{"id":267511,"date":"1973-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973"},"modified":"2018-10-12T20:50:13","modified_gmt":"2018-10-12T15:20:13","slug":"rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","title":{"rendered":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 391, 1974 SCR (2) 555<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRATTAN LAL GUPTA & ORS.\t ETC.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURAJ BHAN & ORS.  ETC.\t ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/11\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nDWIVEDI, S.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR  391\t\t  1974 SCR  (2) 555\n 1974 SCC  (1) 235\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Vehicles Act<\/a>, 1939-S.47(3)-If the Regional  Transport\nAuthority  could  grantpermits\twithout\t first\tfixing\t the\nstrength.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThere were two bus routes-the shorter and the longer routes-\nboth being overlapping.\t On the shorter route, the  strength\nof  the stage carriage permit was fixed at 17 in  1950.\t  In\nJuly 1958 the Regional Transport Authority decided to extend\nthe  shorter route by about six miles (which is\t called\t the\nlonger\troute).\t In March, 1959 the strength of the  shorter\nroute  was  increased from 17 to 25.   The  State  Transport\nAppellate  Tribunal  approved the extension of\tthe  shorter\nroute.\t The  R.T A. advertised for eight vacancies  in\t the\nshorter route and a number of application had been received.\nCertain\t objections  were  raised to  the  increase  in\t the\nstrength  and  to the wrong description of  the\t route.\t  In\nAugust\t1961  the  RTA\tdecided that  the  only\t route\tthat\nsurvived was the longer route.\tThe existing permits for the\nshorter\t route were in the meantime converted  into  permits\nfor the longer route When  appellants in the third group had\napplied\t for permits on the shorter route,  objections\twere\nraised\t that  the  shorter  route  had\t ceased\t to   exist.\nOverruling the objections, the RTA granted eight permits  to\nthe  appellants,  which decision was upheld'  by  the  State\nTransport Appellate Tribunal in August, 1967.\nThe  High  Court held (i) that without fixing  the  strength\nfirst  on the longer route permits could not be granted\t for\nit(ii) that the RTA should have first decided whether  there\nwere  two routes or one and then fixed the strength  of\t the\nroute or routes and that not having been done in  accordance\nwith  law there was no proper disposal of  the\tapplications\nfor permits; (iii) that the reduction of the strength of  25\nto 9 on the shorter route as done by the RTA was illegal.\nDismissing  the appeals of the appellants in the  first\t and\nsecond groups and allowing the appeal of the third group.\nHELD  : As the RTA had not fixed the number of\tpermits\t for\nthe  longer route the grant of permits for the longer  route\nwas invalid. [560-G]\nin  March, 1959 the RTA had fixed the number of permits\t for\nthe  shorter  route at 25.  As 17 permits had  already\tbeen\ngranted, the RTA invited applications for eight vacancies in\nJune,  1959.   So  the strength was fixed  long\t before\t the\ninvitation  of applications for permits.  At one  stage\t the\nRTA had taken the view that the shorter route had merged  in\nthe longer route but later it rectified the mistake and held\nthat  the  shorter  route  and\tthe  longer  route   existed\nseparately.   The latter view of the RTA was correct in\t the\nthen prevailing circumstances. [560-H]\nA decision to extend the shorter route to a longer  distance\nunder  the  U.P.  Motor\t Vehicles  Taxation  Act  will\t not\nautomatically  merge the shorter route in the longer  route.\nFor  that  purpose it was necessary for the RTA to  take  an\nindependent  decision under the Motor Vehicles Act<\/a>.  But  no\nsuch  decision was taken.  The RTA realised the mistake\t and\nrectified  it in its meeting of May, 1965.  The decision  of\nthe RTA dated May, 1965 that the shorter route still existed\nwith  a strength of 25 stage carriages and that the  shorter\nroute and the longer route were separate routes was correct.\n[561-C-D]\nThe  RTA could not reduce the strength of the shorter  route\nfrom 25 to 9. There were, therefore, eight vacancies on\t the\nshorter route and the RTA could validly grant eight  permits\nto  the appellants in the third group.\tThe High  Court\t was\nwrong in quashing the grant of permits to the appellants  in\nthe third group. [561-E-F]\nR.   Obilaswami\t Naidu\tv.  Transport  Appellate   Tribunal,\nMadras<\/a> [1969] 1 S.C.R. 730, M\/s Jaya Ram Motor Service v. S.\nRajarathinan,  C.A.  No. 95 of 1965 decided  on\t 27-10-1967,\nMohd.\tIbrahim etc. v. State Transport Appellate  Tribunal,\nMadras.\n556\netc..  [1971]  1  S.C.R. 523, Abdul Mateen  v.\tRam  Kailash\nPandey<\/a>,\t [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523 and Baluram v. State  Transport\nAppellate,  Authority,\tM.P., C. A. No.\t 527\/65\t decided  on\n22-3-1968, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  15921595
\nof 1971.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th September, 1969,
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Nos.
