{"id":227707,"date":"2009-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-01T09:16:30","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T03:46:30","slug":"ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                                  1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n                                         \n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n                        NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR\n          Misc. Civil Application [review] No.317 of 2009\n                                 IN\n              Writ Petition No.4054 of 2008 [decided]\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                    \n     Ku. Mayuri daughter of Manohar Bende,\n     aged about 22 years,\n     occupation   student,\n     resident of Plot No. 35\/RK-1,\n                   \n     Ramkrishna Housing Society,\n     Narendra Nagar, Nagpur.            ....             Applicant\n                                                         Petitioner.\n\n                               Versus\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     1.    State of Maharashtra,\n           through the Secretary,\n           Medical Education & Drugs\n           Department,\n           Mantralaya,\n\n\n\n\n\n           Mumbai-32.\n\n     2.    The Director of Medical Education\n           & Research, Govt. Dental\n           College & Hospital Building,\n\n\n\n\n\n           St. George's Hospital\n           Compound, Mumbai-1, through\n           its Competent Authority,\n\n     3.    Dean, Government Medical\n           College, Nagpur.\n\n\n                                *****\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:29:55 :::\n                                      2\n     Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Adv., for the Applicant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n     Mr. Anoop Parihar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent\n     nos. 1 to 3.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                              *****\n\n\n\n                                    CORAM    :     A.H.JOSHI AND\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n                                                   A.B. CHAUDHARI,JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                          Reserved on       :      03rd April, 2009.\n\n                          Pronounced on :          04th April, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     J U D G M E N T [Per A.H. Joshi, J]:\n                   \n                  \n<\/pre>\n
     1.       Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is<\/p>\n
     heard by consent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.       Petitioner     claimed        that       she       belongs          to<\/p>\n
     Scheduled Tribe      Halba.     Her Tribe Claim Certificate,<\/p>\n
     which was forwarded to Scrutiny Committee, has been<\/p>\n
     invalidated   and    confiscated       under        the      Maharashtra<\/p>\n
     Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes<\/p>\n
     (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes<\/p>\n
     and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance<\/p>\n
     and   verification    of)     Caste    Certificate             Act,       2000<\/p>\n
     [hereinafter referred to as         the Act       for brevity].\n<\/p>\n
     3.       In view of the invalidation of petitioner’s<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                     3<\/span>
\n     caste claim, petitioner’s admission to MBBS Course was<\/p>\n
     cancelled by communication dated 29th March, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                 Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008<\/p>\n
     4.      Petitioner     filed   Writ   Petition         No.     1958      of<\/p>\n
     2008 and challenged the order of invalidation, and made<\/p>\n
     an alternate submission that in the event the challenge<\/p>\n
     to the invalidation fails, her admission to MBBS Course<\/p>\n
     could be protected.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      This   Court   dismissed      said    Writ      Petition         by<\/p>\n
     order dated 5th August, 2008, however, granted liberty<\/p>\n
     to the petitioner to submit a representation to the<\/p>\n
     respondent-Director of Medical Education & Research,<\/p>\n
     with a direction that such representation be decided<\/p>\n
     within eight weeks, and that petitioner’s admission to<\/p>\n
     MBBS course shall remain protected till the decision on<\/p>\n
     her representation.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      Petitioner     then    submitted      a     representation<\/p>\n
     with a forwarding letter which is dated 22nd August,<\/p>\n
     2008.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.      Petitioner’s representation has been rejected<\/p>\n
     by the Director of Medical Education & Research by<\/p>\n
     order dated 6th September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                    Writ Petition No.6056 of 2006<\/p>\n
     8.      Petitioner had challenged the said order dated<\/p>\n
     6th September, 2008 by filing Writ Petition No. 4054 of<\/p>\n
     2008.   The relief, which was sought in the petition,<\/p>\n
     reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
               A)      That, by passing a suitable writ,
\n                       order or direction in the nature
\n                       of mandamus quash and set aside<\/p>\n
                       the order \/ communication at
\n                       Annexure-A dated 6.9.2008 bearing<\/p>\n
                       no. DMER \/ WP No. 1958 \/ 08 \/ Ku.
