{"id":207038,"date":"1995-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995"},"modified":"2015-07-08T21:11:46","modified_gmt":"2015-07-08T15:41:46","slug":"state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","title":{"rendered":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 858, \t\t 1995 SCC (2) 402<\/div>\n
Author: B S.P.<\/div>\n
Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.P.P. KAVERY CHETTY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/01\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nBHARUCHA S.P. (J)\nVERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 AIR  858\t\t  1995 SCC  (2) 402\n JT 1995 (1)   537\t  1995 SCALE  (1)297\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
BHARUCEIA, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   In these appeals the State of Tamil Nadu\t  impugns
\nthe judgment and order dated  23rd   December,\t1992  of   a
\nDivision Bench of the High Court at Madras whereby Rules  8D
\nand  19B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral  Concession  Rules,
\n1959,  (“the said Rules”) made Under the provisions  of\t the
\nMines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, (“the
\nsaid  Act”)  were  struck  down\t as  unconstitutional.\t The
\nGovernment Orders by which these provisions were  introduced
\ninto the said Rules were also quashed in part.\tA  direction
\nwas issued to the appellant State to permit the\t respondents
\nherein, being the petitioners upon whose writ petitions\t the
\njudgments  and\torders were passed, to\tcarry  on  quarrying
\noperations  and\t transport  the\t material  quarried  without
\nreference  the aforementioned Rules, subject to the  payment
\nof royalty and seigniorage.\n<\/p>\n
\t Rule 194\n<\/p>\n
10.  Prior to 10th June, 1992, Rule 19-A read thus:\n<\/p>\n
540<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ”\t 19-A Permission for quarrying black,  Pink.
\n\t      red,  grey, green and other coloured  granites
\n\t      and  any\tother  rock  required  for  use\t for
\n\t      decorative and ornamental purpose in  ryotwari
\n\t      lands:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
\n\t      contained\t in Section III to these  rules\t the
\n\t      authority\t competent to grant  permission\t for
\n\t      quarrying\t black, pink, red, grey,  green\t and
\n\t      other   coloured\tgranites  and\tother\trock
\n\t      required for use for decorative and ornamental
\n\t      purposes in ryotwari lands shall be the  State
\n\t      Government.   The application shall be in\t the
\n\t      form specified in Appendix III to these rules:
\n\t      Provided that the quarrying permission for the
\n\t      minerals\tabove  in ryotwari  lands  shall  be
\n\t      granted only to an applicant who is having  an
\n\t      existing\tindustry in Tamil Nadu\tor  distinct
\n\t      industrial programme to use the mineral in his
\n\t      proposed industry in Tamil Nadu:
\n\t      Provided\tfurther that the  permission  holder
\n\t      for  quarrying the above mineral shall  remove
\n\t      or\t transport the mineral shall  remove
\n\t      or  transport the mineral from  the  specified
\n\t      land   after   payment  of   area\t  assessment
\n\t      seigniorage,  rates  prescribed from  time  in
\n\t      Appendix II to these rules and after obtaining
\n\t      transport\t permit fawn the District  Collector
\n\t      or  the  Officer\tauthorised  by\thim  in\t the
\n\t      behalf;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided also that the transport permit  shall
\n\t      be  issued only to the industry for which\t the
\n\t      mineral  is  required  to\t be  supplied.\t The
\n\t      lessee shall keep correct accounts showing the
\n\t      quantity and other particulars of all minerals
\n\t      obtained\tat the factory site  and  despatched
\n\t      from the factory.\t The lessee shall also allow
\n\t      any officer authorised by the State Government
\n\t      in  this\tbehalf to inspect the  industry\t and
\n\t      verify  its records and accounts\tand  furnish
\n\t      such   information  and  returns\tas  may\t  be
\n\t      required by him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.On 10th June, 1992, the State Government issued Government
\nOrder NO. 214.\tIt stated that under the said Rules as\tthey
\nstood,\torders\thad been issued that leases  be\t granted  to
\nindustries  which had already been established\tfor  cutting
\nand  polishing\tgranite\t and to those who  gave\t a  definite
\nindustrial  programme  to  set\tup  such  units\t within\t the
\nappellant  State  a  period of two years from  the  date  of
\nreceipt\t of  the  letter of  commitment.   The\tDirector  of
\nGeology\t and  Mining  at Madras had reported  to  the  State
\nGovernment  that  illicit  mining  and\ttransportation\t was
\nrampant\t in a number of districts, that the amount  obtained
\nas  tender bids for granite leases was very meagre and\tthat
\nthere was an alarming tendency for monopolies to be  created
\nin the granite trade.  He had also reported that there was a
\nlot of wastage in the granite cutting and polishing process.
