{"id":228938,"date":"1962-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962"},"modified":"2017-06-09T00:58:21","modified_gmt":"2017-06-08T19:28:21","slug":"board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","title":{"rendered":"Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1110, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 36<\/div>\n
Author: K Wanchoo<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBOARD  OF  HIGH\t SCHOOL &  INTERMEDIATE\t EDUCATION,  U.\t P.,\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n06\/02\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nBENCH:\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1110\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (3)  36\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1962 SC1217\t (3A)\n R\t    1964 SC 436\t (8)\n RF\t    1966 SC  81\t (5)\n R\t    1967 SC1507\t (6,7)\n R\t    1969 SC 401\t (4)\n D\t    1970 SC1269\t (6,14)\n APL\t    1970 SC1896\t (19)\n RF\t    1971 SC1005\t (2)\n R\t    1973 SC 834\t (20)\n R\t    1974 SC  87\t (11)\n RF\t    1975 SC 596\t (3)\n F\t    1976 SC 667\t (4)\n R\t    1978 SC 851\t (69)\n\n\nACT:\nExamination   Committee-Cancelling  examination\t  results-No\nopportunity  given  to\texaminees  of  being   heard-Natural\njustice-if violated-Committee, if must act judicially-U.  P.\nIntermediate Education Act,' 1921 (U.  P. 2 of 1921), s. 15-\nRegulations, Ch.  VI, r. 1 (1).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe three respondents were declared by the appellant to have\npassed\t the  Intermediate  examination.   Thereafter\tthey\nprosecuted further studies and subsequently the fathers\t and\nguardians   of\tthe  respondents  were\tinformed  that\t the\nExamination  Committee\tof  the\t Board\thad  cancelled\t the\nexamination  results of the respondents and that  they\twere\ndebarred  from\tappearing  at  the  next  examination.\t The\nrespondents  filed  a  writ petition in the  High  Court  of\nAllahabad  contending that since the  Examination  Committee\nhad  never  afforded any opportunity to them  to  rebut\t the\nallegations made against them the Examination Committee\t had\nviolated  the  principles  of natural  justice.\t  They\talso\ncontended that the Committee had violated the provisions  of\nthe  U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 192 1. The  appellant\nwhile admitting that no opportunity had been afforded to the\nrespondents to rebut the allegations against them, contended\nthat  the Examination Committee was only  an  administrative\nbody acting merely administratively and it was not bound  to\ngive  a\t hearing  to a party who might be  affected  by\t its\ndecision.  The Single judge who heard the writ petition held\nthat the Committee was not bound to act judicially and there\nwas  no\t statutory obligation on the Committee\tto  give  an\nopportunity  to\t be heard.. The respondents  appealed  to  a\nDivision Bench and one of the judges of Bench held that even\nthough\tthe  Committee was not bound to\t act  judicially  or\nquasijudicially and it was acting administratively it  ought\nto  have  given an opportunity to the respondents  of  being\nheard.\t The other judge was of the opinion that  since\t the\ncommittee was acting only administratively it was not  bound\nto  give  a hearing.  The matter then went  before  a  third\njudge  who  held that even though the Committee\t was  acting\nmerely\tadministratively the respordents were entitled to  a\nhearing.   The appellant thereupon appealed to\tthis  Court.\nThe appellant contended that the Committee was only a body a\ning administratively and that the principles of natura\n37\njustice, including the maxim audi alteram partem apply\tonly\nto  judicial  or  quasi-judicial  bodies.   The\t respondents\ncontended that the High Court was wrong in holding that\t the\nCommittee  was only an administrative body.  It was  further\nsubmitted by them that the mere fact that there was  nothing\nexpress\t in  the Act or the  Regulations  framed  thereunder\nwhich might make it obligatory for the Committee to call for\nan  explanation and to hear the examinee whose case  it\t was\nrequired to enquire into was not wholly determinative of the\nquestion  whether a duty is cast on the Committee  in  cases\nlike this to act judicially.\nHeld, that the inference whether the authority acting  under\na  statute,  where  it\tis  silent,  has  the  duty  to\t act\njudicially  will  depend on the express\t provisions  of\t the\nstatute\t read along with the nature of the rights  affected,\nthe manner of disposal provided, the objective criterion  if\nany to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the persons\naffected  and  other indicia afforded by the  statute.