{"id":18738,"date":"2006-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-13T00:03:50","modified_gmt":"2019-01-12T18:33:50","slug":"the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4773 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSpecial Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Corp. & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24613 of 2005)<\/p>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tInterpretation of Section 115 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies
\nAct, 1984 (for short, ‘the Haryana Act’) calls for consideration in this appeal
\nwhich arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the
\nPunjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.19569 of 2003.
\n\tAppellant is a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative
\nSocieties Act.  Respondent was appointed as Chief Accounts Officer in the
\nAppellant mill.  On the ground that he has committed misconduct, two
\ncharge-sheets were issued to him containing the following charges :\n<\/p>\n
“(a) \tHe failed to check and control the Mill accounts,
\nwhich resulted into issuance of false receipts of
\ncheques\/cash\/demand drafts thus putting the Mill
\ninto financial losses.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tFailing to control the Mills Funds resulting into
\ncrores of rupees lying in cash credit limit thus
\nputting the Mill to huge financial losses.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tRemoval of official records from the office for
\npersonal use.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tApproval of tour programme of Security Guards
\nfor the months of December, 1995, January, 1996
\nand February, 1996 without his signatures.\n<\/p>\n
(e) \tAvailing of leave from 23.3.95 to 25.3.96 on false
\npretexts.\n<\/p>\n
(f)\tVerifying that Smt. Veena Sharma was an
\nemployee of the Mill entitling her to get benefits,
\nwhereas she has never been the employee of the
\nMill.\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tDid not attend the hearing of Courts in criminal
\ncomplaints filed on behalf of the Mill under 138 of
\nNegotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tInspite of rejection of his leave, still remained
\nabsent from duty w.e.f. 18.5.96 to 25.5.96.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAn Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the correctness or
\notherwise of the said charges.  Before the said Enquiry Officer, Appellant
\nherein examined two witnesses on 18.11.1996 and 23.12.1996, who were
\nalso cross-examined by the respondent No.3 herein.  Resignation was
\ntendered by Respondent No.3 on 13.2.1997.  Admittedly, the same had not
\nbeen accepted on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had already been
\ninitiated against him. Non-acceptance of the said resignation was
\ncommunicated to him by a letter dated 1.3.1997.  In his letter dated 4.3.1997
\na contention was raised by him that he had already relinquished his charge.
\nIn view of termination of contract of employment, only one month’s salary
\nis required to be deducted from the amounts due to him.  He, further, by a
\nletter dated 1.7.1997, stated that after tendering resignation he had got
\nanother job of much higher status and salary and he was not interested in the
\njob of the Mill any more.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever, there existed a dispute as to whether the 3rd respondent had
\nfound an alternative job or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent did not attend the
\nproceedings of enquiry on several days.  He contends that no notice was
\nserved on him and furthermore as he was put under arrest and therefore, he
\ncould not attend.  In his absence the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the
\nenquiry ex parte.  A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on
\n21.10.1997.  The Board of Directors issued a notice requiring the 3rd
\nrespondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from
\nservice.  The contention of the 3rd respondent in this behalf was that despite
\nrequest, neither a copy of the enquiry report nor the copies of the depositions
\nof witnesses, who were examined as ex parte by the Enquiry Officer, had
\nbeen supplied.  He was dismissed from service by an order dated
\n26.12.1998.  Relying on or on the basis of Section 114 of the Punjab Act, an
\nappeal was filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, which was
\ndismissed by an order dated 9.2.2001.  A revision petition filed thereagainst
\nbefore the State Government purported to be in terms of Section 115 of the
\nsaid Act was allowed by an order dated 29.10.2003, holding :\n<\/p>\n
“(a)\tThe inquiry was fixed on 9.7.97, 12.7.97, 16.7.97
\nand 25.7.97.  It is difficult to believe that notices
\nwould have been received by the Respondent
\nherein by post in time.\n<\/p>\n
\t(It is important to note here that 25.07.97 was
\nfixed on the personal request of the Respondent
\nhimself.  So far as 09.07.97, 12.07.97 & 19.07.97
\nthe date of hearing is concerned, Respondent No.3
\nin his letter dated 13.8.97 has himself stated that he
\ncould not attend the hearing on 9.7.97, 12.7.97 and
\n16.7.97 as he was out of station.)<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe Inquiry Report is non-speaking report and the
\nentire evidence has not been considered.\n<\/p>\n
\t(A perusal of the Enquiry Report would show that
\nit runs into a number of pages discussing each and
\nevery evidence including the examination and
\ncross-examination of the witnesses.)<\/p>\n
(c)\tSince F.I.R. has been quashed, as such one of the
\ncharges of the charge-sheet stands dropped.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, Appellant filed a writ
\npetition before the High Court, which has been dismissed by reason of the
\nimpugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe principal contention raised before the High Court as also before
\nus is that the State Government acted illegally and without jurisdiction in
\nentertaining the revision application filed by the 3rd respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Vinay Garg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellant
\nwould submit that the State Government could not exercise its revisional
\njurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus, the order
\nimpugned before the High Court, was a nullity, being wholly illegal and
\nwithout jurisdiction, and thus, the High Court committed a manifest error in
\ndismissing the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
\nof the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, urged that as the power of the State
\nGovernment to exercise its revisional power could have been exercised suo
\nmotu, it is immaterial as to whether the same was entertained at the instance
\nof the 3rd respondent or otherwise.  Reliance in this behalf has been placed
\non Gurnam Kaur vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1992 PLJ 658] and The
\nPunjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society Ltd. vs. The State of
\nPunjab & Ors. [1995 PLJ 546].\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was further urged that from a perusal of the orders passed by the
\nState of Haryana as also by the High Court it would appear that the 3rd
\nrespondent was made a scapegoat in the entire matter as the First
\nInformation Report was lodged against the Managing Director of the
\nCooperative Society.  Our attention was moreover drawn to the fact that the
\nHigh Court had even quashed the First Information Report lodged as against
\nthe 3rd respondent and in that view of the matter, this Court should not
\nexercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
\nof India.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaryana Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to
\nthe cooperative societies.  It is a self-contained Code.  It received the assent
\nof the President of India on 20th September, 2004.  Chapter XV of the
\nHaryana Act provides for settlement of disputes.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 102 thereof contains a non obstante clause in terms whereof if
\nany dispute touching the constitution, establishment management or the
\nbusiness of a cooperative society between the society or its committee and
\nany past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, agent
\nor employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased
\nofficer, agent of employee of the society arises, the same shall be referred to
\nthe arbitration of the Registrar for decision and no court shall have any
\njurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such
\ndispute.  In terms of Section 103 of the said Act, the Registrar is empowered
\nto either decide the matter himself or transfer the same to any person who
\nhas been vested by the Government with the power in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
\tChapter XVIII of the Act provides for appeals and revision.  Section
\n114 provides for appeal in relation to a decision or award made under
\nSection 103 of the Act.  Admittedly, the appeal preferred by the 3rd
\nrespondent was determined by an Additional Registrar.  Clause (c) of Sub-
\nSection (2) of section 114 provides that an appeal against any decision or
\norder made by the Additional Registrar or Registrar under Sub-Section (1)
\nshall lie to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 115 of the Act provides for a revisional power of the
\nGovernment in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“115.\tRevision  The Government may suo motu or on
\nan application of a party to a reference under Section
\n102, call for and examine the record of any proceedings
\nin which no appeal lies to the government under Section
\n114 for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality
\nor propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any
\ncase it shall appear to the Government that any such
\ndecision or order should be modified, annulled or
\nrevised, the Government may, after giving the persons
\naffected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such
\norder thereon as it may deem fit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe would hereafter notice the provisions of the Punjab Co-operative
\nSocieties Act, 1961 (Punjab Act), which are said to be in pari materia to the
\nHaryana Act.  Section 68 of the Punjab Act provides for appeals.  By reason
\nof Clause (c) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 68, however, against an order
\nmade by the Additional Registrar an appeal lies to the Registrar.  Section 69
\nprovides for a revisional jurisdiction both in the State Government as also
\nthe Registrar in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“69.\tThe State Government and the Registrar may, suo
\nmotu or on the application of a party to a reference, call
\nfor and examine the record of any proceedings in which
\nno appeal under Section 68 lies to the Government or the
\nRegistrar, as the case may be, for the purpose of
\nsatisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety
\nof any decision or order passed and if in any case it
\nappears to the Government or the Registrar that any such
\ndecision or order should be modified, annulled or
\nrevised, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may
\nbe, may, after giving persons affected thereby an
\nopportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it
\nor he may deem fit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tInterpretation of Section 69 of the Punjab Act came up for
\nconsideration in some cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.  The
\nearliest one being a decision rendered by a Division Bench of the said Court
\non 24.12.1970 in Hardial Singh, Manager, the Shahabad Farmers Co-
\noperative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd. vs. State of Haryana
\nthrough Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh &
\nOrs. [1975 (1) SLR 55], wherein it was opined :\n<\/p>\n
“This section gives revisional powers to the State
\nGovernment in cases where no appeal lies under section
\n68 of the Act and the power is exercisable either suo
\nmotu or on the application of a party to a reference.
