{"id":245006,"date":"2000-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000"},"modified":"2017-02-05T13:13:29","modified_gmt":"2017-02-05T07:43:29","slug":"food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shah<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M.B. Shah, D.P. Mohapatra.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nA. PRAHALADA RAO AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. Shah, &amp; D.P. Mohapatra.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Shah, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    The\t notice\t issued\t by  this Court is  limited  to\t the<br \/>\ninterpretation\tgiven by the High Court to Regulation 60  of<br \/>\nthe  Food  Corporation\tof India (Staff)  Regulations,\t1971<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t the  Regulations)   which<br \/>\nprescribes  the procedure for imposing minor penalties.\t  In<br \/>\nWrit   Petition\t No.14152  of\t1989  filed  by\t  respondent<br \/>\nNo.1-Assistant\t Manager  (Quality   Control)  at   Kakinada<br \/>\nchallenging  the  order\t imposing  penalty  of\trecovery  of<br \/>\nRs.7356\/-  from\t his  pay by 21 monthly instalments  on\t the<br \/>\nground\tof  dereliction of his duties, which caused loss  to<br \/>\nthe  Corporation,  learned Single Judge held that  once\t the<br \/>\nemployee  denies  the  charge,\tit  is\tincumbent  upon\t the<br \/>\nauthorities  to conduct an inquiry by giving an\t opportunity<br \/>\nto  him and render findings on the charges, otherwise  there<br \/>\nis  every scope for the disciplinary authority to misuse the<br \/>\npower  under Regulation 60.  The Court, therefore, set aside<br \/>\nthe   order   imposing\tminor\tpenalty\t as  the   procedure<br \/>\ncontemplated  for  imposing major penalty was not  followed.<br \/>\nIn  appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment<br \/>\nand  order  dated 18th November, 1997 confirmed the same  by<br \/>\nobservingwhere\tthe  employee  disputes that any  loss\tis<br \/>\ncaused to the Corporation either by his negligence or breach<br \/>\nof  order,  and\t if  so, how much pecuniary  loss  has\tbeen<br \/>\nincurred,  it  is  but necessary that an enquiry  should  be<br \/>\nconducted, otherwise it is impossible to arrive at a correct<br \/>\nfinding\t with regard to the causing of loss by the  employee<br \/>\nby  his negligence or breach of order and with regard to the<br \/>\nquantum\t of  loss.  The aforesaid interpretation  of  Rules<br \/>\ngiven by the High Court is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    For deciding the question involved, we would first refer<br \/>\nto  the\t relevant procedure prescribed under Regulations  54<br \/>\nand 60 which read thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t54. MINOR PENALTIES:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) Censure;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) withholding of his promotion;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (iii)  recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any<br \/>\npecuniary  loss\t caused\t by  him   to  the  Corporation\t  by<br \/>\nnegligence or breach of orders;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) withholding of increments of pay.\n<\/p>\n<p>60. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (1)\t Subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (3)  of<br \/>\nRegulation  59, no order imposing on an employee any of\t the<br \/>\npenalties  specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54<br \/>\nshall be made except after:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (a) informing the employee in writing of the proposal to<br \/>\ntake action against him and of the imputations of misconduct<br \/>\nor  misbehaviour  on which it is proposed to be\t taken,\t and<br \/>\ngiving\t him  a\t reasonable   opportunity  of  making\tsuch<br \/>\nrepresentation as he may wish to make against the proposal;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (b)\t holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in\tSub-<br \/>\nregulations  (3) to (23) of Regulation 58, in every case  in<br \/>\nwhich the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such<br \/>\ninquiry is necessary;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (c)\t taking the representation, if any, submitted by the<br \/>\nemployee under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any,<br \/>\nheld under clause (b) into consideration;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct<br \/>\nor misbehaviour.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (2)\t Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of<br \/>\nSub-  regulation  (1),\tif in a case it is  proposed,  after<br \/>\nconsidering the representation, if any, made by the employee<br \/>\nunder\tclause\t(a)  of\t  the  sub-regulation,\tto  withhold<br \/>\nincrement  of  pay  and such withholding  of  increments  is<br \/>\nlikely to affect adversely the amount of retirement benefits<br \/>\npayable\t to the employee or to withhold increments of a\t pay<br \/>\nfor  a period exceeding 3 years or to withhold increments of<br \/>\npay  with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall<br \/>\nbe  held  in the manner laid down in Sub-regulations (3)  to<br \/>\n(23)  of  Regulation 58 before making any order imposing  on<br \/>\nthe employee any such penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>    (3)\t The  record of the proceedings in such cases  shall<br \/>\ninclude:\n<\/p>\n<p>    (i)\t a  copy  of the intimation to the employee  of\t the<br \/>\nproposal to take action against him;\n<\/p>\n<p>    (ii)  a  copy  of  the   statement\tof  imputations\t  of<br \/>\nmisconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>    (iii) his representation, if any;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    (v)\t the  findings on each imputation of  misconduct  or<br \/>\nmisbehaviour;  and<\/p>\n<p>    (vi)  the  orders on the case together with the  reasons<br \/>\ntherefor.