{"id":243795,"date":"1998-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1998-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998"},"modified":"2016-10-06T01:19:57","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T19:49:57","slug":"gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Majmudar<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/08\/1998\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\nC.A. No.  3916\/98 @SLP\t(C)  No.13097\/98),  C.A.Nos.2246\/96,
\n2247 TO 2262\/96, 2264\/96 to 2267\/96, 2385\/96, 2439\/96 AND
\n\t\t     W.P. (C) No.557\/97
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nS.B. Majmudar, J:\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No.13097 of 1998.
\n     In this group of matters, that common judgment rendered
\nby the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
\nJabalpur, dismissing  various writ  petitions filed  by\t the
\nwrit petitioners  has been brought in challenge. In order to
\nappreciate  the\t  grievance  of\t the  appellants  viz.\twrit
\npetitioner who\thave filed these appeals on grant of special
\nleave under  Article 136 of the Constitution of India, it is
\nnecessary to note a few background facts.\n<\/p>\n
BACKGROUND FACTS:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant-writ\t petitioners  are  manufacturers  of
\ncement. Their  manufacturing plants are located in different
\nparts of  the country.\tFor manufacturing  cement, essential
\nraw material  is coal. During the relevant period with which
\nthis group of matters is concerned, namely, from 1.1.1989 to
\n31.3.1996, coal was controlled commodity being treated as an
\nessential commodity’  under the\t Essential Commodities\tAct,
\n1955 (hereinafter  referred to\tas the\tAct’). Prior  to the
\nindependence  of   the\t country,   there   was\t  in   force
\nColliery Control  Orders, 1945,\t wherein  as  per  clause  4
\nthereof, price\tfor supply  of coal  to\t the  consumers\t was
\ncontrolled. The\t said  scheme  was  continued  in  force  by
\nSection 16 of the Act. As during the relevant time, coal was
\na controlled  commodity, its  price was\t being monitored and
\nfixed under  the aforesaid  Colliery Control  Order  by\t the
\nappropriate authority functioning thereunder. Till December,
\n1988,  the   price  of\tcoal  supplies\tfrom  collieries  to
\ndifferent  consumers,\tlike  the   appellants,\t  concerning
\ndifferent grades of coal had not posed any difficulty to the
\nconsumers of coal. However, according to the appellants, the
\nproblem started\t after the  letter dated  1st January,\t1989
\nissued under the provisions of the Colliery Control Order as
\npromulgated under  Section 16  of the  Act. By Item no.20 of
\nthe notification dated 1st January, 1989, the premium of 10%
\nof the price given in Table II of the notification was to be
\ncharged by the collieries supplying coal to the consumers in
\nthe country in connection with A,B,C & D grades of coal sold
\nto them.  The clauses  3 and 4 of the Colliery Control Order
\nas operative during the relevant period read as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “3. The  Central Government may for
\n     the   purposes    of   this   order
\n     prescribe the  classes,  grades  or
\n     sizes  into   which  coal\t my   be
\n     categorised and  the specifications
\n     for each  such class, grade or size
\n     of coal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. The  central Government\t may, by
\n     notification   in\t  the\tofficial
\n     Gazette, fix  (the\t sale  price  at
\n     which, or\tthe maximum  sale price,
\n     or both)  subject to which coal may
\n     be sold  by colliery owners and any
\n     such notification may fix different
\n     prices-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) for  different classes,  grades
\n     and sizes of coal; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) for different collieries.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Item No.20 of the notification dated 1.1.1989, which is
\nimpugned in the present proceedings, read as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “A premium\t of 10%\t over and above.
\n     the prices\t given in  Table  II  of
\n     this notification\twill be\t charged
\n     by\t coal\tcompanies  on-coals   of
\n     Grades A,B,C  & D supplies from the
\n     collieries listed\tin the\tAnnexure
\n     to this notification.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The grievance of the present appellant-writ petitioners
\nbefore the  High Court\twas that though same quality of coal
\nas comprised  in grades\t A,B,C &  D was\t being\tsupplied  by
\ndifferent collieries,  10%  premium  over  price  was  being
\ncharged only  by some  of the  collieries as per Item No.20.