\n5210, 5246, 5398 and 5410 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEALS No. 1628-1631 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th September,\t1969
\nof the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Nos.
\n3216 3217, 3218 of 1967 and 12 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 1634-1639 OF 1971.\n<\/p>\n
From  the Judgment and Order dated the 30th September,\t1969
\nof  the\t Allahabad High Court in Civil\tMiscellaneous  Writ.
\nNos. 3892, 3135, 3136 3137, 3138 and 3139 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\nSPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS (CIVIL) Nos. 3094-3095 OF 1971.
\nFrom  the Judgment and Order dated the 30th September,\t1969
\nand  28th  July, 1971 of the Allahabad High Court  in  Civil
\nMiscellaneous  Writ Nos. 3927 of 1967 and SCA No.  643-A  of
\n1969 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
Yogeshwar  Prasad,  S. K. Bagga, S. Bagga,  Rani  Arora\t and
\nIndira\tManchanda, for the appellants (in C. A.\t Nos.  1592-
\n1595\/71) and Petitioner in (SLPs Nos. 3094 & 3095\/71).
\nH.   K.\t Puri, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No.  1593)\t and
\nrespondent On C.A. nos. 1628, 1629 and 1630\/7 1)
\nR.   K. Garg and S. C. Agrawala, for respondent Nos.  1\t (in
\nC.A. No. 1594 and Appellants (in C.A. No. 1628-31 and  1634-
\n39\/71)
\nE.   C. Aggravala and A. T. M. Sampath, for respondents Nos.
\n1 and 2 (in    1595)  and  respondent  no. 3  (in  C.A.\t No.
\n1634\/71).\n<\/p>\n
J.   P.\t Goyal and V. C. Parashar, for intervener  (in\tC.A.
\nNos.  1592-  95\t and  respondent  no.  4  (in  1634-37)\t and
\nrespondent Nos. 4 and 5 (in C.A. Nos. 1638-39\/71)
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGOSWAMI,   J.-There  are  three\t groups\t of   appeals\twith
\ncertificate  directed against the judgment of the  Allahabad
\nHigh Court of 20th September, 1969.  The first group  (Civil
\nAppeals Nos. 1592-1595 of 1971) is by Rattan Lal Gupta,\t Uma
\nSharan Sharma, Sewa Ram, Dharam Das Agarwal, Land Lines Pvt.
\nLtd.,  Smt.   Kusum Lata and Tribhuvan Kumar; the  last\t two
\nbeing  the widow and son of Madan Mohan Lal, deceased.\t The
\nsecond\tgroup (Civil Appeals Nos. 16281631 of 1971)  is.  by
\nSuraj  Bhan (in Civil Appeal No. 1628 of 1971)\tand  others.