\nThere is no dispute that the State Government did not act
\nsuo motu but passed the impugned order on the
\napplication of the Manager.  From the plain reading of
\nthis section, it is clear that such an application could be
\nfiled only by a party to a reference.  In the instant case,
\nadmittedly there was no question of the reference of any
\ndispute for decision to any authority under the Act.  The
\nSociety or the Manager were not parties to any such
\nreference.  It was a simple case where the petitioner-
\nSociety took disciplinary action against the Manager
\n(Petitioner) who filed an appeal under rule 36 of the
\nRules on which the Joint Registrar passed an order on 5th
\nMarch, 1970.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA learned Single Judge followed the decision in Amritsar Central
\nCo-operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
\n[1971 PLJ 572].\n<\/p>\n
\tA different note, however, was struck in Jaswant Singh vs. The State
\nof Punjab & Ors. [1986 Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes (Vol.1) 314],
\nS.S. Sandhawalia, J., (as the learned Chief Justice, then was) opined that the
\nState Government can exercise its jurisdiction suo motu even if an
\napplication is filed by a person aggrieved, stating :\n<\/p>\n
\t“A bare reference to the above-said provision
\nwould show that the revisional authority can among other
\nthings apart always act suo-motu.  Mr. Kaushal very
\nfairly conceded that if the State Government so acts,
\nthere would be no defect of jurisdiction or objection to
\nthe same.  I hence fail to see how the position would
\nbecome diametrically different if the matter is brought to
\nthe notice of the revisional authority (which is clothed
\nwith wide powers) by one of the parties to the dispute.
\nThe State Government is not a natural person and has no
\npersonal knowledge of its own and matters are thus
\nbrought to its notice either directly by its employees or
\nby others and no fatality can attach to an order on the
\nhyper-technical ground that if the State Government had
\nacted suo-motu, its action would have been unassailable
\nbut merely because the action is taken on proceedings
\nbrought to its notice by another the self-same action
\nwould become totally vitiated.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gurnam Kaur
\nvs. State of Punjab etc. [1992 PLJ 658 : 1992 (102) PLR 746] overruled
\nHardial Singh (supra), stating :\n<\/p>\n
“…….The opening words of Section 69 reproduced above
\nwith respect to “suo motu” or “on application of the
\nparties to the reference” are explanatory in nature.  They
\nare neither superfluous nor redundant.  Even in the
\nabsence of phraseology used in the remaining context of
\nthe provision referred to above still would clothe the
\nRevisional Authority to exercise the power as would be
\nseen from such like provisions in different statutes,
\nreference to which would be made later.  It is immaterial
\nwhen revisional power is exercised as to whether, the
\naction was initiated at the instance of interested party or
\nsuo motu.  The order passed would be within jurisdiction.
