{"id":25366,"date":"1961-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"modified":"2016-03-28T08:41:56","modified_gmt":"2016-03-28T03:11:56","slug":"shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR, 8\t\t 1962 SCR (1) 886<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRI MADHAV LAXMAN VAIKUNTHE V.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MYSORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nDAS, S.K.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR    8\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 886\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1966 SC1529\t (3,5,9,12)\n R\t    1971 SC 766\t (7)\n F\t    1972 SC2638\t (3)\n R\t    1974 SC 338\t (8)\n R\t    1974 SC 423\t (18)\n RF\t    1976 SC1766\t (12)\n RF\t    1976 SC2547\t (21)\n RF\t    1980 SC1773\t (9)\n R\t    1992 SC2009\t (9)\n\n\nACT:\nPublic\t Servant-Reversion  to\tsubstantive   rank--if\t and\nPunishment-Test--Recovery  of arrears of  salary--Limitation\nGovernment  of\tIndia  Act,  1935 (26  Geo..5,\tCh.  2),  S.\n240(3)--Constitution\tof   lndia,   Art.    311(2)--Indian\nLimitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), art. 102.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t who held the rank of a\t Mamllatdar  in\t the\nfirst\tgrade  and  was\t officiating  as   District   Deputy\nCollector,  was alleged to have wrongly\t charged  travelling\nallowance for 59 miles instead of 51 and was, as the  result\nof a departmental enquiry, reverted to his substantive\trank\nfor three years and\n887\ndirected to refund the excess be had charged.  He made a re-\npresentation  to  the  Government  which  was  of  no  avail\nalthough the Accountant General was of the opinion that\t the\nappellant  had\tnot  overcharged  and  committed  no  fraud.\nUltimately the appellant was promoted to the selection grade\nbut  the order of reversion remained effective and  affected\nhis  position in the selection grade.  After  retirement  he\nbrought a suit for a declaration that the order of reversion\nwas void and for recovery of Rs. 12, 516 and odd as  arrears\nof  salary,  allowances,  etc.,\t with  interest\t and  future\ninterest.  The trial court held that there was no compliance\nwith the provisions of s. 240(3) of the Government of  India\nAct,  1935, granted the declaration but refused the  arrears\nclaimed.   The\tplaintiff filed an appeal and  the  State  a\ncross-objection and the High Court dismissed the appeal\t and\nallowed\t the  cross-objection,\tholding that  the  order  of\nreversion  was\tnot a punishment within the  meaning  of  S.\n240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.\nHeld,  that  the matter was covered by the  observations  of\nthis  Court in Purshottam Lal Dhingra's case and of the\t two\ntests  of punishment laid (town by this Court,\tnamely,\t (1)\nwhether\t the servant had a right to the rank or (2)  whether\nhe  had\t been  visited\tby evil\t consequences  of  the\tkind\nspecified  therein,  the  second  certainly  applied.\t The\nappellant  might  or might not have the right  to  hold\t the\nhigher\tpost,  but  there could be no  doubt  that  the\t was\nvisited\t with evil consequences as a result of the order  of\nreversion.\nMere  deprivation of higher emoluments, however,  in  conse-\nquence of an order of reversion could not by itself  satisfy\nthat  test  which must include such  other  conseqnences  as\nforfeiture of substantive pay and loss of seniority' In\t the\ninstant\t case, by the order of reversion for three years  to\nhis  substantive  post,\t the appellant\tlost  seniority\t and\npromotion and the belated action of the Government could not\nwholly undo the mischief.\nSince  the  requirement of s. 240(3) of\t the  Government  of\nIndia  Act,  1935, which corresponds to Art. 311(2)  of\t the\nConstitution, had not been found to have been fully complied\nwith,  the  order  of reversion must be\t held  to  be  void.\nPurshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India,<\/a> [1958] S.C.R. 826,\napplied.\nThe  claim of arrears of salary was governed by art. 102  of\nthe Indian Limitation Act, and the appellant, therefore, was\nentitled  to no more than what fell due during the  3  years\nprevious to his retirement.\nThe  Punjab Province v. Pandit Tarachand, [1947) F.C.R.\t 89,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CIVIL Appeal No.84 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
888<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 26, 1956.  of
\nthe Bombay, High Court in Appeal No. he 138 of 1956.
