{"id":222833,"date":"1961-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"modified":"2018-08-23T15:10:13","modified_gmt":"2018-08-23T09:40:13","slug":"abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1556, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 909<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nABDUI, GAFOOR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MYSORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1556\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 909\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC1135\t (6)\n R\t    1962 SC1183\t (16)\n RF\t    1963 SC 640\t (11)\n RF\t    1971 SC1662\t (11)\n F\t    1971 SC1986\t (10)\n R\t    1972 SC1674\t (8,9)\n R\t    1974 SC1940\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Transport--Scheme Published  and\t approved--Permits--\nApplication for by State Transport  Undertaking--Publication\nof application and notice of date for making  representation\nby  other Transport Services, if  necessary--Motor  Vehicles\nAct, 1939 (IV of 1939), ss. 68-C, 68-F (1), Ch.\t IV-A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nAfter  a  scheme  'Was published  by  the  Mysore  Transport\nUndertaking  under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939,\nand  approved  by the State Government the  State  Transport\nUndertaking  made applications for permits under s.  68-F(1)\nof  the Act to the Regional Transport Authority\t but  before\nthe  permits  were  granted the second\trespondent  made  an\napplication  for  a  Writ  of  Certiorari  prohibiting\t the\nRegional  Transport Authority from dealing with\t the  second\nrespondent's  application for permit unless and\t until\tthey\nwere  duly published and notice was given to him for  making\nrepresentations.  The contention on his behalf was that\t the\npublication of the applications with notice of the (late for\nsubmitting the representations was necessary under s.  57(3)\nCh.   IV of the Act and that lie was entitled to  notice  as\nthe  Regional Transport Authority acted in  a  quasijudicial\ncapacity while dealing with applications for permits.\nHeld,  that when a scheme. prepared and published  under  s.\n68-C  has been approved and in application has been made  in\npursuance  of  the  scheme  and\t in  the  proper  manner  as\nspecified  in Ch.  IV nothing more remains to be decided  by\nthe Regional\n910\nTransport Authority and it has no option to refuse the grant\nof the permit.\tThe nature of the matter dealt under.s.\t 68-\nF(1) is such as does not attract the provisions of S.  57(3)\nwhich  lays  down certain duties on the\t Regional  Transport\nAuthority  when\t it considers an application for  a  permit.\nThe  provisions\t of  S. 57(3) have nothing to  do  with\t the\nmatters dealt with by s. 68-F(1).\nSrinivasa  Reddy  v. State of Mysore, [1960] 2\tS.C.R.\t130,\nreferred to.\nWhen taking action under, s. 68-F(1) the Regional  Transport\nAuthority does not exercise any quasi-judicial function\t and\nacts wholly in a ministerial capacity.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 109 of 1961.
\nWrit Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for
\nenforcement of the Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
M. O. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B. R. L.  Iyengar
\nand K. P. Bhat, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Gopalakrishnan and
\nT. M. Sen, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  April 12.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS GUPTA, J.–The petitioner, who is the proprietor of\t the
\nShaheen\t Motor Service, used to ply a motor bus for hire  on
\nthe route Archalli to Saravanabelgola in Hassan District  in
\nthe  State of Mysore.  A scheme under s. 68-C of  the  Motor
\nVehicles  Act  of 1939 having been published by\t the  Mysore
\nTransport Undertaking, the petitioner as one of the  persons
\naffected  thereby filed objections to the scheme before\t the
\nState  Government  under s. 68-D(1) of the Act.\t  The  State
\nGovernment  however after considering the  objections  a,-id
\nhearing\t the  petitioner approved the scheme, subject  to  a
\nslight\tmodification with which we arc not concerned.\tThis
\napproval  was given on December 22, 1959.  In  pursuance  of
\nthis approved scheme the State Transport Undertaking-the 2nd
\nrespondent  before  us–made applications  for\tpermits\t but
\nbefore\tthe  Regional Transport Authority could\t issue\tsuch
\npermits the present petition was filed praying, in the first
\nplace, for a writ of certiorari to quash the scheme and some
\nconsequential directions, and secondly for a wait of
\n911<\/span>
\n“prohibition”  to the Regional Transport  Authority,  Hassan
\nDistrict, who is the third respondent before us “to  refrain
\nfrom  dealing with the applications for permit made  by\t the
\n2nd respondent unless and until they are duly published\t and
\nnotice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is  allowed
\nto   make   his\t representation\t thereon   regarding   their
\ncompliance or otherwise with the conditions of s. 68-F(1) of
\nChapter IV-A.  After learned counsel for the petitioner\t had
\nbeen  heard, this Court by its order dated March  21,  1961,
\ngranted\t leave to the petitioner to amend the writ  petition
\nso as to confine it to the second prayer only and directed a
\nrule to issue only in respect of this second prayer.
