{"id":233524,"date":"1954-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954"},"modified":"2015-11-09T06:00:10","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T00:30:10","slug":"r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","title":{"rendered":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR  747, \t\t  1955 SCR  686<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Hasan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nR.   M. SESHADRI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/10\/1954\n\nBENCH:\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBENCH:\nHASAN, GHULAM\nMAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBOSE, VIVIAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1954 AIR  747\t\t  1955 SCR  686\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1967 SC 829\t (6)\n RF\t    1978 SC1457\t (62)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(g)-Cinematograph\t Act\n(II of 1918), s. 8-Owner of cinema theatre -Granted  license\n-Conditions -Restrictions-Whether reasonable\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant, the owner of a permanent cinema  theatre\nin  the\t Tanjore  District, was granted\t a  license  by\t the\nDistrict Magistrate, Tanjore, subject to certain  conditions\nimposed\t by him in pursuance of 2 notifications (G. 0.\tMis.\n1054,  Home,  dated 28th March, 1948, and G.  O.  Mis.\t3422\ndated  15th September, 1948) issued by the State  of  Madras\npurporting to act in exercise of powers conferred by s. 8 of\nthe Cinematograph Act (II of 1918).\n    The impugned conditions inter alia were as follows:-\n    \"  4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at  each\t performance\none  or\t more  approved films of such length  and  for\tsuch\nlength of time, as the Provincial Government or the  Central\nGovernment may, by general or special order, direct.\n687\n     special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at the\ncommencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of\none or more approved films.\"\n    Held, that condition No. 4(a) and special condition\t No.\n3,  imposed  unreasonable restrictions on the right  of\t the\nlicensee  to  carry on his business and were -void  as\tthey\ninfringed the fundamental right of the appellant  guaranteed\nto him under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 192  of<br \/>\n1952.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Appeal under article 132(1) of the Constitution of  India<br \/>\nfrom the Judgment and Order dated 24th August, 1951, of\t the<br \/>\nMadras\tHigh Court in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.\t5744<br \/>\nof 1951.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appellant in person.\n<\/p>\n<p>     C.\t  K.  Daphtary,\t Solicitor-General  for\t India\t (R.<br \/>\nGanapathy  Iyer\t and  P.  G.  Gokhale,\twith  him)  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     C.\t  K.  Daphtary,\t Solicitor-General for\tIndia  (P.A.<br \/>\nMehta and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the Intervener (Union<br \/>\nof India).\n<\/p>\n<p>     1954.   October  1.  The  Judgment\t of  the  Court\t was<br \/>\ndelivered by<br \/>\n     GHULAM  HASAN  J.-The  appellant  is  the\towner  of  a<br \/>\npermanent   cinema  theatre  called  Sri   Brahannayaki\t  in<br \/>\nTiruthuraipundi,  Tanjore District, and held a licence\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  District  Magistrate, Tanjore, in respect of  the\tsame<br \/>\nwith  effect  from September 5,1950, to September  4,  1951.<br \/>\nThe  licence  is  granted  for one year at  a  time  and  is<br \/>\nrenewable  from\t year  to  year.   He  objected\t to  certain<br \/>\nconditions   in\t  the  licence\timposed\t by   the   District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Tanjore, in pursuance of 2 notifications (G.  O.<br \/>\nMis. 1054, Home, dated 28th March, 1948, and G.\t  O.\tMis.<br \/>\n3422,  dated  15th September, 1948) issued by the  State  of<br \/>\nMadras purporting to act in exercise of powers conferred  by<br \/>\nsection\t 8 of the Cinematograph Act of 1918.   The  impugned<br \/>\nconditions may conveniently be set out here:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;4(a) The licensee shall exhibit at each performance one<br \/>\nor more approved films of such length and for such length of<br \/>\ntime, as the Provincial<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">688<\/span><br \/>\nGovernment  or\tthe Central Government may,  by\t general  or<br \/>\nspecial order, direct.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t The licensee shall comply with such  directions  as<br \/>\nthe  Provincial Government may by general or  special  order<br \/>\ngive  as  to  the manner in which approved  films  shall  be<br \/>\nexhibited in the course of any performance.