\nThis exercise of powers is not dependent on the action of
\nthe party concerned.  This view expressed in Hardial
\nSingh’s case (supra) that since action was not initiated by
\nthe competent party concerned the same could not be
\ntreated valid exercise of jurisdiction under Section 69 of
\nthe Act, reproduced above, is not tenable in law.  Even if
\nthe action was taken by a party who was not aggrieved,
\nin other words not a person competent, the exercise of
\npowers in modifying, annulling or revising the order of
\nthe subordinate authority will not be without
\njurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Punjab &
\nHaryana High Court in Punjab State Handloom Weavers Apex Society
\nLtd. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [1995 PLJ 546 : 1996-1 PLR (Vol.112)
\n83], stating :\n<\/p>\n
\t“A perusal of the above provision shows that the
\nState Government as well as the Registrar have been
\nempowered to examine the legality or propriety of any
\ndecision or order passed by a Society.  They can do so
\neither suo motu or on the application of a party to a
\nreference.  The power is not subject to any provision of
\nthe rules or the bye-laws.  It is in the nature of a
\nsupervisory jurisdiction conferred on the government and
\nthe Registrar.  In the very nature of things where an order
\nhas been passed by the Registrar, the power vests in the
\nState Government.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe decision of the High Court rests on the latter category of the
\ndecisions, referred hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe revisional jurisdiction is akin to the appellate jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs. Krishnaji Dattatraya
\nBapat<\/a>  [AIR 1970 SC 1], this Court held :\n<\/p>\n
\t“It would appear that their lordships of the Privy
\nCouncil regarded the revisional jurisdiction to be a part
\nand parcel of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.
\nThis is what was said in Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh
\nChandra Dey, 59 Ind.App. 283 at p.287=(AIR 1932 PC
\n165 at p.167):\n<\/p>\n
\t“There is no definition of appeal in the Code of
\nCivil Procedure, but their Lordship have no doubt that
\nany application by a party to an Appellate Court, asking
\nit to set aside or revise a decision of a subordinate Court,
\nis an appeal within the ordinary acceptation of the
\nterm….”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly in Raja of Ramnad v. Kamid Rowthen and
\nOrs., 53 Ind App 74=(AIR 1926 PC 22) a civil revision
\npetition was considered to be an appropriate form of
\nappeal from the judgment in a suit of small causes nature.
\nA full bench of the Madras High Court in P.P.P.\n<\/p>\n
Chidambara Nadar v. C.P.A. Rama Nadar and Ors.
\nA.I.R. 1937 Mad. 385 had to decide whether with
\nreference to Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908
\nthe term “appeal” was used in a restrictive sense so as to
\nexclude revision petitions and the expression “appellate
\ncourt” was to be confined to a court exercising appellate,
\nas opposed to, revisional powers. After an exhaustive
\nexamination of the case law including the decisions of
\nthe Privy Council mentioned above the full bench
\nexpressed the view that Article 182(2) applied to civil
\nrevisions as well and not only to appeals in the narrow
\nsense of that term as used in the Civil Procedure Code. In
\nSecretary of State for India in Council v. British India
\nSteam Navigation Company (1911) 13 Cal LJ. 90 and
\norder passed by the High Court in exercise of its
\nrevisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil
\nProcedure, was held to be an order made or passed in
\nappeal within the meaning of Section 39 of the Letters
\nPatent, Mookerji, J., who delivered the judgment of the
\ndivision bench referred to the observations of Lord
\nWestbury in Attorney General v. Sillem (1864) 10 HLC
\n704 and of Subramania Ayyar, J., in Chappan v. Moidin
\n(1898) ILR 22 Mad. 68 at p.80 (FB) on the true nature of
\nthe right of appeal. Such a right was one of entering a
\nsuperior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to
\nredress the error of the court below. Two things which
\nwere required to constitute appellate jurisdiction were the
\nexistence of the relation of superior and inferior Court
\nand the power on the part of the former to review
\ndecisions of the latter. In the well known work of Story
\non Constitution (of United States) vol. 2, Article 1761, it
\nis stated that the essential criterion of appellate
\njurisdiction is that it revises and corrects the proceedings
\nin a cause already instituted and does not create that
\ncause. The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a
\nvariety of forms and, indeed, in any form in which the
\nlegislature may choose to prescribe. According to Article
