{"id":268029,"date":"2009-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-06-29T16:56:39","modified_gmt":"2018-06-29T11:26:39","slug":"vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                         WRIT PETITION NO. 7055  OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n    Vaishali D\/o Atmaram Suryawanshi,               )\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n    Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil,                        )\n    R\/o: C\/o. Atmaram Mango Suryawanshi,            )\n    Hirtma, 1-A, Auditor Colony, Pimprala,          )\n    Jalgaon, Tq. & District Jalgaon.                )..               Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                Versus        \n    1.    The State of Maharashtra,                 )\n          Through its Secretary,                    )\n                             \n          Tribal Development Department,            )\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.                  )\n\n    2.    The Committee for Scrutiny and            )\n           \n\n          Verification of Tribe Claims,             )\n          Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar.            )\n        \n\n\n\n    3.    The President,                            )\n          Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,            )\n          Maharashtra State, Hazarimal Somani       )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Marge, Mumbai - 400 001.                  )..             Respondents\n                      --\n\n    Shri R.S. Shinde, advocate holding for Shri A.G. Talhar, advocate for the \n    Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Shri R.P. Phatke, AGP for Respondent No.1.\n    Shri M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.2 (absent).\n                       --\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::\n                                                   2\n\n                                   CORAM :         SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & \n                                                   A.M. KHANWILKAR, J \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                             \n    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                   :       5TH DECEMBER, 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n    JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :                       16TH DECEMBER, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n    JUDGMENT ( PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)\n<\/pre>\n
                   Heard  learned counsel appearing for the Parties.    Rule.  By <\/p>\n
    consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.  Respondents waive service.\n<\/p>\n
    2.             It is the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled <\/p>\n
    Tribe category i.e. Tokare Koli.  The caste certificate in favour of the father <\/p>\n
    of the Petitioner was issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Chopada.\n<\/p>\n
    However, in  the  year  2001, the  Sub-Divisional  Officer, Amalner  Division <\/p>\n
    Amalner,   initially   refused   to   issue   caste   certificate   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner.     Aggrieved   by   the   said   order,     the   Petitioner   filed   an   appeal <\/p>\n
    before the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Nashik <\/p>\n
    Division,   Nashik.     The   said   appeal     came   to   be   rejected.     Against   the <\/p>\n
    rejection of the said Appeal, a Writ Petition No.5915 of 2002 was filed in <\/p>\n
    this Court, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 17th June, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    In furtherance to the order of the Court, the Appeal of the Petitioner was <\/p>\n
    allowed   by   the   Appellate   Authority   and   it   directed   the   Sub-Divisional <\/p>\n
    Officer to issue Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner and thereafter <\/p>\n
    the   Sub-Divisional   Officer,   Amalner     issued   caste   certificate   to   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner.     Thereafter,   the   college   in   which   the     Petitioner   had   taken <\/p>\n
    admission submitted the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner for validity before <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.2-Committee.   Respondent No.2-Committee was requested <\/p>\n
    to   issue   validity   certificate   but   the   Petitioner   could   not   get   validity <\/p>\n
    certificate.   However,   in   the   meanwhile,   the   Petitioner   completed   her <\/p>\n
    graduation   and   was   searching   for   the   service   at   various   places,   such   as <\/p>\n
    Bank examination, Educational Society’s, etc.     The college in which the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner   had   taken   admission   had   taken   an   undertaking   from   the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner   that   if  the  Petitioner   did  not   produce   caste   validity   certificate <\/p>\n
    within   three   months,   her   admission   would   stand   cancelled.     In   these <\/p>\n
    circumstances, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition <\/p>\n
    No.6476   of   2005   seeking   directions   to   Respondent   No.2-Committee   to <\/p>\n
    decide   her  caste  claim  within   stipulated  period.      Vide   order  dated   25th <\/p>\n
    April,   2008,   this   Court   allowed   the   said   Writ   Petition   and   directed <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.2-Committee   to   decide   the   caste   claim   of   the   Petitioner <\/p>\n
    within a period of two months.  The said Order reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
     “.    Rule.   Rule made returnable forthwith.   With the
\n     consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is
\n     heard finally at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
     2.      At the outset, we may record that this Court by its
\n     order dated 14.09.2005 had directed Respondent no.1-
\n     Scrutiny   Committee   to   complete   the   process   of <\/p>\n
     verification  of  the  caste  claim  of  the   petitioners  within
\n     three months  from the  date  of  order.   For the  reasons
\n     which   are   disclosed   in   the   Civil   Application   filed   on
\n     behalf   of   Respondent   No.1-Scrutiny   Committee   and <\/p>\n
     which   Civil   Application   has   been   allowed   by   us,   the
\n     respondent no.1-scrutiny committee has explained as to <\/p>\n
     why the process of verification of the caste claim of the
\n     petitioners   could   not   completed   within   the   period
\n     stipulated by this Court.  Be that as it may, this petition <\/p>\n
     under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India prays for
\n     issuance   of   a   writ   directing   Respondent   No.1-scrutiny
\n     committee to adjudicate the caste claim of the petitioners
\n     as   belong   to   “Tokare   Koli”,   scheduled   tribe.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioners have also prayed that pending the process of
\n     adjudication   of   their   caste   claims,   second   respondent <\/p>\n
     should   not   take   any   adverse   action   against   the
\n     petitioners,   including   cancellation   of   the   admission   for
\n     failure   of   the   petitioners   to   tender   the   caste   validity
\n     certificates.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      We   have   heard   learned   Counsel   for   the   parties.