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Explanation:-&#8221;  Approved Films&#8221; means  a  cinematograph<br \/>\nfilm  approved\tfor  the purpose of this  condition  by\t the<br \/>\nProvincial Government or the<br \/>\nCentral Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Special condition 3.-The licensee should exhibit at\t the<br \/>\ncommencement of each performance not less than 2,000 feet of<br \/>\none or more approved films.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>   The\tappellant  moved  the High Court  of  Judicature  at<br \/>\nMadras under article 226 of the Constitution for an&#8217;  order-<br \/>\nor direction to the District Magistrate, Tanjore, to  delete<br \/>\nthe  said  conditions from his licence and to the  State  of<br \/>\nMadras\tto  rescind  the notifications issued  by  it.\t His<br \/>\ncontention  was\t that  the conditions imposed  by  the\tsaid<br \/>\nnotifications  are ultra vires and beyond the powers of\t the<br \/>\nlicensing authority and that they are void inasmuch as\tthey<br \/>\ncontravened  his  freedom  of speech  and  expression  under<br \/>\narticle 19(1)(a) and his right to carry on trade or business<br \/>\nunder  article\t19(1)  (g) of the  Constitution.   Both\t the<br \/>\ncontentions  were rejected, the High Court holding that\t the<br \/>\nconditions imposed were reasonable and were in the interests<br \/>\nof the general public.\tThe High Court granted leave to<br \/>\nappeal to this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant who argued the appeal in person raised  2<br \/>\nmain contentions.  He argued firstly, that the notifications<br \/>\nand  conditions are beyond the competence of the  Government<br \/>\nof Madras and the District Magistrate, and secondly, that in<br \/>\nany event the conditions do not, as being outside the  scope<br \/>\nof the Cinematograph Act, amount to reasonable\trestrictions<br \/>\nimposed in the interest of the general public.<br \/>\n    We are of opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on<br \/>\nthe  second  ground.   It  may be  stated  that\t the  Madras<br \/>\nCinematograph Rules, 1933, were amended by the\tnotification<br \/>\nG. O. Mis. 1054, Home, dated<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">689<\/span><br \/>\nMarch,\t28,  1948, in exercise of the  powers  conferred  by<br \/>\nsection 8 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (Central Act II  of<br \/>\n1918), and in place of condition 4 of the licence in Form A,<br \/>\nthe  impugned conditions were inserted.\t Section 8  empowers<br \/>\nthe  State  Government\tto make rules  for  the\t purpose  of<br \/>\ncarrying into effect the provisions of the Act.\t The  object<br \/>\nof  the Act as stated in the preamble is to make  provisions<br \/>\nfor  regulating&#8221;  exhibitions under the\t Cinematograph\tAct.<br \/>\nWithout\t going into the question whether it is\twithin\tthe&#8217;<br \/>\ncontemplation of the Act that educational and  instructional<br \/>\nfilms  should  be shown and whether the holder of  a  cinema<br \/>\nlicence\t may be compelled to exhibit such films\t as  falling<br \/>\nwithin the scope of the Act, the question which still arises<br \/>\nfor consideration is whether the impugned conditions  amount<br \/>\nto  &#8220;reasonable restrictions&#8221; within the meaning of  article<br \/>\n19(6).\t Approved  &#8216;films are those films which\t are  either<br \/>\nproduced by the Government or are purchased from the private<br \/>\nproducers.   As\t the private producers do  not\tpossess\t any<br \/>\nmachinery for marketing their films the Government purchases<br \/>\nthem  from such producers and charges hire from\t the  cinema<br \/>\nlicensees for showing such films.  Condition 4(a) compels  a<br \/>\nlicensee to exhibit at each performance one or more approved<br \/>\nfilms  of  such length and for such length of  time  as\t the<br \/>\nProvincial  Government\tor Central  Government\tmay  direct.<br \/>\nNeither\t the length of the film nor the period of  time\t for<br \/>\nwhich it may be shown is specified in the condition and\t the<br \/>\nGovernment  is\tvested\twith an\t unregulated  discretion  to<br \/>\ncompel\ta  licensee to exhibit a film of any length  at\t its<br \/>\ndiscretion  which may consume the whole or the greater\tpart<br \/>\nof  the\t time  for which each  performance  is\tgiven.\t The<br \/>\nexhibition of a film generally takes 2 hours and a  quarter.<br \/>\nNow  if\t there\tis nothing to guide the\t discretion  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment it is open to it to require the licensee to\tshow<br \/>\napproved films of such great length as may exhaust the whole<br \/>\nof  the\t time or the major portion of it intended  for\teach<br \/>\nperformance.  The fact that the length of the time for which<br \/>\nthe approved films may be shown is also unspecified leads to<br \/>\nthe same conclusion, in other<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">690<\/span><br \/>\nwords,\tthe Government may compel a licensee to\t exhibit  an<br \/>\napproved  film, say for an hour and a half or even 2  hours.