\nThe third group (Civil Appeals Nos. 1634-1639 of 1971) is by
\nHarish\tChandra, Mahendra Kumar Tayal, Shanti  Swarup  Jain,
\nMitranand Kaushaik, Baru Mal Agarwal, Gur Prasad, Richpal
\n557<\/span>
\nSingh  and Bhagwan Singh Sambi.\t There are also two  Special
\nLeave  Petitions Nos. 3094-3095 of 1971 which have not\tbeen
\nadmitted  but by an order of this Court dated 7th  February,
\n1972,  the petitioners’ were allowed to intervene  in  these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
The facts relating to the appeals have got to be narrated in
\nsome detail.  On October 13, 1950, a route for stage carnage
\npermit\t   described\tas     Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla
\n(hereinafter the shorter route),was classified as ‘B’  class
\nroute  and the strength of the permit was fixed at  17.\t  On
\nJuly  18,  1958, the Regional Transport\t Authority  (briefly
\nRTA)  Meerut decided to extend the route by about six  miles
\nupto Issupurteel ( hereinafter the longer route).  On March,
\n23,  1959,  the RTA increased the strength  or\tthe  shorter
\nroute  from  17\t to  25 under section  47(3)<\/a>  of  the  Motor
\nVehicles Act, 1939 (briefly the Act).  As there were already
\n17  permits  in\t operation,  the  RTA  on  June\t 13,   1969,
\nadvertised  for 8 vacancies in the shorter route  and  fixed
\nJuly   27,  1959,  as  the  last  date\tfor  receiving\t the
\napplications and it appears 1117 applications were received.
\nThe   State  Transport\tAppellate  Tribunal  (briefly\tSTA)
\napproved the extension of the route to Issupurteel on August
\n8,  1959.  The applications which were received in  response
\nto the advertisement were published in the U. P. Gazette  of
\nSeptember  15, 1962.  There were some other applications  on
\nJune  16,  1963,  including a second application  of  M.  N.
\nKaushik.  These were also published in the U. P. Gazette  on
\nJune 16, 1963.\tMohds.\tIbrahim filed his objections to\t the
\napplications  published on September 15, 1962.\tHe  objected
\nto  the\t increase  in the strength and to  the\troute  being
\nwrongly\t described  in\tthe advertisement.  On\t2nd  to\t 4th
\nAugust,\t 1961, the RTA had decided that there was  only\t one
\nroute  upto  Issupurteel  and  that  applications  presented
\neither upto Kandhla or upto issupurteel should be considered
\nas  presented for the entire route viz., the  longer  route.
\nThe  RTA also held that Muzaffarnagar Budhana-Kandhla  route
\nceased\tto  exist  in  1958  by\t referring  to\tits  earlier
\nresolution No. 71 of 18th July 1958 and that thereafter\t the
\nonly   route  that  survived  was  the\tlonger\troute\tupto
\nIssupurteel.   It appears most of the existing\tpermits\t for
\nthe  shorter route were in the meantime converted  into\t the
\nlonger route under section 57<\/a> (8) of the Act.  Suraj  Bhan’s
\napplication for a permit was published on November 2,  1963.
