{"id":198719,"date":"1971-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971"},"modified":"2019-03-31T15:25:31","modified_gmt":"2019-03-31T09:55:31","slug":"mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","title":{"rendered":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMISHRILAL JAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1971\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nMaintenance  of Internal Security Act, 1971,  s.  3(2)(a)-At\nleast  one  of\tthe grounds  of\t detention  vague-Effect  on\ndetention.order.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  petitioner was a dealer in salt in the State of  Assam.\nOn  account  of\t unprecedented floods  there  was  an  acute\nscarcity of salt in the State.\tAlthough there was no law in\nthe  State regulating its distribution and sale, the  Deputy\nCommissioner,  in consultation with the\t representatives  of\nthe  local Chamber of Commerce, fixed the ceiling  price  of\nsalt.  The District Magistrate passed an order for detaining\nthe  petitioner\t under\ts. 3(2)(a)  of\tthe  Maintenance  of\nInternal  Security  Act,  1971, on the\tgrounds\t :  that  he\navailed\t himself of the opportunity for profiteering in\t the\ncommodity, (1) by resorting to hoarding, and (2) by secretly\nselling\t this essential commodity at exorbitant\t rates,\t and\nwas  therefore\tacting\tin  a  manner  prejudicial  to\t the\nmaintenance  of\t supplies  and\tservices  essential  to\t the\ncommunity.\nIn a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution\t challenging\nthe   validity\tof  the\t detention  order,  the\t  petitioner\ncontended  that the grounds were vague and hence he  had  no\nopportunity to make a representation.\nAllowing the petition,\nHELD  :\t (1)  The first ground was  vague  as  no  effective\nrepresentation\tcould  have been made on its  basis  in\t the\nabsence\t of  particulars  of the  profiteering\tor  hoarding\nactivity. [1103 G-H]\n(2)Even assuming that this ground was not vague the second\nground was vague, because, the idea of exorbitant rate is  a\nrelative  one,\tand the ground did not convey  any  definite\nidea  as to the price at which he was selling salt, nor\t the\ntime or place of the sales or the persons to whom the  sales\nwere effected.\tSince at least one of the grounds was  vague\nthe order of detention was vitiated. [1103 H; 1104 A-B, F-G]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1382411\/\">State  of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya,<\/a> [1915] 11 S  C.\nR. 167, 184, <a href=\"\/doc\/1555049\/\">Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar,<\/a> [1968]\n2  S.C.R.  505,\t <a href=\"\/doc\/1460182\/\">Pushkar Mukherjee v. State  of\t W.  Bengal,<\/a>\n[1969]\t3  S.C.R. 635 and Motilal fain v.  State  of  Bihar,\n[1968] 3 S.C.R. 587, followed.\nKashav Talpade v. King Emperor, [1943] F.C.R. 88, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 375 of 1971.<br \/>\nPetition  under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India  for  a<br \/>\nwrit in the nature of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n<p>A. K. Sen J.  P.   Bhattacharjee,  D. N.  Mukherjee,  D.  K.<br \/>\nHazarika and thepetitioner    in   person,    for    the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>S. V. Gupte    and Naunit Lal, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1102<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,<br \/>\nMathew,\t J. This application filed under Article 32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution  challenges  the  validity\t of  an\t order\t for<br \/>\ndetaining the petitioner,&#8217; passed by the District Magistrate<br \/>\nof  Kamrup,  under Section 3 (2) (a) of the  Maintenance  of<br \/>\nInternal Security Act, 1971 on August 30, 1971 and prays for<br \/>\nthe issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.<br \/>\nOn  the conclusion of the hearing of the case on October  7,<br \/>\n1971, we passed the following order :-<br \/>\n&#8220;We are satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate,<br \/>\nKamrup,\t dated\tAugust 30, 1971,  detaining  the  petitioner<br \/>\nunder  s.  3(2)(a) of the Maintenance of  Internal  Security<br \/>\nAct,  1971.  cannot be sustained and as such  the  order  of<br \/>\ndetention is set aside and the detenu is directed to be\t set<br \/>\nat liberty forthwith.  