{"id":180295,"date":"2002-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002"},"modified":"2015-11-13T01:10:35","modified_gmt":"2015-11-12T19:40:35","slug":"abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D Mohapatra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2676  of  2002\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nABDUL HAI KHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t12\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. Mohapatra &amp; Brijesh Kumar\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>With<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2677\/2002 @ SLP\t No.6612\/2000<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2678\/2002 @ SLP\t No.8908\/1999<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2679\/2002 @ SLP\t No.6693\/2000<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2680\/2002 @ SLP\t No.11231\/2000<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2681\/2002 @ SLP\t No.12365\/2000<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2682\/2002 @ SLP\t No.19665\/2000<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2683\/2002 @ SLP\t No.5242\/2002<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2684\/2002 @ SLP\t No.5243\/2002<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2685\/2002 @ SLP\t No.5245\/2002<br \/>\nCivil Appeal No.2686\/2002 @ SLP\t No.5246\/2002<\/p>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>D.P. MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLeave is granted in all the special leave petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThese appeals filed by certain private\tstage carriage<br \/>\noperators in Calcutta region of the State of West Bengal are<br \/>\ndirected against the judgment of the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh Court of Calcutta disposing of a batch of appeals filed<br \/>\nby some private operators challenging the judgment<br \/>\npassed by single Judges declining to grant any relief to the<br \/>\npetitioners.  Since all these appeals have been heard<br \/>\ntogether, the  facts in S.L.P.(Civil) No.8634\/99 are being<br \/>\nreferred for the sake of convenience.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the<br \/>\nappeals by passing the order operative portion of which<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;For the reasons aforementioned these<br \/>\nappeals and the Writ applications are<br \/>\ndisposed of with the direction upon the<br \/>\nRegional Transport Authority to<br \/>\nconsider grant of permit as if the 1980<br \/>\nScheme is no longer in force and for<br \/>\nthat purpose applications filed by the<br \/>\nconcerned operators may be<br \/>\nconsidered strictly in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw.  In the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthis case there will be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFrom the discussions in the impugned judgment it is<br \/>\nclear that the Division Bench took the view that the<br \/>\nscheme formulated under the Notification issued on<br \/>\n10.4.1980 was ultra vires  the provisions of Chapter IVA of<br \/>\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 since it was contrary to the<br \/>\nintent and purport  of provisions  in the said chapter.\t The<br \/>\nDivision Bench observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Ex-facie, therefore  the said 1980<br \/>\nNotification is ultra vires  Section 68C<br \/>\nof 1939 Act. Any notification issued<br \/>\ncontrary  to the Statute shall be invalid<br \/>\nand inoperative.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt was further\theld in the judgment  that since the<br \/>\n1980 scheme was not in operation for a long time and the<br \/>\nCourt had been passing orders directing the authorities<br \/>\nconcerned to consider applications  for grant of stage<br \/>\ncarriage permit and pursuant to such orders a large<br \/>\nnumber of stage carriage permits had been granted to<br \/>\nprivate operators; in such a situation the doctrine of<br \/>\n&#8216;Desuetude&#8217; should be applied in the case.  The Division<br \/>\nBench observed that the main scheme notified in 1963<br \/>\nwhich was subsequently amended had not been placed<br \/>\nbefore the Court.  The Division Bench took note of the<br \/>\nstatements made by the counsel\tappearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe State and made the following observations :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It may further be placed on record<br \/>\nthat both Mr. Dey and Mr.Khan<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the State<br \/>\nspecifically stated before us that<br \/>\nalthough in the affidavit-in-opposition<br \/>\nthe State had taken a stand that 1980<br \/>\nNotification still exists, the fact<br \/>\nremains that the same had not been<br \/>\nadhered to and State Carriage permits<br \/>\nhad been granted in  favour of a large<br \/>\nnumber of operators.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Referring to certain decisions of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nand of different High Courts the Division Bench rendered<br \/>\nthe judgment  operative portion of which has been quoted<br \/>\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n<p>Analysing the facts of the case appearing from the<br \/>\nrecords and arguments  placed by learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the parties the following factual position<br \/>\nemerges:\n<\/p>\n<p>Initially the passenger transport services in Calcutta<br \/>\nregion were operated by holders of stage carriage permits<br \/>\nissued by the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta. By<br \/>\nthe Notification issued on 19.8.1963 the State of West<br \/>\nBengal published a scheme nationalizing\t certain routes<br \/>\nin the Calcutta and Howrah  regions under Section 68-D of<br \/>\nthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the &#8216;Old Act&#8217;).