\nAccording to  the writ\tpetitioners, there  was no choice of
\ncolliery from  which  they  had\t to  purchase  coal  at\t the
\nrelevant time  as their\t choice was fettered by the decision
\nof the\tlinkage committee compelling the writ petitioners to
\npurchase   coal\t   from\t  a    particular   colliery.\tShri
\nK.K.Venugopal, learned\tsenior\tcounsel\t appearing  for\t the
\nappellant in civil appeal No. 2245 of 1996, which is treated
\nas the\tleading appeal, vehemently contended that the cement
\nmanufacturing plants  in the  western region  of the country
\nhad not\t been given linkage by the linkage committee to lift
\ncoal from  collieries  situated\t nearby\t which\twere  within
\nreasonable distance,  but they were forced to take coal from
\ncollieries situated in Madhya Pradesh wherein the respondent
\nauthorities were  requiring the collieries, treating them as
\npremium collieries,  to charge\t10% extra  on the  price  of
\nevery grade  of coal  supplied to  consumers like  the\twrit
\npetitioners. It\t was the  contention of the writ petitioners
\nbefore the High Court in these writ petitions that A,B,C and
\nD grades  of coal produced from any colliery were of similar
\nquality and,  therefore, their\tprices had  to\tbe  similar.
\nCharging of  higher price  in respect of coal purchased from
\ncertain\t collieries   like  the\t  premium   collieries\t was
\ndiscriminatory and  violative of  the right guaranteed under
\nArticle 14  of\tthe  Constitution  of  India.  It  was\talso
\ncontended that\tpremium was  not a  price and Union of India
\nhad no\tlegal right to impose premium. It was submitted that
\nin fact charging anything over and above the price fixed was
\nan offence  punishable under  the Act. It was also contended
\nthat while  fixing the price and imposing 10% premium on all
\nthese grades  of  coal\tmanufactured  and  supplied  by\t the
\npremium collieries,  relevant material\thad not\t been  taken
\ninto consideration and in an arbitrary manner and relying on
\nan irrelevant consideration, 10% premium was fixed for being
\ncharged to  the consumers  of coal supplied by these premium
\ncollieries. It\twas, therefore, contended that Item No.20 of
\nthe impugned  notification ultra  vires the Constitution. It
\nwas  also  additionally\t contended  that  clause  4  of\t the
\nColliery Control  Order did  not provide  for nor did it lay
\ndown any  guidelines, more or less, for the fixation of coal
\nprice. It was, therefore, ultra vires.\n<\/p>\n
     All these\twrit petitions\twere heard  in common  by  a
\nDivision Bench of the High Court at Jabalpur. The contesting
\nparties produced  material in  support of  their  respective
\ncases. We  are told that the hearing of these writ petitions
\nwas spread over a week or so. However, at the final stage of
\narguments before  the Division\tBench of  the High  Court, a
\nclear stand was taken by learned counsel for the respondents\n<\/p>\n
– namely, Union of India, Coal Indian Ltd. – a Govt. Company
\nand South-Eastern  Coal Fields Ltd. – a Govt. company, which
\nwere supplying\tthe disputed quantity and quality of coal to
\nthe  consumers\tlike  the  writ\t petitioners  and  the\tcoal
\ncontroller who\twas functioning\t under the  Colliery Control
\nOrder –\t that the  grievance made  by the petitioners was of
\nacademic nature\t as it\twas open  to the  consumers of\tcoal
\nconcerned to lift coal from any colliery of their choice and
\nit was not compulsory for such a consumer to indent coal for
\nTheir  factory\tonly  from  a  premium\tcolliery  which\t was
\ncharging 10% extra price on the quality of the coal supplied
\nto these  consumers. Of\t course, the High Court noted in the
\nimpugned judgment  that\t the  main  grievance  of  the\twrit
\npetitioners was\t that they  had no  choice  as\tfar  as\t the
\npurchase of  coal was  concerned. It  could not\t be disputed
\nthat  coal   was  a   controlled  commodity  and  it  was  a
\nmonopolised trade in the hands of Government or governmental
\nagencies during\t the  relevant\ttime.  It  was\tthe  linkage
\ncommittee which\t allotted collieries  to the bulk consumers.
