{"id":181436,"date":"1964-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964"},"modified":"2016-12-18T19:12:42","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T13:42:42","slug":"abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 MP 255<\/div>\n
Author: Dixit<\/div>\n
Bench: P Dixit, K Pandey<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Dixit,   C.J.<\/p>\n
1. This order will also govern the disposal of M. P. Nos. 18 and 32, both of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
2. The identical question raised in these three petitions is as regards the validity of the rules made by the Government under Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act) for the constitution of State Transport Appellate Authorities for the various regions of the State of Madhya Pradesh and, in particular of the rule authorising the Chairman of the State Trainsport Appellate Authority to constitute Benches “consisting of a single membar or two or more members” for performing or discharging the powers and functions of the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
3. The petitioner in each case obtained from the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, permits for the running of stage carriages on certain routes. The unsucesssful applicants, being dissatisfied with the grants made by the Regional Transport Authority, have preferred appeals before the State Transport Appellate Authority. The petitioners are respondents in those appeals. Their prayer in these petitions is that Rules 67-A (1) (a-2) and (a-4) of the Kawaid Motor Gadiyan Riyasat Bhopal, 1941, be declared ultra vires, and the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Appellate Authority be restrained by the issue of a suitably direction from giving effect to those rules. The petitioners also pray that a writ of Mandamus be issued to the Appellate Authority for the hearing of the appeate in which they are respondents by the Appellate Authority composed of all the members constituting the Appellate Authority and not by any one member thereof.\n<\/p>\n
4. The material provisions of the Act, which require consideration, are Sections 64 and 68 of the Act. Section 64 says that any person aggrieved by any of the orders enumerated in that provision
\n “may,   within   the  prescribed   time   and   in   the   prescribed   manner,   appeal   to   the   prescribed   authority   who shall  give such  person  and  the original  authority an  opportunity  of  being   heard”.\n<\/p>\n
Section  68  runs  as under–\n<\/p>\n
\"68. (1)   A   State    Government\tmay   make     rules  for the purpose of carrying into effect\tthe provisions of this Chapter (i. e.  Chapter  IV)\t\n \n\n(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, rules under this section may be made with respect to all or any of the following matters, namely:-\n *****\" \n \n\n<\/pre>\n
Then follows a list of items numbered as (a) to (za). Item No. (b) deals with “the cotduct and hearing of appeals that may be preferred tinder this Chapter, the fees to be paid in respect of such appeals and the refund of such fees”. Item (za) relates to “any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed”. In the various regions of Madhya Pradesh different set of rules framed under Section 68 of the Act are still in force.\n<\/p>\n
In the Bhopal region, with which we are concerned, the rules framed under Section 68 are instituted ‘Kawaid Motor Gadiyan Riyasat Bhopal, 1941’. In the Mahakostial region, the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, are operative. The C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, as applied to Vindhya Pradesh region, are in force in that region. In the Madhya Bharat region, the prevalent rules bear the title of ‘Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949’. In the area, which came to the State of Madhya Pradesh from the Rajasthan State, the operative rules are the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951. On 25th July 1963 the Government issued notifications amending each of the above set of rules by incorporating in the relevant rule of those rules the following clauses–\n<\/p>\n
“(a) The authority to decide appeals against the orders of a Regional Transport Authority in respect of matters dealt with in Section 64 of the Act shall be the appellate authority as constituted in the manner laid down hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n
(a-1)   The  State  Government  shall  constitute  an  appellate  authority   consisting   of  such   number  of   members not  exceeding  five as  it  may  deem  fit  to   appoint  and appoint  one  of the  members to  the  Chairman  thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(a-2) The Chairman may constitute Benches consisting of a single member or two or more members and the Bench so constituted shall exercise the powers and functions  of  the   appellate   authority.\n<\/p>\n