\n1762 the most usual modes of exercising appellate
\njurisdiction, at least those which are most known in the
\nUnited States, are by a writ of error, or by an appeal, or
\nby some process of removal of a suit from an inferior
\ntribunal. An appeal is a process of civil law origin and
\nremoves a cause, entirely subjecting the fact as well as
\nthe law, to a review and a retrial. A writ of error is a
\nprocess of common law origin, and it removes nothing
\nfor re-examination but the law. The former mode is
\nusually adopted in cases of equity and admiralty
\njurisdiction; the latter, in suits at common law tried by a
\njury.”\n<\/p>\n
\tProvisions for appeal or revision provide for statutory remedies.  The
\nAppellate Authority or the Revisional Authority can exercise its appellate or
\nrevisional jurisdiction provided it would be maintainable in law.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have noticed hereinbefore the provisions of the Punjab Co-
\noperative Societies Act and Haryana Act.  Relevant provisions of Haryana
\nAct are somewhat different from the Punjab Act.  Under the Haryana Act, an
\nappeal and revision is maintainable from an Award made by an Arbitrator
\nappointed in terms of Section 102 of the Act.  The party to a reference under
\nSection 102 would mean a party to arbitration for reference.  Section 103
\nprovides for an appeal from an award which may be passed by the Arbitrator
\nappointed in terms of Section 103 of the Act.   The party to reference under
\nSection 102 would mean a party to arbitration for reference.  Section 103
\nprovides for an appeal from an Award, which may be passed by the
\nArbitrator appointed in terms of Section 103 of the Act.  It does not appear
\nthat there exists a similar provision in the Punjab Act.  Another difference of
\nsignificance between the two Acts is that whereas an appeal against an order
\npassed by the Additional Registrar under the Punjab Act is maintainable
\nbefore the Registrar, under the Haryana Act it would be maintainable only
\nbefore the State Government.  Revisional power under the Punjab Act is
\nvested both in the Registrar as also the State Government, whereas under the
\nHaryana Act the revisional power is vested only in the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction if an appeal lies
\nbefore it.  If an appeal lies, a revision would not lie.  Admittedly, the 3rd
\nrespondent preferred an appeal before the Registrar.  Such an appeal was
\npurported to have been filed from an order passed by the Board.  The 3rd
\nrespondent did not invoke the provision for arbitration.  We have noticed
\nhereinbefore that the disputes and differences between the Society and an
\nemployee is referable to arbitration in terms of Section 102 of the Haryana
\nAct.  An appeal is maintainable against an award of the Arbitrator before the
\nState.  On this ground alone the revision petition was not maintainable.
\nFaced with such a situation, Mr. Gupta contended that no appeal was
\nmaintainable before the Registrar.  The said contention of Mr. Gupta cannot
\nbe accepted for more than one reason.  The 3rd respondent himself took
\nrecourse to the said remedy.  Having taken recourse to the said remedy and
\nhaving himself invoked Appellate jurisdiction before the Registrar, it does
\nnot lie in his mouth to contend that no appeal was maintainable.  Before the
\nrevisional authority he primarily questioned the order passed by the
\ndisciplinary Authority, as also order passed by the Appellate Authority.  It
\nhad never been the contention of the 3rd respondent that the revision
\napplication was filed by him directly against the order passed by the Board
\nof Directors.  No revision application would have even then been
\nmaintainable.  Even if it would be so, the appellant herein was entitled to
\nraise the contention that having regard to the provisions of Section 102 of
\nthe Haryana Act, an appeal or a revision was not maintainable.  It is now
\nwell settled that if an appeal lies, the revisional jurisdiction could not be
\nexercised.  {See A.M. Chengalvaroya Chetty vs. The Collector of
\nMadras & Ors. [AIR 1965 Mad. 376].}<\/p>\n
\tIf the revision application was not maintainable, a’ fortiori suo motu
\npower could not also be exercised.  Even otherwise if suo motu power is to
\nbe exercised, it has to be stated so.  In M\/s. D.N. Roy & Ors. vs. State of
\nBihar & Ors. [AIR 1971 SC 1045], this Court opined :\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is true that the order in question also refers to
\n“all other powers enabling in this behalf”. But in its
\nreturn to the writ petition the Central Government did not
\nplead that the impugned order was passed in exercise of
\nits suo moto powers. We agree that if the exercise of a
\npower can be traced to an existing power even though
\nthat power was not purported to have been exercised,