\n     Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
\n     Respondent no.1-Committee has stated before us that a
\n     copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell has been tendered <\/p>\n
     to   the   petitioners.     In   the   light   of   that,   we   direct   the
\n     petitioners   to   appear   before   Respondent   No.1-Scrutiny
\n     Committee at Nandurbar on 14th  May, 2008.   A further
\n     statement is made on behalf of Respondent No.1-Scrutiny
\n     Committee   by   Shri   Deshmukh   that   the   Respondent-
\n     Scrutiny   Committee   would   pass   appropriate   orders   in <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
                  accordance   with   law   in   respect   of   adjudication   of   the
\n                  tribe   claims   of   the   petitioners   within   a   period   of   two <\/p>\n
                  months of 14th May, 2008.   We accept the said statement
\n                  as an undertaking to the Court.\n<\/p>\n
                  4.      We thus allow the petition and make rule absolute
\n                  by directing the petitioners to appear before Respondent
\n                  No.1-Scrutiny   Committee   at   Nandurbar   on   14th  May,
\n                  2008 and directing Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee <\/p>\n
                  to   decide   the   tribe   claim   of   the   petitioners   within   two
\n                  months   of   14th  May,   2008.     Pending   process   of
\n                  adjudication of the tribe claim, we direct Respondent No.
\n                  2-College not to cancel the admission of the petitioners <\/p>\n
                  on   the   sole   ground   that   the   petitioners   have   not   been
\n                  able  to tender  Caste  Validity  Certificates.    Rule  is  thus <\/p>\n
                  made absolute on the terms indicate above with no order
\n                  as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
    3.            Respondent  No.2-Committee   despite   the   orders  of   the   Court <\/p>\n
    did not decide the caste claim of the Petitioner.  The Petitioner claims that <\/p>\n
    she   was   selected   for   the   post   of   Clerk   Typist   (English)   in   General <\/p>\n
    Administration  Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and was even selected <\/p>\n
    for the employment in Class -III category in Co-operative Department in the <\/p>\n
    office   of   Divisional   Deputy   Registrar,   Cooperative   Societies   (Auditor), <\/p>\n
    Aurangabad, in the Scheduled Tribe Category but she could not take any of <\/p>\n
    the employments because of non availability of the caste validity certificate <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    due to the inaction  on the part of the Respondent No.2-Committee and, <\/p>\n
    therefore, she was compelled to file the present Petition.\n<\/p>\n
    4.              It is in light of the above facts that we have to examine what <\/p>\n
    relief   it   at   all   can   be   granted   to   the   Petitioner.   Respondent   No.2   is   a <\/p>\n
    statutory committee constituted under the provisions of the Act.   Thus, it <\/p>\n
    not only discharges the public functions which are somewhat akin to quasi <\/p>\n
    judicial functions but its statutory obligation is to deal with such matters <\/p>\n
    and   to   provide   relief   to   the   aggrieved   person   and\/or   persons   who   have <\/p>\n
    applied for validation of caste certificate\/s.   Certain aspects of such cases <\/p>\n
    are well known and even the Court can take a judicial notice thereof that <\/p>\n
    such   certificates   are   required   to   be   utilized   basically   for   two   purposes.\n<\/p>\n
    Firstly,   for   seeking   admission   to   academic\/professional   courses   and <\/p>\n
    secondly, for  seeking employment particularly in the Government Sector.\n<\/p>\n
    Both these purposes would stand defeated if timely disposal of application <\/p>\n
    and time schedule expected of the Committee is not adhered to.   In the <\/p>\n
    present case, the Petitioner had approached all the authorities concerned <\/p>\n
    including   Respondent   No.2   –   Committee   well   within   the   time   but   was <\/p>\n
    unable   to   obtain   caste   validity   certificate   before   the   cut-off   dates   or <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    extended time granted by the authorities in the establishment where the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner   was   selected.    The   failure   of   the   Petitioner   to   produce   such <\/p>\n
    validity certificate was not the result of any act attributable to the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    but it was primarily for the reason that the authorities concerned including <\/p>\n
    Respondent   No.2-Committee   failed   to   act   expeditiously   and   in   any   case <\/p>\n
    within a reasonable time.    It is expected of the Committee to act within <\/p>\n
    time and not to make people approach the Courts again and again for such <\/p>\n
    simple   relief   and\/or   direction.        In   the   present   case,   the   Committee <\/p>\n
    certainly failed to act expeditiously and within a reasonable time despite <\/p>\n
    the directions of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    5.             Canons of Administration of Law requires such authorities to<\/p>\n
    act and is expected to have a socio-economic outlook.                                 Public<\/p>\n
    functionaries should act in the exercise of power for the benefit of<\/p>\n
    Society and its action should be free of arbitrariness and capriciousness<\/p>\n
    which are likely to cause harm to the aggrieved person\/persons.\n<\/p>\n
    6.             The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Lucknow   Development  <\/p>\n
    Authority v. M.K. Gupta<\/a>,  (1994)1 SCC 243, held as under: –\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
                 “10. ………..An   ordinary   citizen   or   a   common   man   is
\n                 hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its <\/p>\n