The grounds for the decision will  be<br \/>\ngiven in due course.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Now  we proceed to state the facts and give the\t grounds  of<br \/>\nour decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner was a dealer in salt and other commodities at<br \/>\nGauhati in the State of Assam.\tOn account of  unprecedented<br \/>\nflood the State was practically cut off from the rest of the<br \/>\ncountry in the month of July and August, 1971 and there\t was<br \/>\nacute scarcity of salt in the State.  Although there was  no<br \/>\nlaw in the State regulating the distribution, sale or  price<br \/>\nof. salt. the Deputy Commissioner of Kamrup in\tconsultation<br \/>\nwith  the representatives of the Kamrup Chamber of  Commerce<br \/>\nfixed  the ceiling price of salt at Rs. 19\/- per bag  of  75<br \/>\nkg.  by\t his  order dated August 14, 1971.  It\twas  on\t the<br \/>\nallegation  that  the  petitioner was  acting  in  a  manner<br \/>\nprejudicial  to\t the maintenance of  supplies  and  services<br \/>\nessential  to  the community that  the\tDistrict  Magistrate<br \/>\npassed the order for detaining the petitioner.<br \/>\nThe grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner read<br \/>\nas follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      &#8220;1.  That\t you  are  the\tproprietor  of\tM\/s.<\/p>\n<p>\t      Mishrilal\t  Nirmal  Kumar\t of   Fancy   Bazar,<br \/>\n\t      P.S.Gauhati,   District-Kamrup  which   mainly<br \/>\n\t      deals in salt-an essential commodity for human<br \/>\n\t      consumption.  Prices of essential\t commodities<br \/>\n\t      including\t salt have  recorded  unprecendented<br \/>\n\t      rise  in\tthe middle of July,  1971  and\tsalt<br \/>\n\t      became so scarce that this essential commodity<br \/>\n\t      was   selling   in  and  around\tGauhati\t  at<br \/>\n\t      exceptionally  high prices  immediately  after<br \/>\n\t\t\t    the\t breaches of road and tram  commun<br \/>\nications<br \/>\n\t      between Assam and the rest of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      1103<\/span><br \/>\n\t      country.\t You,  being  one  of  the   leading<br \/>\n\t      dealers  of salt at Gauhati, availed  yourself<br \/>\n\t      of  the  opportunity of profiteering  in\tthis<br \/>\n\t      commodity by resorting to hoarding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      The   sudden   disappearance  of\t this\tmost<br \/>\n\t      essential\t commodity from Gauhati\t Market\t and<br \/>\n\t      resultant\t acute\tscarcity  and  high   prices<br \/>\n\t      resorted\tto  by you  and\t other\tunscrupulous<br \/>\n\t      dealers  became a subject matter of  criticism<br \/>\n\t      both  in the local press and the platform\t and<br \/>\n\t      the  situation  ultimately  posed\t a   serious<br \/>\n\t      threat to the maintenance of law and order  at<br \/>\n\t      Gauhati in August, 1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      In  order to ease the supply position of\tthis<br \/>\n\t      commodity,  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Kamrup<br \/>\n\t      fixed  on 14-8-71 a ceiling on the  prices  of<br \/>\n\t      salt  at\tRs. 19.00 per bag and  you  wilfully<br \/>\n\t      organized\t profiteering  by  secretly  selling<br \/>\n\t      this essential commodity at exorbitant  rates<br \/>\n\t      at Gauhati by creating an artificial  scarcity<br \/>\n\t      yourself\teven after fixation of its price  by<br \/>\n\t      Deputy  Commissioner,  Kamrup on\t14-8-71\t and<br \/>\n\t      thereby  acted in a manner prejudicial to\t the<br \/>\n\t      maintenance of supplies and services essential<br \/>\n\t      to the community and your being at large\thas,<br \/>\n\t      therefore,  constituted a risk to the  mainte-<br \/>\n\t      nance  of supplies and services  essential  to<br \/>\n\t      the Community.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t  Sd\/- Illegible<br \/>\n\t\t\t   District Magistrate,<br \/>\n\t\t\t    Kamrup, Gauhati.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The  petitioner filed a representation against the  grounds.<br \/>\nit  he\tcontended among other things that the  grounds\twere<br \/>\nvague.