\nunder certain circumstances, the exercise of the power
\ncan be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but
\nundoubted power. But in this case the difficulty is that at
\nno stage the Central Government intimated to the
\nappellant that it was exercising its suo moto power. At all
\nstages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 55 of the
\nMineral Concession Rules, 1960. If the Central
\nGovernment wanted to exercise its suo moto power it
\nshould have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on
\nwhich it proposed exercise that power to the appellant
\ngiven him an opportunity to show cause against the
\nexercise of suo moto power as well as against the
\ngrounds on which it wanted to exercise its power. Quite
\nclearly the Central Government had not given him that
\nopportunity. The High Court thought that as the Central
\nGovernment had not only intimated to the appellant the
\ngrounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th
\nrespondent but also the comments of the State
\nGovernment, the appellant had adequate Opportunity to
\nput forward his case. This conclusion in our judgment is
\nuntenable. At no stage the appellant was informed that
\nthe Central Government proposed to exercise its suo
\nmoto power and asked him to show cause against the
\nexercise of such a power. Failure of the Central
\nGovernment to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the
\nimpugned order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t      (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the order of the state
\nGovernment having been passed without jurisdiction was a coram non
\njudice.  {See MD, Army Welfare Housing Organisation vs. Sumangal
\nServices (P) Ltd.<\/a> [(2004) 9 SCC 619], Zahira Habibullah, Sheikh & Anr.
\nvs. State of Gujarat & Ors.<\/a> [(2004) 4 SCC 158], Harshad Chiman Lal
\nModi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.<\/a> [(2005) 7 SCC 791] and
\nGyanmandir Mahavidhyalaya Samity vs. Udailal Jaroli & Anr. [(2005)
\n10 SCC 603].}<\/p>\n
\tApplicability of doctrine of stare decisis, which Mr. Gupta persuades
\nus to accept in view of the decisions of this Court in S. Brahmanand &
\nOrs. vs. K.R. Muthugopal (Dead) & Ors.<\/a> [(2005) 12 SCC 764] and Shri
\nSant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha
\nUtpadak Sanstha & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.<\/a> [(2001) 8 SCC
\n509], also is not applicable.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn those decisions it has been held that if the decisions which were
\noperating for a long time should not be disturbed, unless shown palpably
\nwrong.  We have noticed hereinbefore that the Punjab Act and Haryana Act
\nare not in pari materia.  They contain different provisions.  The purport and
\nobject of the revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under the
\nHaryana Act is in effect and substance are different from those of the Punjab
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurthermore, the doctrine of stare decisis does not contain an
\ninflexible rule.  In State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors.<\/a> [(2001) 1 SCC
\n4], a Constitution Bench of this Court opined :\n<\/p>\n
“…..The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible so as to
\npreclude a departure therefrom in any case but its
\napplication depends on facts and circumstances of each
\ncase. It is good to proceed from precedent to precedent
\nbut it is earlier the better to give quietus to the incorrect
\none by annulling it to avoid repetition or perpetuation of
\ninjustice, hardship and anything ex facie illegal, more
\nparticularly when a precedent runs counter to the
\nprovisions of the Constitution. The first two decisions
\nwere rendered without having the benefit of the decisions
\nof this Court, that too concerning the interpretation of the
\nprovisions of the Constitution. The remaining decisions
\nwere contrary to the law laid down by this Court. This
\nCourt in Maktul v. Manbhari<\/a> adopting the statement of
\nlaw found in Halsbury and Corpus Juris Secundum
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “But the supreme appellate court will not
\nshirk from overruling a decision, or series of
\ndecisions, which establish a doctrine plainly
\noutside the statute and outside the common law,
\nwhen no title and no contract will be shaken, no
\npersons can complain, and no general course of
\ndealing be altered by the remedy of a mistake.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t            (From Halsbury)
\n“Previous decisions should not be followed
\nto the extent that grievous wrong may result; and,
\naccordingly, the courts ordinarily will not adhere
\nto a rule or principle established by previous
\ndecisions which they are convinced is erroneous.