<br \/>\nAs the condition stands, there can be no doubt that there is<br \/>\nno  principle  to  guide  the  licensing  authority  and   a<br \/>\ncondition  such as the above may lead to the loss  or  total<br \/>\nextinction  of the business itself.  A condition couched  in<br \/>\nsuch  wide  language is bound to operate  harshly  upon\t the<br \/>\ncinema\tbusiness  and  cannot be regarded  as  a  reasonable<br \/>\nrestriction.  It savours more of the nature of an imposition<br \/>\nthan  a restriction.  It is significant that  the  condition<br \/>\ndoes not profess to lay down that the approved films must be<br \/>\nof an educational or instructional character for the purpose<br \/>\nof  social  or\tpublic welfare.\t We  think  therefore,\tthat<br \/>\ncondition  4(a)\t as  it\t stands at  present  amounts  to  an<br \/>\nunreasonable  restriction  on the right of the\tlicensee  to<br \/>\ncarry  on his business and must be declared void as  against<br \/>\nthe  fundamental  right\t of  the  appellant  under   article<br \/>\n19(1)(g).\n<\/p>\n<p>    Among  the\tspecial conditions, condition  No.  3  which<br \/>\nrequires the licensee to exhibit at the commencement of each<br \/>\nperformance  not less than 2,000 feet of one or more of\t the<br \/>\napproved films is open to similar objection.  This condition<br \/>\nlays  down  the minimum length of the film to  be  shown  as<br \/>\n2,000  feet and gives no indication of the maximum.  We\t are<br \/>\ninformed that the showing of a film of 2,000 feet will\ttake<br \/>\nabout 20 minutes.  This will work out to about 1\/7th of\t the<br \/>\ntotal time of each performance if it is taken to last for 2-<br \/>\n1\/4  hours.   Whether  a  maximum of  2,000  feet  would  be<br \/>\nreasonable  is a matter we need not consider but as this  is<br \/>\nmentioned  as the minimum it is obvious that the  Government<br \/>\nmay  compel  the  licensee to exhibit a film  of  10,000  or<br \/>\n12,000\tfeet which in effect will amount to pushing  out  of<br \/>\nthe  film  intended to be shown by the licensee\t during\t the<br \/>\ntime  allotted.\t  Here again no maximum\t limit\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\nimposed\t it follows that the discretion of the authority  is<br \/>\nunrestrained   and   unfettered\t  and  must   lead   to\t  an<br \/>\nunjustifiable interference with the right of the licensee to<br \/>\ncarry  on  his\tbusiness.  We  hold,  therefore,  that\tthis<br \/>\ncondition  is  equally obnoxious and must  be  deleted.\t  We<br \/>\naccordingly allow the appeal and hold<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">691<\/span><br \/>\nthat  condition 4(a)  and special condition 3  expressed  as<br \/>\nthey  are  at present are void and have no legal  effect  as<br \/>\nagainst the fundamental right of the appellant under article<br \/>\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We\t express  no  opinion  upon  the  first\t  contention<br \/>\nadvanced by the appellant.  The appellant will get his costs<br \/>\nfrom the respondent in this Court and in the Court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954 Equivalent citations: 1954 AIR 747, 1955 SCR 686 Author: G Hasan Bench: Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam PETITIONER: R. M. SESHADRI Vs. RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TANJORE,AND ANOTHER. DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - 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\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-09T00:30:10+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T00:30:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\"},\"wordCount\":1418,\"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\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\",\"name\":\"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T00:30:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - 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\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-09T00:30:10+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954","datePublished":"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T00:30:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954"},"wordCount":1418,"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\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954","name":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, ... on 1 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T00:30:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-m-seshadri-vs-the-district-magistrate-on-1-october-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. M. Seshadri vs The District Magistrate, &#8230; on 1 October, 1954"}]},{"@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\/233524","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=233524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}