                 instrumentalities.  That is provided by the rule of law.  It
\n                 acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of
\n                 power.  In Rookes v. Barnard, 1964 AC 1129 : (1964)1 <\/p>\n
                 All ER 367, 410, it was observed by Lord Devlin, ‘the
\n                 servants of the government are also the servants of the
\n                 people   and   the   use   of   their   power   must   always   be
\n                 subordinate   to   their   duty   of   service’.     A   public <\/p>\n
                 functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the
\n                 exercise of power results in harassment and agony then
\n                 it   is   not   an   exercise   of   power   but   its   abuse.     No   law
\n                 provides protection against it.  He who is responsible for <\/p>\n
                 it must suffer it.  Compensation or damage as explained
\n                 earlier may arise even when  the  officer discharges  his <\/p>\n
                 duty honestly and bona fide.  But when it arises due to
\n                 arbitrary   or   capricious   behaviour   then   it   loses   its
\n                 individual   character   and   assumes   social   significance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Harassment of a common man by public authorities is
\n                 socially   abhorring   and   legally   impermissible.     It   may
\n                 harm him personally but the injury to society is far more
\n                 grievous.   Crime and corruption  thrive  and prosper in <\/p>\n
                 the society due to lack of public resistance.   Nothing is
\n                 more   damaging   than   the   feeling   of   helplessness.     An <\/p>\n
                 ordinary   citizen   instead   of   complaining   and   fighting
\n                 succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in
\n                 offices instead of standing against it…………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7.           The Public bodies or public functionaries are expected to work<\/p>\n
    for the benefit of the general public and while discharging their statutory<\/p>\n
    and public duties, they are accountable to public as well as to the rule of law<\/p>\n
    which governs them. In the case of                  Shri   Mahender   Kumar   v.   Land  <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
    Acquisition Collector<\/a>, 2006(5)AD 420, the Bench of Delhi High Court while<\/p>\n
    applying principle of public accountability and public good faith and actions<\/p>\n
    of the public in good faith, held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “Both these adverse consequences can easily be avoided <\/p>\n
                 by the authorities concerned by timely and coordinated
\n                 action.     The   authorities   are   required   to   have   a   more
\n                 practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to
\n                 this persisting problem.   Various files of the authorities <\/p>\n
                 which have been produced before us in number of cases
\n                 do   not   reflect   any   better   state   of   affairs   but   mostly   a <\/p>\n
                 mere   inaction   on   the   part   of   the   concerned
\n                 officers\/officials in the Government hierarchy.  We have
\n                 already   stated   that   large   number   of   writ   petitions   are <\/p>\n
                 being filed in this Court claiming the similar reliefs.  In
\n                 most of the cases, the respondents do not even dispute
\n                 the   claim   of   the   petitioner   based   on   awarded
\n                 compensation.     Let   us   examine   the   law   in   regard   to
\n                 public   accountability   for   default   of   performance   of <\/p>\n
                 statutory   and   public   duties   which   are   relatable   to   the <\/p>\n
                 powers   vested   in   the   administrative   and   executive
\n                 authorities under the provisions of this Act.  Reference in
\n                 this regard can be made to the judgment of this court of
\n                 the same date in the case of   Sukhbir Singh Tyagi and  <\/p>\n
                 others   v.   Lieutenant   Governor   and   others,   WP(C)
\n                 22895-927\/2005 where the court held as under:-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 4.       Various   provisions   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act<\/a>
\n                 impose   a   duty   upon   the   authorities   to   act   within   a <\/p>\n
                 specified time.   Consequences of violation of such duty
\n                 normally would be spelled out in the statute itself, even
\n                 if it is no so stated.  Aggrieved party cannot be said to be
\n                 without remedy.  The duty imposed by the statute may
\n                 also be actionable by the express terms of the statute or <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
     on   the   principle   that   an   action   lies   for   any   indictable
\n     wrong. There is clear distinction between the duty and <\/p>\n
     the   power.     However,   a   duty   may   be   implied   from   a
\n     power.  The Courts may not look for or require a party
\n     to   establish   negligence   as   a   fact   because   breach   of <\/p>\n
     statutory   duty   itself   is   a   proof   of   negligence.     The
\n     authorities   enjoy   considerable   discretion   under   the
\n     provisions   of   the   Act.     Thus,   it   requires   adherence   to
\n     higher standards of care and ensuring that the public at <\/p>\n
     large or a class of persons, subjected to their discretion
\n     are not exposed to undue delay and financial losses as a
\n     result of inaction of the authorities.  The powers vested
\n     in   the   public   officers   under   the   provisions   of   the   Act <\/p>\n
     includes   both   statutory   and   administrative   powers
\n     taking   within   its   ambit   the   corresponding   duty <\/p>\n
     obligations to effectively carry out the object of the Act.