\t In<br \/>\nthe said Scheme\t provision was made to permit  the<br \/>\nexisting private operators to continue their services on the<br \/>\nroutes specified in the permits.  The previous notification<br \/>\ndated 2.5.62 published\tin the Calcutta Extra-ordinary<br \/>\nGazette was modified in terms of the Scheme notified in<br \/>\n1963. Subsequently, the 1963 Scheme was modified in<br \/>\n1964, 1970 and in 1980, permitting private operators to<br \/>\noperate\t certain routes within the region.  The writ<br \/>\npetitioners who are the appellants herein, were issued<br \/>\nstage carriage permits on the routes included in the<br \/>\nnotification.  They have been operating\t on the nationalized<br \/>\nroutes.\t Their grievance appears to be that  the Regional<br \/>\nTransport Authority, Calcutta  has granted permits to<br \/>\nprivate operators on routes overlapping the nationalized<br \/>\nroutes on which they are operating under the modified<br \/>\nscheme\tignoring the notification issued in 1963 as<br \/>\nmodified in 1980.  It is the contention of the appellants<br \/>\nthat the nationalization  scheme has been given a complete<br \/>\ngo-bye by indiscriminate grant of permits    to private stage<br \/>\ncarriage operators on routes overlapping the nationalized<br \/>\nroutes.\t In essence the contention of the appellants is that<br \/>\nthey have a right to operate  on the nationalized routes on<br \/>\nwhich they have been granted permits to the exclusion of<br \/>\nany other private operator on the entire route or on a<br \/>\nportion of it.\n<\/p>\n<p>The following reliefs were sought in the petition :\n<\/p>\n<p>a)   A writ of and\/or in the nature of<br \/>\nMandamus commanding the<br \/>\nrespondents, each one of them,<br \/>\ntheir agents, subordinates and\/or<br \/>\nassigns to forbear from granting<br \/>\nany stage carriage permit (bus) on<br \/>\nroute No.210 which is overlapping<br \/>\nthe notified route no.76\/76A   and<br \/>\nalso without complying with the<br \/>\nprovisions of Chapter VI of the<br \/>\nMotor Vehicles Act 1988 in any<br \/>\nmanner whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<p>b)\tA Writ of and\/or in the nature of<br \/>\nCertiorari to issue directing the<br \/>\nrespondents, their agents,<br \/>\nsubordinates and\/or assigns to<br \/>\ntransmit the entire record of the<br \/>\ncase forming the basis of the<br \/>\npurported grant of stage carriage<br \/>\n(bus) permits in respect of route<br \/>\nNo.210\twhich is overlapping the<br \/>\nnotified route\tNo.76\/ 76A before<br \/>\nthis Hon&#8217;ble Court and to certify<br \/>\nthem and on being so certified<br \/>\nquash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>c)\tA writ of and\/or in the nature<br \/>\nprohibition prohibiting the<br \/>\nrespondents, their agents,<br \/>\nservants subordinates and\/or<br \/>\nassigns from granting any stage<br \/>\ncarriage permits on route no.210<br \/>\nwhich is overlapping the notified<br \/>\nroute no.76\/76A and also<br \/>\nwithout complying with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Motor Vehicles<br \/>\nAct 1988 in any manner<br \/>\nwhatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<p>d)\tRule NISI in terms of prayers (a)<br \/>\nto (c) as above.\n<\/p>\n<p>e)\tAn order of Injunction to issue<br \/>\nrestraining the respondents, each<br \/>\none of them, their agents,<br \/>\nsubordinates, servants and\/or<br \/>\nassigns from granting any stage<br \/>\ncarriage permits to private<br \/>\noperators in respect of route<br \/>\nno.210 which is over-lapping the<br \/>\nnotified route no.76\/76A without<br \/>\nfollowing the provisions of<br \/>\nChapter VI of the Motor Vehicles<br \/>\nAct 1988 in any manner<br \/>\nwhatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<p>f)\tAd-interim order in terms of<br \/>\nprayer (e) as above.\n<\/p>\n<p>g)\tAnd to pass such further other<br \/>\norder or orders and\/or direction<br \/>\nor directions as to Your Lordship<br \/>\nmay seem fit and proper&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>(Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>We have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for the appellants and Shri Altaf<br \/>\nAhmad, learned Additional Solicitor General for the<br \/>\nrespondents. The main thrust of the arguments of Shri<br \/>\nDwivedi is that the Notification issued under Chapter IV A<br \/>\nof the old Act which has not been cancelled after the said<br \/>\nAct was repealed by the Motor Vehicle  Act, 1988 (for short<br \/>\nthe &#8220;new Act&#8221;) is binding on all parties,  the private<br \/>\noperators, the State Undertakings and the Transport<br \/>\nAuthorities under the Act.  The authorities are not entitled<br \/>\nto ignore the modified scheme or render it otiose  by<br \/>\nindiscriminately granting permits to private operators on<br \/>\nroutes overlapping the nationalized routes.  The further<br \/>\nsubmissions of Shri Dwivedi was that the High Court erred<br \/>\nin holding that the modified scheme notified in 1980 is<br \/>\nagainst the intent and purport of nationalization of<br \/>\ntransport services and it is contrary to Section 68-D.\tThe<br \/>\nlearned counsel contended that the High Court erred in<br \/>\napplying the doctrine of desuetude to the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Per contra Shri Altaf Ahmad  while accepting the<br \/>\nposition of law that the notified scheme is the law which is<br \/>\nbinding on the parties contended that the 1963 scheme<br \/>\nwhich has undergone modifications from time to time<br \/>\n(1964, 1970 and 1980) clearly shows that it is not a total<br \/>\nexclusion scheme but only a partial exclusion scheme.  