\t The\nmere  fact  that  the  Act  in\tquestion  or  the   relevant\nRegulations  do not make it obligatory on the  Committee  to\ncall  for  anexplanation  and to bear the  examinee  is\t not\nconclusive  on the question whether the Committee acts as  a\nquasi-judicial\tbody  when exercising its powers  under\t Ch.\nVI,  r. 1 (1), of the Regulations.  It is obvious  that\t the\nCommittee when it proceeds to decide matters covered by r. 1\n(1) will have to depend upon materials placed before it\t and\nbefore it decides to award any penalty it has to come to  an\nobjective  determination  on certain facts and this  is\t the\nonly  manner in which it can carry out the duties impos.  ed\non  it.\t Even though there is no lis in the present case  in\nthe  sense that there are not two contending parties  before\nit  the Committee should hear the examinees whose lives\t may\nbe  seriously affected by its decision even subjecting\tthem\nin  some  cases\t to  criminal  prosecution  on\tcharges\t  of\nimpersonation, fraud and perjury.  Though therefore there is\nnothing\t express  one  way  or\tother  in  the\tAct  or\t the\nRegulation   casting  a\t duty  on  the\tCommittee   to\t act\njudicially,  the  manner  of the disposal  and\tthe  serious\neffects\t of  the  decision  of the  Committee  lead  to\t the\nconclusion  that  a duty to act judicially is  cast  on\t the\nCommittee  and the Committee when it acts under r. 1 (1)  is\nacting\tquasi-judicially  and  the  principles\tof   natural\njustice will apply to its proceedings.\nProvince of Bombay v. Kusaldas S. Advani,<\/a> [1950] S.C.R. 621,\nYagendranath  Bora  v.\tCommissioner of\t Ilills\t Division  &\nAppeals, Assam,<\/a> [1958] S. C. R. 1240.  Shri Radheshyam Khore\nv. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1959] S. C. R. 1440, Gullapalli\nNageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport  Corpo-<\/a>\nration, [1959] Stipp.  1 S. C. R. 319 and Nathubhai v. Union<\/a>\n(if lndia, (1960) 2 S. C. R. 775, followed.\n38\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No., 132 of 1959.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated March 23, 1956  of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 291 of 1955.
\nVeda Vyasa and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
\nJ. P. Goyal, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tFebruary 6. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nWANCHOO,  J.-This is an appeal on a certificate\t granted  by
\nthe  Allahabad\tHigh Court.  The brief facts  necessary\t for
\npresent\t purposes  are these.  The  three  respondents\twere
\nstudents of G. S. Hindu Intermediate College at\t Sikandrarao
\nand appeared at the Intermediate (Commerce) Examination con-
\nducted by the appellant in the year 1954.  On June 12, 1954,
\nthe  result of the examination was published  in  newspapers
\nand  the  three respondents passed in the  second  division.
\nThereafter they prosecuted further studies.  But in December
\n1954, their fathers and guardians received information\tfrom
\nthe  Principal of the G. S. Hindu Intermediate College\tthat
\nthe  Examinations’ Committee of the  appellant\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the Committee) had cancelled the  result  of
\nthe respondents for the examination of 1954 and further that
\nthey had been debarred from appearing at the examination  of
\n1955.\tThereupon the respondents filed a write petition  in
\nthe  High  Court  contending that the  Committee  had  never
\nafforded  any opportunity to them to rebut  the\t allegations
\nmade  against them and that they were never  informed  about
\nthe nature of the unfair means used by them in the said exa-
\nmination  and  the  first thing they come to  know  was\t the
\nresolution  of\tthe Committee canceling\t their\tresults\t and
\ndebating  them\tfrom appearing in the examination  of  1955.
\nThey  therefore\t contended  that they were  entitled  to  an
\nopportunity being
\n39<\/span>
\nafforded  to  them to meet the case against  them  of  using
\nunfair\tmeans at the examination before the  appellant\ttook
\naction against them by canceling their results and debarring
\nthem  from  appearing  at  the\texamination  of\t 1955.\t The
\nprocedure  thus adopted by the appellant was said to  be  in
\nviolation  of the principles of natural justice inasmuch  as
\nthey   were  given  no\topportunity  whatsoever\t to   defend
\nthemselves and to show cause against the action contemplated
\nagainst\t them.\tIt was further contended that the  procedure
\nadopted\t by the appellant violated the provisions of the  U.