\n     If the public officers or public bodies fail to perform any
\n     public   duty   with   which   they   have   been   charged,   an <\/p>\n
     order of mandamus will lie to compel them to carry it
\n     out   and   in   some   circumstances   even   if   the   time   to
\n     perform under the statute had not left.   In accordance
\n     with this principle, writ of mandamus will issue to the <\/p>\n
     Government Officials in their capacity as public officers
\n     exercising executive duties, which affect the rights of the <\/p>\n
     private   persons.     Occasionally   and   now   more   often
\n     mandamus   may   also   be   sought   to   enforce   the   non-\n<\/p>\n
     statutory duties.  The statutory duty must be performed
\n     without   any   reasonable   delay.     Delay   in   action, <\/p>\n
     particularly grant of relief to which a private person is
\n     entitled  to,  would vest  the   affected  party  with  further
\n     consequences   while   making   the   officer   responsible   for
\n     his   latches.     Action   taken   by   persons   holding   public
\n     offices is to be inconformity with the basic rule of law <\/p>\n
     and standard policies and must be free of arbitrariness.
\n     The Supreme Court in the case of  Shivsagar Tiwari Vs.
\n     Union of India and Others  (1996)6 SCC 558 even held a
\n     minister responsible personally for illegal allotments as
\n     exercise of power tantamount to misuse of power.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.      Breach of duty is an actionable wrong.  Rights of
\n     the authorities and their duties are co-related.  Violation <\/p>\n
     of   one’s   right   is   the   breach   of   other’s   duty.     In   some
\n     cases, the department may be called upon to examine
\n     the   conduct   of   its   various   officers   as   the   department <\/p>\n
     would be responsible for their action\/inaction.   Breach
\n     of   duty   may   not   essentially   result   from   wrong   doing,
\n     which may arise from negligence, failing to act timely or
\n     even by breach of duty under the statute, the duty may <\/p>\n
     be specifically envisaged in the language of the provision
\n     or it may arise by necessary interpretation applying the
\n     concept of reasonable conduct.  The expansion of rights
\n     would lead to expansion of bonds of liability.  They are <\/p>\n
     co-related and inter-dependent. Expansion of one would
\n     result in widening result of other.   Of course, they will <\/p>\n
     have  to be examined with  reference  to the  needs  and
\n     situations,   which   are   contemplated   under   the   law.
\n     Negligence   or   inaction   have   larger   consequences   and <\/p>\n
     implies an obligation on the authorities vested with the
\n     powers to act with greater and higher standards of care.
\n     If there is a right under the law, there must be a remedy
\n     for its violation as law commands nothing vainly – Lex <\/p>\n
     nil frustra jubet.\n<\/p>\n
     6.       Another   facet   of   statutory   duty   is   to   impose
\n     negative obligations on the State not to encroach upon
\n     the   rights   of   the   individual   or   to   frustrate   what   is
\n     granted under law to the  citizen. Declaration  of rights <\/p>\n
     would be meaningless unless there is effective machinery
\n     for enforcement of the rights.  Remedy is the essence of
\n     a right.  A right really become effective and meaningful
\n     when its enforceability is accepted by the procedure of
\n     law.     The   legality   or   illegality   of   a   State   action, <\/p>\n
     particularly when they are acting in furtherance to the
\n     statutory   powers   vested   in   them,   would   be   subject   to
\n     judicial review, not in its narrowest sense.   Wherever a
\n     cause is relatable to breach of statutory or implied duty
\n     of   a   public   officer,   the   rule   of   law   would   essentially <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
        provide   for   a   remedy   even   if   it   is   not   so   specifically
\n        spelled out in  the  provisions  of  the  Act.   Arbitrariness <\/p>\n
        and   unreasonableness   being   facets   of   Article   14<\/a>   are
\n        available   as   grounds   not   only   for   questioning   an
\n        administrative   action   but   in   certain   cases   may   even <\/p>\n
        invalidate subordinate legislation.   Timely action is the
\n        essence   of   government   functioning   and   unreasonable
\n        delay   questions   the   very   correctness   of   such   orders.