In<br \/>\nsuch a case submitted Shri Ahmad there is no legal bar for<br \/>\nthe RTA to issue permits to private operators on routes<br \/>\nother than the nationalized routes even if such routes<br \/>\noverlap portions of any nationalized route.  Shri Altaf<br \/>\nAhmad further contended that the scheme for granting<br \/>\npermits to operators under the Motor Vehicles Act has<br \/>\nundergone a sea change.\t In the new Act Section 47 of the<br \/>\nold Act which required the RTA to fix a limit of number of<br \/>\npermits\t   to  be granted before considering any application<br \/>\nfor permit has been done away with in the new Act. In the<br \/>\nsaid Act no restriction is placed on the Transport Authority<br \/>\nfor granting stage carriage permit if  it is satisfied that<br \/>\nissue of such permit is required in public interest. Shri<br \/>\nAltaf Ahmad fairly accepted the position that on the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the case, the Notification issued in<br \/>\n1980 cannot be held as ultra vires Chapter IV-A of the<br \/>\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1939.  He strenuously contended that<br \/>\nafter the new Act has come into force the appellants are<br \/>\nonly entitled to contend that no other private operator can<br \/>\nbe granted permit on the notified routes or other routes<br \/>\noverlapping the notified routes.\n<\/p>\n<p>From the contentions raised by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the parties it is clear to us that there is no dispute<br \/>\nabout the position of law that the notified scheme whether<br \/>\ntotally excluding private operators or partially excluding<br \/>\nthem is binding on all concerned so long as it remains in<br \/>\nforce. At the same time it is also clear that the scheme as<br \/>\nframed in 1963 does not totally exclude private operators.<br \/>\nIndeed it permits operation of stage carriage service  by<br \/>\nprivate operators. Therefore, the scheme is only a partial<br \/>\nexclusion scheme.  In such a case it is not open to a<br \/>\nprivate operator who is himself operating on a nationalized<br \/>\nroute on account of modification of the scheme is entitled<br \/>\nto seek a writ of mandamus to the authority not to grant<br \/>\npermit to any other  private operator on that route or a<br \/>\nroute overlapping a portion of the route. To put it<br \/>\ndifferently he is not entitled to enjoy a monopoly of<br \/>\noperation of the route.\t It is up to the Authority to consider<br \/>\nwhether the application filed by a private operator for<br \/>\npermit on that route or another route overlapping that<br \/>\nroute should be issued or not.\tIn case the private operator<br \/>\nwho is operating on the nationalized route has a grievance<br \/>\nthat the number of private operators specified in the<br \/>\nnotified scheme is being exceeded then the permit issued<br \/>\nto the operator\/operators in excess of the specified limit,<br \/>\nmay be challenged before the statutory fora in accordance<br \/>\nwith provisions of the Act.  In any view of the matter, the<br \/>\nwrit petition seeking the relief quoted earlier is not<br \/>\nmaintainable particularly when neither the private<br \/>\noperators who are alleged to have got the permits in excess<br \/>\nof the number specified in the Notification nor the State<br \/>\nUndertaking  have been impleaded as parties in the case.<br \/>\nIn such a case a prayer for a declaration in the form as<br \/>\nsought in the writ petition could not be granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>On consideration of the relevant aspects of the<br \/>\nmatter we are of the view that the single Judge was right in<br \/>\ndeclining to grant relief to the writ petitioners and the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\twas in error in interfering with the<br \/>\njudgment. Accordingly the judgment of the Division Bench<br \/>\nis set aside and that passed by the learned single Judge in<br \/>\neach case is restored.\tThe appeals are disposed of<br \/>\naccordingly. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(D.P.MOHAPATRA)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t(BRIJESH  KUMAR)<\/p>\n<p>April 12, 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002 Author: D Mohapatra Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Brijesh Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2676 of 2002 PETITIONER: ABDUL HAI KHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2002 BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra &amp; Brijesh Kumar JUDGMENT: With [&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-180295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 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\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-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=\"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-12T19:40:35+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-12T19:40:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1996,\"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\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-12T19:40:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 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\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-12T19:40:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-12T19:40:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002"},"wordCount":1996,"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\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002","name":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-12T19:40:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hai-khan-vs-subal-chandra-ghose-ors-on-12-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Hai Khan vs Subal Chandra Ghose &amp; Ors on 12 April, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/180295","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=180295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}