\tThe representation was rejected and the Governor  of<br \/>\nAssam approved the order of detention under Section 3(3)  of<br \/>\nthe Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.<br \/>\n The argument put forward by counsel on behalf of the  peti-<br \/>\ntioner\twas that the grounds were vague and. therefore.\t the<br \/>\npetitioner   had  no  effective\t opportunity  of  making   a<br \/>\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  first  ground only stated that the\t petitioner  availed<br \/>\nhimself of the opportunity of the acute scarcity of salt  in<br \/>\nGauhati\t for profiteering in this commodity by resorting  to<br \/>\nhoarding.   We\tthink  that  this ground  was  vague  as  no<br \/>\neffective  representation could have been made on its  basis<br \/>\nin  the\t absence of any Particulars of the  profiteering  or<br \/>\nhoarding  activity.  Even assuming that this ground was\t not<br \/>\nvague,\twe are satisfied that the other ground suffers\tfrom<br \/>\nthis  vice.  That ground was that the  Deputy  Commissioner,<br \/>\nKamrup\tfixed on 14-8-71 a ceiling on the prices of salt  at<br \/>\nRs. 19.00 per bag of 75 Kg. and the petitioner wilfully<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1104<\/span><br \/>\norganised  profiteering by secretly selling  this  essential<br \/>\ncommodity  at  exorbitant rates at Gauhati by  creating an<br \/>\nartificial scarcity even after the fixation of its price  by<br \/>\nthe   Deputy  Commissioner,  Kamrup.   The  case  that\t the<br \/>\npetitioner  has been selling salt at &#8220;exorbitant  rate\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  convey  any definite idea as to the price at  which  he<br \/>\nsold  the article.  The idea of exorbitant rate is  relative<br \/>\none.   It  has\tno absolute connotation.   What\t may  appear<br \/>\nexorbitant rate to one may not be exorbitant to another.  In<br \/>\nthe  counter affidavit on behalf of the Government of  Assam<br \/>\nit  is\tstated that the petitioner was selling salt  at\t Rs.<br \/>\n35\/-  per bag of 75 Kg.\t But that would not cure the  defect<br \/>\nof  vagueness in the ground.  Nor was there any\t mention  in<br \/>\nthe ground of the time or place of the sales or the  persons<br \/>\nto whom the sales were effected.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1382411\/\">In the State of Bombay  v.<br \/>\nAtma Ram Sridhar Vaidya<\/a>(1), the court said<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;The  contention\tthat the grounds  are  vague<br \/>\n\t      requires some clarification&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; If the<br \/>\n\t      ground which is supplied is incapable of being<br \/>\n\t      understood   or\tdefined\t  with\t  sufficient<br \/>\n\t      certainty\t it can be called vague.  It is\t not<br \/>\n\t      possible\tto state affirmatively more  on\t the<br \/>\n\t      question\tof  what  is vague.   It  must\tvary<br \/>\n\t      according\t  to  the  circumstances   of\teach<br \/>\n\t      case&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..  If  no  reading\tthe   ground<br \/>\n\t      furnished it is capable of being intelligently<br \/>\n\t      understood  and  is sufficiently\tdefinite  to<br \/>\n\t      furnish  materials  to  enable  the   detained<br \/>\n\t      person  to make a representation\tagainst\t the<br \/>\n\t      order of detention it cannot be called vague.&#8221;<br \/>\nTested\tby this standard we think the second ground  at\t any<br \/>\nrate was definitely vague.\n<\/p>\n<p>If  the\t grounds  are vague, it is settled by  a  series  of<br \/>\nrulings\t of this Court that the order of detention would  be<br \/>\nbad  (see Ramesh war Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar (2 )\t and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1460182\/\">Pushkar Mukherjee and others v. The State of West Bengal<\/a>(&#8220;).<br \/>\nEven  if  the second ground alone was vague, that  would  be<br \/>\nsufficient to vitiate the order of detention.<br \/>\nIn  Kashav  Talpade v. The King\t Emperor(4)\t     it\t was<br \/>\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;..The  detaining\t authority  gave  here\t two<br \/>\n\t      grounds for detaining the petitioner.  