\n                       Mayuri M. Bende \/ 1-A passed by
\n                       the respondent no.2, Directorate
\n                       of    Medical    Education    and
\n                       Research, through its Director,<\/p>\n
                       Mumbai.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              B)       It be held and declared that in
\n                       view of the law laid down by the
\n                       Apex Court petitioner is entitled
\n                       for protection in her education<\/p>\n
                       and further she be permitted to
\n                       complete   her   studies   and   to
\n                       appear for examination and she is
\n                       entitled     for    degree     upon
\n                       successful completion of her MBBS
\n                       Course.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from Page Nos. 12 and 13 of the paper-book of
\n     decided Writ Petition No. 4054 of 2008].\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
     9.      Writ     Petition     No.   4054      of     2008       has      been<\/p>\n
     rejected by this Court by its speaking order dated 7th<\/p>\n
     October, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
     10.     Petitioner seeks exception to the said order<\/p>\n
     and has, therefore, filed present Review Application.\n<\/p>\n
     11.     The points, as raised in the Writ Petition and<\/p>\n
     Review Application, are one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     We     have   heard    learned       Advocate          Mr.       R.S.\n<\/p>\n
     Parsodkar for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Anup<\/p>\n
     Parihar for the respondents.         We have called for the<\/p>\n
     records of [1] Writ Petition No. 2657 of 1993, [2] Writ<\/p>\n
     Petition No. 3401 of 2005, and [3] Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     1958 of 2008, for perusal.\n<\/p>\n
                             Submissions<\/p>\n
     13.     Crux of the matter can be grasped from the<\/p>\n
     petitioner s    representation      dated       22nd     August,         2008<\/p>\n
     submitted to the respondent no.2, [copy whereof is at<\/p>\n
     Page 76 of the Writ Petition]. In this representation,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                              6<\/span>
\n     the petitioner has urged following points:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]     The petitioner was admitted to MBBS Course
\n             furtherance to orders of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     [b]     The Scrutiny Committee did not observe in
\n             its        order        that    the       Tribe        Certificate<\/p>\n
             obtained           by     the        candidate           from        the
\n             Competent          Authority         is     false,       bogus,        or
\n             secured by playing fraud etc.<\/p>\n
     [c]     In     view        of     the       Judgments         of      Hon’ble
\n             Supreme
\n             Subhash
\n                     ig    Court
\n                            Parate
\n                                        in
\n                                            and
\n                                                 cases
\n                                                    [2]
\n                                                           of     [1]
\n                                                               Raju
\n                                                                           Sandeep
\n                                                                         Ramsingh<\/p>\n
             Vasasve       [citations             referred        later],         the
\n             petitioner          is    entitled          to     protection          of
\n             her education and secure the degree by re-
\n             compensating the State on payment of such<\/p>\n
             costs as may be quantified.\n<\/p>\n
     [d]     The petitioner is about to complete her
\n             Final Year of MBBS Course.\n<\/p>\n
     14.     Reliance is placed by learned Advocate for the<\/p>\n
     petitioner    on    contents       of       para     15    of      the     reported<\/p>\n
     Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sandeep<\/p>\n
     Subhash Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [(2006)<\/p>\n
     7 SCC 501] [cited supra], as referred and relied upon<\/p>\n
     in later judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Raju<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span>
\n     Ramsingh Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & ors.\n<\/p>\n
     [2009 (1) Mh. L. J. 1].\n<\/p>\n
     15.       After conclusion of hearing, however, learned<\/p>\n
     Advocate for the petitioner had tendered a compilation<\/p>\n
     of    citations    of    following        cases       to      support         his<\/p>\n
     contention:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]       The State of Maharashtra & ors. Vs. Om Raj
\n               [Civil Appeal No. 3102 of 1988 with Civil<\/p>\n
               Applications
\n               12-12-2000         by
\n                                       therein],
\n                                         Hon’ble
\n                                                             decided
\n                                                          Supreme           Court
\n                                                                                 on<\/p>\n
               [Coram : S. Rajendra Babau & S.N. Variava,
\n               JJ.],
\n     [b]       State    of    Maharashtra       Vs.       Milind        &    ors.\n<\/p>\n
               [2001 (1) Mh. L.J., 2],<\/p>\n
     [c]       Jyoti Pralhad Sangle Vs. State of Mah. &<\/p>\n
               ors. [2003 (3) Mh. L.J. 54],
\n     [d]       Sandeep Subhash Parate Vs. State of Mah. &
\n               ors. [(2006) 7 SCC 501],<\/p>\n
     [e]       Extract       of    SCC       Digest       pertaining             to
\n               Judgment in case of State of Maharashtra
\n               Vs. Om Raj [(2007) 14 SCC 488.\n<\/p>\n
     [f]       Yogesh    Ramchandra          Naikwadi       Vs.      State       of<\/p>\n
               Mah. & ors. [2008 (3) ALL MR 835],
\n     [g]       Mohd.     Azhar     Khan       Vs.      Scheduled            Tribe
\n               Scrutiny Committee & another. [2008 (4) Mh.