\nP.  Intermediate Education Act, No. II of 1921\t(hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the Act) and the U. P. Education  Code,\t and
\ntherefore,  the\t resolution  canceling\ttheir  results\t and
\ndebarring  them from appearing in the later examination\t was
\nwithout jurisdiction and illegal.  They therefore prayed for
\na  proper  writ\t or order canceling the\t resolution  of\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant opposed the application and its case was\tthat
\nthe respondents had used unfair means at the examination and
\ntheir  cases  were  reported  to  the  Committee  under\t the
\nRegulations  and the Committee had acted under\tthe,  powers
\nconferred  on  it under the Act and the\t Regulations  framed
\nthereunder  after a thorough inquiry.  It was not  disputed,
\nhowever,  that\tno  opportunity had  been  afforded  to\t the
\nrespondents  to\t rebut the allegations against them  in\t the
\ninquiry\t made  by  the\tCommittee  which  resulted  in\t the
\nresolution canceling the results of the examination.
\nA  large number of contentions appear to have been urged  in
\nthe  High Court; but we are here only concerned with one  of
\nthem,  namely,\twhether the respondents were entitled  to  a
\nhearing before the appellant decided to cancel the  results.
\nThe  contention\t on  behalf of the  respondents\t before\t the
\nlearned Single Judge was that the appellant was Under a duty
\nto act judicially and therefore the
\n40<\/span>
\nrespondents  should  have been given a\thearing\t before\t any
\norder  was passed , against them.  The learned Single  Judge
\nheld  that  no\tduty  was  cast\t on  the  Committee  to\t act
\njudicially  and\t there was no statutory\t obligation  on\t the
\nCommittee  to  give an opportunity to every  examine  to  be
\nheard; therefore he rejected the petition.
\nThe  respondents  then went in appeal which  was  heared  by
\nDayal  and  Brijmohan  Lall,  JJ.,  who\t however   differed.
\nBrijmohan  Lall, J., was of opinion that the  Committee\t was
\nnot  required to act judicially or quasijudicially  when  it
\nconsidered  cases  of  this  kind  and\twas  acting   merely
\nadministratively;  be nevertheless was of the  opinion\tthat
\none  of the rules of natural justice contained in the  maxim
\naudi  alteram partem would apply in this case,\teven  though
\nthe Committee was acting administratively.  He was therefore
\nin favour of allowing the appeal.  Dayal J., agreed with the
\nview of Brijmohan Lall, J., that in the present case no duty
\nwas  cast  on the Committee to act judicially and  that\t the
\naction of the Committee was merely administrative.  He\thow-
\never did not agree that the Committee acted in violation  of
\nthe  principles\t of natural justice inasmuch as it  did\t not
\ngive  a\t hearing  to the respondents.  He was  of  the\tview
\nthat.-is the Committee was acting merely administratively it
\nwas  not bound to give a hearing, as the maxim audi  alteram
\npartem applied only to judicial or quasijudicial  tribunals.
\nThe  two  learned Judges also differed on two  other  points
\nwith  which we are not concerned.  Eventually they  referred
\nthree questions to be answered by another learned Judge\t and
\none  of\t these\tquestions was whether  the  failure  of\t the
\nCommittee  to provide an opportunity to the  respondents  of
\nbeing\theard\tvitiated  its  order,  which   was   of\t  an
\nadministrative nature.\n<\/p>\n
The matter then camo before a third learned Judge, Agarwala,
\nJ. He was doubtful whether the
\n41<\/span>
\nview  of  the  bench  that there was no\t duty  cast  on\t the
\nCommittee to act judicially in the present case was correct;
\nbut  as\t on  that  matter the two  learned  Judges  were  in
\nagreement,  he\tdealt with the case on the  basis  that\t the
\nCommittee  was acting merely administratively, Even  so,  he
\ncame to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to
\na  hearing  and agreed with the view of Brijmohan  Lall,  J.
\nConsequently,  the appeal was placed before the Bench  again
\nand in accordance with the opinion of the third Judge it was
\nallowed.  Then followed an application by the appellant\t for
\nleave  to appeal to this court, which was granted; and\tthat
\nis how the matter has come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
The  main contention on behalf of the appellant is that\t the
\nHigh Court was wrong in the view it took that an opportunity
\nfor  hearing  was iiecessary in this case  even\t though\t the
\nCommittee  acted merely administratively.  It  is  contended
\nthat  where a body is acting merely administratively, it  is
\nnot  necessary that it should give a hearing to a party\t who
\nmight be affected by its decision and that the principles of
\nnatural\t justice, including the maxim, audi alteram  partem,
\napply  only  to\t judicial or  quasi-judicial  bodies,  i.e.,
\nbodies\ton  whom a duty is cast to act\tjudicially.   It  is
\nsubmitted  that where no such duty is cast on a body and  it
\nis acting merely administratively there is no necessity\t for
\nit to hear the person who might be affected by it,.,  order.