\nThe appellant in person.\n<\/p>\n
B. R. L. Ayengar and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
\n1961.  April 12.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSINHA, C. J.-The main question for decision in this  appeal,
\non  a certificate of fitness granted by the’ High  Court  of
\nJudicature  at Bombay, is whether a public servant, who\t has
\nbeen  officiating in a higher post but has been reverted  to
\nhis  substantive  rank\tas a result of\tan  adverse  finding
\nagainst him in a departmental enquiry for misconduct, can be
\nsaid  to have been reduced in rank within the meaning of  s.
\n240(3)\tof the Government of India Act, 1935.\tThe  learned
\nCivil  Judge, Senior Division, by his, Judgment\t and  Decree
\ndated October 31, 1955, held that it was so.  The High Court
\nof  Bombay,  on a first appeal from that  decision,  by\t its
\nJudgment  and  Decree dated July 26, 1956, has held  to\t the
\ncontrary.\n<\/p>\n
In  so far as it is necessary for the determination of\tthis
\nappeal,\t the  facts of this case may shortly  be  stated  as
\nfollows.  The appellant was holding the rank of a  Mamlatdar
\nin the First Grade and Was officiating as a District  Deputy
\nCollector.   In the latter capacity he was functioning as  a
\nDistrict Supplies Officer.  He had to undertake tours in the
\ndischarge  of his official duties for which he maintained  a
\nmotor  car.  In respect of one of his  travelling  allowance
\nbills, it was found that he had charged travelling allowance
\nin respect of 59 miles whereas the correct distance was only
\n51 miles.  A departmental enquiry was held against him as  a
\nresult\tof  which he was reverted to his  original  rank  as
\nMamlatdar,  by virtue of the Order of the  Government  dated
\nAugust\t11,  1948,  (Ex. 35), which  was  to  the  following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “After  careful consideration Government\thave
\n\t      decided  to  revert  you to  Mamlatdar  for  a
\n\t      period of
\n889<\/span>
\n\t      three years and have further directed that you
\n\t      should refund  the excess mileage drawn by you
\n\t      in respect of the three journeys.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant\tmade  a number\tof  representations  to\t the
\nGovernment  challenging\t the  correctness  of  the  findings
\nagainst him and praying for re-consideration of the Order of
\nReversion passed against, him but to no effect, in spite  of
\nthe  fact  that ultimately the Accountant General  gave\t his
\nopinion\t that  the appellant had not  overcharged  and\tthat
\nthere was no fraud involved in the travelling allowance bill
\nwhich was the subject matter of the charge against him.\t But
\nultimately,  by\t a Notification date& March 26,\t 1951,\t(Ex.\n<\/p>\n
61), the appellant was promoted to the Selection Grade\twith
\neffect\tfrom  August  1,  1950, but even  so  the  Order  of
\nReversion  passed against the appellant\t remained  effective
\nand  appears  to have affected his place  in  the  Selection
\nGrade.\t Eventually, the appellant retired from\t service  on
\nsuperannuation with effect from November 28, 1953.  He filed
\nhis suit against the State of Bombay on August 2, 1954,\t for
\na declaration that the Order of the Government dated  August
\n11, 1948, was void, inoperative, wrongful, illegal and ultra
\nvires, and for recovery of Rs. 12,866 odd or account of\t his
\narrears of salary, allowances, etc. with interest and future
\ninterest.   The\t learned  Civil Judge  Senior  Division,  at
\nBelgaum,  came to the conclusion that the first part of\t the
\ndepartmental  enquiry held against the plaintiff leading  up
\nto  the\t findings against him was free from any\t defect\t but
\nthat  he had no been given the opportunity of showing  cause