\n               L. J. 454],<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                       8<\/span>
\n                            Points involved<\/p>\n
     16.     Merit    of    application      for      review         depends     on<\/p>\n
     questions   involved,       which,   according            to   us,    are   as<\/p>\n
     follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     [1]     Is    this      a     case    of    invalidation               of
\n             petitioner’s tribe claim on account of any<\/p>\n
             technical folly, without any blame as to
\n             fraud, ig misrepresentation              or       suppression
\n             etc. on the petitioner?\n<\/p>\n
     [2]     Is this a case of cancellation of Status
\n             Certificate done much after completion of
\n             petitioner’s          education?          And,          whether<\/p>\n
             petitioner’s case falls within the bracket
\n             of the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in<\/p>\n
             Sandeep       Parate’s   case      and    Raju         Vasave’s
\n             case [supra]?\n<\/p>\n
                           Discussion & Reasons<\/p>\n
             Point     No.1       :   Is     this          a        case    of<\/p>\n
             invalidation of petitioner’s tribe claim<\/p>\n
             on account of any technical folly, without<\/p>\n
             any blame as to fraud, misrepresentation<\/p>\n
             or suppression etc. on the petitioner?\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
     17.          Petitioner     has         not   produced          copy       of      the<\/p>\n
     Judgment of the Caste Scrutiny Committee as an Annexure<\/p>\n
     to    this   Review    Application.           Its     copy      was      even      not<\/p>\n
     enclosed as an Annexure to the                    Writ Petition No. 4054<\/p>\n
     of      2008.     Findings         of       the      Scrutiny           Committee<\/p>\n
     invalidating petitioner’s tribe claim are the primary<\/p>\n
     and    relevant    document.        Therefore,           while       considering<\/p>\n
     this Review Application, it became necessary to once<\/p>\n
     again    ascertain     as     to    what       was      held       by     Scrutiny<\/p>\n
     Committee as a conclusion leading to invalidation.\n<\/p>\n
     18.          We have, therefore, called for the papers of<\/p>\n
     decided Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008, in which the<\/p>\n
     Judgment of Scrutiny Committee was challenged.\n<\/p>\n
                  We have perused the decision of the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
     Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     19.          The relevant finding of the Scrutiny Committee<\/p>\n
     is    recorded    in   para    15        of   its      Judgment.          Relevant<\/p>\n
     portion whereof reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                   15.     ……………………………
\n                  ……………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           Where an application is made to
\n                  the Competent Authority under Section 3
\n                  for the issuance of Caste Certificate in<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                   10<\/span>
\n             respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
\n             Tribes,   De-Notified    Tribes  (Vimukta<\/p>\n
             Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
\n             Classes and Special Backward Category and<\/p>\n
             in any enquiry conducted by the Competent
\n             Authority and Scrutiny Committee for the
\n             appellate authority under this Act or
\n             trial of offence under this Act, the
\n             burden of proof that the person belonged<\/p>\n
             to such caste, tribe or class shall be on
\n             such claimant applicant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      But in the present case the
\n             applicant    has   suppressed   the    vital<\/p>\n
             evidence i.e. school record in respect of
\n             her grandfathers and has also failed to
\n             submit   convincing
\n                     ig            explanation   on   the
\n             entries of the caste Koshti in respect of
\n             her paternal grandfathers. As these caste
\n             entries made prior to the promulgation of<\/p>\n
             the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, it has
\n             more probative value of evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from page no. 41 of the paper-book of decided
\n     Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008].\n<\/p>\n
     20.     The    Scrutiny   Committee   has     observed         in    its<\/p>\n
     Judgment that the record relating to grand-father of<\/p>\n
     the petitioner pertains to the years 1937 and 1941,<\/p>\n
     where the caste mentioned is      Koshti     and occupation as<\/p>\n
      weaving.     The finding in relation to these documents<\/p>\n