\nThe  respondents on the other hand contend that\t though\t the
\nfinal decision of the High Court is correct, the High  Court
\nwas  not  right\t in holding that the  Committee\t was  acting
\nmerely\tadministratively  in  a matter of  this\t kind;\tthey
\ncontend\t that  considering the\tentire\tcircumstances  which
\noperate\t in cases of this kind, the High Court\tshould\thave
\nheld  that there was a duty to act judicially and  therefore
\nit  was necessary to give an opportunity to the\t respondents
\nto  be\theard before action was taken against them.   It  is
\nsubmitted that the
\n42<\/span>
\nmere  fact that there was nothing express in the Act or\t the
\nRegulations framed thereunder which might make it obligatory
\nfor the Committee to call for an explanation and to hear the
\nexaminees  whose cases it was required to enquire  into\t was
\nnot wholly determinative of the question whether a duty\t was
\ncast on the Committee in cases like this to act judicially.
\nThe  first question therefore which falls for  consideration
\nis  whether any duty is cast on the Committee under the\t Act
\nand  Regulations  to act judicially and therefore  it  is  a
\nquasi-judicial\tbody.  What constitutes\t ,’a  quasi-judicial
\nact” was discussed in the Province or Bombay v. Kusaldas  S.
\nAdvani.<\/a>(1)  The principle, have been summarised by  Das,  J.
\n(as he was then), at p. 725 in these words:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The principles, as I apprehend them are:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   that if a statute empowers an authority,
\n\t      not  being a court in the ordinary  sense,  to
\n\t      decide disputes arising out of a claim made by
\n\t      one  party  under the statute which  claim  is
\n\t      opposed by another party and to determine\t the
\n\t      respective  rights of the\t contesting  parties
\n\t      who are opposed to each other, there is a\t vis
\n\t      and  prima  farcie and in the absence  of\t any
\n\t      thing in the statute to the contrary it is the
\n\t      duty  of the authority to act  judicially\t and
\n\t      the  decision  of the authority  is  a  quasi-
\n\t      judicial act ; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  that if a statutory ‘authority has power
\n\t      to do any act which will prejudicially  affect
\n\t      the subject, then, although there are not\t two
\n\t      parties  apart  from  the\t authority  and\t the
\n\t      contest is between the authority proposing  to
\n\t      do  the act and the subject opposing  it,\t the
\n\t      final determination of the authority Will\t yet
\n\t      be   a  quasi.  judicial\tact   provided\t the
\n\t      authority\t is required by the statute  to\t act
\n\t      judicially.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (1) [1950] S.C.R, 621, 725.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      43<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      In  other\t words, while the  presence  of\t two
\n\t      parties  besides the deciding  authority\twill
\n\t      prima  facie and in the absence of  any  other
\n\t      factor  impose upon the authority the duty  to
\n\t      act  judicially,\tthe  absence  of  two\tsuch
\n\t      parties  is not decisive in taking the act  of
\n\t      the  authority out of the category  of  quasi-
\n\t      judicial act if the authority is\tnevertheless
\n\t      required by the statute to act judicially.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  principles  have\t been acted upon by  this  Court  in
\nlatter cases: see Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commissioner  of
\nHills Division & Appeals, Assam<\/a>(1), Shri Radheshyam Khare v.
\nThe State of Madhya Pradesh(2), Gullapalli Nageswara Rao  v.
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t State Road  Transport\tCorporation<\/a>(“),\t and
\nShivaji\t Nathubhai v. The Union of India<\/a>(4).  Now it may  be
\nmentioned  that the statute is not likely to provide  in  so
\nmany words that the authority passing the order is  required
\nto  act\t judicially;  that can only  be\t inferred  from\t the
\nexpress\t provisions of the statute in the first instance  in
\neach   case   and  no  one  circumstance   alone   will\t  be
\ndeterminative  of the question whether the authority set  up
\nby  the statute has the duty to act judicially or not.\t The
\ninference whether the authority acting under a statute where
\nit is silent has the duty to act. judicially will depend, on
\nthe  express provisions of the statute read along  with\t the
\nnature\tof the rights affected, the manner of  the  disposal
\nprovided  the objective criterion if any to be adopted,\t the
\neffect\tof  the decision on the person\taffected  and  other
\nindicia\t afforded by the statute.  A duty to act  judicially
\nmay arise in widely different circumstances which it will be
\nimpossible  and\t indeed\t inadvisable to\t attempt  to  define
\nexhaustively:(vide  observations  of  Parker, J.  in  R.  v.