\nIt was\tthis  linkage  committee  which\t allotted  racks  of
\nrailway wagons\tfor supplying of coal from collieries to the
\nbulk consumers.\t Because of  the monitoring  by the  linkage
\ncommittee, consumers  of coal like the writ petitioners were
\ncompelled to  purchase coal from collieries situated at long
\ndistances wherein  unwillingly they  had to  pay  10%  extra
\npremium price  for the\tsame quality of coal which otherwise
\ncould have  been supplied  to them by non-premium collieries
\nsituated nearby.  An attempt  was also made on behalf of the
\nrespondents before  the High  Court to justify the charge of
\n10% more  premium on  A,B,C and D grades of coal supplied by
\nthese premium  collieries. It  was submitted  that the\tcoal
\nbeing of  proper quality  as supplied by premium collieries,
\ncharging of  10% more  by way  of price\t of  such  coal\t was
\nlegally justified and was not arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
     These rival  contentions would  have required  the High
\nCourt to  closely examine  the challenge  to this  10% extra
\ncharge on A,B,C and D grades of coal supplied by the premium
\ncollieries but\taccording to  the  High\t Court\tit  was\t not
\nnecessary to  go into  this wider question as it was told by
\nlearned senior counsel for the respondents that there was no
\ncompulsion for\tthe writ petitioners to lift coal from these
\ncollieries which  were premium collieries and they were free
\nto purchase  coal from\tany other  colliery  which  was\t not
\ncharging 10%  extra price by way of premium. Heavily relying
\nupon the  said submission  of learned senior counsel for the
\nrespondents, which,  we are  told, was also the stand of the
\nrespondents in their counter filed before the High Court, in
\nthe impugned common judgment at paragraph 13, the High Court
\nobserved as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “….in  view  of\tthe  categorical
\n     statement\tmade   by  the\t learned
\n     counsel for  the respondents, it is
\n     no longer\tnecessary for  us to  go
\n     into   this    question.\tIt   was
\n     contended by  the petitioners  that
\n     premium is\t not a price and Central
\n     Govt.  has\t  no  power   to  impose
\n     premium. Various  dictionaries were
\n     referred to  us so as to bring home
\n     the meaning  of the word ‘premium’.
\n     And  this\t Court’s  interim  order
\n     dated 16.3.1992,  was also\t brought
\n     to our  notice. We\t would\tlike  to
\n     make it  clear that since it is not
\n     necessary to  dwell  at  length  on
\n     this  point,   in\t view\tof   the
\n     statement made  at the  Bar by  the
\n     respondent’s  counsel,   Sri   Nair
\n     contention on  this point as raised
\n     by the  petitioners  are  virtually
\n     rendered pure academics.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Accordingly, the  High Court  without addressing itself
\nto this\t moot question which went to the root of the matter,
\nin the\tlight of  the aforesaid\t stand taken  by the learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the\t respondents, disposed\tof the\twrit
\npetitions, in  terms of\t paragraphs 14 and 15, which read as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “14.  The\tstatement  made\t by  the
\n     learned counsel  Shri Abhay  Supre,
\n     that Cl.  IV  of  the  notification
\n     provides  unguided\t  and  arbitrary
\n     power in  the matter of fixation of
\n     price need\t not to\t be discussed in
\n     detail  as\t  the  real  controversy
\n     involved in the case, a stand (sic)
\n     relied by the statement made by the
\n     respondents’ counsel at the Bar. In
\n     view of  the foregoing  discussion,
\n     we\t are   of  the\t view  that   no
\n     interference is  called for  in the
\n     matter of\tcharging of  premium  of
\n     10%  as   part  of\t price\tof  coal
\n     produced from certain collieries.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     15. The  petitions are,  therefore,
\n     dismissed\twith   no  order  as  to
\n     costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We may state that in these appeals, further documentary
\nevidence has  been adduced  by both the sides for supporting
\ntheir respective cases on merits.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned  senior   counsel,\t Shri  Venugopal  and  other
\nlearned advocates  who raised  similar\tcontentions  in\t the