(a-3) Where in an appeal before a Bench consisting of more than one member, there is difference of opinion among its members, the views of the majority shall prevail and where the Bench consists of an even number of members and an equal number of members consisting of such Bench differ on a point, then–\n<\/p>\n
(i) if the Chairman is a member of such a Bench, his views shall prevail.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) if the Chairman is not a member of such a Bench, the point on which the members differ shall be stated and placed before the Chairman who may either decide the point himself or may nominate another member to deal with the matter.\n<\/p>\n
(a-4)   Any  person    preferring   an   appeal   against   the orders   of a Regional Transport Authority in respect of such matter shall, within thirty days of the receipt of such order, do so in writing to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority in the form of a memorandum, in duplicate, setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to  the  order  of  the   Regional  Transport  Authority  accompanied by a certified copy of that order.\n<\/p>\n
Provided that in computing the period of thirty days, the time required for obtaining copies of the order, shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
On   26th  July   1963  the  Government  issued  separate notifications constituting Appellate Authorities for the various Regions of Madhya Pradesh. The notifications ware issued under Clause (a-1) of the relevant rule of the rules operative in the region concerned. According to these notifications, the Appellate Authority of eaeh region consists of two members, namely, Shri R. C. Roy Poddar and Shri Mitra, Shri Roy Poddar being the Chairman of the Authority. It appears that the Chairman has issued orders in the exercise of his power under Clause (a-2) of the relevant rule of the ‘rules prevalent in the various regions with regard to the distribution and hearing of appeals under Section 64 of the Act by members of the Appellate Authority sitting singly.\n<\/p>\n
5.   It   was   contended   by   the   learned   counsel   for the petitioners that Section 68 of the Act did not confer on the Government the power of making a rule for the constitution of an appellate tribunal for the parposes of hearing and disposal of appeals under Section 64 of the Act and for regulating its procedure; that the new Clause (a-2) inserted in Rule 67-A(1) of the Kawaid Motor Gadiyan Riyasat Bhopal, 1941, was bad as it conferred en the Chairman the power to constitute appellate authorities consisting of a single member or two members and this amounted to delegation of the Government’s power to constitute an Appellate Authority; that the Government could not delegate this power and, therefore, the rule was ultra vires; and that Clause (a-4) of the Bhopal Kawaid was also bad inasmuch as it provided for preferring of appeals against orders of the Regional Transport Authority to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority and not to the Appellate Authority constituted under Clause (a) of Rule 67-A(1).\n<\/p>\n
6.      All  these  contentions  are  unsubstantial.    On  a plain reading of Section 68 of the Act, it is obvious that under Sub-section (1) the Government had full power to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter-IV,   and   under   Sub-section (2),   without   prejudice   to this power, the Government has also the power to frame rules with respect to matters set out in Clauses (1) to   (za) of  Sub-section  2.    The  purpose   of Chapter-IV  is,  as  described   by   the    heading   of   that   Chapter,    “Control   of transport    Vehicles”.    That  Chapter      contains   provisions dealing,    inter    alia,    with   the    power   of    the Regional Transport  Authority   to  grant  permits  for  the   running  of stage-carriage   and   contract   carriages,   and   the   procedure that  Authority   is   required  to  follow   in    considering  the applications  for contract carriage  and  stage  carriage  permits   or   other    permits,   such   as    public-carrier   permit, temporary   permit, private-carrier  permit   etc.     Bearing   in mind   this   purpose   underlying   Chapter-IV,   it    cannet   be held  that  the  constitution   of  an   Appellate  Authority  for the hearing of appeals under Section 64 against orders of the Regional   Transport   Authority,   enumerated   in   Section   68,  is foreign   or  extraneous  to  that  purpose.    The   constitution of an Appellate Authority for the  purpose of hearing and disposing  of    appeals   under  Section  64   clearly    falls   under Clause  (za) of Sub-section (2) of Section   68 which authorizes the Government to  make  rules with  regard  to   “any   other matter which   is  to  be  or    may  be    prescribed”.    Now,  Section 64 specifically   says  that  appeals   under  that   provision  shall lie to  the  prescribed authority.    If the constitution of an Appellate   Authority   is   a   matter  which   under  Section   54   is one  to be prescribed, then Clause (za) of Section 68 clearly empowers the  Government to frame a  rule for the constitution of the Appellate Authority.    The matter of the constitution   of  the    Appellate   Authority   and   its    procedure would  also fall  under    Clause  (b)  of  Sub-section (2) of    Section  68 which   enables  the   Government  to   frame     rules  for  the conduct   and   hearing   of   appeals   that   may   be   preferred under  Chapter   IV.\n<\/p>\n
