{"id":202280,"date":"1982-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982"},"modified":"2016-12-21T07:34:33","modified_gmt":"2016-12-21T02:04:33","slug":"lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","title":{"rendered":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR  786, \t\t  1982 SCR  (3)\t 66<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra, R.B. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nLINGO SULPHATE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,UNIT, BIJNOR &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/01\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR  786\t\t  1982 SCR  (3)\t 66\n 1982 SCC  (1) 539\t  1982 SCALE  (1)34\n\n\nACT:\n     Uttar Pradesh  Sheera Niyantran  Adhiniyam, 1964  (U.P.\nAct No.\t 24 of\t1964), sections 8 and 9 read with rule 22(1)\nand 22(2)  of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali,\n1974-Scope of-Classification  made with\t regard to  molasses\ncovered under  rule 22(1)  and 22(2)  is reasonable and docs\nnot  offend  Article  14  of  the  Constitution-Estoppel  by\nconduct-Here, there  is no  question of\t contracting out  of\nlaw.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Molasses, the basic raw-material for the manufacture of\nlingo-sulphite, basic  refractories,  steel  plants,  cement\nfactories, carbon  black plants\t and  many  other  important\nindustries and\talso used  for distillation,  has  become  a\nvaluable  commodity   on  account   of\tits  multi-use.\t The\npreservation, distribution  and prices of the molasses were,\ntherefore, controlled  by the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran\nAdhiniyam, 1964\t (U.P. Act  24 of  1964) and  also the rules\nmade  thereunder   called  Uttar  Pradesh  Sheera  Niyantran\nNiyamavali, 1974.  Section  8  of  tho\tAct  authorised\t the\nController to  direct the  occupier of\tany sugar factory to\nsell and  supply in  tho prescribed  manner such quantity of\nmolasses to  such persons  as may  be specified in the order\nand the\t occupier shall\t notwithstanding any contract comply\nwith the  order. Section  10 provided that the occupier of a\nsugar factory  shall sell  molasses in\trespect of  which an\norder under section 8 has been made at a price not exceeding\nthat prescribed in the schedule attached to section 10.\n     United   Commercial   Syndicate,\tAllahabad   is\t the\npurchasing agent of M\/s. Lingo Sulphite Corporation and M\/s.\nAudubon Trading\t and Export  Corporation  of  Allahabad\t and\nCalcutta, entered  into an  agreement with  the\t U.P.  State\nSugar Corporation  Ltd. whereunder the latter agreed to sell\n28,300 quintals\t of molasses  of 1977-78  production at\t the\nstatutory price\t of  Rs.  9  per  quintal  and\tduties\tetc.\nprovided the  former agreed to pay the total amount of Rs. 3\nlacs being  the total  cost of\tmolasses as estimated at the\nsaid statutory price. It was further stipulated that in case\nthe said  price was  not valid in law, The United Commercial\nSyndicate will\thave to pay the price at the rate of Rs. 25-\n10 por quintal inclusive of administrative charges and other\ntaxes and  duties etc.\tas agreed to by the Syndicate. A sum\nof Rs.\t2 lacs\thad been  paid in pursuance of the agreement\nand the balance of Rs: I lac was to be paid at the earliest.\nThe Sugar  Corporation however sought to calculate the price\nof the\tmolasses in  question at  the rate  of Rs. 25-10 per\nquintal on  the ground that the molasses agreed upon was not\ncovered by  an order  under section  8. Syndicate  filed two\npetitions in  the High\tCourt of  Allahabad for\t a  writ  of\nmandamus or any other\n67\nappropriate writ or direction declaring that Corporation was\nnot entitled to\t charge the price for tho molasses in excess\nof the\tprice fixed  by the  Act, namely, Rs. 9 per quintal.\nTho High  Court\t by  its  order\t dated\t21st  October,\t1979\ndismissed the  petitions in  limine.  Hence  the  appeal  by\nspecial leave  by the Syndicate and the writ petition by tho\nprincipal M\/s. Lingo Sulphite Corporation.\n     Dismissing tho appeal and tho writ petition, tho Court,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  Sections 3  to 8\t and 10 of tho Adhiniyam and\nNiyamavali 12,13,  22, 23  and 24  make it  clear  that\t the\noccupier of  a sugar  factory can  sell molasses to a person\nspecified in  the order\t of the Controller at the controlled\nprice. The  occupier of\t every sugar  factory has to give an\nestimate of the molasses to be produced in tho sugar factory\nas  also   the\testimate  of  requirement  of  molasses\t for\ndistillation  and  industrial  purposes.  