\ncompanion appeals,  submitted that  even though, prima fair,
\nprice fixation may be taken as a legislative function, it is
\nnow well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that
\nwhen  price   fixation\tis   challenged\t as   arbitrary\t and
\nunreasonable, the  court has  ample jurisdiction  to go into
\nthis question  and examine  the impugned price policy on the
\ntouchstone of  Article 14  of the  Constitution of India. In
\nthis connection,  Shri\tVenugopal,  learned  senior  counsel
\ninvited our  attention to the observations of the High Court
\nin Paragraph  13 of  the judgment,  wherein it was held that
\n“price fixation\t is neither  the function  nor forte  of the
\ncourt. It  is neither concerned with the policy nor with the
\nrate, it  si left  to the  discretion of  the executive”. He
\nsubmitted that\tthe aforesaid  statement of  law culled\t out
\nfrom the  decisions of\tthis Court, is a partial enunciation
\nof the\tlegal principle.  It was  submitted that despite the
\nfact  that   this  pricing   policy  was  in  the  realm  of
\nlegislative exercise  if the policy is shown to be violative
\nof Article  14 of the Constitution of India as unreasonable,
\narbitrary or  involving non-application\t of mind to relevant
\nconsiderations or  based on  irrelevant\t considerations,  it
\ncould be challenged in court. To that extent, learned senior
\ncounsel, Shri  Venugopal is  right. In\tfact, in fairness to
\nlearned senior\tcounsel for  the  respondents,\tit  must  be
\nstated that  he did  not challenge  the locus  standi of the
\nwrit petitioners to mount such a challenge under Article 226
\nof the\tConstitution of\t India. But  his submission was that
\neven during  the relevant  time it  was\t open  to  the\twrit
\npetitioners to\tpurchase coal  from any\t colliery  of  their
\nchoice which  was a  non-premium colliery.  The\t said  stand
\ntaken in  the counter  before the  High Court  and which was
\nreiterated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents
\nbefore the  High Court and was also reiterated before us. It
\nwas  also  contended  that  there  was\tnothing\t illegal  or
\nunreasonable in\t charging 10% more for A,B,C and D grades of
\ncoal by\t the premium collieries, as according to the learned
\nsenior counsel\tfor the respondents, relevant considerations
\nwere kept  in view  by the  pricing authorities in coming to
\nthe aforesaid  conclusion  about  charging  10%\t more.\tShri
\nVenugopal challenged  the said\tstand of  learned counsel or
\nthe respondents\t by submitting\tthat because  of the linkage
\ncommittee’s restrictions, writ petitioners had no choice but
\nto lift coal from respondent no.4 colliery located in Madhya
\nPradesh, otherwise their manufacturing activities would have
\ncome to a grinding halt and, therefore, it was a misnomer to
\nsay that  it was  open to  the writ  petitioners to purchase
\ncoal from  non-premium collieries  as they liked. He further
\ncontended that\tfor the\t purpose of  utilisation of  coal as
\nessential raw  material in  their plant, different grades of
\ncoal are  required. Classification  of coal by grade is made
\naccording to  the standard  specified by the Indian Standard
\nSpecification  depending   upon\t the   inherent\t  ingredient
\ncontents of  coal. Before  such gradation  is determined  in
\nrespect of  any particular  type of  coal, there is always a
\ntesting process. Through such testing process, the gradation
\nof coal\t is fixed  and once such a gradation is fixed, there
\nis no,\tnor can there be any, question of further testing or
\nrelaxing the  classification already  made.  Learned  senior
\ncounsel for  the respondents  on the  other hand pointed out
\nthat even  on merits  it could not be said that the 10% hike
\nin price for different grades of coal supplied by Respondent
\nno.4 colliery  viz. the\t premium colliery  was\tin  any\t way
\nirrational as  the coal\t supplied by  the said\tcolliery  as
\ncompared to  non-premium collieries had a better quality, as
\nit had greater lasting, fuel heat value and consequently the
\nsaid 10%  premium charged  by the premium colliery could not
\nbe said\t to be\tviolative of  guarantee of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of\t India.\t It  was  submitted  that  the\twrit
\npetitioners themselves\tpaid this  10% extra charge  on\t the
\ncoal lifted  by them  during the  period from  1.1.1989 till
\n1991 when  they filed  the writ petitions in the High Court.