\nagainst the punishment proposed to be inflicted upon him a a
\nresult of those findings, in so far as no show-cause  notice
\nwas  given to him nor a copy of the enquire, report  showing
\nthe  grounds  on which the findings ha, been  based.   There
\nwas,  thus, according to the finding of the Trial Court,  no
\nfull  compliance with the requirements of s. 240(3)  of\t the
\nGovernment of India Act 1935.  The Court also held that\t the
\nOrder  of Reversion amounted to a penalty imposed  upon\t the
\nplaintiff as a result of the enquiry.  The Court, therefore,
\ncam
\n890<\/span>
\nto  the\t conclusion that the Order aforesaid passed  by\t the
\nGovernment  reverting him to the substantive rank  was\tvoid
\nand  granted him that declaration, but dismissed  his  suit,
\nwith  costs, in respect of the arrears\t Claimed by  him  as
\naforesaid on the ground that it was based on tort and not on
\ncontract.   There was an appeal by the plaintiff in  respect
\nof  the\t dismissal  of his claim  for  arrears,\t and  cross-
\nobjections  by\tthe  State in respect of that  part  of\t the
\njudgment and decree which had granted declaration in  favour
\nof  the plaintiff.  The High Court dismissed the  appeal  by
\nthe  plaintiff and allowed the cross-objections of  the\t de-
\nfendant-respondent  in respect of the declaration, but\tmade
\nno  orders  as\tto the costs of the appeal  and\t the  cross-
\nobjections.    The  High  Court\t held  that  the  Order\t  of
\nReversion,  even  assuming  that it was a  punishment  as  a
\nresult\tof the departmental enquiry against  the  appellant,
\nwas not a punishment within the meaning of s. 240(3) of\t the
\nGovernment of India Act, 1935.\tIt also held that the  Order
\nof Reversion was not a punishment at all.\n<\/p>\n
In  this Court, the appellant, who has argued his  own\tcase
\nwith  ability,\thas  urged in the first place,\tand  in\t our
\nopinion\t  rightly,   that  his\tcase  is  covered   by\t the
\nobservations of this Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union
\nof Indid<\/a> (1).  Those observations are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A reduction in rank likewise may be by way of
\n\t      punishment  or it may be an  innocuous  thing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      If  the  Government servant has a right  to  a
\n\t      particular rank, then the very reduction\tfrom
\n\t      that  rank will operate as a penalty,  for  he
\n\t      will  then lose the emoluments and  privileges
\n\t      of that rank.  If, however, he has no right to
\n\t      the  particular  rank, his reduction  from  an
\n\t      officiating  higher  rank to  his\t substantive
\n\t      lower   rank   will  not\t ordinarily   be   a
\n\t      punishment.   But\t the  mere  fact  that\t the
\n\t      servant  has no title to the post or the\trank
\n\t      and  the Government has, by contract,  express
\n\t      or  implied, or under the rules, the right  to
\n\t      reduce him to a lower post does not mean\tthat
\n\t      an order of reduction of a servant to a lower
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 826, 863-64.\n<\/p>\n
891<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      post or rank cannot in any circumstances be  a
\n\t      punishment.   The\t real test  for\t determining
\n\t      whether  the reduction in such cases is or  is
\n\t      not by way of punishment is to find out if the
\n\t      order  for  the  reduction  also\tvisits\t the
\n\t      servant with any penal consequences.  Thus  if
\n\t      the   order  entails  or\tprovides   for\t the
\n\t      forfeiture  of  his pay or allowances  or\t the
\n\t      loss of his seniority in his substantive\trank
\n\t      or the stoppage or postponement of his  future