If  there  is\t any\nsurplus after  meeting the  requirements of  the persons  in\nwhose favour  there is\tan order of the Controller, the same\nwill be released in favour of tho occupier. [71 H, 72 A-B]\n     2. Section\t 10 makes  it clear  that the  occupier of a\nsugar factory  is obliged  to sell molasses at the price not\nexceeding that prescribed in the schedule only in respect of\nwhich an order under section 8 has been made. But sub-clause\n(2) of\trule 22\t authorises the\t Controller to\trelease\t any\nstock of  molasses in  favour of  an  occupier\tof  a  sugar\nfactory only  when the same is not required for distilleries\nor for\tother  purposes\t of  industrial\t development.  If  a\ncertain quantity  of molasses has been released in favour of\ntho  occupier,\t because  the  same  was  not  required\t for\ndistilleries   or   for\t  other\t  purposes   of\t  industrial\ndevelopment, it\t is  open  to  the  occupier  to  sell\tthat\nquantity of molasses in free market to any person at a price\nprevalent in  tho market.  Section 10 of tho Act requires an\noccupier of  a sugar factory to sell molasses at a price not\nexceeding that prescribed in the schedule only in respect of\nwhich an  order under section 8 has been made. No limitation\nor fetter has been put on the occupier of a sugar factory to\nsell molasses  which was  released in  his favour.  It\twas,\ntherefore,  open  to  the  occupier  to\t sell  the  molasses\nreleased in his favour at the free market price. [73 B-E]\n     3. The  classification made  with\tregard\tto  molasses\ncovered under  rule 22(1)  or rule  22(2)  is  a  reasonable\nclassification. [73 B-E]\n     4. The  Syndicate entered\tinto an\t agreement with\t the\nCorporation and\t agreed to  pay the price of the molasses at\nthe rate  of Rs. 25-10 per quintal. Having entered into such\nan agreement  with its\teyes wide  open it  cannot now\tturn\nturtle and  contend that  it was  liable to  pay only at the\nrate of Rs. 9 per quintal. tho statutory price. [73 P-G]\n     5. It  is true  that the  parties cannot  be allowed to\ncontract themselves  out of  law. It  is not the law that no\nmolasses released  in favour  of the  occupier of  the sugar\nfactory could  be sold at a price higher than the controlled\none.  The  controlled  price  was  applicable  only  to\t the\nmolasses  for\twhich  an  order  had  been  passed  by\t the\nController in  favour of  a specified  person either for the\npurpose of  distillation or  for other\tindustrial purposes.\nBut so\tfar as\tthe molasses  released i  n  favour  of\t the\noccupier of  a sugar  factory  is  concerned,  there  is  no\nrequirement of the law that the occupier should sell it only\nat the controlled price [73 G-H, 74 A-B]\n68\n     6. The  terms of  the  agreement  between\tthe  parties\nentitles the  Corporation for administrative charges. [74 B-\nC]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  ON: Writ  Petition\tNo.  391  of<br \/>\n1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)<br \/>\n\t\t\t    WITH<br \/>\n\t       Civil Appeal No. 651 of 1980<br \/>\n     (Appeal by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment and order<br \/>\ndated the  31st October, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in<br \/>\nCivil Misc. &#8211; Writ No. 8091 of 1979)<br \/>\n     R.K. Garg,\t Pramod Swarup\tand  D.\t R.  Gupta  for\t the<br \/>\nPetitioner in Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     O. P.  Rana and P.K Pillai for Respondent Nos. 1 &amp; 2 in<br \/>\n     WP.\n<\/p>\n<p>     G. N. Dikshit and Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.<br \/>\n5 in W.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mubarak Mazdoor Appellant in person in C.A.<br \/>\n     G. N.  Dikshit, B. P. Maheshwari and Miss Asha Jain for<br \/>\nthe Respondent in Civil Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     MISRA, J.\tWrit petition  No. 391 of 1980 under Article<br \/>\n32 of  the Constitution\t and Civil Appeal No. 651 of 1980 by<br \/>\nspecial leave  raise common  question of law and, therefore,<br \/>\nwe propose to dispose them of by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The circumstances\tleading to the writ petition and the<br \/>\nappeal lie  in\ta  narrow  compass.  The  appellant,  United<br \/>\nCommercial Syndicate,  is the purchasing agent of M\/s. Lingo<br \/>\nSulphite Corporation,  the petitioner  in writ\tpetition No.<br \/>\n391 of\t1980 and M\/s. Audubon Trading and Export Corporation<br \/>\nof Allahabad  and Calcutta,  who are  the  manufacturers  of<br \/>\nlingo-sulphite in India.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Molasses is  the basic raw material for the manufacture<br \/>\nof lingo-sulphite which is an essential raw material for all<br \/>\nbasic refractories,  steel plants, cement factories, carbon-<br \/>\nblack plants and many<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">69<\/span><br \/>\nOther  important   industries  Molasses\t is  also  used\t for<br \/>\ndistillation.  .  Over\tthe  years  molasses  has  become  a<br \/>\nvaluable  commodity   on  account   of\tits  multi-use.\t The<br \/>\npreservation, distribution  and prices of the molasses were,<br \/>\ntherefore, controlled  by a  legislation, the  Uttar Pradesh<br \/>\nSheera Niyaatran  Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1964),<br \/>\nhereinafter referred lo as the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>     United Commercial\tSyndicate used\tto purchase molasses<br \/>\nfor their  principals from  the open  market.  Later  on  it<br \/>\ndecided to  make direct\t purchase from\tthe U.P. State Sugar<br \/>\nCorporation  Ltd.,   Unit   Bijnor   (A\t  State\t  Government<br \/>\nUndertaking). It  entered into\tan agreement with respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1,\tthe U.P.  State Sugar  Corporation Ltd.,  whereunder<br \/>\nrespondent No.\tI agreed to sell 28,300 quintals of molasses<br \/>\nof 1977.78  production at  the statutory price of Rs. 91 per<br \/>\nquintal and duties etc. provided the appellant agreed to pay<br \/>\nthe total  amount of  Rs. 3  lakhs, being  the total cost of<br \/>\nmolasses as  estimated at  the above statutory price. It was<br \/>\nfurther stipulated  that in  case the  above price  was\t not<br \/>\nvalid in  law, the  appellant will  have to pay the price at<br \/>\nthe  rate   of\tRs.   25.10   per   quintal   inclusive\t  of<br \/>\nadministrative charges\tand other  taxes and duties etc., as<br \/>\nagreed to  by the  appellant. There  were other terms of the<br \/>\nagreement but  it is  not  necessary  for  the\tpurposes  of<br \/>\ndisposal of  these cases  to refer  to them.  A sum of Rs. 2<br \/>\nlakks had  been paid  in pursuance  of the agreement and the<br \/>\nbalance of  Rs. 1  lakh was  to be paid at the earliest. The<br \/>\nrespondent No.\t1, however, sought to calculate the price of<br \/>\nthe molasses  in question  at the  rate\t of  Rs.  25.10\t per<br \/>\nquintal. The  appellant felt aggrieved and it took the stand<br \/>\nthat the  respondent No.  1 could  not charge  more than the<br \/>\nstatutory price\t in spite of the fact that the appellant had<br \/>\noffered the price of Rs. 25.10 per quintal to respondent No.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The appellant filed two petitions in the High Court for a<br \/>\nwrit of\t mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction<br \/>\ndeclaring that\trespondent No.\tI was not entitled to charge<br \/>\nthe price  for the  molasses in excess of the price fixed by<br \/>\nthe Act.  The High Court by its order dated 31st of October,<br \/>\n1979 dismissed\tthe petitions  in limine.  The appellant has<br \/>\ncome up in appeal by special leave to challenge the order of<br \/>\nthe High Court. M\/s. Lingo Sulphite Corporation of India Ltd<br \/>\nhas  also   filed  a   petition\t under\tArticle\t 32  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution for  the same  relief on the same grounds as in<br \/>\nthe aforesaid appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In order  to appreciate the points involved in the case<br \/>\nit would  be appropriate to refer to the material provisions<br \/>\nof the Act and the rules framed thereunder,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">70<\/span><br \/>\n     Section 3 of the Act authorises the State Government to<br \/>\nconstitute an  Advisor-y  Committee  to\t advise\t on  matters<br \/>\nrelating to the control of storage, preservation, gradation,<br \/>\nprice, supply  and disposal  of molasses. Section 4 provides<br \/>\nfor the\t appointment of\t a person  as Controller of Molasses<br \/>\nfor the\t purpose of exercising the powers and performing the<br \/>\nduties of  the Controller  of Molasses.\t &#8211; Section 5 enjoins<br \/>\nevery occupier\tof a  sugar factory  to take precautions for<br \/>\npreservation of\t molasses. Section  6 prohibits the occupier<br \/>\nof a  sugar factory to adulterate or allow to be adulterated<br \/>\nany molasses  produced or  held in  stock by  him.  &#8216;Section<br \/>\n7A(1) enjoins  any person,  who requires  molasses  for\t his<br \/>\ndistillery or  for any\tpurpose of industrial development to<br \/>\napply in  the prescribed manner to the Controller specifying<br \/>\nthe purpose  for which\tit is  required. Sub-section  (2) of<br \/>\nsection 7A authorises the Controller to make enquires in the<br \/>\nmatter as  he may  think fit  and to  pass  an\torder  under<br \/>\nsection 8  with due regard to the factors enumerated in sub-<br \/>\nsection (3) of section 7A.