\nHe had suggested that the State Government should take steps
\nfor conservation and proper utilisation of the\tnonrenewable
\ngranite\t potential available in the appellant State  with  a
\nview  to  safeguard the interest at large.   Granite  was  a
\nvaluable mineral which earned valuable foreign exchange.  It
\nwas,  therefore, necessary that it should be  conserved\t and
\nproperly used without waste.  Considering all these aspects,
\nthe  State  Government had been examining  the\tquestion  of
\nstreamlining  the  procedure  for  utilising  the   valuable
\ngranite\t deposits available in the appellant State,  and  it
\nhad decided that:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)   henceforth\t no  lease   for   quarrying
\n\t      granites\ton poramboke lands shall be  granted
\n\t      to  private  persons  except  those  who\t are
\n\t      holding  letters of commitment.  Fresh  leases
\n\t      will  be\tgiven  only to\ta  State  Government
\n\t      Company  or a Corporation owned or  controlled
\n\t      by the State Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      541<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (2)   ha\t respect   of\tquarrying   Paradiso
\n\t      ,Kashmir,\t White\tKunnam,\t  Paithur,  Bavanur,
\n\t      Black, Blue Granite, Raw Silk and Red Granite,
\n\t      the  lease in ryotwari lands will\t be  granted
\n\t      preferably to a State Government company or  a
\n\t      corporation  owned or controlled by the  State
\n\t      Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   the\t existing condition that the  lessee
\n\t      who  has\tbeen granted  permission  to  quarry
\n\t      granite  in  ryotwari  lands  should  have  an
\n\t      existing\tindustry in Tamil Nadu\tor  distinct
\n\t      Industrial programme to use the mineral in his
\n\t      proposed\tindusutry  in Tamil Nadu,  shall  be
\n\t      dispensed with;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (4)   all\t trade relating to granite shall  be
\n\t      canalised\t through  the  Tamil  Nadu  Minerals
\n\t      Ltd.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A  notification amending the said Rules was appended to\t the
\nsaid  Government  Order and, so fir as is material  for\t our
\npurposes,  it amended Rule 19A and introduced Rules  8B\t and
\n19-A, as amended, read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t 19-A Quarrying lease for  quarrying  black,
\n\t      pink,   red,  grey,  green,  white  or   other
\n\t      coloured\tor  multi-coloured granites  or\t any
\n\t      other rock required for use for decorative and
\n\t      ornamental   purposes   in   ryotwari   lands,
\n\t      Notwithstanding\tanything  to  the   contrary
\n\t      contained\t in section III to these  rules\t the
\n\t      authority\t competent to grant quarrying  lease
\n\t      for  quarrying black, pink. red, grey,  green,
\n\t      white  or\t other\tcoloured  or  multi-coloured
\n\t      granites\tor any other rock required  for\t use
\n\t      for  decorative  and  ornamental\tpurposes  in
\n\t      ryotwari lands shall be the State\t Government.
