{"id":231232,"date":"2002-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002"},"modified":"2015-11-29T04:52:08","modified_gmt":"2015-11-28T23:22:08","slug":"mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2002 (94) FLR 206<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Jain<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> Vijender Jain, J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1.                  Rule.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2.                   The   writ  petition  has   been  filed  by   the<br \/>\n          petitioner  alleging  victimisation  and  mala  fide  for<br \/>\n          approaching the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.                   It  is  the case of the petitioner  that  Supreme<br \/>\n          Court  of India in the case of Union of India Vs.  Virpal<br \/>\n          Singh Chauhan,  held as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                        &#8221;  Even if a Schedules Caste\/Schedules<br \/>\n                  Tribe  candidate  is promoted  earlier  by<br \/>\n                  virtue of rule of reservation roaster than<br \/>\n                  his  senior  general   candidate  and  the<br \/>\n                  senior general candidate is promoted later<br \/>\n                  to  the  said  higher grade,  the  general<br \/>\n                  candidate  regains his seniority over such<br \/>\n                  earlier promoted Schedules Caste\/Schedules<br \/>\n                  Tribe candidate.  The earlier promotion of<br \/>\n                  the    schedule     caste\/schedule   tribe<br \/>\n                  candidate  in  such a situation  does  not<br \/>\n                  confer upon him seniority over the general<br \/>\n                  candidate   even   though    the   general<br \/>\n                  candidate   is  promoted   later  to  that<br \/>\n                  category.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> 4.                   The  judgment was delivered by Supreme Court  of<br \/>\n          India  on  10th October, 1995.  However,  the  respondent<br \/>\n          issued  a  circular  to  implement   the  ratio  of  said<br \/>\n          judgment from 30.1.97.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.                   The  petitioner challenged the said cut-off  date<br \/>\n          by  filing writ petition No.  2118\/98 before this  Court.<br \/>\n          This Court quashed the said cut-off date and directed the<br \/>\n          respondents  to implement the said circular from  30.1.96<br \/>\n          and awarded costs of Rs.5,000\/- against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6.                   It  seems that when the direction passed by  this<br \/>\n          Court  to  treat  the said cut-off date from  30.1.96  in<br \/>\n          stead of 30.1.97 and implement the order of Supreme Court<br \/>\n          of  India  was not followed by the respondents  then  the<br \/>\n          petitioner  filed another Contempt Petition No.  479\/2001<br \/>\n          against the respondents in this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.                   It  is  at  this  stage when the  notice  of  the<br \/>\n          contempt  petition was issued to the respondents and  the<br \/>\n          Court  granted  four  weeks  time to file  reply  to  the<br \/>\n          respondents,   before  filing  reply   to  the   contempt<br \/>\n          petition, the petitioner was transfer on 8.10.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.                   The  case  of  the  petitioner  is  that  several<br \/>\n          seniors  and  juniors  in the list who  are  continuously<br \/>\n          working  in  Andhra Region as the petitioner  nobody  was<br \/>\n          transferred out of Andhra Region except the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9.                   It  is contended before me by the counsel for the<br \/>\n          petitioner that the transfer is not a normal transfer but<br \/>\n          it  is  simply  to  victimise the petitioner  as  he  has<br \/>\n          approached  this  Court  by   filing  writ  petition  and<br \/>\n          contempt  petition etc.  and the transfer tantamount  to<br \/>\n          put pressure on the petitioner for his act of approaching<br \/>\n          the Court which amounts to interference in the due course<br \/>\n          of administration of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.                   On  the  other  hand counsel for  respondent  has<br \/>\n          contended   that  it  was  a  routine  transfer  and  the<br \/>\n          petitioner  has been transferred in his own region  which<br \/>\n          is permissible under the policy of transfer.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11.                   As  a  matter  of  fact when  the  first  counter<br \/>\n          affidavit  in  the  present writ petition  was  filed  by<br \/>\n          respondents  1 &amp; 2 on 24.11.2001, the respondents did not<br \/>\n          specifically reply to the ground of discrimination as set<br \/>\n          out in the petition in paragraph B &amp; C.  A specific order<br \/>\n          was  passed by this Court that the respondent must  reply<br \/>\n          to paragraph B &amp; C of the petition, the respondents filed<br \/>\n          an  additional  affidavit on 11.1.2002.  That  makes  the<br \/>\n          case  of  the  respondents   worse.   