\n        Wherever the records offer no explanation for prolonged <\/p>\n
        unreasonable delay, the equity will tilt more in favour of
\n        the petitioners than uphold the action of the authorities
\n        to   be   correct,   being   done   in   the   normal   course   of   its
\n        business.\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
        Books                                          2002(3)  Supreme Court \n     Cases 7\n        Referred to :                                  2005(2)   Supreme   Court \n                        \n     Cases 317\n                                                       1996(VI)   Supreme   Court \n     Cases 1390\n                                                       \"The Law of Torts\" - 9th \n      \n\n\n     Edition\n                                                       by Ramaswamy Iyer.\n   \n\n\n\n                                                       `Law   of   Torts'   -   12th \n     Edition\n                                                       By Salmond & Heuston  \n                                                       Halsbury's   Laws   of \n\n\n\n\n\n     England - 4th                                     Edition   By   Lord \n     Hailsham of St.                                   Marylebone.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     7.        Concept of public accountability has been applied to
\n     the decision making process in the government by the courts <\/p>\n
     for   a   considerable   time.     This   concept   takes   in   its   ambit
\n     imposition   of   costs   and   its   recovery   from   the   officer
\n     concerned   for   their   negligence   or   acts   of   prolonged,
\n     unexplained delays running into years.  In the case of State
\n     of Andhra Pradesh vs. Food Corporation of India<\/a>  2004 (13)
\n     Supreme Court Cases 53, the Court directed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
     “We   are   shocked   as   to   the   manner   in   which   the   State <\/p>\n
     Government    is   filing   petitions   in   this   Court   resulting   not
\n     only   in   wasting   the   time   of   this
\n     Court and all others concerned but in total waste of public <\/p>\n
     money.   The  impugned orders  have  been  challenged after
\n     more   than   eight   years   with   almost   no   explanation,   as   is
\n     evident from the paragraph reproduced above.\n<\/p>\n
     In   this   view,l   while   dismissing   the   applications   seeking
\n     condonation   of   delay,   we   direct   that   enquiry   be   made
\n     forthwith   by   the   State   Government   as   to   the   person
\n     responsible for this state of affairs, recover from such person <\/p>\n
     the   costs   involved  in   filing   these   petitions   and  submit   the
\n     report to this Court within a period of four weeks.”\n<\/p>\n
     8.      Administrative or executive actions are subject matter
\n     of   judicial   review.     Noticing   the   significance   of   scope   of <\/p>\n
     judicial review in this regard and bureaucracy accountability,
\n     the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Subhash
\n     Singh<\/a> AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1390 held as under-\n<\/p>\n
     “In our democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary
\n     has   expressly   been   entrusted   with   the   power   of   judicial <\/p>\n
     review as sentinal in qui vive.   Basically judicial review of
\n     administrative   actions   as   also   of   legislation   is   exercised
\n     against the actions of the State.   Since the State or public
\n     authorities   act   in   exercise   of   their   executive   or   legislative <\/p>\n
     power, they are amenable to the judicial review…..\n<\/p>\n
     …The  normal   principle  that  the  permanent  bureaucracy  is
\n     accountable  to  the   political  executive  is  subject  to  judicial
\n     review. The doctrine of “full faith and credit” applied to the <\/p>\n
     acts   done   by   the   officers   and   presumptive   evidence   of
\n     regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in
\n     faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to
\n     be in accordance with the procedure prescribed.   It is now
\n     settled   legal   position   that   the   bureaucracy   is   also
\n     accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
     when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts.
\n     The   hierarchical   responsibility   for   the   decision   is   their   in-\n<\/p>\n
     built discipline.  But the Head of the Department\/designated
\n     officer is ultimately responsible and accountable to the Court
\n     for the result of the action done or decision taken.  Despite <\/p>\n
     this, if there is any special circumstance absolving him of the
\n     accountability   or   if   someone   else   is   responsible   for   the
\n     action, he needs to bring them to the notice of the Court so
\n     that appropriate procedure is adopted and action taken.  The <\/p>\n
     controlling officer holds each of them responsible at the pain
\n     of   disciplinary   action.     The   object   thereby   is   to   ensure
\n     compliance of the rule of law……..\n<\/p>\n
     …A   member   of   the   permanent   executive,   is   enjoined   to
\n     comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the <\/p>\n
     judicial review.   When a Court issues certain directions to
\n     the executive authorities it is expected that the authorities
\n     would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under <\/p>\n
     the rules and as per the directions. If they do not discharge
\n     the duty, necessarily, they are required to give explanation
\n     to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not
\n     comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was <\/p>\n
     any   unavoidable   delay,   they   should   seek   further   time   for
\n     compliance.  When, neither of the steps have been taken by <\/p>\n
     the   officer   in   that   regard   the   Court   can   impose   the   costs
\n     personally against him for non-compliance of the order…….\n<\/p>\n
     ….It   is   known   fact   that   in   transaction   of   the   Government <\/p>\n
     business,   none   would   own   personal   responsibility   and
\n     decisions   are   leisurely   taken   at   various   levels.     It   is   not
\n     uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused in filing
\n     appeal or revision by Government to confer advantage to the
\n     opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or <\/p>\n
     persons   are   well   connected\/influential   or   due   to   obvious
\n     considerations.   The   Courts,   therefore,   do   not   adopt   strict
\n     standard of proof of every day’s delay.   The imposition  of
\n     costs on officers for filing appeals causes public injustice and
\n     gives   the   manipulators   an   opportunity   to   compound   the
\n     camouflage.     Secondly,   the   imposition   of   costs   personally <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
     against the officers would desist to pursue genuine cases of
\n     public   benefit   or   importance   or   of   far-reaching   effect   on <\/p>\n
     public   administration   or   exchequer   deflecting   course   of
\n     justice.”\n<\/p>\n
     9.     The principle of care, maintenance of higher caution,
\n     expeditious decision-making process in exercise of statutory
\n     powers,   public   accountability   and   transparency   are   also
\n     applicable   to   the   various   proceedings   under   the   law   of <\/p>\n
     acquisition.  Various provisions of the Act could be referred
\n     to demonstrate that the exercise of powers emanating from
\n     statutory   provisions   is   coupled   with   public   obligation,   to