\n\t      The application shall be in the form specified
\n\t      in Appendix VII to these rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The said application shall be accompanied by a
\n\t      mining  dues clearance certificate  issued  by
\n\t      the  District Collector concerned in the\tForm
\n\t      prescribed  in Appendix VIII.  Receipt of\t the
\n\t      application  made\t under this  rule  shall  be
\n\t      acknowledged by the District Collector or\t the
\n\t      Officer  authorised by the District  Collector
\n\t      in  this\tbehalf\tin the\tform  prescribed  in
\n\t      Appendix IX to these rules:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat on and from the 10th June\t1992
\n\t      the  State  Government in\t granting  quarrying
\n\t      lease   for  quarrying  the  following   minor
\n\t      minerals\t in  ryotwari  lands,\tshall\tgive
\n\t      preference to a State Government Company or  a
\n\t      Corporation or Company owned or controlled  by
\n\t      the State Government, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a) Paradiso -\t      (Gnessic Rock with\n\t\t\t\t\tviolet colour wavy\n\t\t\t\t\t pattern)\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (b)   Kashmir White –   (Leptynite White gran-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t      ite   with   gar\t net
\n\t      spees)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   Kunnam Paithur,
\n\t\t    Bavanur Black\t Black granite fine
\n\t\t\t\t\t   and medium grade
\n\t\t\t\t      with
\n\t      brown back
\n\t\t\t\t      ground\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (d) Blue Granite-\t  Chamockite with
\n\t\t\t\t\t    blue background.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 (e) Raw Silk-\t\t   Leptynite with\n\t\t    background.\t\t yellow\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (f)Red Granite-\t\t Porphyritic granite
\n\t\t\t\t\t and granites with
\n\t\t\t\t\t red background.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided further that the quarrying holder for
\n\t      quarrying\t the above mineral shall  remove  or
\n\t      transport the mineral from the specified\tland
\n\t      after payment of area assessment,\t seigniorage
\n\t      fee  or dead rent whichever is higher  at\t the
\n\t      rate; prescribed from time to time in Appendix
\n\t      11   to  these  rules  and   after   obtaining
\n\t      transport\t permit from the District  Collector
\n\t      or  the  Officer\tauthorised by  him  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided also that the lessee shall keep
\n\t      542<\/span>
\n\t      correct  accounts showing the quantity of\t the
\n\t\t\t    minerals  quarried and shall allow any  office
\n\t      authorised  by  the State Government  in\tthis
\n\t      behalf  to inspect the quarry and\t verify\t its
\n\t      records\tand   accounts\tand   furnish\tsuch
\n\t      information and returns as may be required  by
\n\t      him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.   It\t was the first proviso in Rule 19A as amended  which
\nwas  under challenge and was struck down by the High  Court.
\nBy reason thereof, the State Government was obliged to\tgive
\npreference to State Government companies and Corporation  in
\ngranting  quarrying leases for the varieties of granite\t set
\nout therein.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The High Court found that the firs proviso in Rule\t 19A
\ndid not contain an guideline in the matter of giving  prefer
\nence  to  a State Governmment company of  Corporation.\t The
\ngrant of preference was left to the unfettered discretion of
\nthe  State  Government.\t It was, therefore ultra  vires\t the
\nConstitution\n<\/p>\n
7.   Learned  counsel  for  the\t appellant  State  drew\t our
\nattention  to the judgment of this Court in State  of  Tamil
\nNadu v. Hind Stone<\/a> etc.,(1981) 2 S.C.R. 742.  The High Court
\nof Madras had struck do Rule 8C of the said Rules as it then
\nread.\tRule 8C stated that on and from 2nd December,  1977,
\nno  lease  for quarrying black granite would be\t granted  to
\nprivate\t persons and that the State Government itself  could
\nengage\tin  quarrying  black granite  or  grant\t leases\t for
\nquarrying  black granite in favour of any  State  Government
\nCorporation.   This Court referred to the  declaration\tmade
\nunder  Section 2 of the said act, which states that  “it  is
\nexpedient in the public interest that the Union should\ttake
\nunder  its  control  the regulation of\tthe  mines  and\t the
\ndevelopment of minerals” to the extent provided in the\tsaid
\nAct.   The public interest, this court said,  which  induced
\nparliament to make this declaration had to be the  paramount
\nconsideration  in all matters concerning the  regulation  of
\nmines and the development of minerals.\tParliament’s  policy
\nwas clearly discernible from the provisions of the said Act.