\nThe only question with which we are therefore now  concerned
\nis  whether  a writ should issue prohibiting,  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority, Hassan District, from dealing with\t the
\napplications  for  permits  made  by  the  State   Transport
\nUndertaking  “unless and until they are duly  published\t and
\nnotice thereof is given to the petitioner and he is  allowed
\nto make his representations thereon”.\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioners case as regards this prayer is\t that  under
\nthe  law  no permit can be granted to  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking until the applications for permit have been duly
\npublished  and\tnotice has been given to the  petitioner  of
\nthose applications.  In support of this proposition  learned
\ncounsel\t advanced  two arguments-firstly, that s.  57(3)  in
\nChapter IV of the Act, requires such prior publication\twith
\nnotice\t of  the  date\tbefore\twhich\trepresentations\t  in
\nconnection with the application may be submitted and that in
\nconsequence of s. 68-B of Chapter IV-A the above  provisions
\nof  s. 57(3) of Chapter IV have to be followed.\t The  second
\nargument is that the Regional Transport Authority acts in  a
\nquasi-judicial\tcapacity when dealing with applications\t for
\npermits made under s. 68-F and so the petitioner who will be
\naffected by the issue of the permits is entitled to notice.
\nSection\t 68-B  on which reliance has  been  placed  provides
\ninter alia that the provisions of Chapter IV-A
\n912<\/span>
\nshall  have  effect “notwithstanding  anything\tinconsistent
\ntherewith  contained  in  Chapter  IV”.\t  It  says   nothing
\npositive  as  regards any of the provisions  of\t Chapter  IV
\nbeing applicable to matters under Chapter IV-A but  provides
\nnegatively  that  if  any question  arises  as\tregards\t any
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act  in  Chapter  IV-A  and  there\t  is
\ndifficulty  in\tapplying  it on the  ground  that  there  is
\nconflict  between it and some provisions of Chapter IV,\t the
\nprovisions  of Chapter IV-A will prevail.  Mr.\tIyengar\t has
\nargued\tthat it is implicit in this provision that if  there
\nis no such difficulty all the provisions of Chapter IV\twill
\napply  to  matters  dealt with\tunder  Chapter\tIV-A.\tThis
\nargument,  in our opinion, is fallacious.  All that s.\t68-B
\npre-supposes is that there are some provisions in Chapter IV
\nwhich  may  apply  to matters under Chapter  IV-A;  on\tthat
\nassumption  it proceeds to say that if on a matter to  which
\nprovisions of Chapter IV would prima facie apply there is  a
\nprovision in Chapter IV-A also which appears applicable\t the
\nprovision in Chapter IV-A will prevail to the extent of\t its
\ninconsistency  with the corresponding provision\t in  Chapter
\nIV.   As to what provisions in Chapter IV will apply or\t not
\ns. 68-B says nothing and provides no guidance either expres-
\nsly  or\t by implication.  To find out whether  a  particular
\nprovision  in  Chapter IV (not being inconsistent  with\t any
\nprovisions  in\tChap.  IV-A) will apply or not to  a  matter
\nunder  Chapter\tIV-A,  we  have to  examine  the  matter  in
\nquestion and then decide whether it is of such a nature that
\nit attracts that particular provision of Chapter IV.