\n     protect the rights of the land owners.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to conduct
\n     a survey prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4<\/a>
\n     of   the   Act   for   acquisition   of   the   land.   Sub-section   (2)   of <\/p>\n
     Section 4<\/a> empowers the Officer to enter upon any property
\n     for   the   purposes   of   survey   and   other   acts   stated   in   that
\n     provision.   The   Legislature   has   even   taken   precautions   to
\n     make a statutory provision for payment of compensation for <\/p>\n
     any damage which may be done during completion of such
\n     duty   imposed   upon   the   Officer,   under   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
     Section 4<\/a> of the Act.  In regard to deficiency of the amount
\n     so offered or tendered, the dispute could be referred to the
\n     Collector or the Chief Revenue Officer.   After having issued
\n     declaration under Section 6<\/a> of the Act, the next effective step <\/p>\n
     to   be   taken   by   the   authorities   is   to   issue   notices   to   the
\n     interested persons under Section 9<\/a> of the Act.  It is intended
\n     to convey to the public, the intention of the Government to
\n     take   possession   and   calling   upon   them   to   make   claims   in
\n     regard to the lands acquired.  The Collector would make an <\/p>\n
     enquiry   and   then   pronounce   his   award   as   contemplated
\n     under   Section   11<\/a>   of   the   Act.   The   Collector   is   to   take
\n     approval of the government before the award could be made
\n     enforceable.  Section 11(a)<\/a> was introduced by the Amending
\n     Act<\/a> 68 of 1984 to require the authorities to make an award
\n     within 2 years from the date of publication of declaration.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
     The consequences of non-compliance were to the extent that
\n     entire   acquisition   proceedings   shall   lapse.   The   only <\/p>\n
     explanation   in   providing   the   period   of   2   years   was   the
\n     exclusion of the period during which orders of stay passed
\n     by  the   court  were   in   operation.   After   pronouncing   of  the <\/p>\n
     award   under   Section   11<\/a>   of   the   Act,   unless   the   case   was
\n     covered under the provisions of Section 17<\/a> of the Act,   the
\n     Collector was to take possession of the lands under Section
\n     16<\/a>,  and such lands would vest in the government, free from <\/p>\n
     all encumbrances.  After the award is made the Collector is
\n     required   to   give   immediate   notice   of   his   award   to   the
\n     persons interested who were not personally present before
\n     him   so   that   the   compensation   could   be   awarded   to   the <\/p>\n
     rightful claimants.  Then the award of the Collector in regard
\n     to apportionment, area value of the land and the interested <\/p>\n
     persons attains finality in that field.   The claimants have a
\n     right to claim compensation without prejudice to their rights
\n     and contentions by making reference petitions under Section <\/p>\n
     18<\/a> of the Act.  From the stage of  making of a reference, the
\n     matters   are   transferred   from   the   administrative   and
\n     executive authorities functioning under the provisions of the
\n     Act,  for adjudication process to the courts.\n<\/p>\n
     11.  The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to caution <\/p>\n
     the authorities  (beneficiaries for whose benefit the lands are
\n     acquired) that they should make the funds available for their
\n     disbursement to the rightful claimants.  This now is the clear
\n     directive stated in Section 50<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Under the provisions of the Act, a duty is cast upon the
\n     authorities to  make payment of compensation determined to
\n     the   rightful   claimants   expeditiously.   The   provisions   of
\n     Section 9<\/a> indicate a preparatory step by the State authorities <\/p>\n
     invoking  the plea that the  Government   intends  to acquire
\n     the   lands   as   well   as   calling   upon   the   claimants   to   claim
\n     compensation.   The   Collector   would   determine   the   fair
\n     market   value   of   the   acquired   land   and   direct   its
\n     payment\/apportionment amongst the rightful claimants i.e.
\n     interested persons.  The right of the persons to claim money <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
     is,   thus,   instantly   available   to   them   upon   making   of   the
\n     award except in cases where the compensation of the lands <\/p>\n
     of   the   owners   is   taken   under   Section   17<\/a>   (3)   of   the   Act
\n     wherein   they   become   entitled   to   80%   of   the   estimated
\n     compensation   before   taking   possession   of   the   land.   The <\/p>\n
     provisions of the Act even provide a safeguard to the citizen
\n     and   obligation   to   the   State   that   where   estimated
\n     compensation cannot be paid because of contingencies stated
\n     in Section 31(2)<\/a>, they are required to deposit the same in <\/p>\n
     terms   of   the   Section   31<\/a>.   Under   Section   19<\/a>   while   the
\n     Collector is making the reference he is required to provide
\n     information to the Court in writing, including the amounts
\n     which have been paid or deposited and all other amount for <\/p>\n
     damages   or   compensation,   which   were   tendered   in
\n     accordance with the provisions of the Act.   Section 23<\/a>(1-A) <\/p>\n
     requires authorities to pay, in addition to the market value as
\n     called in terms of Section 23<\/a>, an amount @12%  per annum
\n     on   the   market   value   for   the   period   commencing   from   the <\/p>\n
     date of notification issued under Section 4<\/a> (1) of the Act to
\n     the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking
\n     possession   of   the   land.   In   addition   to   this,   30%   of   the
\n     market   value   of   the   land   is   payable   on   account   of <\/p>\n
     compulsory   nature   of   acquisition.   Section   34<\/a>   further
\n     postulates that the amount of compensation so determined <\/p>\n
     and if not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of
\n     the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with
\n     interest thereupon @9% per annum from the date of taking
\n     of possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.\n<\/p>\n
     Further, for the period in excess of one year from the date of
\n     taking over possession, interest is payable @15% per annum
\n     for   the   compensation   amount   determined   or   part   thereof
\n     which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such
\n     expiry.\n<\/p>\n
     13.     The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act<\/a> has an inbuilt
\n     check   and   balances   and   the   legislative   intent   of   providing
\n     just and fair market value to the owners of the lands and
\n     expeditiously is more than evident under various provisions
\n     of   the   Act.   A   dual   purpose   is   sought   to   be   achieved   by <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                       18<\/span><\/p>\n
     providing even the periods within which the authorities are
\n     expected to discharge their duties and ensure disbursement <\/p>\n
     of compensation to the claimants.  In default thereof, certain
\n     further liabilities accrue against the department.  Surely, the
\n     Act   does   not   contemplate   and   rightly   so   that   a   claimant <\/p>\n
     entitled   to   receive   compensation   is   expected   or   it   is   even
\n     desirable for him to run in various departments of the Govt.