\n\t      chances  of promotion, then that\tcircumstance
\n\t      may   indicate  that  although  in  form\t the
\n\t      Government had purported to exercise its right
\n\t      to  terminate the employment or to reduce\t the
\n\t      servant to a lower rank under the terms of the
\n\t      contract of employment or under the rules,  in
\n\t      truth   and   reality   the   Government\t has
\n\t      terminated  the  employment as and by  way  of
\n\t      penalty.\t The use of the\t expression  “termi-
\n\t      nate”  or “discharge” is not  conclusive.\t  Tn
\n\t      spite   of   the\t use   of   such   innocuous
\n\t      expressions,  the court has to apply  the\t two
\n\t      tests mentioned above, namely, (1) whether the
\n\t      servant bad a right to the post or the rank or
\n\t      (2)  whether he ha,,; been visited  with\tevil
\n\t      consequences of the kind hereinbefore referred
\n\t      to?   If the case satisfies either of the\t two
\n\t      tests  then it must be held that\tthe  servant
\n\t      has  been punished and the termination of\t his
\n\t      service  must  be\t taken\tas  a  dismissal  or
\n\t      removal  from service or the reversion to\t his
\n\t      substantive   rank  must\tbe  regarded  as   a
\n\t      reduction\t in rank and if the requirements  of
\n\t      rules  and Art. 311, which give protection  to
\n\t      Government  servant  have\t not  been  complied
\n\t      with,  the termination of the service  or\t the
\n\t      reduction in rank must be held to be  wrongful
\n\t      and in violation of the consti- tutional right
\n\t      of the servant.”\n<\/p>\n
He has rightly pointed out that he would have continued as a
\nDeputy Collector but for the Order of the Government,  dated
\nAugust\t11, 1948, impugned in this case, as a result of\t the
\nenquiry held against him, and that his reversion was not  as
\na  matter of course or for administrative convenience.\t The
\nOrder,\tin terms, held him back for three years.   Thus\t his
\nemoluments,  present  as  well\tas  future,  were  adversely
\naffected by the
\n892<\/span>
\nOrder aforesaid of the Government.  In the ordinary  course,
\nhe  would have continued as a Deputy Collector with all\t the
\nemoluments  of\tthe  post and would have  been\tentitled  to
\nfurther\t promotion but for the setback in his service  as  a
\nresult of the adverse finding against him, which finding was
\nultimately declared by the Account ant General to have\tbeen
\nunder a misapprehension of the true facts.  It is true\tthat
\nhe  was promoted as a result of the Government\tOrder  dated
\nMarch  26, 1951, with effect from August 1, 1950.   B’\tthat
\npromotion did not entirely cover the ground lost by him as a
\nresult of the Government Order impugned in this case.  It is
\nnoteworthy that the Judgment of the High Court under  appeal
\nwas given in July, 1956, when the decision of this Court  in
\nDhingra’s case (1) had not been given.\tThe decision of this
\nCourt  was given in November, 1957.  Of the two\t tests\tlaid
\ndown  by this Court, certainly the second test\tapplies,  if
\nnot  also the first one.  He may or may not have a right  to
\nhold the post or the rank, but there is no doubt that he was
\nvisited\t with  evil consequences.  Ordinarily, if  a  public
\nservant\t has been officiating in a higher rank it cannot  be
\nsaid  that he has a substantive right to that  higher  rank.
\nHe may have to revert to his substantive rank as a result of
\nthe  exigencies\t of the service or he may be reverted  as  a
\nresult\tof an adverse finding in an enquiry against him\t for
\nmisconduct.  In every case of reversion from an\t officiating
\nhigher\tpost  to  his substantive post,\t the  civil  servant
\nconcerned is deprived of the emoluments of the higher  post.