\nMeanwhile  7 renewal applications from the  existing  permit
\nholders\t were received between November 4, 1963 and May\t 18,
\n1964,  in  anticipation\t of expiry of  their  permits.\t The
\nappellants in the first group objected to these renewals and
\nprayed\tfor  grant of fresh permits to them for\t the  longer
\nroute.\t On June 13, 1964, their objections to the  renewals
\nas  well  as those for fresh permits were published  in\t the
\nGazette.   On  July  4, 1964  some  more  applications\twere
\npublished for the longer route.\t To give some more  details,
\nthirteen applications for the longer route were published on
\nJuly  1,  1961;\t twenty seven on June 15, 1963\tand  two  on
\nNovember  2,  1963.   Mohd.  Ibrahim and his  union  of\t the
\nexisting operators objected to these applications.  On\t28th
\nand  29th August, 1964, the RTA considered only\t II  renewal
\napplications   and   12\t  fresh\t  applications\t and   other
\napplications  were not even put up before the RTA.  The\t RTA
\nordered renewal of 11 permits and rejected the objection  to
\nthe renewal of the appellants in\n<\/p>\n
–M602Sup CI\/74
\n558<\/span>
\nthe  first  group as well as their  applications  for  fresh
\npermits.   The ground given was that none of  the  objectors
\nand 12 applicants for fresh   permits  had turned  up.\t The
\nappellants in the first group to the STA impleading 8 out of
\nthe  11 renewal permit holders. The STA by its\torder  dated
\nNovember 10, 1964, set aside the order\tof  the\t RTA   dated
\n28th \/29th August, 1964.  Four writ petitions were filed  in
\n1964 against the order of STA dated November 10, 1964.\t The
\nappellants in the third group had applied for permits on the
\nshorter\t route.\t  Certain  persons-had\tobjected  to   their
\napplications on the ground that the shorter route had ceased
\nto   exist.   On  May  6-8,  1965,  their  objections\twere
\noverruled,  and\t the  RTA  granted 8  permits  to  the\tsaid
\nappellants.  This order was upheld by the ‘STA on August 29,
\n1967.\tThere were 19 other writ petitions of 1967 and\t1968
\nbe-‘ fore the High Court which were also heard together.  Of
\nthese five petitions were directed against the order of\t the
\nSTA  of\t August\t 29, 1967.  Seven  petitions  were  directed
\nagainst\t the  orders  of both the RTA and of  the  STA\tmade
\nrespectively  on 6th to 8th May, 1965 [item 30 (a)]  and  on
\n29th  August,  1967.   Seven more  petitions  were  directed
\nagainst the orders of the RTA of 6th to 8th May, 1965  [item\n<\/p>\n
(c)] and of the STA of 29th August, ‘1967.
\nWith  reference\t to the first group of writ  petitions,\t the
\nHigh  Court held that the strength of 25 had not been  fixed
\nby  the RTA for the longer route.  It further held that\t the
\ngrant  of  six\tpermits forthwith on the  longer  route\t was
\nillegal\t that since the number of applicants for permits  on
\nthis  route  were in excess of the number of  permits  which
\ncould  be-granted,  no\tgrant could be\tmade  without  first
\nfixing\tthe strength of the longer route.  The\tHigh  Court,
\ntherefore, set aside the order of the STA dated November 10,
\n1964.\tIt also at the same time set aside that part of\t the
\norder  of the RTA of 28th\/29th August, 1964, by which  their
\napplications for fresh permits had also been rejected.\t The
\nHigh Court also quashed the orders of the RTA and STA  dated
\nMay  6-8, 1965 and August 29, 1967 respectively.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  further\tobserved  that “until the  shorter  and\t the
\nlonger\troutes were held on legally relevant  considerations
\nto  be\tseparate for purposes of granting permits,  all\t the
\npending applications whether for the extended or  unextended
\nroute  should have been taken up together”.  Since this\t was
\nnot done by the RTA nor by the STA, the orders of both\twere
\n“vitiated  by patent illegality as regards applications\t for
\nfresh  permits”.   The\tHigh Court also noted  that  it\t was
\nadmitted by all the parties that the strength of 25 had been
\nfixed  for the unextended route and that no strength of\t the
\nextended  route\t had  been fixed at  all.   That  being\t the
\nposition,  following  the  decisions of\t this  Court  in  R.