\nIt  was the conservation and the prudent and  discriminating
\nexploitation  of  minerals  with a view\t to  secure  maximum
\nbenefit\t to the community.  There were clear sign  posts  to
\nlead and guide the subordinate legislating authority in\t the
\nmatter of making rules.\t It could not be said, having regard
\nto  the\t provisions of the said Act, that  the\trule  making
\nauthority  had\texceeded  its power in\tbanning\t leases\t for
\nquarrying black granite in favour of private parties and  in
\nstipulating that the State Government itself could engage in
\nquarrying black granite or grant leases for quarrying  black
\ngranite\t in favour of any State Government Corporation.\t  To
\nview such a rule as a rule to benefit the State\t Government,
\nthe  subordinate legislating body, was to take too narrow  a
\nview  of  its functions.  If in the pursuit  of\t the  avowed
\npolicy\tof the Act it was thought that exploitation  by\t the
\npublic\tsector\twas  best  and\twisest\tin  the\t case  of  a
\nparticular  mineral,  the authority competent  to  make\t the
\nsubordinate  legislation could make a rule  banning  private
\nexploitation  of  such\tmineral,  which\t had  hitherto\tbeen
\npermitted.  In the case of scare mineral the most  effective
\nmethod\tof  conservation  and prudent  exploitation  was  to
\npermit\texploitation  by the State or its  agencies  and  to
\nprohibit exploitation by private agencies.  “If’, the  Court
\nsaid  “you want to conserve in the future you must  prohibit
\nin  the present.  We have no doubt that the  prohibiting  of
\nleases\t in  certain  cases  is\t part  of   the\t  regulation
\ncontemplated by section 15 of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
543<\/span><\/p>\n
8.   That valid differentia exists between State  Government
\ncompanies and Corporations on the one hand and private\tmin-
\ners on the other and that it bears close nexus to the object
\nof the said Act is not in serious dispute.  With the  object
\nof  conserving a rare and precious mineral and ensuring\t its
\nexploitation  in the best possible manner,it is open to\t the
\nState  Government, the rule making authority in\t respect  of
\nminor  minerals\t under section 15 of the said Act,  to\tkeep
\nmining\toperations in granite of the kind specified  in\t the
\namended Rule 19-A, so far as is possible, in its own  hands,
\nand  to\t do  this  by giving  preference  in  the  grant  of
\nquarrying  leases for such granite to State Government\tcom-
\npanies or Corporations.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The  principal challenge to the first proviso  in\tRule
\n19-A  was  that\t it was arbitrary in that  it  conferred  no
\nguidelines  in\tthe  matter of giving  preference  to  State
\nGovernment  companies or Corporations.\tIn  this  connection
\nattention  was invited by learned counsel for the  appellant
\nState to Appendix X to the said Rules.\tAppendix X sets\t out
\nthe  form  of the application for a quarrying permit  to  be
\nmad-.  in  accordance  with the provisions of  Rule  3.\t The
\napplicant is required to state, inter alia whether he or  it
\nis  an\tindividual or a firm or a company.   The  applicants
\nnationality or place of registration or incorporation is  to
\nbe  set\t out,  as also his or its profession  or  nature  of
\nbusiness.  The form requires the applicant to state  whether
\nit  has filed on affidavit, as required by Rule 3,  that  no
\nmining\tdues  arc  outstanding\tin its\tname.\tIt  is\talso
\nrequired  to  state  whether it has  previously\t worked\t the