\n     or  the  authorities  to  receive  his  compensation,  which  may
\n     not be paid to him for years together.   Certain benefits are <\/p>\n
     available   to   the   claimants   for   delay   in   acquisition
\n     proceedings  commencing with under Section 4<\/a> and making
\n     of   the   award   under   Section   11<\/a>,   as   the   authorities   are
\n     required to pay interest @12% per annum to the claimants <\/p>\n
     for   this   period.   The   claimants   are   also   protected   to   some
\n     extent   against   compulsive   acquisition   as   well   as   from   the <\/p>\n
     date   the   possession   is   taken   till   entire   payment   of   the
\n     awarded   compensation   is   made   to   the   claimants.   But   the
\n     Statute has a lacunae inasmuch as it gives no benefit much <\/p>\n
     less an additional benefit to the claimants, whose lands are
\n     required for the entire period commencing from the date of
\n     making   of   the   award   till   taking   over   of   possession   by   the
\n     Department.   No   liability   of   any   kind   comes   on   the <\/p>\n
     department despite any length of this period i.e. where the
\n     judicial pronouncements would abridge the gap and require <\/p>\n
     the authorities to ponder over this aspect of the matter and
\n     not leave the claimants unbenefited or remedy less for this
\n     period.   There are number of cases before the Court where
\n     the   awards   are   made   and   for   years   compensation   is   not <\/p>\n
     paid.   In  some  of them, may be the   department has  some
\n     reasonable excuses but in most of them at least the records
\n     produced before the Court in those cases do not reflect so.
\n     Still in another set of cases, the land is acquired, award is
\n     made and possession thereof is not taken for years together <\/p>\n
     and   the   period   varies   from   7   years   to   30   years.   Still   in
\n     another   set   of   cases   the   possession   is   taken   and   for   years
\n     compensation is not paid and if it is paid, it is not paid in its
\n     entirety.  There are large number of writs, which are coming
\n     up   before   the   Court   every   day   falling   in   either   of   these
\n     categories.   This aspect has been discussed by the Court in <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                      19<\/span><\/p>\n
     some   detail   in   another   case   being   WP   (C)   No.
\n     13308-12\/2005, which is being disposed of by the judgment <\/p>\n
     of the same date.\n<\/p>\n
     14. Inaction   and   action   taken   after   inordinate   delay   by <\/p>\n
     various functionaries working under the scheme of the Act
\n     results in seriously jeopardizing interest of claimants as well
\n     as the public money.   In some cases, the claimants are not
\n     paid their dues entitling them for higher rate of interest and <\/p>\n
     interest   for   unnecessarily   prolonged   period.   This   may   be
\n     their gain but it certainly is to the disadvantage of the public
\n     exchequer   and   an   avoidable   financial   loss.   On   the   other
\n     hand, the claimants would suffer accrual of any benefits, if <\/p>\n
     their   properties   are   acquired,   award   is   made   and   the
\n     possession is not taken for years together.  This further leads <\/p>\n
     to dual disfunctional results. The very purpose for which the
\n     land   is   acquired   may   stand   frustrated   because   of   long
\n     intervening period as a result of unauthorised construction <\/p>\n
     or colonies coming up on the acquired land, and secondly it
\n     occasions in generating litigation which again is avoidable.