\nThe rule of stare decisis is not so imperative or
\ninflexible as to preclude a departure therefrom in
\nany case, but its application must be determined in
\neach case by the discretion of the court, and
\nprevious decisions should not be followed to the
\nextent that error may be perpetuated and grievous
\nwrong may result.”\n<\/p>\n
\t                   (From Corpus Juris Secundum)”\n<\/p>\n
\t[See also State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab
\nJamat and Others<\/a> [(2005) 8 SCC 534]
\n\tFor the reasons aforementioned we are of the opinion that the High
\nCourt was not correct in holding that the State of Haryana was entitled to
\nexercise its revisional jurisdiction in the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question which, however, arises is whether this Court shall mould
\nthe relief.  We have been taken to the merit of the matter.  We are satisfied
\nthat the High Court was right in opining :\n<\/p>\n
“…The petitioner has been facing the departmental
\nproceedings since 1996.  Even otherwise, it is to be
\nnoticed that FIR registered against the petitioner has been
\nquashed by this Court in Crl. Misc. 144 of 2001 in its
\norder dated 11.05.2001.  The petitioner has not cared to
\nchallenge the aforesaid order before the Supreme Court.
\nIn such circumstances, it would be wholly inequitable at
\nthis stage to remand the matter back to the enquiry
\nofficer.  Mr. Malik, then submitted that even if enquiry
\nproceedings are to be quashed, the Respondents could not
\nhave been directed to be re-instated in service with full
\nback wages.  Respondent No.3 had himself stated that he
\nhad got a much better job with better emoluments, status
\nand salary.  Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has,
\nhowever, pointed out that on getting the aforesaid job, he
\nhad submitted the resignation to the Managing Director
\nof the petitioner.  The same was rejected, as such
\nRespondent No.3 was not able to accept the job.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was also held that the inquiry was not properly conducted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe 3rd respondent has already joined his services pursuant to the
\njudgment of the High Court.  He, in the meanwhile, has also superannuated.
\nThe questions as to whether during the interregnum he had been gainfully
\nemployed or not; or his resignation was rightly refused to be accepted and
\ndespite submission of resignation, he did not, in fact, get a job and never
\njoined anywhere else, should, in our opinion, be determined by an
\nappropriate authority.  We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under
\nArticle 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the Registrar of Co-
\noperative Societies should arbitrate in the matter and exercise its jurisdiction
\nunder Section 102 of the Haryana Act, as if the 3rd respondent has invoked
\nthe said jurisdiction.  The parties hereto shall file their respective documents
\nbefore the Registrar within four weeks from the date.  The Registrar shall fix
\na date of hearing and intimate the same to the parties, on which date they
\nmay produce their witnesses before him.  The 3rd respondent will be entitled
\nto examine himself as a witness.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Registrar shall consider the matter afresh without in any way
\nbeing influenced by the report of the Enquiry Officer, the appellate order
\npassed by the Additional Registrar or the revisional order passed by the
\nState.  The Registrar, Co-operative Societies is requested to make an Award
\nwithin eight weeks from the date of entering into the reference.  We
\nfurthermore direct that irrespective of the result of the dispute between the
\nappellant and the 3rd respondent, no recovery shall be effected from the 3rd
\nrespondent in respect of any salary or emoluments paid to him during the
\nperiod from 1.10.2005 to 30.6.2006 when he joined his services pursuant to
\nthe order of the High Court and date of his superannuation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations and
\ndirections.  However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties
\nshall pay and hear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4773 of 2006 PETITIONER: The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd RESPONDENT: Special Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Corp. & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/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-18738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-12T18:33:50+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T18:33:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5156,\"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\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\",\"name\":\"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-12T18:33:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - 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\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-12T18:33:50+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T18:33:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006"},"wordCount":5156,"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\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006","name":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar ... vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of ... on 10 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-12T18:33:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-shahabad-cooperative-sugar-vs-special-secretary-to-govt-of-on-10-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Shahabad Cooperative Sugar … vs Special Secretary To Govt. Of … on 10 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/18738","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=18738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18738\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}