     is recorded in para 8 of the judgment of the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
     Committee, which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              8]      The   applicant has   filed   the
\n             school record in respect of Pralhad
\n             Balkrushna   Bende   and Vishnu   Natthuji
\n             Bende, but has failed to produce any
\n             documentary    evidence  to   prove    her<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                 11<\/span>
\n             relationship with them. On the other hand
\n             the applicant has denied the school record<\/p>\n
             in respect of her grandfathers, which has
\n             been obtained by the Police Vigilance<\/p>\n
             Cell, without giving any proper reason
\n             thereof. The perusal of the case file of
\n             the applicant’s father in the office of
\n             the Committee reveals that the applicant’s
\n             father has suppressed the school record in<\/p>\n
             respect of his father and uncle, wherein
\n             their caste is recorded as ‘Koshti’ and
\n             occupation as ‘weaving’ in the year 1937
\n             and 1941 respectively.   It is now during
\n             the course of verification of the tribe<\/p>\n
             claim of the applicant the said record is
\n             placed before the Committee by way of
\n             Vigilance enquiry, which reveals that the<\/p>\n
             applicant has also suppressed the said
\n             record which is adverse to her claim.\n<\/p>\n
     [Quoted from page no. 36 of the paper-book of decided
\n     Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008].\n<\/p>\n
     21.     In the Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.<\/p>\n
     1958 of 2008, this Court [Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P.\n<\/p>\n
     Bhangale, JJ.] held to the effect that:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]     Petitioner’s    grand-father          Mahadev        and
\n             Mahadev’s brother Shyamrao’s caste record
\n             was   Koshti.\n<\/p>\n
     [b]     This record relating to father and uncle
\n             of petitioner’s father was not brought by
\n             the   petitioner   before      the     Authorities
\n             issuing   the   Certificate,     or      Committee,
\n             which was traced by Vigilance Cell.\n<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
     [c]     In     the    process       of     hearing      before        the<\/p>\n
             Scrutiny          Committee,       the   petitioner           had
\n             simply       denied      the        said      record          and<\/p>\n
             relationship with Mahadev and Shyamrao.\n<\/p>\n
     22.     In the body of Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008,<\/p>\n
     petitioner had given a family tree, where she admits<\/p>\n
     that    Mahadev      is    father     of    Manohar        [petitioner’s<\/p>\n
     father] and father of Mahadev is Maroti, while Shyamrao<\/p>\n
     genealogy<\/p>\n
     is the son of Maroti and father of Mahadeo.\n<\/p>\n
                  is given in para 4 of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                This<\/p>\n
     23.     While petitioner had denied the relationship<\/p>\n
     with Mahadev and Shyamrao, said denial is seen to be<\/p>\n
     bald, and she does not say that Mahadev and Shyamrao,<\/p>\n
     who are respectively father and uncle of petitioner’s<\/p>\n
     father, are not the same persons whose records were<\/p>\n
     secured by Vigilance Cell. The evidence of Headmaster<\/p>\n
     secured by Vigilance Cell falsified petitioner’s claim<\/p>\n
     in addition.\n<\/p>\n
     24.     Petitioner’s          claim         seems       to       be        that<\/p>\n
     cancellation of her tribe Certificate is not done being<\/p>\n
      bogus and secured by way of forgery.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
     25.     We are satisfied from revelation from record<\/p>\n
     that by no means, a Certificate secured by suppression<\/p>\n
     of antecedents could stand to the test of a Certificate<\/p>\n
     obtained genuinely and bona fide. It is a clear case of<\/p>\n
     suppressio vary and suggestio falsi.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     26.     We     see   from   these    facts      that       the        very\n\n     foundation     of\n                     ig   petitioner's     claim,         namely           that\n\n     cancellation    of    her   certificate      and       confiscation\n                   \n<\/pre>\n
     thereof is on account of a finding of fact as to fraud<\/p>\n
     etc., is, thus,      factually correct and very well based<\/p>\n
     on record.\n<\/p>\n
     27.     In     the   Judgment,     which   is      sought        to     be<\/p>\n
     reviewed, this Court had recorded a finding in para 15<\/p>\n
     as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
              15]     In   the    instant   case,     the
\n             petitioner had claimed to belong to Halba
\n               Scheduled Tribe on the basis of a false