\nWhat  then  is the matter dealt with under s.  68-F(1)\twith
\nwhich we are concerned in the present case?  Section 68-F(1)
\ncomes into operation when a scheme has already been approved
\nby the State Government under s. 68-D(2).  In order that the
\napproved  scheme  may  be implemented  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking  which  is\tto run and  operate.  the  Transport
\nService under the scheme must have a permit from the  Regio-
\nnal Transport Authority.  Section 68-F(1) provides that\t the
\nState Transport Undertaking will have to apply for a  permit\n<\/p>\n
(i) in pursuance of the approved
\n913<\/span>
\nscheme and (ii) in the manner specified in Chapter IV.\tOnce
\nthat  is done, the sub-section proceeds to say “‘A  Regional
\nTransport  Authority  shall issue such permit to  the  State
\nTransport  Undertaking”, and this “notwithstanding  anything
\nto  the contrary contained in Chapter IV.” It appears  clear
\nto  us\tthat the provisions of s. 57(3) have nothing  to  do
\nwith these matters dealt with by s. 68-F(1).  Section  57(3)
\nlays on the Regional Transport Authority certain duties when
\nit considers an application for a permit.  These  conditions
\nare (1) to make the application available for inspection  at
\nthe office of the Authority, (2) to publish the\t application
\nor  the substance thereof in the prescribed manner  together
\nwith  a notice of the date before which\t representations  in
\nconnection  therewith may be submitted and the date and\t the
\ntime and place at which the application and any\t representa-
\ntions,\treceived  will be considered.  Under s.\t 68-F(1)  as
\nalready\t mentioned the Regional Transport Authority  has  no
\noption\tto  refuse the grant of the permit provided  it\t has
\nbeen  made  in pursuance of the approved scheme and  in\t the
\nmanner\tmentioned  in Chap.  IV.  The duty of  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority on receipt of the application from\t the
\nState  Transport  Undertaking for a permit is  therefore  to
\nexamine\t the application for itself to see whether it is  in
\npursuance of an approved scheme and secondly whether it\t has
\nbeen made in the manner laid down in Chapter IV.  This is  a
\nduty  which the Regional Transport Authority has to  perform
\nfor  itself  and  there is no question\tof  its\t asking\t for
\nassistance  from the public or existing permit\tholders\t for
\nTransport  Services  on the route.  Neither  the  public  in
\ngeneral\t nor the permit holder has any part to play in\tthis
\nmatter.\n<\/p>\n
The  provisions of s. 57(3) for making the application\tmade
\nunder  Chapter IV, available for inspection, for  publishing
\nthe application or a substance thereof with a notice of\t the
\ndate  by which the representations may be submitted and\t the
\ndate,  time  and  place when  the  representations  will  be
\nconsidered  are\t required to enable the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority to come to a
\n115<\/span>
\n914<\/span>
\ncorrect\t conclusion as to whether the application should  be
\ngranted or not.\t An application not made in the manner\tlaid
\ndown  in Chapter IV will not be con sidered by the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority at all.  But the mere fact that it\t has
\nbeen  made  in\tthe  proper  manner  will  not\tentitle\t the
\napplicant  to  a  permit. it is the  duty  of  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority  to decide on a  consideration  of\t all
\nrelevant matters whether the application should be  allowed.
\nOther  operators and even the public have a legal  right  to
\nmake representations to persuade the Authority not to  grant
\nthe permit on the merits of the case.  It is for this reason
\nthat  there  was necessity to make the\tprovisions  in\tsub-
\nsection 3 of s. 57 so that the Regional Transport  Authority
\nmay   receive  every  assistance  in  coming  to  a   proper
\nconclusion.   When however a scheme prepared  and  published
\nunder s. 68-C has been approved and an application has\tbeen
\nmade in pursuance of the scheme and in the proper manner  as
\nspecified  in Chapter IV nothing more remains to be  decided
\nby  the\t Regional Transport Authority.\tThe  nature  of\t the
\nmatter dealt with under s. 68-F(1) is thus such as does\t not
\nand cannot attract any of the provisions of s. 57(3).
\nIt may be mentioned here that in Srinivasa Reddy. & Or.3. v.
\nThe State of Mysore & Ors. (1) a question was raised whether
\ns. 57(3) applied or not to an application made under s.\t 68-
\nF(1).\tThe Court considered it unnecessary then to go\tinto
\nthe  matter as on the facts of that case it was\t found\tthat
\nthe application had not been made in the manner provided  in
\nChapter IV and was actually in breach of s. 57(2) of the Act
\nand  so\t no permit could be issued on such  an\tapplication.
\nThe  provision in s. 57(2) which was applicable to  applica-
\ntions  under  s. 68-F is that an application  for  a  permit
\nshall  be  made not less than six weeks before the  date  on
\nwhich it is desired that the permit shall take effect or  if
\nthe  Regional  Transport Authority appoints  dates  for\t the
\nreceipt of such application on such dates.  In that case the
\nCourt  held that this provision in s. 57(2) is in reality  a
\nmanner of making the
\n(1)  [1960] 2 S. C.R. 130.\n<\/p>\n
915<\/span><\/p>\n
application and consequently it applied to applications made
\nunder s. 68-F(1).  The provisions of s. 57(3) cannot however
\nbe said to have anything to do with the manner of making the
\napplication and the nature of the matter dealt with under s.