\nBut that cannot, by itself, be a ground for holding that the
\nsecond\ttest in Dhingra’s case (1), namely, whether  he\t has
\nbeen  visited  with evil consequences, can be said  to\thave
\nbeen   satisfied.    Hence,  mere  deprivation\t of   higher
\nemoluments as a consequence of a reversion cannot amount  to
\nthe  “evil consequences” referred to in the second  test  in
\nDhingra’s case (1); they must mean something more than\tmere
\ndeprivation  of\t higher\t emoluments.  That  being  so,\tthey
\ninclude, for example, forfeiture of substantive pay, loss of
\nseniority, etc.\t Applying that
\n(1)  [1058] S.C.P. 326, 863-64.\n<\/p>\n
893<\/span><\/p>\n
test  to  the present case, it cannot be  said\tthat  simply
\nbecause\t the  appellant\t did not get  a\t Deputy\t Collector’s
\nsalary\tfor  three years, he was visited  with\tevil  conse-
\nquences\t of  the type contemplated in  Dhingra’s  case\t(1).
\nEven  if he had been reverted in the ordinary course of\t the
\nexigencies of the service, the same consequences would\thave
\nensued.\t  If  the logs of the emoluments  attaching  to\t the
\nhigher\trank  in  which\t he was\t officiating  was  the\tonly
\nconsequence  of\t his reversion as a result  of\tthe  enquiry
\nagainst\t him, the appellant would’ have no cause of  action.
\nBut  it is clear that as a result of the Order dated  August
\n11,  1948  (Ex. 35), the appellant lost his seniority  as  a
\nMamlatdar, which was his substantive post: That being so, it
\nwas   not   a  simple  case  of\t reversion  with   no\tevil
\nconsequences; it had such consequences as would come  within
\nthe  test of punishment as laid down in Dhingra’s case.\t  If
\nthe  reversion had not been for a period of three years,  it
\ncould  not  be\tsaid that the appellant\t had  been  punished
\nwithin the meaning of the rule laid down in Dhingra’s  case,
\n(1).   It  cannot  be  asserted\t that  his  reversion  to  a
\nsubstantive post for a period of three years was not by\t way
\nof punishment.\tFrom the facts of this case it is clear that
\nthe  appellant\twas on the upward move in the cadre  of\t his
\nservice\t and  but for this aberration in his progress  to  a
\nhigher\tpost,  he  would  have,\t in  ordinary  course,\tbeen
\npromoted  as  he  actually  was\t sometime  later  when\t the
\nauthorities  realised  perhaps that he had not\tbeen  justly
\ntreated, as is clear from the Order of the Government, dated
\nMarch 26, 1951, promoting him to the higher rank with effect
\nfrom August 1, 1950.  But that belated justice meted out  to
\nhim  by the Government did not completely undo the  mischief
\nof  the\t Order of Reversion impugned in this  case.   It  is
\nclear  to  us, therefore, that as a result of the  Order  of
\nReversion  aforesaid,  the appellant had been  punished\t and
\nthat  the  Order  of the Government punishing  him  was\t not
\nwholly regular.\t It has been found that the requirements  of
\ns.   240(3)   of  the  Government  of\tIndia\tAct,   1935,
\ncorresponding  to Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution, had\t not
\nbeen fully complied with.  His
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 826,863-64.\n<\/p>\n
894<\/span><\/p>\n
reversion  in  rank,  therefore, was  in  violation  of\t the
\nConstitutional\tguarantee.  In view of these  considerations
\nit must be held that the High Court was not right in holding
\nagainst\t  the  appellant  that\this  reversion\twas  not   a
\npunishment  contemplated by s. 240(3) of the  Government  of
\nIndia Act, 1935.  On this part of the case, in our  opinion,
\nthe decision of the High part has to be reversed and that of
\nthe  Trial Court hat his reversion to his  substantive\trank
\nwas void, must be restored.\n<\/p>\n
The  question  then  arises whether he is  entitled  to\t any
\nrelief\tin  respect of his claim for arrears of\t salary\t and
\ndearness  allowance.   He  has claimed\tRs.  10,777  odd  as
\narrears\t of  pay,  Rs.\t951  odd  as  arrears  of   dearness
\nallowance, as also Rs. 688 odd as arrears of daily allowance
\nplus interest of Rs. 471 odd, thus aggregating to the sum of
\nRs.  12,886  odd.   This claim is  spread  over\t the  period
\nAugust,\t 1946, to November, 1953, that is to say, until\t the
\ndate of his retirement from Government service, plus  future
\ninterest  also.\t On this part of the case the learned  Trial
\nJudge,\trelying upon the case of the High  Commissioner\t for
\nIndia and Pakistan v. I. M. Lall (1) held that a  government