\nmineral\t in  the  area in which it  seeks  the\tpermit,\t the
\nquantity that it seeks to remove and the period during which
\nit  will  be quarried and transported.\tIt  is\trequired  to
\nstate the purpose for which the mineral is to be used.\tSuch
\nguidelines as are required, it was submitted, are  furnished
\nby the form read with rule 3. Quite clearly, preference to a
\nState  Government company or Corporation must be given,\t all
\nthings\tbeing equal having regard to the various factors  in
\nrespect\t of  which information is sought  by  the  aforesaid
\nform.  These are the guideline in this behalf\n<\/p>\n
10.It  was submitted by learned counsel for the\t respondents
\nthat the Government company or Corporation was free to apply
\nfor one piece of land but not another and that the said rule
\nshould\thave  provided guidelines for the  State  Government
\ncompany\t or Corporation in this behalf.\t It is difficult  to
\nsee  how  a Government company or Corporation can  be  bound
\ndown   by  guidelines  provided\t by  the  said\tRules.\t  As
\ncommercial undertakings, they would be guided by  commercial
\nconsiderations,\t and it must be assumed that they would\t act
\nbona fide.\n<\/p>\n
11.It was submitted that Rule 19A as amended had no nexus to
\nthe  objects  stated  in G.O. No. 214  quoted  above.\tThis
\nsubmission is not well founded.\t The State Government  would
\nbe  better  able  to  control  the  mining  of\tthe  granite
\nmentioned  in the amended Rule if it was in the hands  of  a
\nState  Government company or Corporation It was so  held  in
\nthe Hind Stone Case cited above.\n<\/p>\n
12.It was submitted that under Rule 19-A as it stood  before
\n10th  June  1992,  applicants who qualified  to\t be  granted
\nquarrying  leases were those who had an\t existing  polishing
\nunit  or distinct industrial programme to set up one.\tMany
\npri-\n<\/p>\n
544<\/span><\/p>\n
vate persons had set up polishing units on the basis of this
\npolicy\tand  had  applied  for\tquarrying  leases.   In\t the
\nmeantime,  Rule\t 19A  was amended,  and\t these\tpersons\t had
\nsuffered great hardship.  The amendment of Rule 19-A to give
\npreference to State Government companies or Corporations was
\ndetrimental to such persons.  It was arbitrary and, applying
\nalso  the  principle  of promissory estoppel,  ought  to  be
\nstruck down.  Rule 19-A as it read prior to its amendment on
\n10th  June,  1992,  has already been quoted.   There  is  no
\npromise\t or representation therein; the principle  of  prom-
\nissory estoppel is, therefore, not attracted: nor can it  be
\nsaid   that  there  is\tany  arbitrariness  in\t the   State
\nGovernment’s  decision to alter its policy in regard to\t the
\nmining of granite having regard to its perception, from time
\nto time, of the need to conserve it.\n<\/p>\n
13.  Learned  counsel  for the\trespondents  submitted\tthat
\ngranite was a major as also a minor mineral, depending\tupon
\nits  end use; if it was used for industrial  or\t engineering
\npurposes  it  was  not a building stone\t and  could  not  be
\ntreated as a minor mineral.  Under the provisions of Section
\n15  of the said Act the State Government has power  to\tmake
\nrules  for regulating the grant of quarry and mining  leases
\nonly  “in  respect of minor minerals.” The said\t Rules\tare,
\ntherefore,   only  in  relation\t to  minor  minerals.\t The
\napplicants  that  we are here concerned with are  those\t who
\ndesire to quarry minor minerals.  The submission, therefore,