\nIt is also submitted that from 1st April, 1996, coal has not
\nremained a  controlled commodity  and it is easily available
\nas raw\tmaterial in  the open  market and  consequently, the
\ngrievance made\tby the\twrit petitioners  has become more or
\nless academic  and is confined only to the aforesaid limited
\nperiod from  1.1.1989 to  31.3.1996 or\tup to  31.8.1996  as
\nsubmitted by  the learned  senior counsel Shri Venugopal for
\nthe appellant-writ petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  view, the\taforesaid  rival  contentions  would
\nsquarely pose  the main question whether the charging of 105
\npremium over  the price\t given in  Table II  to the impugned
\nnotification can  be  treated  to  be  so  unreasonable\t and
\narbitrary as to fall foul on the touchstone of Article 14 of
\nthe  Constitution  of  India.  For  deciding  the  aforesaid
\nquestion, evidence  was led by the contesting parties before
\nthe High Court and more voluminous evidence is led before us
\nby  the\t  contesting  parties  in  these  appeals.  However,
\nunfortunately, the  High Court\tin the impugned judgment has
\nnot thought  it fit  to address itself to this moot question
\npresumably because  of the  stand as taken by learned senior
\ncounsel for the respondents on the basis of counter filed in
\nthe High  Court on  their behalf  that the  grievance of the
\nwrit petitioners was academic as it was free for them not to
\npurchase coal  from these  premium collieries  by paying 105
\nmore and they could well purchase coal from other collieries
\nwhich were  supplying requisite\t coal  to  them\t at  cheaper
\nrates. It  is this  stand which,  as we\t have noted earlier,
\nappealed to  the  High\tCourt  for  disposing  of  the\twrit
\npetitions  without   going  into   the\tmain   question\t  in
\ncontroversy between  the parties  as aforesaid.\t it is\ttrue
\nthat the  stand of the respondents before the High Court was
\nthat it\t was not  compulsory for  the  writ  petitioners  to
\npurchase coal  from premium collieries. it is also true that
\nthe same  stand is  reiterated before  us by  learned senior
\ncounsel for  the respondents.  But the real grievance of the
\nwrit petitioners  which unfortunately  remained unnoticed by
\nthe High Court is that during the relevant period with which
\nwe  are\t  concerned  in\t the  present  proceedings,  from  a
\npractical point\t of view,  it was  almost impossible for the
\nwrit petitioners  to lift  the coal  from any other colliery
\nexcept from  these premium  collieries on account of various
\nproblems faced\tby  the\t writ  petitioner  manufacturers  of
\ncement\tas  tried  to  be  high-lighted\t before\t us  in\t the
\nadditional affidavit filed on behalf of the writ petitioners
\nin Civil  Appeal No.2245 of 1996 at pages 265 to 268. It was
\ncontended before us in the light of the aforesaid grievances
\ncategorised in the said additional affidavit that during the
\nrelevant time  production, distribution and sale of coal was
\na monopoly  of the  Union of  India and\t that this power was
\nconferred under\t the Colliery  Control Order  of  1945.\t The
\nquotas of coal were allotted by Central Government under the
\nsaid Order to the consumers of coal. The bulk transportation
\nof coal\t was also  under the control of Union of India in as
\nmuch as\t the same could only be done through railways as the
\nrailways are  the monopoly  of the Union of India. The price
\nat which  the coal  had to  be sold was fixed by the Central
\nGovernment in  the said\t Order of 1945. The quantity of coal
\nallotted to  bulk of consumers like the writ petitioners was
\nadmittedly being  controlled by the linkage committee of the
\nCentral Government  since the  last number of years. Because
\nof the\tdirection of the linkage committee the coal allotted
\nto the\twrit petitioners  had to be lifted from the colliery
\nassigned to  it by  the said committee. Therefore, there was
\nno choice  left to  the writ  petitioners in connection with
\nlifting\t of  coal  from\t the  colliery\tconcerned.  It\twas,
\ntherefore, submitted  that it would not be correct to assume
\nas done\t by the\t High Court  that the  grievance of the writ
\npetitioners was imaginary or of academic nature.\n<\/p>\n
     Having given  our anxious\tconsideration to  the  rival
\ncontentions, we\t have reached  the conclusion  that the High