\nservant has no right to recover arrears of pay by an  action
\nin a Civil Court.  He got over the decision of this Court in
\nthe  State  of Bihar v. Abdul Majid<\/a> (2) on the\tground\tthat
\nthat case has made a distinction between a claim based on  a
\ncontract  and that on a tort.  In the instant case, he\tcame
\nto  the\t conclusion that as the plaintiff  had\tclaimed\t the
\ndifference between the pay and allowance actually drawn\t and
\nthose  to  which  he would have been entitled  but  for\t the
\nwrongful orders, the claim was based on tort and, therefore,
\nthe  plaintiff\twas  not entitled to  any  relief.   On\t the
\nquestion  of  limitation,  he held that the  suit  would  be
\ngoverned  by  Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act  (IX  of
\n1908)  as laid down by the Federal Court in the case of\t The
\nPunjab\tProvince v. Pandit Tarachand (3).  In that  view  of
\nthe matter, the learned Judge held that adding the period of
\ntwo  months of the statutory notice under s. 80 of the\tCode
\nof Civil Procedure given to
\n(1) (1948) L.R. 75 I.A. 225.  (2) [1954] S.C.R. 786.
\n(3) [1947] F.C.R. 89.\n<\/p>\n
895<\/span><\/p>\n
Government,  the claim would be in time from June  2,  1951.
\nHence the Trial Court, while giving the declaration that the
\nOrder  impugned was void, dismissed, the rest of  the  claim
\nwith a direction that the plaintiff was to pay 3\/4ths of the
\ncosts  of  the\tsuit  to  the  defendant.   The\t High  Court
\ndismissed the suit in its entirety after allowing the cross-
\nobjections  of the State.  The appellant contended that\t his
\nsuit  for  arrears of salary would not be  governed  by\t the
\nthree years rule laid down in Art. 102 of the Limitation Act
\nand  that the decision of the Federal Court  in\t Tarachand’s
\ncase  (1)  was not correct.  The sole ground on\t which\tthis
\ncontention  was\t based was that “salary”  was  not  included
\nwithin\tthe term “wages”.  In our opinion, no  good  reasons
\nhave been adduced before us for not following the  aforesaid
\ndecision of the Federal Court.\tIn the result, the appeal is
\nallowed in part, that is to say, the declaration granted  by
\nthe Trial Court that the Order of the Government impugned in
\nthis  case  is void, is restored, in disagreement  with\t the
\ndecision of the High Court.  The claim as regards arrears of
\nsalary and allowance is allowed in part only from the 2nd of
\nJune,  1951,  until the date of the  plaintiff’s  retirement
\nfrom  Government  service.   There will\t be  no\t decree\t for
\ninterest  before the date of the suit, but the decretal\t sum
\nshall  bear  interest at 6% per annum from the date  of\t the
\nsuit  until  realisation.  The plaintiff-appellant  will  be
\nentitled  to three-fourths of his costs throughout, in\tview
\nof the fact that his entire claim is not being allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1947) F.C.R. 89.\n<\/p>\n
896<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR, 8 1962 SCR (1) 886 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: SHRI MADHAV LAXMAN VAIKUNTHE V. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF […]<\/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-25366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - 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\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-28T03:11:56+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-28T03:11:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2921,\"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\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-28T03:11:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - 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\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-28T03:11:56+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-28T03:11:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"},"wordCount":2921,"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\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961","name":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-28T03:11:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-madhav-laxman-vaikunthe-v-vs-the-state-of-mysore-on-12-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961"}]},{"@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\/25366","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=25366"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25366\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}