\nhas no relevance to the validity of Rule 19A.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Learned  counsel  for the\trespondents  submitted\tthat
\nunder the first proviso of Rule 19A the consent of the owner
\nof  the land was not made a condition and it was bad in\t law
\non that account The submission does not take note of section
\n24A  of\t the said Act.\tThereunder the holder  of  a  mining
\nlease  under  the  said\t Act or-  rules\t made  under  it  is
\nempowered  to  enter the land on which the  lease  has\tbeen
\ngranted and carry out mining operations-.  He is obliged  to
\ncompensate  the land owner for any loss or damage  that\t his
\noperations  may cause.\tConsent of the occupier is  required
\nonly  when  the holder of the lease desires entry  into\t any
\nbuilding or enclosed court or garden.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The provisions of section 17A(2) of the said  Act\twere
\nadverted  to and it was submitted that they were being\tcir-
\ncumvented by the first proviso of Rule 19A.  Section  17A(2)
\nreads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  State Government may, with the  approval
\n\t      of  the Central Government, reserve  any\tarea
\n\t      not already held under any prospecting licence
\n\t      or  mining lease, for undertaking\t prospecting
\n\t\t\t    or\tmining\toperations through  a  Government,
\n\t      company or corporation owned or controlled  by
\n\t      it  or by the Central Government and where  it
\n\t      purposes\tto do so, it shall, by\tnotification
\n\t      in  the official Gazette, specify\t the  bound-
\n\t      arises  of such area and the mineral  or\tmin-
\n\t      erals  in\t respect  of  which  areas  will  be
\n\t      reserved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 17A(2) applies when an area is sought to be reserved
\nby  the State Government for undertaking  mining  operations
\nexclusively  through  a Government company  or\tcorporation.
\nWhen  such  area  is notified the  mineral  or\tminerals  in
\nrespect\t of which it is notified must also be stated.\tSuch
\nreservation  cannot  be\t made without the  approval  of\t the
\nCentral Government.  The first proviso of Rule 19A does\t not
\nwholly exclude private parties from
\n545<\/span>
\nobtaining  quarrying  leases  for  the\tminerals   specified
\ntherein.   It states that for such leases preferences  shall
\nbe  given  to State Government companies  and  corporations.
\nWhere,\ttherefore, there are, for the same mining lease\t for
\nthe specified minerals, rival applications, all things being
\nequal  having regard to the requirements of Rule 3  and\t the
\nform   at  Appendix  X,\t a  State  GoveRNment\tcompany\t  or
\ncorporation  is to be preferred.  The first proviso to\tRule
\n19A cannot, therefore, be said to circumvent the  provisions
\nof section 17(2).\n<\/p>\n
16.  The  provisions of the amended Rule 19-A have not\tbeen
\nattacked on grounds other than those set out above.  We find
\nno  substance  in the attack.  We are of the view  that\t the
\nHigh Court was in error in holding that the first proviso in
\nRule 19-A was ultra vires the Constitution.
\nRules 8D and 19B:\n<\/p>\n
17.  Rules  8D and 19B were introduced in to the said  Rules
\nby Government Order No. 214. dated 10th June, 1992.  The two
\nrules  are identical, except that Rule 8D is in\t Section  11
\nwhich relates to Government lands which the minerals  belong
\nto  the\t Government  and Rule 19B is in\t Section  III  which
\nrelates\t to ryotwari land in which the minerals\t belong\t to.