\nCourt simply  assumed that  the main  grievance of  the writ
\npetitioners against  105 hike in price by way of premium was
\nonly of\t academic nature.  The High  Court had also not gone
\ninto the  question whether  the said  grievance\t was  really
\nacademic in  view of  the difficulties tried to be projected
\nby the\twrit petitioners  in that  connection and which were
\nhighlighted before  us by the aforesaid additional affidavit
\nof the\tappellants in the leading appeal. Similar grievances
\nwere voiced  before us\tby  learned  counsel  of  the  other
\nappellants whose writ petitions were also disposed of by the
\ncommon judgment.  Therefore, it\t was for  the High  Court to
\nconsider whether  the grievance\t of the writ petitioners had
\nbecome really  academic in  nature and\tif  it\twas  not  of
\nacademic nature,  then the  question regarding the merits of
\nthe pricing  policy in\tthe light  of  the  limited  inquiry
\nwhich was  required to\tbe undertaken  on the  touchstone of
\nArticle 14  of the constitution of India had to be gone into
\nby the\tHigh Court  on a  consideration\t of  the  voluminous
\nevidence produced  before it  by the  respective parties  in
\nsupport of their rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, without  expressing any  opinion  on\t the
\nmerits of  the controversy  between the\t parties, we deem it
\nfit to\tset aside  the impugned\t common judgment and restore
\nall the\t writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners before
\nthe High Court in their original numbers for decision of the
\nHigh Court  on\tmerits.\t The  High  Court  is  requested  to
\nconsider the question whether the impugned premium of 10% as
\ncharged by  the respondents from the writ petitioners is, in
\nany way,  violative of\tguarantee under\t Article 14  of\t the
\nConstitution of\t India and  also to  go\t into  the  question
\nwhether the  said grievance  of\t the  writ  petitioners\t was
\nreally academic\t in nature or was a subsisting one requiring
\nadjudication by\t the court. All these questions will have to
\nbe considered by the High Court in the remanded proceedings.
\nWe would  also request\tthe High  Court to  decide all these
\nquestions including  the main controversy on merits, even if
\nafter hearing  the parties concerned, the High Court is once
\nagain inclined\tto take\t the view  that the grievance of the
\npetitioners was\t of academic  nature. In  that case the High
\nCourt  may   examine  the   said  main\t grievance  in\t the
\nalternative. This  request is  made to the High Court in the
\ncase  its   decision  on   the\tacademic   nature  of\twrit
\npetitioner’s  grievance\t gets  upset  in  the  hierarchy  of
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result, the  appeals are  allowed,\t the  common
\njudgment and orders of the High Court are set aside. All the
\nwrit petitions\tare restored  to the files of the High Court
\nwith a\trequest to  proceed with the same in accordance with
\nlaw and\t in the\t light of observations made herein. Whatever
\nevidence was  led by  the respective  parties in  support of
\ntheir cases  in the  High Court\t in these writ petitions and
\nwhatever further  evidence and\tmaterial may  be led  by the
\nrespective parties  in\tthe  remanded  proceedings  will  of
\ncourse be  examined by\tthe High Court. It will also be open
\nto contesting  parties to  produce the\tmaterial adduced  in
\nthese appeals for the consideration of the High Court in the
\nremanded proceedings.  We may  also make  it clear  that all
\nlegally permissible  contentions  will\tbe  open  for  being
\ncanvassed  by\tthe  respective\t  contesting   parties\t for
\nconsideration of  the High  Court. As  the writ petitions of
\n1991 are  being restored  to the files of the High Court, we
\nrequest the High Court to make it convenient to decide these
\nwrit petitions\tat the\tearliest, preferably within a period
\nof six\tmonths from  the receipt  of the copy of this order.
\nThe registry  of this  court is directed to communicate this
\norder to  the Registrar of the High Court for bringing it to
\nthe notice  of the  Hon’ble Chief  Justice of the High Court
\nfor doing the needful.\n<\/p>\n
Before parting\twith these  appeals, we\t may mention that at
\nthe SLP\t stage in  these group of matters, ad interim relief
\nwas  given   which  was\t confirmed  pending  these  appeals.