We\t can<br \/>\n\t      neither decide whether these grounds are\tgood<br \/>\n\t\t\t    or\tbad, nor can we attempt to assess<br \/>\n in  what<br \/>\n\t      manner  and  to  what  extent  each  of  these<br \/>\n\t      grounds operated on the mind of the<br \/>\n\t      (1)  [1951] S.C.R. 167,184.     (2) [1968] (2)<br \/>\n\t      S.C.R. 505.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (3)  [1969]  (2) S.C.R. 635.\t (4)  [1943]<br \/>\n\t      F.C.R. 88.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      1105<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      appropriate  authority and contributed to\t the<br \/>\n\t      creation\tof the satisfaction on the basis  of<br \/>\n\t      which  the detention order was made.   To\t say<br \/>\n\t      that the other ground, which still remains, is<br \/>\n\t      quite  sufficient to sustain the order,  would<br \/>\n\t      be  to substitute an objective  judicial\ttest<br \/>\n\t      for  the subjective decision of the  executive<br \/>\n\t      authority\t which\tis against  the\t legislative<br \/>\n\t      policy underlying the statute.  In such cases,<br \/>\n\t      we think, the position would be the same as if<br \/>\n\t      one  of these two grounds was  irrelevant\t for<br \/>\n\t      the purpose of the Act or was wholly  illusory<br \/>\n\t      and this would vitiate the detention order  as<br \/>\n\t      a whole.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  passage  was  quoted with approval\t by  this  Court  in<br \/>\nRameshwar Lal v.State of Bihar(1).  <a href=\"\/doc\/1460182\/\">In Pushkar Mukherjee and<br \/>\nothers\tv.  The\t State&#8217;\t of  West  Bengal<\/a>(2),  Ramaswami  J.<br \/>\nspeaking  for  the court said that if some  of\tthe  grounds<br \/>\nsupplied  to  the  detenu  are\tso  vague  that\t they  would<br \/>\nvirtually  deprive  the\t detenu of his\tstatutory  right  of<br \/>\nmaking\tthe  representation  that would make  the  order  of<br \/>\ndetention invalid.  The same view was expressed by Hegde  J.<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/372495\/\">Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar and others<\/a>(3).<br \/>\nWe think that the order of detention was illegal and it is<br \/>\naccordingly quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t    Petition allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) [1968](2) S.C.R. 505.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)[1969] (2)S.C.R.635. (3)(1968)(3)S.C.R.587,<br \/>\n119SupC.I.\/72-2500-27-11-1972-GIPF.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 PETITIONER: MISHRILAL JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1971 BENCH: ACT: Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, s. 3(2)(a)-At least one of the grounds of detention vague-Effect on detention.order. HEADNOTE: The petitioner was a dealer [&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-198719","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - 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\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-31T09:55:31+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T09:55:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\"},\"wordCount\":1455,\"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\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\",\"name\":\"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T09:55:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - 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\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-31T09:55:31+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971","datePublished":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T09:55:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971"},"wordCount":1455,"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\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971","name":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T09:55:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishrilal-jain-vs-district-magistrate-kamrup-ors-on-14-october-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mishrilal Jain vs District Magistrate, Kamrup &amp; Ors on 14 October, 1971"}]},{"@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\/198719","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=198719"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198719\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}