\nObilaswami Naidu v. Transport  Appellate Tribunal, Madras<\/a>(1)
\nand ,Ills Jaya Ram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinan (2), the
\nHigh  Court held that without fixing the strength  first  on
\nthe  longer route permits could not be granted for  it.\t  On
\nthe question of routes, the High Court observed that the RTA
\nshould\thave first decided whether there were two routes  or
\none route and then fixed the strength of the route or routes
\nand that not having so done, in accordance right law,  there
\nwas no proper disposal of the applications for permits.\t The
\nHigh  Court  further pointed out that the reduction  of\t the
\nstrength of 25 to
\n(1)  [1569] 1 S. C. R. 730.\n<\/p>\n
(2) C. A. No. 95 of 1965 decided on 27-10-67.\n<\/p>\n
559<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      9\t in the shorter route in the manner done  by
\n\t      the  RTA was illegal. The High  Court  finally
\n\t      decided as follows
\n\t      “In  our opinion, the applications of all\t the
\n\t      petitioners   and\t the   contesting   opposite
\n\t      parties  could be properly considered  by\t the
\n\t      Transport Authorities only after deciding\t the
\n\t      following questions on relevant considerations
\n\t      contained in sections 47<\/a> (1) of the Act\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   Whether  it is necessary  to  nationally
\n\t      separate the whole route into two\t overlapping
\n\t      routes for the purposes of granting permits\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   What should be the strength on the whole
\n\t      route, or, if it is decided to fix two routes,
\n\t      one within the other, the respective strengths
\n\t      of the two routes” ?\n<\/p>\n
The High Court gave also other appropriate directions in the
\ndecision.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  counsel, Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, at\t first\tmade
\nsome  submissions  with\t regard to  abatement  of  the\twrit
\napplications  before  the  High Court  on  account  of\tnon-
\nsubstitution  of  the  heirs and  legal\t representatives  of
\ndeceased, Madan Mohan Lal.  But he finally did not press the
\nsame.\tThe learned counsel, however, submitted\t that  there
\nwas  no defect or lack of jurisdiction in the order  of\t the
\nSTA  to\t merit interference by the High Court.\t He  further
\nsubmitted  that the strength of the longer route  was  fixed
\nand  the  longer  route was in existence  and  the  STA\t was
\nperfectly  justified in granting the permits by their  order
\nof November 10, 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Garg,  on the other hand, submitted that  there  was  a
\nshorter route and its strength was rightly reduced. to\tnine
\nand  the  nine permits were validly  granted.\tHis  further
\ncontention  is\tthat in the absence of\tthe  strength  being
\nfixed  for the longer route and of consideration of all\t the
\napplications  for  the\tlonger route, grant  of\t permits  to
\nRattan\tLal  Gupta and others was bad.\tMr. Goyal  drew\t our
\nattention to the fact that in the absence of special orders.
\nof  this Court his client was granted permits by the RTA  on
\nJune  3,  1973, on the longer route.  The  learned  counsel,
\ntherefore, supports the judgment of the High Court.
\nThe  controversies  in these appeals centre round  grant  of
\nstage  carriage\t permits appertaining, as  claimed,  to\t two
\nroutes,\t one shorter and the other longer,  mentioned  above
\nand  both being admittedly overlapping.\t At first  we  shall
\nconsider  the appeals relating to the longer route.  It\t has
\nbeen  held  in\tMohd.\tIbrahim\t etc.  v.  State   Transport
\nAppellate  Tribunal, Madras, etc.,(1) following the  earlier
\ndecisions  in  Adbul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey<\/a>  (2),\t M\/s
\nJaya  Ram  Motor  Service (3), Baluram\tv,  State  Transport
\nAppellate  Authority M.P.(4) and R. Obliaswami Naidu (5)  as
\nfollows
\n\t      “The    next   question\twhich\tfalls\t for
\n\t      determination is the
\n\t      point  of\t time  when  a\tRegional   Transport
\n\t      Authority will
\n\t      (1) [1971] 1 S.C.R. 474.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)   C.A. No. 9511965 decided on 27-10-1967.