In  the  additional<br \/>\n          affidavit  the  respondents  admitted that there  are  25<br \/>\n          persons who are seniors to the petitioner and are working<br \/>\n          for  more than 27 years in Andhra Pradesh Region and have<br \/>\n          not  been  transferred  ( at page No.  38  of  the  paper<br \/>\n          book).   In the same statement the respondents have  also<br \/>\n          admitted  that there are 34 juniors to the petitioner who<br \/>\n          are  working  for  more than 27 years in  Andhra  Pradesh<br \/>\n          Region  and  have not been transferred.  Along  with  the<br \/>\n          additional  affidavit  another list was appended  by  the<br \/>\n          respondents to demonstrate that seniors to the petitioner<br \/>\n          were transferred.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.                   However  counsel for the petitioner has contended<br \/>\n          that  the officers whose names appear at serial No.1 &amp;  2<br \/>\n          in the said list are very high in the seniority list that<br \/>\n          is at number 4 &amp; 5 and none else have been transferred.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13.                   The  issue  before this Court is not whether  the<br \/>\n          respondents  can  transfer its officers or not.   It  has<br \/>\n          been  held by various decision of Supreme Court of  India<br \/>\n          as  well as this Court that transfer is not a  punishment<br \/>\n          if it is made under a policy.  Therefore this Court would<br \/>\n          have   been   reluctant   in    interfering   in   normal<br \/>\n          circumstances  when  an  officer is  transferred  by  the<br \/>\n          respondent, but in the case before hand the transfer does<br \/>\n          not seem to be a transfer in normal course.  The transfer<br \/>\n          is  mere  to remove an irritant officer who has time  and<br \/>\n          again  taken the respondents to the Court for getting the<br \/>\n          order  of Supreme Court of India implemented from January<br \/>\n          1996  as  he  has  contended that it was  on  account  of<br \/>\n          inertia  of  the  respondents.  That respondent  did  not<br \/>\n          implement  the  order  of Supreme Court of India  at  the<br \/>\n          earliest  opportunity.  The decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\n          in the case of Union of India (Supra) was not implemented<br \/>\n          in 1996 or after the judgment was pronounced in 1995 the<br \/>\n          prayer  of the petitioner was accepted by this Court  and<br \/>\n          the  respondents were directed to implement the judgment<br \/>\n          of  Supreme Court of India from 1.1.96.  In spite of  the<br \/>\n          directions  to  the  respondents to  implement  the  said<br \/>\n          judgment  from 1.1.96 the respondents did not  implement<br \/>\n          the  judgment.   A  contempt petition was filed  by  the<br \/>\n          petitioner  and notice thereof was issued.  Supreme Court<br \/>\n          judgment  till  date  has not been  implemented  by  the<br \/>\n          respondents.   The petitioner was transferred out of  the<br \/>\n          Andhra  Pradesh  Region to Kerala Region although in  the<br \/>\n          same Zone.  This is a clear case of victimising a citizen<br \/>\n          who  has  approached  this  Court for  redressed  of  his<br \/>\n          grievances.   The Order dated 8.10.2001 suffers from mala<br \/>\n          fide  and  amounts to putting extraneous pressure on  the<br \/>\n          citizen  not  to  approach the Court  this  practice  and<br \/>\n          attitude  of  the authorities requires severe  reprimand.<br \/>\n          The  message by transferring the petitioner was loud  and<br \/>\n          clear that as he has approached this Court he has to face<br \/>\n          the  consequences.   This approach of the respondents  is<br \/>\n          highly   deplorable.   Therefore,  I   issue  a  writ  of<br \/>\n          certiorari  quashing the transfer order dated  8.10.2001.<br \/>\n          Petitioner be brought back within one week.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14.                   Rule is made absolute.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15.                   Copy  be  given  dusty  to the  counsel  for  the<br \/>\n          respondents for compliance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 (94) FLR 206 Author: V Jain Bench: V Jain JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging victimisation and mala fide for approaching the Court. [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231232","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1054,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002"},"wordCount":1054,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002","name":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And ... on 2 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-28T23:22:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-s-rama-rao-vs-the-managing-director-fci-and-on-2-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. S. Rama Rao vs The Managing Director, Fci And &#8230; on 2 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/231232","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=231232"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231232\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}