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel  appearing on behalf of the  appellants<br \/>\nsubmitted  that\t while interpreting Regulation 60, the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  has added a proviso by stating that when the employee<br \/>\ndisputes  his  liability  after receipt of  the\t show  cause<br \/>\nnotice,\t it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority  to<br \/>\nconduct a detailed enquiry as provided for major punishment.<br \/>\nIt is his contention that in case of negligence in discharge<br \/>\nof  duties  or\tloss  occurred to  the\tCorporation  by\t not<br \/>\nfollowing  the\tdirections  issued by  the  Corporation\t for<br \/>\ntaking\t precautions,  there  is  no  question\tof   holding<br \/>\nfull-fledged  departmental  enquiry  before  imposing  minor<br \/>\npenalty\t as  provided  in Regulation 54.  As  against  this,<br \/>\nrespondent  No.2-Joint Secretary, Food Corporation of  India<br \/>\nExecutive  Staff Union who appeared in person submitted that<br \/>\nunder  the guise of imposing minor penalties, the Management<br \/>\nof   appellant\tis  dispensing\t with  holding\tof   regular<br \/>\ndepartmental  enquiry  in  cases  where\t charges  cannot  be<br \/>\nproved.\t  He  further pointed out that there is large  scale<br \/>\nmisuse\tof powers under the said Regulation and,  therefore,<br \/>\nthe  interpretation  given  by the High Court  to  the\tsaid<br \/>\nRegulation does not call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tour  view, on the basis of the allegation that\tFood<br \/>\nCorporation of India is misusing its power of imposing minor<br \/>\npenalties,  the Regulation cannot be interpreted contrary to<br \/>\nits language.  Regulation 60(1)(b) mandates the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority  to  form its opinion whether it is  necessary  to<br \/>\nhold  enquiry  in a particular case or not.  But that  would<br \/>\nnot  mean  that\t in all cases where  employee  disputes\t his<br \/>\nliability,   a\t full-fledged  enquiry\t should\t  be   held.<br \/>\nOtherwise,  the\t entire\t purpose  of  incorporating  summary<br \/>\nprocedure  for imposing minor penalties would be frustrated.<br \/>\nIf the discretion given under Regulation 60(1)(b) is misused<br \/>\nor  is\texercised  in arbitrary manner, it is  open  to\t the<br \/>\nemployee to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.<br \/>\nIt  is\tfor  the disciplinary authority\t to  decide  whether<br \/>\nregular\t  departmental\t enquiry   as\tcontemplated   under<br \/>\nRegulation  58 for imposing major penalty should be followed<br \/>\nor   not.    This   discretion\t cannot\t be   curtailed\t  by<br \/>\ninterpretation\twhich  is  contrary to\tthe  language  used.<br \/>\nFurther,  Regulation 60(2) itself provides that in a case if<br \/>\nit  is\tproposed  to  withhold increments of  pay  and\tsuch<br \/>\nwithholding  of increments is likely to affect adversely the<br \/>\namount\tof  retirement benefits payable to employee  and  in<br \/>\nsuch  other  cases  as mentioned therein,  the\tdisciplinary<br \/>\nauthority  shall  hold\tenquiry in the manner laid  down  in<br \/>\nRegulation  58\tbefore\tmaking any order imposing  any\tsuch<br \/>\npenalty.   Hence, it is apparent that High Court erroneously<br \/>\ninterpreted the regulation by holding that once the employee<br \/>\ndenies\tthe  charge, it is incumbent upon the  authority  to<br \/>\nconduct enquiry contemplated for imposing major penalty.  It<br \/>\nalso  erred in holding that where employee denies that\tloss<br \/>\nis  caused  to the Corporation either by his  negligence  or<br \/>\nbreach of order, such enquiry should be held.  It is settled<br \/>\nlaw  that Courts power of judicial review in such cases\t is<br \/>\nlimited and Court can interfere where the authority held the<br \/>\nenquiry\t proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules<br \/>\nof  natural  justice  or  in violation\tof  statutory  rules<br \/>\nprescribing  the mode of enquiry and imposing punishment  or<br \/>\nwhere  the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary<br \/>\nauthority  is  based  on  no evidence or  is  such  that  no<br \/>\nreasonable  person  would  have ever reached.\tAs  per\t the<br \/>\nRegulation,  holding  of regular departmental enquiry  is  a<br \/>\ndiscretionary  power of the disciplinary authority which  is<br \/>\nto be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if<br \/>\nit  is\tmisused or used arbitrarily, it would be subject  to<br \/>\njudicial review.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe  result, the appeal is allowed to the  aforesaid<br \/>\nextent.\t There shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 Author: Shah Bench: M.B. Shah, D.P. Mohapatra. PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: A. PRAHALADA RAO AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/11\/2000 BENCH: M.B. Shah, &amp; D.P. Mohapatra. JUDGMENT: Shah, J. Leave [&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-245006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - 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\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-05T07:43:29+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T07:43:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1319,\"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\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\",\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-05T07:43:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - 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\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-05T07:43:29+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T07:43:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000"},"wordCount":1319,"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\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000","name":"Food Corporation Of India, ... vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-05T07:43:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-a-prahalada-rao-and-another-on-1-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Food Corporation Of India, &#8230; vs A. Prahalada Rao And Another on 1 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/245006","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=245006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}