\n\t       (5)  [1969] 1 S.C.R. 730.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (2)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 523.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (4) C.A. 727\/65 decided on 22-3-68.\n<\/p>\n
\t      560<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      under  section 47(3)<\/a> of the Act fix the  limit
\n\t      of  number  of stage carriage  permits.\tThis
\n\t      Court in Abdul Mateen’s case (4) said that the
\n\t      general\torder  by  the\tRegional   Transport
\n\t      Authority\t under section 47<\/a> (3) of the Act  in
\n\t      regard  to  the  limit  of  number  of   stage
\n\t      carriage\tpermits can be modified only by\t the
\n\t      Regional\tTransport authority when  exercising
\n\t      the  jurisdiction under section 47(3)<\/a>  of\t the
\n\t      Act.   The Regional Transport Authority  while
\n\t      acting  under section 48<\/a> of the Act in  regard
\n\t      to  the grant of permits has  no\tjurisdiction
\n\t      and  authority to modify any order  passed  by
\n\t      the Regional Transport Authority under section
\n\t      47<\/a>  (3) of the Act. in other words, the  limit
\n\t      fixed  by\t the  Regional\tTransport  Authority
\n\t      under  section  47(3)<\/a>  of the  Act  cannot  be
\n\t      altered by the Regional Transport Authority at
\n\t      the   time  of  grant  of\t permits.   It\t is,
\n\t      therefore, established that the  determination
\n\t      of  limit of number of permits is to  be\tmade
\n\t      before  the  grant of permits.   That  is\t why
\n\t      section  48<\/a>  of the Act is prefaced  with\t the
\n\t      words “subject to the provisions of section 47<\/a>
\n\t      of the Act” meaning thereby that the jurisdic-
\n\t      tion  of the Regional Transport  Authority  to
\n\t      grant permits is subject to the  determination
\n\t      of  the  limit  of  number  of  permits  under
\n\t      section 47<\/a> (3) of the Act.  This Court  stated
\n\t      the  legal  position  in M\/s  Jaya  Ram  Motor
\n\t      Service’s\t case(2) and said ‘It  is  therefore
\n\t      clear that the authority has first to fix\t the
\n\t      limit  and after having done so  consider\t the
\n\t      application   or\t the   representations\t  in
\n\t      connection  therewith in accordance  with\t the
\n\t      procedure laid down in section 57<\/a> of the Act’.
\n\t      Again  in the case of R. Obilaswami Naidu\t (1)
\n\t      this  Court considered the submission in\tthat
\n\t      case  as\tto whether  the\t Regional  Transport
\n\t      Authority\t could decide the number of  permits
\n\t      while  considering applications  for  permits.
\n\t      This  Court did not accept the submission\t be-
\n\t      cause such a view could allow an operator\t who
\n\t      happened to apply first to be in a  commanding
\n\t      position\twith  the result that  the  Regional
\n\t      Transport Authority would have no\t opportunity
\n\t      to  choose  between  competing  operators\t and
\n\t      public  interest\tmight suffer.  In  the\tsame
\n\t      case  it is again said that the  determination
\n\t      of  the  number of stage carriages  for  which
\n\t      stage carriage permits may be granted for\t the
\n\t      route  is\t to  be done  first  and  thereafter
\n\t      applications    for   permits   are   to\t  be
\n\t      entertained”.\n<\/p>\n
As  the\t R. A. had not fixed the number of permits  for\t the
\nlonger route, we agree with the High Court that the grant of
\npermits\t for  the longer route is invalid.   But  the  legal
\nposition  in regard to the grant of permits on\tthe  shorter
\nroute is different.  Admittedly, on March 23, 1959, the\t RTA
\nhad fixed the number of permits for this route at 25.  As 17
\npermits\t  had\talready\t been  granted,\t the   RTA   invited
\napplication  for eight vacancies on June 13, 1959.   So\t the
\nstrength   was\t fixed\tlong  before   the   invitation\t  of
\napplications  for permits. it is true that at one stage\t the
\nRTA had taken the view that the shorter route had merged  in
\nthe longer route; but later it rectified the mistake
\n561<\/span>
\nand held that the shorter route and the longer route existed
\nseparately.   We think that the second view of the  RTA\t was
\ncorrect\t in the then prevailing circumstances.\tOn July\t 18,
\n1958,  the RTA resolved that  “Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla
\nroute  be extended to Gangeru-Issupurteel”.   The  extension
\nwas made under the U.P. Motor Vehicles taxation Act.  At  no
\ntime the RTA has taken a decision for abolishing the shorter
\nroute.\t In its meeting on August 2-4, 1961, the RTA  upheld
\nthe  objection that the shorter route had ceased  to  exist.
