{"id":213992,"date":"1974-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974"},"modified":"2015-03-04T05:29:40","modified_gmt":"2015-03-03T23:59:40","slug":"state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 460, \t\t 1974 SCR (3)\t 87<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF MYSORE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nC. R. SESHADRI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/01\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  460\t\t  1974 SCR  (3)\t 87\n 1974 SCC  (4) 308\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Service--Promotion--Duty of Executive and  Courts  in\nrelation thereto.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t came into Class I post.  from\tOctober\t 27,\n1946.\tFrom  that day till July 23, 1954,  he\twas  Private\nSecretary to three ministers.  Without giving credit for his\nservice\t as  Private  Secretary\t his  immediate\t junior\t was\npromoted  as Deputy secretary.\tThe respondent field a\twrit\npetition  in the High Court praying that the  order  denying\nhim  credit for service as Private Secretary may be  quashed\nand for a directions for payment of such amounts as he would\nhave  got had his due inter se seniorty and  promotion\tbeen\naccorded to him.  The High Court granted both the\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t (i) The High Court was right in  holding  that\t the\nrespondent  was entitled to count his service  from  October\n27,  1946,  for fixation of his seniority in  the  gradation\nlist.\n(2)  The  High\tCourt,\thowever,  erred\t in  directing\t the\nappellant  to  give  the respondent  notional  promotion  as\nDeputy\tSecretary  with effect from the date  on  which\t his\njunior secured such Promotion and for payment of the  excess\nsalary accruing to him on that footing.\nThe power to promote an officer belongs to the executive and\nthe  judicial power may control or review government  action\nbut  cannot  extend to acting as if it were  the  Executive.\nThe  Proper  direction\ttherefore,  can\t only  be  that\t the\ngovernment  should  reconsider the case\t of  the  respondent\nafresh\tfor purposes of notional promotion.  If the  service\nrule  entitles him to promotion on the ground  of  seniority\nalone,\tGovernment should, except for the strongest  reason,\ngrant  the  benefit of promotion with effect from  the\tdate\nwhen his junior became Deputy Secretary especially, because,\nnothing\t had  been suggested against the respondent  in\t his\ncareer\tto  disentitle him to promotion.   However,  if\t the\ncriterion  for\tpromotion  is  one  of\t seniority-cum-merit\ncomparative  merit  may\t have to be assessed  if  length  of\nservice is equal, or an outstanding junior is available\t for\npromotion. [88F]\n(3)  The appellant State should apply to the respondent\t the\nsame rule of promotion as was applied to his junior and\t not\nto  act adversely without giving him an opportunity.   Since\nthe  respondent\t had  retired from  service,  the  appellant\nshould also consider promptly his claim and make payment  to\nhim of what is due to him without further delay. [91A]\nState of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood,<\/a> [1968] 3 S. C. R. 363,\t 366\nand State of Mysore v.\t P. N. Nanjundiah, [1969] 3 S. C. C.\n633,637 followed.\n(4)  The   appellant's\tinexplicable  indifference  is\t not\nplacing\t before\t the  Court  the  relevant  rule   regarding\npromotion  to the post of Deputy Secretary merits the  order\nthat  the appellant should pay the costs of  the  respondent\neven though the appeal is partly allowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1968.