\n             caste certificate which was directed to be<\/p>\n
             confiscated. The Scrutiny Committee has
\n             also   held  the   petitioner    guilty   of
\n             suppressing of vital evidence i.e., the
\n             school record in respect of her grand-
\n             father. The petitioner is still studying
\n             for the M.B.B.S. Course and it is not her
\n             case   that  she   was   already    obtained
\n             M.B.B.S. Degree and is either doing her
\n             internship or seeking admission to the<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span>
\n             Post degree Course for medicine. …..\n<\/p>\n
     [Quoted from page no. 39 of the paper-book of Review
\n     Petition].\n<\/p>\n
     28.     Perusal of Review Petition does not disclose<\/p>\n
     that this finding is brought into question or issue as<\/p>\n
     erroneous    on     the   face     of     record,        or      otherwise<\/p>\n
     erroneous. Moreover, this finding referred to above is<\/p>\n
     reiteration of what is found by the Scrutiny Committee<\/p>\n
     at the first stage and then found by this Court while<\/p>\n
     deciding Writ Petition No. 1958 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
                 Point No.2 : Is this a case of cancellation<\/p>\n
                 of Status Certificate much after completion<\/p>\n
                 of    petitioner’s          education?        And,      whether<\/p>\n
                 petitioner’s case falls within the bracket of<\/p>\n
                 the    judgments     of     Hon’ble      Apex       Court        in<\/p>\n
                 Sandeep Parate’s case and Raju Vasave’s case<\/p>\n
                 [supra]?\n<\/p>\n
     29.     Petitioner        has    spent    about      three       years       in<\/p>\n
     medical education and has completed first as well the<\/p>\n
     second term. In order to mitigate the loss of three-\n<\/p>\n
     and-half-year, she is claiming that, may be on costs by<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span>
\n     way of re-compensation of loss to the Government, her<\/p>\n
     period of education spent may be given some weightage,<\/p>\n
     and by protecting her admission, she may be permitted<\/p>\n
     to complete the MBBS Course.\n<\/p>\n
     30.     Considering that basic question is relating to<\/p>\n
     career of a student, with peace and patience, we have<\/p>\n
     scrutinized the pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
     31.<\/p>\n
             Petitioner has shown in Paragraph 12 of the<\/p>\n
     Review Application that she has completed ‘three-and-\n<\/p>\n
     half-year’ course of MBBS. The duration of MBBS Course<\/p>\n
     of instructions is four-and-half-year, excluding the<\/p>\n
     internship. It is that the petitioner has just secured<\/p>\n
     admission to Final Year MBBS Course, and may have spent<\/p>\n
     a few months thereafter, and yet has to complete even<\/p>\n
     duration of full year, much less full term and tenure<\/p>\n
     of the course.\n<\/p>\n
     32.     Contents        of    representation      submitted          by    the<\/p>\n
     petitioner do not disclose:-\n<\/p>\n
     [a]     The      date        on   which   the    petitioner            was
\n             admitted to Final Year MBBS Course;\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
     [b]       The     date of commencement of instructions,<\/p>\n
               practicals etc.;\n<\/p>\n
     [c]       Exact duration for which the petitioner has
\n               undergone the training, and<\/p>\n
     [d]       Exact duration of remainder spell of course
\n               instructions.\n<\/p>\n
     33.       Petitioner’s     claim      that   her      education           is<\/p>\n
     almost complete is again an incomplete and incorrect<\/p>\n
     statement.      On her showing, she has completed terms of<\/p>\n
     MBBS Course, and was about to complete half year in the<\/p>\n
     third term.\n<\/p>\n
     34.       The petitioner has not given the date when the<\/p>\n
     instructions and examination of the second term of MBBS<\/p>\n
     were complete, the date when the result was announced<\/p>\n
     and the date when she took admission to Final Year<\/p>\n
     MBBS. Petitioner barely states that she has completed<\/p>\n
     about three-and-half-year course. It is not even made<\/p>\n
     clear as to whether instructions and practicals have<\/p>\n
     commenced after she was admitted to Final Year MBBS<\/p>\n
     course.   Had    really   some   academic     instructions             been<\/p>\n
     already complete, she would not have hesitated making<\/p>\n
     her averments to that effect.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
     35.     By leaving these aspects vague and suspicious,<\/p>\n
     the petitioner seems to be claiming to take the benefit<\/p>\n
     of ambiguity.        Petitioner’s representation submitted to<\/p>\n
     the Director of Medical Education & Research is also<\/p>\n
     silent on this.         On the other hand, even before the<\/p>\n
     Director of Medical Education & Research, reliance is<\/p>\n
     on the case of Sandeep Parate, to pay for the wrong<\/p>\n