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 8(1)  authorises the  Controller to  direct the<br \/>\noccupier of  any sugar\tfactory to  sell and  supply in\t the<br \/>\nprescribed manner  such quantity of molasses to such persons<br \/>\nas may\tbe specified  in the  order and\t the occupier shall,<br \/>\nnotwithstanding any  contract, comply  with the\t order. Sub-<br \/>\nsection (2) (a) of section 8 enjoins that the occupier shall<br \/>\nsupply, molasses  only to  a person  who requires it for his<br \/>\ndistillery or  for any purpose of industrial development and<br \/>\nsub-  clause(aa)  of  sub-section  (2)\tdirects\t the  person<br \/>\nspecified in  the order\t of the\t Controller to\tutilise\t the<br \/>\nmolasses supplied  to him  in pursuance\t of an\torder of the<br \/>\nController for the purpose specified in the application made<br \/>\nby him\tunder sub-section  (I) of  section 7A and to observe<br \/>\nall the\t restrictions and  conditions as  may be prescribed.<br \/>\nSection 10  provides that  the occupier\t of a  sugar factory<br \/>\nshall sell  molasses in\t respect of  which  an\torder  under<br \/>\nsection 8  has been  made at  a\t price\tnot  exceeding\tthat<br \/>\nprescribed in the schedule attached to section 10.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 12  of the  U.P. Sheera Niyantran Niyamavali, 1974<br \/>\nenjoins the occupier of every sugar factory to submit to the<br \/>\nController by  August 31  each molasses\t year a statement in<br \/>\nform M.F.  9  specifying  an  approximate  estimate  of\t the<br \/>\nquantity of  molasses to  be produced  in  a  sugar  factory<br \/>\nduring the  molasses year  following, along  with such other<br \/>\ninformation as\tis required  under  that  form.\t Rule  13(1)<br \/>\nprovides that  every distillery\t in U.P.  shall by August 31<br \/>\neach year  submit to the Controller a statement in form M.F.<br \/>\n8 specifying  its estimated  requirement of molasses for the<br \/>\npurposes of  distillation during the molasses year following<br \/>\nalong with such<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">71<\/span><br \/>\nOther information  as  may  be\trequired  under\t that  form.<br \/>\nLikewise, A  rule 13(2)\t requires the Director of Industries<br \/>\nto furnish  the\t Controller  by\t August\t 31  each  year\t the<br \/>\nestimated requirement  of molasses  for industrial  purposes<br \/>\nwithin the State relating to the molasses year following :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     Rule 23 provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;(I) All  stock of  molasses produced\t in a  sugar<br \/>\n     factory shall  be deemed  to  have\t been  reserved\t for<br \/>\n     supply to\tdistilleries or\t other persons\trequiring it<br \/>\n     for purposes  of industrial development and no stock of<br \/>\n     molasses produced\tin a  sugar factory shall be sold or<br \/>\n     otherwise disposed\t of by\tthe occupier  of  any  sugar<br \/>\n     factory except  in accordance  with an order in writing<br \/>\n     from the Controller.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (2) The  Controller shall release any stock of molasses<br \/>\n     in favour\tof occupier of a sugar factory only when the<br \/>\n     same is  not required  for distilleries  or  for  other<br \/>\n     purposes of industrial development.&#8221;<br \/>\n     Rule 23(1) provides:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;(I) The  State Government may levy administrative<br \/>\n     charges exclusive\tof the\tprice  payable\tto  a  sugar<br \/>\n     factory on\t the  molasses\treleased  for  sale  by\t the<br \/>\n     Controller towards\t meeting the  cost of  establishment<br \/>\n     for supervision  of control  over molasses at such rate<br \/>\n     or rates as may be notified from time to time.&#8221;<br \/>\n     Rule 24(1) provides<br \/>\n\t  &#8220;(I)\tSave   in  pursuance  of  an  order  of\t the<br \/>\n     Controller, no  person shall purchase any molasses from<br \/>\n     any sugar factory, or transport or possess any molasses<br \/>\n     purchased from  such sugar\t factory,  unless  the\tsaid<br \/>\n     molasses has  been released  by order of the Controller<br \/>\n     as not  required for  distilleries or other purposes of<br \/>\n     industrial development and a declaration to that effect<br \/>\n     in form  M.F. 13 has been obtained from the occupier of<br \/>\n     the sugar factory concerned.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     A perusal\tof the\trelevant provisions  of the  Act and<br \/>\nrules aforesaid\t makes it clear that the occupier of a sugar<br \/>\nfactory can<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">72<\/span><br \/>\nsell molasses  to a  person specified  in the  order of\t the<br \/>\nController at  the controlled  price. The  occupier of every<br \/>\nsugar factory  has to give an estimate of the molasses to be<br \/>\nproduced in  the sugar\tfactory\t as  also  the\testimate  of<br \/>\nrequirement of\tmolasses  for  distillation  and  industrial<br \/>\npurposes.  