\nFrom the judgment and order dated the 28th July 1967 of\t the
\nMysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 2378  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
V.S. Desai and M. Veerappa, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
88<\/span><\/p>\n
B.R.L. Iyangar, S.S.Javali and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for respon-
\ndent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKRisHNA\t IYER, J. The State of Karnataka,  appellant  before
\nus,  has  raised two contentions, the first being  the\tmore
\nmaterial  but less meritorious and the second secondary\t but
\nsubstantial.   The first respondent herein filed a  petition
\nunder  art.  226 seeking several reliefs including  (a)\t the
\nquashing of an order denying him credit for service while he
\nwas  Private  Secretary to three  Ministers  beginning\tfrom
\nOctober\t  27,\t1946  till  July  23,\t1954   (with   minor
\ninterruptions  when  he\t served\t in  other  capacities,\t  an
\ninconsequential circumstance in this case) when he was\tmade
\nAssistant Secretary, and (b) a direction for payment of such
\namounts\t as he would have got had Ms due inter se  seniority
\nand promotion been accorded to him.  The High Court  granted
\nboth  reliefs and they are challenged in this Court.   There
\nis  no doubt, on the pleadings and indubitable\tevidence  on
\nrecord,\t that the petitioner came into a Class I  post\tfrom
\nOctober 27, 1946 and his claim to service since then runnine
\ncontinuously,  is  undeniable.\t Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellant has fairly and rightly conceded the legitimacy  of
\nthis  claim.  Indeed, the State Government had accepted\t the
\npetitioner’s  right based on the equivalence of the post  of
\nPrivate Secretary and of Assistant Secretary but the Central
\nGovernment did not agree, and when confronted in Court\twith
\noverwhelming proof pleaded apologetically that they were not
\nin   possession\t of  the  full\tfacts  when  rejecting\t the
\npetitioner’s  seniority\t plea.\t We affirm  that  the  first
\nrespondent is entitled to count his service from October 27,
\n1946 for fixation in the gradation list.\n<\/p>\n
Flowing from this finding is the direction by the High Court
\nto   give  the\tpetitioner  notional  promotion\t as   Deputy
\nSecretary  with\t effect\t from  the  date  on  which  one  P.
\nVenkataraman, next below him, secured such promotion and for
\npayment\t of  the  excess  salary accruing  to  him  on\tthat
\nfooting.   This part of the judgment is attacked  as  beyond
\nthe  power of the Court.  We see the soundness of this\tsub-
\nmission.   In our constitutional scheme, a broad  three-fold
\ndivision exists.  The power to promote an officer belongs to
\nthe  Executive and the judicial power may control or  review
\ngovernment  action  but ,cannot, extend to acting as  if  it
\nwere  the  Executive.  The Court may  issue  directions\t but
\nleave  it to the Executive to carry it out.   The  judiciary
\ncannot\tpromote or demote officials but may demolish  a\t bad
\norder  of  Government or order\treconsideration\t on  correct
\nprinciples.   What  has been done here is in excess  of\t its
\njurisdiction.\tAssuming  the  petitioner’s  seniority\tover
\nVenkataraman,  how can the Court say that the  former  would
\nhave  been,  for  certain, promoted ? Basically,  it  is  in
\ngovernment’s   discretionary  power,  fairly  exercised\t  to
\npromote\t a government servant.\tIf the rule of promotion  is
\none  of sheer seniority it may well be that promotion  is  a
\nmatter of course.  On the other hand if\t seniority-cum-merit
\nis the rule, as in the Supreme Court decisions cited  before
\nus, promotion is problematical.\t In the absence of  positive
\nproof  of  the relevant service rules, it  is  hazardous  to
\nassume
\n89<\/span>
\nthat  by efflux of time the petitioner would have  spiralled
\nup  to\tDeputy\tSecretaryship.\tHow could  we  speculate  in
\nretrospect  what  the rule was and  whether  the  petitioner
\nwould  have  been selected on merit and on the\tstrength  of
\nsuch  dubious hypothesis direct retroactive  ,promotion\t and
\nback  pay?   The  frontiers  of\t judicial  power  cannot  be
\nstretched  thus for.  The proper direction can only be\tthat
\ngovernment  will  re-consider  the case\t of  the  petitioner
\nafresh\tfor purposes of notional promotion, If\tthe  service
\nrule  entitles him to promotion on the ground  of  seniority
\nalone, Government will except for the strongest reason grant
\nthe   benefit  of  promotion  with  effect  from  the\tdate
\nVenkataraman  became  Deputy Secretary.\t  Nothing  has\tbeen
\nsuggested   against  the  petitioner  in  his\tcarrier\t  to
\ndisentitle him to. promotion and we have no doubt Government
\nwill  give  him\t his meed.  However, if\t the  criterion\t for
\npromotion  is one of seniority-cum-merit, comparative  merit
\nmay have to be assessed if length of service is equal or  an
\noutstanding junior is available for promotion.\tOn the facts
\nbefore\tus,  there is no reason to regard  the\tpetitioner’s
\neligibility  on merit for Deputy Secretaryship to be  denied
\nor delayed when Venkataraman was promoted.