     committed by her, and on said consideration, protect<\/p>\n
     her admission.\n<\/p>\n
     36.     As      we     notice   from   the   order        passed         by<\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 that he has applied mind to this aspect<\/p>\n
     and recorded a finding which reads as below:-\n<\/p>\n
                       The issue raised in the case of
\n             Yogesh Vs. State of Maharashtra is mainly
\n             related to recalling the degree conferred
\n             after 13 years after admission the said<\/p>\n
             course wherein admission was given through
\n             ST category and he secured degree more
\n             than four years back of the time of the
\n             judgment, the claim which was subsequently
\n             rejected.   In   the  instant   case   the
\n             admission authority has already acted as<\/p>\n
             per the rules of admission and decision of
\n             Caste Scrutiny Committee based on relevant
\n             statute.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [Quoted from page no.17 of the paper book of decided
\n     Writ Petition No. 4054 of 2008]<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                          18<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
     37.        We also see that Sandeep Parate’s case was<\/p>\n
     very well before the Bench while the order sought to be<\/p>\n
     reviewed was passed.              May be that the aspect of re-\n<\/p>\n
     compensating the State             on costs of petitioner                   for<\/p>\n
     protecting her admission was not given emphasis, yet<\/p>\n
     the    primary    condition       thereof    that     cancellation            of<\/p>\n
     Certificate       to   be    an    accidental       fallout        was       not<\/p>\n
     sustained; lest the finding recorded by the Court in<\/p>\n
     Para 15 quoted in foregoing para was not to arrive.\n<\/p>\n
     38.        On    facts,     therefore,      the   petitioner’s             case<\/p>\n
     does not stand on par with students who have,                            years<\/p>\n
     before     cancellation of Caste\/Tribe Status Certificate,<\/p>\n
     completed the course, secured the passing and now what<\/p>\n
     remains is formal act of award of degree.\n<\/p>\n
     39.        Since most of the judgments cited by learned<\/p>\n
     Advocate for the petitioner were already before the<\/p>\n
     Bench while deciding the Writ Petition, those do not<\/p>\n
     require any further and detailed discussion again.\n<\/p>\n
     40.        It is, thus, seen that the petitioner stands<\/p>\n
     on    extremely    fragile    footing,      as    she     is     not     in     a<\/p>\n
     position    to    dispute     fact-finding        which      has     reached<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>
\n                                   19<\/span>
\n     finality.\n<\/p>\n
     41.       In   these   premises,   the     claim       made       by    the<\/p>\n
     petitioner that her case falls within the bracket of<\/p>\n
     the class carved out by Sandeep Parate’s case is an<\/p>\n
     argument which does not have any factual foundation.\n<\/p>\n
     42.       In these circumstances, we see no merit in the<\/p>\n
     Review Application and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                        ig                                            Rule is\n\n     discharged.\n                      \n               JUDGE                                           JUDGE\n      \n\n\n                               -0-0-0-0-\n   \n\n\n\n     |hedau|\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:29:56 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 Bench: A. H. Joshi, A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application [review] No.317 of 2009 IN Writ Petition No.4054 of 2008 [decided] Ku. Mayuri daughter of […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKu. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - 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\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T03:46:30+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T03:46:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2838,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T03:46:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - 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\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T03:46:30+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T03:46:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009"},"wordCount":2838,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009","name":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T03:46:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ku-mayuri-daughter-of-manohar-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-4-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ku. Mayuri Daughter Of Manohar … vs State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/227707","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=227707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}