{"id":208961,"date":"2007-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-24T15:54:44","modified_gmt":"2016-09-24T10:24:44","slug":"t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 17713 of 2007(H)\n\n\n1. T.SREEKUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL\n\n3. DRISYA ADVERTISERS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :19\/12\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                    ===============\n                 W.P.(C) NO. 17713 OF 2007 H\n               =====================\n\n         Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for directing<\/p>\n
the respondents not to allot the hoarding created by the<\/p>\n
petitioner to any person including the 3rd respondent.         The<\/p>\n
petitioner also seeks an order requiring respondents 1 and 2 to<\/p>\n
consider Exts. P6 and P7 representations submitted by him.<\/p>\n
      2.   Petitioner claims to have erected a hoarding in the<\/p>\n
railway compound at Kollam some time in 1999. It is also his<\/p>\n
case that he was allowed to display advertisements for about two<\/p>\n
years. In 2000, in a tender that was invited by the Railways for<\/p>\n
erecting hoardings, though the petitioner was the sole tenderer,<\/p>\n
that was cancelled following Ext.P3 judgment of this court in WA<\/p>\n
No.3332\/2001.     It is stated that since 2004, petitioner had<\/p>\n
continued displaying    advertisements based on an agreement<\/p>\n
with the beneficiary of the judgment in WA 3332\/2001,<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhanalakshmi. Petitioner has produced as Exts. P4 and P5,<\/p>\n
WPC 17713\/07
\n                                :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
indicating the payment that were made to Smt.Dhanalakshmy, to<\/p>\n
whom the advertisement rights were issued pursuant to Ext.P3<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    Petitioner submits that in 2007, he came to know that<\/p>\n
the railways are going to terminate the arrangement with<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhanalakshmy and thereupon filed Exts. P6 and P7<\/p>\n
representations requesting for permitting him to continue the<\/p>\n
arrangement     with  him.      He   submits   that   while   these<\/p>\n
representations are pending, his hoardings were removed on<\/p>\n
4\/6\/07. It is contended that while allowing all other advertisers<\/p>\n
to retain their hoardings, the hoarding of the petitioner alone was<\/p>\n
removed and that the place has been alloted to the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent.     On these pleadings, petitioner seeks the reliefs<\/p>\n
mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    The Railways have filed a statement from which it is<\/p>\n
disclosed that they had permitted the petitioner to erect a<\/p>\n
hoarding for the period from 6\/12\/1998 and this continued till<\/p>\n
about 2002. It is stated that following Ext.P3 judgment of this<\/p>\n
court, contract for hoarding at Kollam was awarded to<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhanalakshmi, M\/s Seematti Textiles, Kollam and that this<\/p>\n
was for the period 1\/6\/04 to 31\/5\/2007. According to them, they<\/p>\n
WPC 17713\/07
\n                                :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
are not concerned with the business transactions between<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhanalakshmi and other agencies and that on expiry of the<\/p>\n
contract with Smt.Dhanalakshmy on 31\/5\/07,         all permissions<\/p>\n
that were granted for displaying the hoardings also stood<\/p>\n
terminated and the contractor was asked to remove the<\/p>\n
hoardings.   It is stated that since the expiry of the previous<\/p>\n
contract, for the future period sites were alloted on the basis of<\/p>\n
first come first served basis to those who are willing to pay<\/p>\n
higher charges than the normal tariff. It is stated that on this<\/p>\n
basis, they have realised double the revenue. In so far as the<\/p>\n
hoarding of the petitioner is concerned, they would submit that<\/p>\n
the proposal from the petitioner was received by them only on<\/p>\n
21\/5\/2007 , whereas based on a proposal that was received from<\/p>\n
M\/s Drishya Advertisers, Adithya Nagar, Kollam, site was allotted<\/p>\n
to them and that the party had made remittance of Rs.2,18,867\/-<\/p>\n
on 14\/5\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Thus, from the facts, it is obvious that when this writ<\/p>\n
petition was filed on 8\/6\/07, much earlier to that, the site in<\/p>\n
question was allotted to the 3rd respondent based on the proposal<\/p>\n
that was received and on the remittance that was made by them.<\/p>\n
      6.   From the facts as stated above, it is obvious that for<\/p>\n
WPC 17713\/07
\n                                :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the hoardings he displayed, there was no contract between the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the railways. Therefore, the petitioner    cannot<\/p>\n
assert any claim as he did not have any privity of contract<\/p>\n
between himself and the railways. As his contract was only with<\/p>\n
Smt.Dhanalakshmi and as her contract with railways having been<\/p>\n
terminated on 31\/5\/2007, petitioner has no legal right to insist<\/p>\n
that he should be permitted to carry on the arrangement for any<\/p>\n
period thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Petitioner is not seeking an order directing that the<\/p>\n
railways should not allot the hoardings otherwise than by tender.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, what the petitioner was attempting is only to<\/p>\n
take advantage of the situation by making Exts. P6 and P7<\/p>\n
representations to the railways requesting for allotment in his<\/p>\n
favour. It is the case of the railways that they have adopted the<\/p>\n
system of first come first served basis. In such an arrangement,<\/p>\n
petitioner has lost only because he made the proposal belatedly.<\/p>\n
From the statement, it is evident that the 3rd respondent made<\/p>\n
his proposal on 25\/4\/2007 and remitted the amount on<\/p>\n
14\/5\/2007 whereas the petitioner made his proposal only on<\/p>\n
21\/5\/07. Thus, it is only because of the delay on the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
side that he could not successfully bid for the hoarding in<\/p>\n
WPC 17713\/07
\n                                  :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
question. Further petitioner also took his chance in the direct<\/p>\n
allotment system adopted by the railways and lost out because<\/p>\n
his proposal was made belatedly.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    It certainly is disturbing to note that the Undertaking<\/p>\n
like the railways are resorting to this kind of adhoc system in the<\/p>\n
matter of distributing their spaces for advertisement purposes.<\/p>\n
Being a Public Sector, it is obligatory on the part of the railways<\/p>\n
to ensure that they realise the best revenue as possible, that too<\/p>\n
in a most transparent method. As against the accepted method of<\/p>\n
open tenders, it is not been explained as to why railways have<\/p>\n
opted for the system of direct allotment and that too, on first<\/p>\n
come first serve basis. Needless to say that this arrangement<\/p>\n
will often lead to criticisms whether necessary or unnecessary<\/p>\n
and it is not a desirable tendency. This certainly is a matter for<\/p>\n
the railways to take into account atleast for their future guidance.<\/p>\n
      Writ petition will stand dismissed without any order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                      ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Rp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 17713 of 2007(H) 1. T.SREEKUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, … Respondent 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL 3. DRISYA ADVERTISERS, For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - 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\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-24T10:24:44+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T10:24:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":945,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\",\"name\":\"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-24T10:24:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - 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\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-24T10:24:44+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T10:24:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007"},"wordCount":945,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007","name":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-24T10:24:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sreekumar-vs-the-divisional-railway-manager-on-19-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Sreekumar vs The Divisional Railway Manager on 19 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/208961","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=208961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}