\nCounsel\t for the State made reasonable efforts to  help\t the
\nCourt  with the relevant rule but his  client’s\t cooperation
\nwas  not forthcoming.  We direct the appellant to  apply  to
\nthe  first  respondent\tthe same rule of  promotion  as\t was
\napplied\t to Venkataraman and, to be fair enough, not to\t act
\nadversely  without giving him an opportunity.  In the  light
\nof  the\t State’s reluctance to produce the  rule  we  almost
\nthink the High Court order is substantially just.  Even\t so,
\nit  is\tfor  the Government to\tpromote\t with  retrospective
\neffect.\t  We,  therefore, set aside the second part  of\t the
\nHigh Court’s order in the judicial hope that justice will be
\ndone to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
The  pragmatic limitation on judicial power we have  set  is
\nnot novel but traditional, as is evident from the two recent
\nrulings\t of  this Court–both rendered in appeals  from\t the
\nMysore\tHigh  Court-where  probably  judicial  promotion  of
\nexecutive  officers was perhaps not viewed as  an  avoidable
\nencroachment.\n<\/p>\n
In  State  of  Mysore  v.  Syed\t Mahmood<\/a>(1).   Bachawat\t J.,
\nspeaking  for the Court, held in a case where the  promotion
\nof an officer was involved that the proper direction  should
\nbe that the State Government should “consider the fitness of
\nSyed  Mahmood  and Bhao Rao for promotion in 1959  ….\t The
\nState  Government would upon such consideration be  under  a
\nduty  to promote them as from 1959 if they were then fit  to
\ndischarge  the duties of the higher post and if it fails  to
\nperform its duly, the Court may direct it to promote them as
\nfrom 1959.” The Court concluded in that case thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  direct the State Government\tto  consider
\n\t      whether Syed Mahmood and Bhao Rao should\thave
\n\t      been   promoted\tto  the\t posts\t of   senior
\n\t      statistical  assistants on the relevant  dates
\n\t\t\t    when officers junior to them were prom
\noted, and
\n\t      if  so, what consequential  monetary  benefits
\n\t      should be allowed to them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1)   [1968] 3 S.C.R. 363, 366.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      90<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      .lm0
\n\t      Similarly,  in  State  of\t Mysore\t v.  P.\t  N.