\n68-F(1)\t is  such  that\t provisions  of\t s.  57(3)  are\t not
\nattracted,
\nThe  next argument is that the Regional Transport  Authority
\nfunctions as a quasi-judicial authority when dealing with an
\napplication made by the State Transport Undertaking under s.
\n68-F(1).   It is said that as under s. 68-F(2) the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority may refuse to entertain an\t application
\nfor renewal of any other permit or cancel an existing permit
\nor  modify  in\tcertain matters the  terms  of\tan  existing
\npermit,\t for  the purpose of giving effect to  the  approved
\nscheme\tthere is a lis between the existing  permit  holders
\nand  the  State Transport Undertaking  when  an\t application
\nunder s. 68-F(1) is dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
It  appears  to us that when deciding what  action  to\ttake
\nunder s. 68-F(2) the authority is tied down by the terms and
\nconditions of the approved scheme and his duty is merely  to
\ndo what is necessary to give effect to the provisions of the
\nscheme. , The refusal to entertain applications for  renewal
\nof  permits  or cancellation of permits or  modification  of
\nterms of existing permits really flow from the scheme.\t The
\nduty  is  therefore  merely  mechanical;  and  it  will\t  be
\nincorrect  to  say that there is in these  matters  any\t lis
\nbetween\t the  existing\toperators and  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking which is to be decided by the Regional Transport
\nAuthority.   There is no justification therefore for  saving
\nthat  when  taking  action under- s.  68-F(2)  the  regional
\nTransport Authority is exercising a quasi-judicial function.
\nApart  from this it has to be pointed out that action  under
\ns. 68-F(2) is really independent of the issue of the permits
\nunder s. 68-F(1).  Once the scheme has been approved, action
\nunder  s. 68-F(1) flows from it and at the same time  action
\nunder  s. 68-F(2) flows from the same scheme.  The  argument
\nthat  the Regional Transport Authority should be held to  be
\nexercising   quasi-judicial   function\t in   dealing\twith
\napplications for permits under s. 68-F(1)
\n916<\/span>
\nbecause of the action it may take under s. 68-F(2) therefore
\nfails.\n<\/p>\n
It was next said that when the Regional Transport  Authority
\nissues\tthe  permit it can attach to the  permit  conditions
\nunder  s.  48(3) of the Act.  Section 48(3)  authorises\t the
\nRegional, Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage
\ncarriage  permit,  to  attach  to  the\tpermit\tany  of\t the
\nconditions  specified  in  the subsection.   It\t has  to  be
\nnoticed\t that s. 68-F(1) does not speak of the “grant” of  a
\npermit\tbut provides that the Regional\tTransport  Authority
\nshall  “issue”\ta  permit.  In any  case,  if  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority has to decide what conditions to  attach
\nto such a permit, it is not possible to say that it is\tthen
\nexercising a quasi-judicial function.  For, in deciding that
\nmatter the Regional Transport Authority is to have regard to
\nthe interests of the public but there is no question because
\nof that, of any lis between the State Transport\t Undertaking
\non the one hand and the public on the other.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the Regional Transport Authority acts wholly
\nin a ministerial capacity while dealing with an\t application
\nof  the State Transport Undertaking under s.  68-F(1).\t The
\nfact  that  on\tother occasions and  in\t other\tmatters\t the
\nRegional Transport Authority has quasi-judicial functions to
\nperform cannot make its function under, s. 68-F(1) a  quasi-
\njudicial function.\n<\/p>\n
Our conclusion therefore is that the petitioner’s contention
\nthat  no  permit  can  be granted  to  the  State  Transport
\nUndertaking until the applications for permit have been duly
\npublished  and notices have been given to the petitioner  of
\nthese applications is unsound Consequently,  the  petitioner
\nis not entitled to any\t relief.\n<\/p>\n
The  petition is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
917<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1556, 1962 SCR (1) 909 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: ABDUI, GAFOOR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MYSORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/1961 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K. […]<\/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-222833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - 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\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-23T09:40:13+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T09:40:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2353,\"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\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T09:40:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - 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\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-23T09:40:13+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T09:40:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"wordCount":2353,"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\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","name":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T09:40:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdui-gafoor-vs-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdui, Gafoor vs State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961"}]},{"@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\/222833","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=222833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}