In any case, even if it be assumed that the canstitution of the Appellate Authority and its procedure does not fall under any of the matters enumerated in Sub-section (2), still the Government would have the power to frame rules with regard to the constitution of the Appellate Authority and for regulating its procedure under Sub-section 1. Section 68 (2) does not exhaust the scope of Section 681. Section 68(2) itself specifically lays down that the enumeration in that sub-section is without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred on the State Government by Section 681. The items enumerated in Section 68-(2) fall within the scope of Section 68(1) as well. The effect of Section 68 (2) is that with reference to the items included therein it is not necessary to examine whether any of those items comes within the scope of the general provision contained in Section 68 1. As the Supreme Court has pointed out in T. B. Ibrahim v. R. T. Authority Tanjure, AIR 1953 SC 79 under Section 081. the Government is invested with the plenary power to make rules tor carrying  into effect the provisions of Chapter IV and that Clause (za) of Sub-section (2) of Section 68 shows the existence of residuary power vested in the rule making authority. In our opinion, “the incorporation of the clauses reproduced above in the relevant rule of the various rules, under the Act, operative in Madhya Pradesh, was within the scope of the powers conferred on the Government under Section 68 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7.    The argument that by Clause  (a-2)  of Rule  67A(1) of the  Bhopal  Kawaid  the  Chairman  of the  AppeJIate  Authority   constituted   by the  Government  has  been  given   the flower   to   constitute   “appellate   tribunals”     consisting   of one  or two or more members and    this amounts to    un-warranted delegation  of power on the part of the Government is based on a  total  misconception  of the effect of Clauses   (a),   (a1)   and   (a-2)  of  Rule   67-A 1.    The   rules  framed under the Act are parts of the Act and have the effect as if enacted under the Act.   These clauses and the notifications issued by the Government on 26th July 1963 constituting an Appellate Authority consisting of Sarvashri Roy Poddar and Mitra, with Shri Poddar as Chairman, have to be read together. So read their effect is that for the purposes of Section 64 the prescribed Appellate Authority is a body consisting of members, not exceeding five, appointed by the Government and who according to the diresctions of the Chairman, are entitled to sit singly or in Division Benches for exercising the powers and functions of the Appellate Authority constituted by the Government, and an order passed by a Single Bench or a Division Bench of the Appellate Authority is an order of the Appellate Authority itself as constituted under the above clauses.\n<\/p>\n
When  Clause  (a-2)  of  Rule  67-A (1)   gives  to  the  Chairman the  power  to   constitute   Benches   “consisting  of  a  single member or two or more members”, there is no delegation by the Governent to the Chairman of the Appellate Authority, of its power under Section 68 of constituting an appellate tribunal and of regulating its procedure.   All that Clause (a-2) does  is to  empower the members of the Appellate Authority  to  exercise the  powers and  functions of that Authority  sitting singly  or  in  Division  Benches  and  to  give to the   Chairman   the   power   to   constitute   Benches   and   to distribute the work of the hearing and disposal of the appeals accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
8. Learned counsed for the petitioners referred us to some decisions dealing with excessive delegation of legislative power. Those decisions are not in point here. For, it is not the contention of the petitioners that under Section 68 the Government had no power at al! to make a rule constituting an Appellate Authority or regulating its procedure as Section 68 could not be so construed as to confer essential     legislative power on the State Government amounting to excessive delegation of legislative power. It may, however, be pointed out in passing that even if such contention had been advanced, that would not have been tenable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. A. N. Kidwai,<\/a> 1957 SCR 295: ((S)’ AIR 1957 SC 414). In that case the validity of Section. 3 (3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948, was attacked inter alia en the ground that it conferred essential legislative power on the Provincial   Government  and   amounted  to   exesssive   delegation of legislative powers. The Assam Legislature had enacted the said Act under the legislative power conferred upo it by Section 296 read with Entry 2 of List 11 of the Government of India Act, 1935. Section 3 of the Assam Act runs as follows–\n<\/p>\n