If\tthere  is  any\tsurplus\t after\tmeeting\t the<br \/>\nrequirements of\t the persons  in whose\tfavour there  is  an<br \/>\norder of the Controller, the same will be released in favour<br \/>\nof the occupier.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  for consideration  in the instant case is<br \/>\nwhether the  molasses released\tin favour of the occupier by<br \/>\nthe Controller\tis also to be sold at the controlled rate or<br \/>\nit can be sold at the market price as a free commodity.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Garg, senior counsel contends that from the scheme<br \/>\nof the\tAct and\t the rules  it is  evident that\t the  entire<br \/>\nproduction of molasses is to be controlled by the Controller<br \/>\nappointed under\t the Act, at every stage. He is to take into<br \/>\naccount the estimated supply and the estimated demand of the<br \/>\ncommodity. Thereafter,\the is  to allot\t the commodity\tto a<br \/>\nparticular person for a particular purpose at the controlled<br \/>\nstatutory price\t fixed by  the schedule\t to the Act. The Act<br \/>\nand the\t rules further provide that nobody will store, sell,<br \/>\ntransport or use the said commodity without the order of the<br \/>\nController and\tthe price  and distribution of molasses both<br \/>\nare controlled\tby the\tAct and\t the  contravention  of\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of  the Act\thave been  made penal  and the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt has  gone wrong  in assuming  that certain quantity of<br \/>\nmolasses which are covered by rule 22(2) are immune from the<br \/>\nrestrictions and  fetters of  the Act  and the\tsaid  rules,<br \/>\nwhich is  erroneous and indefensible in law inasmuch as such<br \/>\na construction as has been put by the High Court will defeat<br \/>\nthe very  purpose and  object of the said Act and the rules.<br \/>\nAs a  second limb to this argument it was contended that the<br \/>\nclassification made  between molasses  covered by rule 22(1)<br \/>\non the\tone hand  and rule  22(2) on  the  other  is  wholly<br \/>\nirrational and\tthe very  purpose of  the  Act\tis  defeated<br \/>\nAccording to  the learned  counsel, it\tmakes no  difference<br \/>\nwhether the  molasses are  covered by  rule 22(1)  or  22(2)<br \/>\ninasmuch as  the object\t of the\t present legislation  is  to<br \/>\nensure that  the sale  and the\tdistribution of\t molasses is<br \/>\ncontrolled in  an equitable  manner and,  therefore, to hold<br \/>\nthat section  8 is  applicable to rule 22(1) and not to rule<br \/>\n22(2) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. 3<br \/>\n     Shri Rana\tappearing for  respondent No. 1 on the other<br \/>\nhand has  contended that  on a correct interpretation of the<br \/>\nrelevant pro<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">73<\/span><br \/>\nvisions of  the Act  and the rules the interpretation put by<br \/>\nthe High Court is &#8216;fully warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 10\t of the Act which has been referred to above<br \/>\nenjoins the  occupier of a sugar factory to sell molasses in<br \/>\nrespect of which an order under section 8 has been made at a<br \/>\nprice not exceeding that prescribed in the schedule. A plain<br \/>\nreading of the section makes it clear that the occupier of a<br \/>\nsugar factory  is obliged  to sell molasses at the price not<br \/>\nexceeding that prescribed in the schedule only in respect of<br \/>\nwhich an order under section 8 has been made. But sub-clause<br \/>\n(2) of\trule 22\t authorises the\t Controller to\trelease\t any<br \/>\nstock of  molasses in  favour of  an  occupier\tof  a  sugar<br \/>\nfactory only  when the same is not required for distilleries<br \/>\nor for\tother  purposes\t of  industrial\t development.  If  a<br \/>\ncertain quantity  of molasses has been released in favour of<br \/>\nthe  occupier,\t because  the  same  was  not  required\t for<br \/>\ndistilleries   or   for\t  other\t  purposes   of\t  industrial<br \/>\ndevelopment, it\t is  open  to  the  occupier  to  sell\tthat<br \/>\nquantity of molasses in free market to any person at a price<br \/>\nprevalent in  the market.  Section 10 of the Act requires an<br \/>\noccupier of  a sugar factory to sell molasses at a price not<br \/>\nexceeding that prescribed in the schedule only in respect of<br \/>\nwhich an  order under section 8 has been made. No limitation<br \/>\nor fetter has been put on the occupier of a sugar factory to<br \/>\nsell molasses  which was  released in  his favour.  