\nThe RTA said, “Originally Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla\t was
\nthe  name  of the route.  Subsequently about  six  miles  of
\nkachcha\t route was considered motorable and then the RTA  on
\n18-7-1958 declared that Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla  route
\nbe  extended  upto  Issupurteel.  After\t this  decision\t the
\nMuzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandhla route could not ‘have separate
\nexistence  but was merged in the longer route”.\t As  already
\npointed\t out,  a decision to extend the shorter route  to  a
\nlonger\tdistance under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act<\/a>\twill
\nnot  automatically  merge the shorter route  in\t the  longer
\nroute.\t For  that purpose it was necessary for the  RTA  to
\ntake  an independent decision under the Motor Vehicles\tAct<\/a>.
\nBut  no\t such  decision was taken.   The  RTA  realised\t the
\nmistake\t and rectified it in its meeting on May\t 6-8,  1965.
\nThe RTA then decided: “We have considered the entire  matter
\ncarefully  and have perused all earlier resolutions  of\t the
\nRTA.   We  are of the  opinion\tthat  Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-
\nKandhla (the shorter route) still exists with a strength  of
\n25 stage carriages and that the shorter route and the longer
\nroute  are separate routes.  Even after the approval of\t the
\nlonger\troute  by the STA, the RTA had\toffered\t permits  to
\ndisplaced  operators on the shorter route”.  We\t think\tthat
\nthis resolution states the correct position.
\nIt may be mentioned at this place that in the August meeting
\nthe RTA reduced the strength of shorter route from 25 to  9.
\nThat  could not be done.  In the result, there would  remain
\neight  vacancies on the shorter route for which the RTA\t bad
\nalready\t invited  applications.\t So the\t RTA  could  validly
\ngrant  eight permits to the appellants in the  third  group.
\nThe STA rightly affirmed this decision of the RTA.  The High
\nCourt,\tin our view, was not right in quashing the grant  of
\npermits to the appellants in the third group.
\nin  the result, the appeals in the first and  second  groups
\nare  dismissed.\t The appeals in the third group are  allowed
\nand the judgment of the High Court qua these appeals is\t set
\naside.\t The permits granted to the appellants in the  third
\ngroup  of appeals, if already cancelled in pursuance of\t the
\norder  of  the High Court, will be restored to\tthem.\tShri
\nGarg,  counsel for the appellants, has given an\t undertaking
\nthat  the appellants will surrender permits granted to\tthem
\nfor the longer route.  The Special Leave Petitions Nos. 3094
\nand  3095 of 1971 are admitted, and the appeals arising\t out
\nof them are dismissed.\tParties will bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n562<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 391, 1974 SCR (2) 555 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: RATTAN LAL GUPTA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: SURAJ BHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE 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-267511","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - 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\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-12T15:20:13+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T15:20:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2986,\"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\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\",\"name\":\"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T15:20:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973\"}]},{\"@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":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - 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\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-12T15:20:13+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973","datePublished":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T15:20:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973"},"wordCount":2986,"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\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973","name":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T15:20:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-gupta-ors-etc-etc-vs-suraj-bhan-ors-etc-etc-on-29-november-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rattan Lal Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Suraj Bhan & Ors. Etc. Etc on 29 November, 1973"}]},{"@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\/267511","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=267511"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267511\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}