\n\t      Nunjundiah(1), Ramaswami, J., speaking for the
\n\t      Court, dealt with a service dispute and  while
\n\t      agreeing\twith the substantive  conclusion  of
\n\t      the High Court modified the order in so far as
\n\t      the  promotion was ordered by the Court.\t The
\n\t      learned Judge observed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  argument was stressed on behalf  of\t the
\n\t      appellants  that in any event the\t High  Court
\n\t      was  not right in issuing a writ\tof  mandamus
\n\t      “directing  the  appellants  to  promote\tres-
\n\t      pondent  No.  1 as Overseer with\teffect\tfrom
\n\t      February 1, 1961 and as Supervisor with effect
\n\t      from  April  1,  1963  and  to  give  him\t all
\n\t      consequential benefits.  In our opinion  there
\n\t      is  justification for this argument.   It\t has
\n\t      been pointed out by this Court in The State of
\n\t      Mysore v. Syed Mahmood and others<\/a> (supra) that
\n\t      in matters of this description the High  Court
\n\t      ‘ought not to issue writs directing the  State
\n\t      Government  to promote the aggrieved  officers
\n\t      with retrospective effect.  The correct proce-
\n\t      dure for the High Court was to issue a writ to
\n\t      the State Government compelling it to  perform
\n\t      its duty and to consider whether having regard
\n\t      to   his\t seniority-and\t fitness   the\t 1st
\n\t      respondent  should have been promoted  on\t the
\n\t      relevant\t date  and  so\twhat   consequential
\n\t      benefits\tshould\tbe allowed to him.   In\t the
\n\t      present\tcase  we  are  informed\t that\tboth
\n\t      respondent  No.  1 and respondent No.  2\thave
\n\t      been promoted as Overseers after the filing of
\n\t      the  writ petition.  In the  circumstances  we
\n\t      consider\tthat  proper course is\tto  issue  a
\n\t      direction\t  to  the  appellants  to   consider
\n\t      whether the respondent No. 1 should have\tbeen
\n\t      promoted\tto the post of Overseer with  effect
\n\t      from December 1, 1961 and as a Supervisor with
\n\t      effect from April 1, 1963, what should be\t the
\n\t      relative seniority as between respondent No. 1
\n\t      and  respondent No. 2 and\t what  consequential
\n\t      benefits\tshould be allowed to respondent\t No.
\n\t      1″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We respectfully agree with the guideline furnished by  these
\ntwo decisions which fortify the view we have taken.
\nWhile  we agree that the High Court has been impelled  by  a
\nright judicial instinct to undo injustice to an\t individual,
\nwe  feel that a finer perception of the limits\tof  judicial
\nreview would have forbidden it from going beyond-  directing
\nthe  Executive\tto  reconsider\tand doing  it  on  its\town,
\nventuring into an area of surmise and speculation in  regard
\nto  the\t possibilities\tof  escalation\tin  service  of\t the
\nappellant.    Judicial\texpansionism,  like   allowing\t the
\njudicial  sword to rust in its armoury where it needs to  be
\nused,  can upset the constitutional symmetry and damage\t the
\nconstitutional design of our founding document.
\nThe  length of this litigation has really  disappointed\t the
\npetitioner by denying him the enjoyment of likely promotion.
\nHe  retired the day before the judgment of the\tHigh  Court.
\nNo one in service would be affected by the allowance of\t the
\npetitioner’s claim and what was a service issue has now been
\nreduced\t to  one  of money payment.   A\t retired  government
\nofficial is sensitive to delay in drawing monetary benefits.
\nAnd to avoid posthumous satisfaction of the pecuniary
\n(1)  [1969] 3 S.C.C. 633, 637.\n<\/p>\n
91<\/span><\/p>\n
expectation of the superannuated public servant-not  unusual
\nit? government-we direct the appellant to consider  promptly
\nthe  claim of the petitioner in the light of our  directions
\nand make payment of what is his due-if so found-on or before
\nApril 15, 1974.\t The, government’s inexplicable indifference
\nin not placing before the Court the relevant rule  regarding
\npromotion  to the post of Deputy Secretary merits the  order
\nthat  the appellant pay the costs of the  petitioner\/  first
\nrespondent  ; for, the wages of winner’s sloth is denial  of
\ncosts, and something more.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result the appeal fails in the first  part  and  is
\nallowed in the latter part on the lines indicated above\t and
\nsubject to the directions  regarding costs just stated.
\nAppeal partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
92<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 460, 1974 SCR (3) 87 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: STATE OF MYSORE Vs. RESPONDENT: C. R. SESHADRI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/01\/1974 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH […]<\/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-213992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - 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-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\" \/>\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=\"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-03T23:59:40+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=\"11 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-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T23:59:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\"},\"wordCount\":1750,\"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-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\",\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T23:59:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974\"}]},{\"@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 Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - 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-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-03T23:59:40+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974","datePublished":"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T23:59:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974"},"wordCount":1750,"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-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974","name":"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T23:59:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mysore-vs-c-r-seshadri-ors-on-10-january-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974"}]},{"@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\/213992","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=213992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}