\nThis  being  so, it is enough to quote Rule 19B.   It  reads
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” 19-B Constitution of black, red, pink, grey,
\n\t      green,  white  or\t other\tcoloured  or  multi-
\n\t      coloured granites or any rock suitable for use
\n\t      as  ornamental and decorative stones  quarried
\n\t      by the permit holder, etc.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained\t  in
\n\t      these  rules, on and from the  10th  June,1992
\n\t      the  sale\t of the quarried black,\t red,  pink,
\n\t      grey, green, white or other Coloured or multi-
\n\t      coloured granites or any rock suitable for use
\n\t      as  ornamental and decorative stone  by  every
\n\t      permit holder who has been granted  permission
\n\t      by  the State Government and every person\t who
\n\t\t\t    has been permitted by a competent court having
\n\t      jurisdiction, for quarrying black, red,  pink,
\n\t      grey, green, white or other coloured or multi-
\n\t      coloured granites or any rock suitable for use
\n\t      as  ornamental and decorative stone, shall  be
\n\t      regulated\t by the State  or by an\t Officer  of
\n\t      the State Government or by a State  Government
\n\t      company\tor   by\t a  corporation\t  owned\t  or
\n\t      controlled  by  the State\t Government  as\t the
\n\t      State Government may direct in this behalf
\n\t      (2)   Where the above sale is regulated by-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   The State Government or by an Officer of
\n\t      the State Government, the minimum price  shall
\n\t      be as fixed by the State Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  The\t  State\t Government-Company   or   a
\n\t      corporation  owned or controlled by the  State
\n\t      Government,  the\tminimum price  shall  be  as
\n\t      fixed  by the said company or corporation,  as
\n\t      the case may be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided\tthat  in fixing\t the  minimum  price
\n\t      under  this  sub-rule the\t fair  market  price
\n\t      prevailing  at the time of the sale  shall  be
\n\t      taken into account.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.On  the  same day that Rule 8D and 19B  were\t introduced,
\nthat is, 10th, June, 1992, Government Order No. 216 was also
\nissued.\t It directed, under the provisions of the two Rules,
\nthat the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, a State Company, would
\nregulate the sale of quarried black, red, pink, grey, green,
\nwhite or other
\n546<\/span>
\ncoloured or multi-coloured granite or any rock suitable\t for
\nuse as ornamental and decorative stones.\n<\/p>\n
19.  The High Court quashed Rules 8D and 19B principally  on
\nthe ground that Section 15 of the said Act gave no power  to
\nthe State Government to frame rules to regulate internal  or
\nforeign\t trade\tin  granite  after  it\thad  been  quarried.
\nSection\t 15  also did not empower the  State  Government  to
\nframe  rules  to  enable  a  State  Government\tcompany\t  or
\ncorporation to fix a minimum price for granite.\n<\/p>\n
20.  Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted\tthat
\nRules 8D and 19B were valid having regard to the Preamble of
\nthe  said Act and Section 18 thereof He submitted  that\t the
\nrule making power of the State under Section 15 (o) was wide
\nenough to encompass Rules 8D and 19B.\n<\/p>\n
21.  The  said Act is enacted to provide for the  regulation
\nof  mines and the development of minerals under the  control
\nof the Union.  Section 2 of the said Act declares that it is
\nexpedient in the public interest that the Union should\ttake
\nunder its control the regulation of mines and development of
\nminerals to the extent provided in the said Act.  Section 13
\nempowers the Central Government to make rules for regulating
\nthe  grant  of prospecting licences and\t mineral  leases  in
\nrespect\t of minerals and for purposes  connected  therewith.
\nSub-section (1) of section 15 empowers the State  Government
\nto  make  rules for regulating the grant of  quarry  leases,
\nmining\tleases and other mineral concessions in\t respect  of
\nminor  minerals and for purposes connected therewith.\tSub-
\nsection\t (1A)  of  section 15 states  that  such  rules\t may
\nprovide\t for the matters set out herein, namely, the  person
\nby whom and the manner in which an application for a  quarry
\nlease, mining lease and the like may be made; the fees to be
\npaid   therefore;  the\ttime  and  the\tform  in  which\t  an
\napplication  is\t to  be made; the matters which\t are  to  be
\nconsidered where application in respect of the same land are
\nreceived on the same day; the terms and conditions on  which
\nleases\tmay be granted or regulated; the procedure  in\tthis
\nbehalf, the facilities to be afforded to lease-holders;\t the
\nfixation  and collection of rent and other charges  and\t the
\ntime  within which they are payable; the protection  of\t the
\nrights of third parties; the protection of flora; the manner
\nin  which  leases  may\tbe  transferred;  the  construction,
\nmaintenance and use of roads, power transmission lines, etc.