“3.   1.   ………\n<\/p>\n
2.    ….. .\n<\/p>\n
(3} Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the authority appointed by general or special order of the Provincial Government shall exercise such jurisdiction to entertain appeals and revise decisions in matters arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule B as is exercised now by the Revenue Tribunal and was vested in the Provincial Government before the 1st day of April 1937, and <\/p>\n
It was contended before the Supreme Court that the Assam Legislature had failed to exercise its legislative function by omitting to satisfy itself as to how the Tribunal under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 should be constituted and left the constitution of the tribunal entirely with the discretion of the Provincial Government without any guide. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and field that there was no particular form of expression for constituting a tribunal and by Sub-section (3) of Section 3 the Legislature had in fact constituted the Tribunal to consist of such persons as the Provincial Government may appoint, and that only the power to select and appoint persons to man the authority constituted by the Legislature was delegated to the Government. It was observed by the Supreme Court (at p. 317) that Sub-section (3) was inartistically and inaptly drafted, but the intention, of the framers of the sub-section, however, appears to be quite clear that the Legislature itself applied its mind and constituted an appellate authority”. On the same reasoning it can be held that when Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that appeals thereunder shall lie to the prescribed authority and Section 68 enables the Government to prescribe the Appellate Authority by framing an appropriate rule, there is no delegation of any essential legislative power.\n<\/p>\n
9. The contention that Clause (a-4) of Rule 67-A(1) is bad as it provides for the filing of an appeal before the Secretary of the State Transport Authority and not before the Appellate Authority constituted by the earlier clauses is altogether untenable. That rule only points the authority before whom an appeal is to be presented formally so that it may be laid before the Appallate Authority for consideration and disposal. It in effect says that the  memorandum of appeal setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order of the Regional Transport Authority accompanied by a certified copy of that order should be presented, within thirty days of the receipt of the order of the Regional Transport Authority, to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority. There is no justification whatsoever for reading the rule as meaning that the appeal is to be heard or disposed of by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority and not by the Appellate Authority constituted by Clauses. (a) and (a-1).\n<\/p>\n
10.   For  all   these   reasons,  our  conclusion   is  that Rule  67-A(l) (a-2) and (a-4) of the Kawaid Motor    Gadiyan Riyasat  Bhopal,   1941,   is  valid  and  the  Chairman  of  the State   Transport   Appellate;  Authority   validly   acted   within his  power  in  directing  that the  appeals  preferred  before the  Appellate  Authority  in  which  the  petitioners  are res pendents shall be heard by a single Member of the Appellate Authority. The result is that all these petitions are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioners.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 MP 255 Author: Dixit Bench: P Dixit, K Pandey JUDGMENT Dixit, C.J. 1. This order will also govern the disposal of M. P. Nos. 18 and 32, both of 1964. 2. The identical […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T13:42:42+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=\"14 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-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T13:42:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2792,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\",\"name\":\"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T13:42:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T13:42:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964","datePublished":"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T13:42:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964"},"wordCount":2792,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964","name":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T13:42:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-mohi-siddiqui-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh-and-ors-on-19-march-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Mohi Siddiqui vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 March, 1964"}]},{"@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\/181436","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=181436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}