharmapuri District,<br \/>\nDharmapuri.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.KANAGARAJ, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Common Order in W.P.Nos.23971<br \/>\nand 23972\/2002 and WPMPs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09\/07\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.23971 of 2002 and WRIT PETITION NO.23972\/2002 AND W.P.M.P.NOS.32948 TO 32950 OF 2002. P.Ghouse Basha ..Petitioner in WP.23971\/2002 M.Sivappa ..Petitioner in WP.23972\/2002 Vs. 1.The [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - 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\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-09T14:51:48+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-09T14:51:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2057,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\",\"name\":\"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-09T14:51:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - 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\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-09T14:51:48+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-09T14:51:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002"},"wordCount":2057,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002","name":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-09T14:51:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-ghouse-basha-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-9-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Ghouse Basha vs The Special Commissioner And on 9 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/179860","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=179860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}