It\twas,<br \/>\ntherefore, open\t to him to sell the molasses released in his<br \/>\nfavour at the free market price.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The contention that the classification made with regard<br \/>\nto molasses  covered under  rule 22(1)\tor rule\t 22(2) is an<br \/>\nunreasonable classification  cannot be\taccepted There\thave<br \/>\nbeen other  enactments in  which similar  provision has been<br \/>\nmade, for example, the levy sugar was to be sold only at the<br \/>\ncontrolled rate\t but free  sugar  was  to  be  sold  by\t the<br \/>\nfactories at  a free  market price  and that has been always<br \/>\naccepted as  a valid  classification. The  appellant entered<br \/>\ninto an\t agreement with\t respondent No.\t I and agreed to pay<br \/>\nthe price  of the  molasses at\tthe rate  of Rs.  25.10\t per<br \/>\nquintal Having\tentered into such an agreement with its eyes<br \/>\nwide open  it cannot now turn turtle and contend that it was<br \/>\nliable to  pay only  at the rate of Rs. 9\/- per quintal, the<br \/>\nstatutory price.  It is\t true that  the\t parties  cannot  be<br \/>\nallowed to  contract themselves\t out of\t law. If the law was<br \/>\nthat no\t molasses released  in favour of the occupier of the<br \/>\nsugar factory  could be\t sold at  a price  higher  than\t the<br \/>\ncontrolled one,\t than the  contention of the appellant would<br \/>\nbe correct. On an analysis of the relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nAct we are quite clear that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">74<\/span><br \/>\nthe controlled price was applicable only to the molasses for<br \/>\nwhich an  order had  been passed by the Controller in favour<br \/>\nof a specified person either for the purpose of distillation<br \/>\nor for other industrial purposes. But so far as the molasses<br \/>\nreleased in  favour of\tthe occupier  of a  sugar factory is<br \/>\nconcerned, there  is no\t requirement or\t the  law  that\t the<br \/>\noccupier should sell it only at the controlled price.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It was  further contended\tthat the  respondent was not<br \/>\nentitled to  administrative charges.  This contention  loses<br \/>\nsight of  the terms  of the  agreement between\tthe  parties<br \/>\nwhich includes administrative charges also.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the foregoing discussion we find no force either in<br \/>\nthe appeal  or in  the writ  petition under Article 32. They<br \/>\nare accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order<br \/>\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t      Appeal and Petition dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">75<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 786, 1982 SCR (3) 66 Author: R Misra Bench: Misra, R.B. (J) PETITIONER: LINGO SULPHATE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,UNIT, BIJNOR &amp; ORS. DATE [&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-202280","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>Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - 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\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-21T02:04:33+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T02:04:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2522,\"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\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\",\"name\":\"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-21T02:04:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - 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\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-21T02:04:33+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982","datePublished":"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T02:04:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982"},"wordCount":2522,"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\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982","name":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of ... vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation ... on 27 January, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-21T02:04:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lingo-sulphate-corporation-of-vs-u-p-state-sugar-corporation-on-27-january-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lingo Sulphate Corporation Of &#8230; vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation &#8230; on 27 January, 1982"}]},{"@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\/202280","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=202280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}