\nIdentical interim  orders in  these group of appeals read as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “The respondents are injuncted from
\n     stopping the  delivery of\tcoal  to
\n     the petitioners  on the ground that
\n     the amount\t of premium  claimed  by
\n     the  respondents\tfor  the  period
\n     subsequent to  1st March, 1992, has
\n     not been  paid.  It  is  also  made
\n     clear that\t in the event, under the
\n     terms   of\t  the\tstatement,   the
\n     petitioners   choose    any   other
\n     colliery where  premium is payable,
\n     such premium shall be paid.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     while granting special leave to appeal on 18th January,
\n1996, a\t bench of  the two  learned Judges  of\tthis  Court,
\npassed further\tinterim orders\tin connection  with security
\ndeposits furnished  by the writ petitioner-appellants to the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  pointed out  that\talthough
\n     counsel   on    behalf    of    the
\n     respondents was present in Court on
\n     31st May,\t1993 when interim orders
\n     were passed,  the respondents  have
\n     contended that  they  received  the
\n     interim orders  only on  3rd  June,
\n     1993 and,\tin  the\t meantime,  have
\n     adjusted the  deposits made  by the
\n     appellants\t against   demands   for
\n     premium,  which   is  the\tsubject-
\n     matter  of\t  the  appeals.\t  Having
\n     regard to\tthe fact that counsel on
\n     behalf  of\t  the  respondents   was
\n     present on\t 31st May, 1993 when the
\n     interim  order   was  issued,  this
\n     stand of  the respondents\tdoes not
\n     appear  to\t  be  justified\t and  no
\n     supplies to  the appellants  can be
\n     held  up  upon  that  basis.  Until
\n     further order, the deposits made by
\n     the appellants  in\t their\tentirety
\n     shall continue  to\t be  treated  as
\n     deposits.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid interim orders have continued through out
\nto operate  in the  present group  of matters till date. We,
\ntherefore, deem\t it fit\t to direct  that  the  said  interim
\nreliefs in the aforesaid terms will continue to operate till
\nthe final  disposal of\tthe remanded  writ petitions  by the
\nHigh Court and will abide by the ultimate decisions rendered
\nby the\tHigh Court in the said writ petitions. It is obvious
\nthat while disposing off the writ petitions finally, it will
\nbe  open  to  the  High\t Court\tto  pass  appropriate  final
\ndirections as it may deem fit and proper in the light of its
\ndecisions in  the writ\tpetitions. The\tappeals are  allowed
\naccordingly. There  is no order as to costs in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     W.P. (C) No.557 of 1993:\n<\/p>\n
     The above\twrit petition has been moved directly before
\nus under  Article  32  of  the\tConstitution  of  India\t for
\ndeclaring the impugned clause of the said notification dated
\n30th December, 1988 as ultra vires  to the extent it imposed
\npremium on  coal of the collieries listed in the Annexure to
\nthe said  notification.\t As  we\t are  remanding\t other\twrit
\npetitions, as  indicated earlier,  to  the  High  Court\t for
\ndisposal on  merits, we reserve liberty to the petitioner of
\nthis writ  petition to\tfile a\tfresh  writ  petition  under
\nArticle 226  of the  Constitution of  India before  the High
\nCourt within  six weeks from today. If such writ petition is
\nfiled within  the aforesaid  period, it will be clubbed with
\nthe remanded  writ petitions and will be decided by the High
\nCourt along with them as the questions involved therein will
\nbe common  to all  of them including the writ petition to be
\nfiled by writ petitioner M\/s H.M.P. Cements pursuant to this
\norder. The  interim reliefs, given in W.P.(C) No.557\/93 will
\nalso continue to operate till the final disposal of the writ
\npetitions if  filed by\tthe petitioner\tas per present order
\nand will  abide by the ultimate decision rendered therein by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is disposal of accordingly subject to
\nthe aforesaid  liberty given  to the  petitioner and without
\ngoing into  the merits of the contentions raised in the writ
\npetition and keeping them open for consideration of the High
\nCourt in  the  writ  petition  that  may  be  filed  by\t the
\npetitioner.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 Author: S.B. Majmudar Bench: S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/08\/1998 BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO ACT: HEADNOTE: […]<\/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-243795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - 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\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\" \/>\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=\"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-05T19:49:57+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\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998\",\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T19:49:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\"},\"wordCount\":4527,\"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\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\",\"name\":\"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T19:49:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998\"}]},{\"@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":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - 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\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-05T19:49:57+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\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998","datePublished":"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T19:49:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998"},"wordCount":4527,"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\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998","name":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1998-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T19:49:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-ambuja-cement-ltd-anr-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-21-august-1998#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 1998"}]},{"@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\/243795","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=243795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}