\nManchester Legal Aid Committee)(5).\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1958] S.C.R. 1240.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1959] S.C.R. 1440.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1959] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 319.\n<\/p>\n
(4) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 775.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  [1952] 2 Q.B. 413,
\n44<\/span>
\nWe must therefore proceed to examine the pro. visions of the
\nAct and the Regulations framed thereunder in connection with
\nmatters of this kind to determine whether the Committee\t can
\nbe  said  to have the duty to act judicially when  it  deals
\nwith  cases  of examines using unfair means  in\t examination
\nhalls.\t Under\ts.7  of\t the  Act,  the\t Board\t constituted
\nthereunder  has\t inter alia powers to prescribe\t courses  of
\ninstruction, to grant diplomas and certificates, to  conduct
\nexaminations  to  admit candidates to  its  examinations  to
\npublish the results of its examinations, and to do all\tsuch
\nthings\tas may be requisite in order to further the  objects
\nof  the\t Board\tas a body  constituted\tfor  regulating\t and
\nsupervising  High School and Intermediate education.   Under
\ns.  1  3,  the Board has power\tto  appoint  and  constitute
\nvarious\t committees, including the examinations’  committee,
\nand  under  s. 14, the Board can delegate  its\tpower.-;  by
\nRegulations  to such committees.  Section 15 gives power  to
\nthe   Board  to\t make  Regulations  with  respect   to\t the
\nconstitution,  powers and duties of committees, the  conduct
\nof  examinations,  and all matters which by the Act  may  be
\nprovided for by Regulations.  Section 20 gives power to\t the
\nBoard  and its committees to make bye-laws  consistent\twith
\nthe Act and the Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
It  will  be  clear from the above that\t the  Act  makes  no
\nexpress\t provisions as to the powers of the  committees\t and
\nthe  procedure to be adopted by them in carrying  out  their
\nduties, which are left to be provided by Regulations, and we
\nhave therefore to look to the Regulations framed under s. 15
\nto  see.  what\tpowers and duties  have\t been  conferred  on
\nvarious\t  committees  constituted  under  the\tRegulations.
\nSection\t 13 (1) makes it incumbent on the Board\t to  appoint
\nthe  Committee and Chap.  VI of the Regulations\t deals\twith
\nthe powers and duties of the Committee.\t Rule 1 (1) of Chap.
\nVI with which we are particularly concerned reads as
\n45<\/span>
\nfollows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  shall  be the duty of  the  Examinations’
\n\t      Committee\t subject to sanction and control  of
\n\t      the Board.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “(1)  to\tconsider cases where  examines\thave
\n\t      concealed\t any fact or made a false  statement
\n\t      ill  their  application forms or a  breach  of
\n\t      rules  and regulations to secure undue  admis-
\n\t      sion to an examination or used unfair means or
\n\t      committed\t fraud (including impersonation)  at
\n\t      the  examination\tor  are guilty\tor  a  moral
\n\t      offence  or indiscipline and to award  penalty
\n\t      which may be one or more of the following
\n\t      :–(1)  withdrawal  of certificate  of  having
\n\t      passed the examination ;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   cancellation of the examination;
\n\t      (3)   exclusion from the examination.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There  is  however no provision in Chap.  VI as to  how\t the
\nCommittee will carry out the duty imposed on it by r. 1 (1).
\nFurther,  there\t is no express provision in the Act  or\t the
\nRegulations   casting  a  duty\ton  the\t Committee  to\t act
\njudicially  when exercising its powers under r. 1  (1);\t and
\nthe  question  whether the Committee has to  act  judicially
\nwhen exercising these powers will have to ‘be decided on  an
\nexamination of all the circumstances relevant in the matter.