\non the land; the form of registers to be maintained; reports
\nand  statements\t to  be\t submitted and to  whom\t ;  and\t the
\nrevision of any order passed by any authority under the said
\nRules.\t Clause\t (o) of sub-section (IA) reads,\t “any  other
\nmatter\twhich is to be or may be prescribed.” Section 18  of
\nthe said Act states that it shall be the duty of the Central
\nGovernment  to take all such steps as may be  necessary\t for
\nthe   conservation   and  systematic  development   of\t the
\nenvironment by preventing or controlling any pollution which
\nmay be caused by prospecting or mining operations.\n<\/p>\n
22.Rules 8D and 19B empowers the State Government company or
\ncorporation  as the State Government may direct\t to  control
\nthe sale by every permit-holder of quarried granite or other
\nor  rock  suitable for ornamental  or  decorative  purposes.
\nThey also empower the State Government or its officers or  a
\nState Government company or corporation, as the case may be,
\nto fix the minimum price for the sale thereof.\tThe  object,
\nas is shown by the terms of
\n547<\/span>
\nGovernment  Order  No.\t214 dated 10th\tJune,  1992,  quoted
\nabove, is to conserve and protect granite resources.\n<\/p>\n
23.  It\t is  difficult to see how granite resource  scan  be
\nprotected  by  controlling  the\t sale  ofgranite  after\t its
\nexcavation and fixing\t the minimum price thereof\n<\/p>\n
24.  There is no power conferred upon the    State
\nGovernment under the said Act to exercise control over minor
\nminerals  after they have been excavated.  The power of\t the
\nState Government, as the subordinate rule making  authority,
\nis  restricted\tin the manner set out in  Section  15.\t The
\npower  to  control  the sale and the  sale  price  of  minor
\nmineral\t is not covered by the terms of clause (o)  of\tsub-
\nsection (IA) of Section 15.  This clause can relate only  to
\nthe regulation of the grant of quarry and mining leases\t and
\nother  mineral concessions and it does not confer the  power
\nto regulate the sale of already mined minerals.\n<\/p>\n
25.  In\t our  view, therefore, the High\t Court\twas  clearly
\nright in striking down Rules 8D and 19B as being beyond\t the
\npurview\t of the rule making power of the  State\t Government.
\nThese Rules having been struck down, the High Court was also
\nright in striking down Government Order No.214 to the extent
\nthat  it prescribed these Rules and Government Order  No.216
\nmade in pursuance of these Rules.\n<\/p>\n
26.  In\t the  result, these appeals succeed  in\t part.\t The
\njudgment and order of the High Court is set aside in so\t far
\nas  it\tholds that Rule 19A as amended by  Government  Order
\nNo.214\tdated 10th June, 1992, is bad in law.  The  judgment
\nand  order  of the High Court is affirmed in so\t far  as  it
\nholds that Rules 8D and 19B are bad in law.  It is  affirmed
\nalso  in  so far as it holds that Government Order  No.\t 214
\ndated  10th June, 1992, in so far as it prescribes Rules  8D
\nand  19, and Government Order No.216 dated 10th June,  1992,
\nare bad in law,\n<\/p>\n
27.  There shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
548<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 858, 1995 SCC (2) 402 Author: B S.P. Bench: Bharucha S.P. (J) PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT: M.P.P. KAVERY CHETTY DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/01\/1995 BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) BENCH: BHARUCHA S.P. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH […]<\/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-207038","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\" \/>\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=\"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-08T15:41:46+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T15:41:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\"},\"wordCount\":4367,\"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\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\",\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-08T15:41:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - 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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-08T15:41:46+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995","datePublished":"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T15:41:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995"},"wordCount":4367,"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\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995","name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-08T15:41:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-tamil-nadu-vs-m-p-p-kavery-chetty-on-19-january-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.P. Kavery Chetty on 19 January, 1995"}]},{"@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\/207038","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=207038"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207038\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207038"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207038"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207038"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}