\nAt  the same time, there is nothing express in the Act\tfrom
\nwhich it can be said that the Committee is not under a\tduty
\nto  act judicially.  It is true that there is  no  procedure
\nprovided as to how the Committee will act in exercising\t its
\npowers under r. 1 (1) and it is. further true that there  is
\nno express provision in that rule requiring the Committee to
\ncall  for an explanation from the examines concerned and  to
\nhear the examines whose case,% ;it is required to  consider.
\nBut we are of opinion that the mere fact that the Act or the
\nRegulations  do not make it obligatory on the  Committee  to
\ncall for an explanation and to
\n46<\/span>
\nhear the examiner is not conclusive on the question  whether
\nthe  Committee acts as a quasi-judicial body  in  exercising
\nits  powers  under  r. 1 (1).  Even though  calling  for  an
\nexplanation  and hearing the examine may not have been\tmade
\nexpressly  oblitory  by the Act or the\tRegulations,  it  is
\nobvious\t that the Committee when it proceeds to decide\tmat-
\nters covered by r. 1 (1) will have to depend upon  materials
\nplaced\tbefore\tit, in coming to its decision.\t Before\t the
\nCommittee decides to award any penalty it has to come to  an
\nobjective  determination on certain facts and only  when  it
\ncomes  to  the conclusion that those facts  are\t established
\nthat  it can proceed to punish the examinee concerned.\t The
\nfacts which the Committee has to find before it takes action
\nare\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   whether  the examinee has concealed\t any
\n\t      fact   or\t made  a  false\t statement  in\t his
\n\t      application form; or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  whether  the examinee has made a  breach
\n\t      of  the Rules and Regulations to secure  under
\n\t      admission to an examination ; or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iii) whether  the  examinee has\tused  unfair
\n\t      means at the examination ; or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (iv)  whether the examinee has committed fraud
\n\t      (including impersonation) at the examination ;
\n\t      or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (v)   whether the examinee is guilty of  moral
\n\t      offence or indiscipline.\n<\/p>\n
Until  one or other of the five facts is established  before
\nthe  Committee, it cannot proceed to take action under r.  1
\n(1).   In order to come to the conclusion that one or  other
\nof  these facts is established, the Committee will  have  to
\ndepend\tupon  materials placed before it, for  in  the\tvery
\nnature of things it has no personal knowledge in the matter.
\nTherefore, though the Act or the Regulations do
\n47<\/span>
\nnot  make  it  obligatory on the Committee to  call  for  an
\nexplanation  and  hear the examinee, it is implicit  in\t the
\nprovisions  of\tr.  1 (1) that the  Committee  must  satisfy
\nitself\ton materials placed before it that one or  other  of
\nthe facts is established to enable it to take action in\t the
\nmatter.\t  It  will  not be possible  for  the  Committee  to
\nproceed\t at  all unless materials are placed  before  it  to
\ndetermine whether the examinee concerned has committed\tsome
\nmisconduct or the other which is the basis of the action  to
\n1  be  taken  under r. 1 (1).  It is  clear  therefore\tthat
\nconsideration  of  materials placed before it  is  necessary
\nbefore\tthe  Committee\tcan  come to  any  decision  in\t the
\nexercise  of its powers under r. 1 (1) and this can  be\t the
\nonly  manner  in  which the Commit, tee can  carry  out\t the
\nduties imposed on it.\n<\/p>\n
We thus see that the Committee can only carry out its duties
\nunder  r. 1 (1) by judging the Materials, placed before\t it.
\nIt is true that there is no lis in the present case, in\t the
\nsense  that there are not two contesting parties before\t the
\nCommittee and the matter rests between the Committee and the
\nexaminee;  at the same time considering that materials\twill
\nhave  to  be  placed before the Committee to  enable  it  to
\ndecide\twhether\t action should be taken under r. 1  (1),  it
\nseems  to  us only fair that the examinee against  whom\t the
\nCommittee is proceeding should also be heard.  The effect of
\nthe  decision of the Committee may in an extreme case  blast
\nthe career of a young student for life and in any case\twill
\nput  a\tserious stigma on the examinee concerned  which\t may
\ndamage\thim in later life.  The nature of  misconduct  which
\nthe Committee has to find under r. 1 (1) in some cases is of
\na serious nature, for example, impersonation, commission  of
\nfraud, and perjury; and the Committee’s decision in  matters
\nof  such  seriousness  may even lead in some  cages  to\t the
\nprosecution   of  the  examinee\t in   courts.\t Considering
\ntherefore the serious following the
\n48<\/span>
\ndecision  of  the Committee and the serious  nature  of\t the
\nmisconduct which may be found in some cases under r. t\t(1),
\nit  seems  to  us that the Committee must  be  held  to\t act
\njudicially  in\tcircumstances as  these.   Though  therefore
\nthere is nothing express one way or the other in the Act  or
\nthe  Regulations  casting  a duty on the  Committee  to\t act
\njudicially, the manner of the disposal, based as it must  be
\non materials placed before it and the serious effects of the
\ndecision  of the Committee on the examinee  concerned,\tmust
\nlead to the conclusion that a duty is cast on the  Committee
\nto  act judicially in this matter particularly as it has  to
\ndecide objectively certain facts which may seriously  affect
\nthe rights and careers of examinees, before it can take\t any
\naction in the exercise or its power under r. 1 (1).  We\t are
\ntherefore  of opinion that the Committee when  it  exercises
\nits powers under r. 1 (1) is acting quasijudicially and\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice which require that the  other
\nparty,\t(namely, the examinee in this case) must  be  heard,
\nwill  apply to the proceedings before the  Committee.\tThis
\nview  was  taken by the Calcutta High Court in Dipa  Pul  v.
\nUniversity  of\tCalcutta,  (1)\tand  B.\t C.  Das  Gupta\t  v.
\nBijoyranjan Rakshit, in similar circumstances and is in\t our
\nopinion correct.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\turged on behalf of the appellant that  there  are  a
\nlarge  number  of cases which come up before  the  Committee
\nunder  r.  1  (1),  and if the\tCommittee  is  hold  to\t act
\njudicially as a quasijudicial tribunal in the matter it will
\nfind  it  impossible  to carry on its  task.   This  in\t our
\nopinion is no criterion for deciding whether a duty is\tcast
\nto  act judicially in view of all the circumstances  of\t the
\ncase.\tThere is no doubt in our mind that  considering\t the
\ntotality   of  circumstances  the  Committee  has   to\t act
\njudicially  when  taking action under r. 1 (1).\t As  to\t the
\nmanner\tin  which  it  should give  an\topportunity  to\t the
\nexaminee concerned to be
\n(1)  A. I. R. 1952 Cal. 594.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A. 1. R. 1953 Cal. 212.\n<\/p>\n
 49<\/span><\/p>\n
heard, that is a matter which can be provided by Regulations
\nor  Bye-laws  if  necessary.  As was pointed  out  in  Local
\nGovernment  Board  v. Alridge, (1) all that is\trequired  is
\nthat the other party shall have an opportunity of adequately
\npresenting  his case.  But what the procedure should  be  in
\ndetail will depend on the nature of the tribunal.  There  is
\nno  doubt  that many of the powers of  the  Committee  under
\nChap.\tVI  are of administrative nature; but  where  quasi-
\njudicial  duties are entrusted to administrative  body\tlike
\nthis  it becomes a quasi-judicial body for performing  these
\nduties and it can prescribe its own procedure so long as the
\nprinciples  of\tnatural justice are  followed  and  adequate
\nopportunity of presenting his case is given to the examinee.
\nIt  is not however necessary to pursue this matter  further,
\nfor it is not in dispute that no opportunity whatsoever\t was
\ngiven to the respondents in this case to give an explanation
\nand  present  their  case  before  the\tCommittee.   We\t are
\ntherefore of opinion that though the view of the High  Court
\nthat  the Committee was acting merely administratively\twhen
\nproceeding under r. 1 (1) is not correct, its final decision
\nallowing the writ petition on the ground that no opportunity
\nwas  given  to the respondents to put  forward\ttheir  cases
\nbefore\tthe Committee is correct.  We therefore dismiss\t the
\nappeal.\t No order as to, in the circumstances.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1951] A.\tC. 120.\n<\/p>\n
50<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1110, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 36 Author: K Wanchoo Bench: Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Subbarao, K., Wanchoo, K.N., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL & INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U. P., […]<\/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-228938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBoard Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - 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\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-08T19:28:21+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T19:28:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3742,\"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\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\",\"name\":\"Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-08T19:28:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - 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\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-08T19:28:21+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962","datePublished":"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T19:28:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962"},"wordCount":3742,"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\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962","name":"Board Of High School & ... vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-08T19:28:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/board-of-high-school-vs-ghanshyam-das-gupta-and-others-on-6-february-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Board Of High School & … vs Ghanshyam Das Gupta And Others on 6 February, 1962"}]},{"@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\/228938","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=228938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}