\n     Thus,  timely   action   for   completing   acquisition   proceedings
\n     and   expeditious   determination   and   disbursement   of <\/p>\n
     compensation to the claimants should be the Hallmark of all
\n     the functionaries doing public duties under the provision of <\/p>\n
     the Land Acquisition Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
     15. In the case of ABL International Ltd. and another Vs.
\n     Export   Credit   Guarantee   Corporation   of   India   Ltd.   and <\/p>\n
     Others (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Supreme Court held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “It is clear that when an instrumentality of the
\n                 State acts contrary to public good and public
\n                 interest,   unfairly,   unjustly   and   unreasonably, <\/p>\n
                 in   its   contractual,   constitutional   or   statutory
\n                 obligations,   it   really   acts   contrary   to   the
\n                 constitutional guarantee found in Article 14<\/a> of
\n                 the Constitution.  Therefore, once the State or
\n                 an instrumentality of the State is a party, it has
\n                 an   obligation   in   law   to   act   fairly,   justly   and <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        20<\/span><\/p>\n
                  reasonably   to   a   contract   which   is   the
\n                  requirement   of   Article   14<\/a>   of   the <\/p>\n
                  Constitution.”?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  “Unless   the   action   challenged   in   the   writ <\/p>\n
                  petition  pertains to the discharge of a public
\n                  function   or   public   duty   by   an   authority,   the
\n                  courts will not entertain a writ petition which
\n                  does not involve the performance of the said <\/p>\n
                  public function or public duty.”?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16.     State actions causing loss are actionable under public
\n     law and this is as a result of  innovation to a new tool with <\/p>\n
     the   court,   which   are   the   protectors   of   civil   liberty   of   the
\n     citizens   and   would   ensure   protection   against   devastating <\/p>\n
     results   of   State   Act<\/a>ion.   The   principles   of   public
\n     accountability and transparency in State action even in the
\n     cases   of   appointment,   which   essentially   must   not   lack <\/p>\n
     bonafide was enforced by the Supreme Court in the case of
\n     Centre for public interest litigation and another Vs. Union of
\n     India and another (2005) 8 SCC 202.\n<\/p>\n
     17.    Adverting to the facts of the present case in the back
\n     drop   of   principle   of   public   or   statutory   duty   and <\/p>\n
     accountability of public officers, we are constrained to say
\n     that authorities have not been able to place any justification
\n     on record for non payment of the awarded compensation to
\n     the   petitioners.   Non-disclosure   of   any   sufficient   reason <\/p>\n
     obviously would hold them responsible for the consequences
\n     flowing   from   the   default   in   discharge   of   their   public   and
\n     statutory obligations.   The Notification  under Section4 was
\n     issued   on   27th   January,   2003   while   declaration   under
\n     Section 6<\/a> was issued on 23rd January, 2004  i.e. after a lapse <\/p>\n
     of nearly one year.  The award was made by the Collector on
\n     22nd  August,  2005  being  Award  No.15\/2005-06\/DC(N-W)
\n     after a lapse of nearly 1 year and 8 months. The possession
\n     of the land was taken on or before 14th September, 2005 but
\n     the compensation of the petitioners have not been paid even
\n     till  filing  of  the  present writ petition.   The petitioners   had <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                        21<\/span><\/p>\n
     filed   their   objections   under   Section   18<\/a>   of   the   Land
\n     Acquisition   Act   on   14th   September,   2005   itself.   In   other <\/p>\n
     words, the petitioners had filed application for payment of
\n     their   compensation   and   their   application   for   further
\n     enhancement in accordance with Section 18<\/a> of the Act but <\/p>\n
     despite filing of such applications, copies of which have been
\n     filed on record, they have not been paid compensation till
\n     date.   The   respondents   have   not   even   deposited   the   said
\n     compensation   before   the   Reference   Court.   There   is   no <\/p>\n
     justification   whatsoever   on   record   as   to   why   the
\n     compensation   has   not   been   paid   for   the   last   more   than   8
\n     months.  Two important aspects of the matter, which create
\n     avoidable liabilities on the public exchequer are,  who would <\/p>\n
     be responsible for not acting within a reasonable time and
\n     furthermore, who would pay the interest in terms of Section <\/p>\n
     34<\/a> and even under Section 23<\/a> (1-A).  Should this liability be
\n     fastened   upon   the   common   income-tax   payer,   who
\n     contributes towards the public exchequer or should it be the <\/p>\n
     liability   of   the   officers\/officials,   who   are   incharge   of   the
\n     acquisition   proceedings   and   do   not   deal   with   the   files   for
\n     months   together.   Timely  disbursement  of  compensation   is
\n     the obligation of the authorities and no reason whatsoever <\/p>\n
     either by filing a counter affidavit or by production of record
\n     has been shown as to why even after taking possession in <\/p>\n
     September, 2005, the compensation has not been disbursed
\n     for 8 months. It is a matter, which should invite attention of
\n     all concerned.\n<\/p>\n
               The   disputes   mainly   are   interdependent   or   are
\n     resulting from inaction of the authorities. Reference in this
\n     regard   can   be   made   to   Civil   Writ   Petition   Nos.   933\/88,
\n     1161\/88,   6372\/06,   4739-43\/06,   22895\/05,   5663\/05,
\n     11206\/05,   6609-48\/06,   4070-73\/06   and   22881\/05.   The <\/p>\n
     petitioners   had   submitted   the   applications   complete   in   all
\n     respects with affidavits  etc. on 14.6.05 itself but no records
\n     have been produced before us to show that the petitioners
\n     were called upon to make up in deficiency if at all noticed by
\n     the   respondents   in   fact   that   is   not   even   so   stated   in   the
\n     affidavits  filed  in   this  Court   by  the   respondents.   Once   the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                               22<\/span><\/p>\n
               petitioners had furnished the requisite  documents and had
\n               submitted   their   applications   there   can   be   no   justification <\/p>\n
               whatsoever   for   delay   in   disbursement   of   the   awarded
\n               compensation to them. Persistent and chronic nature of these
\n               problems is amply demonstrated by the fact that in Civil Writ <\/p>\n
               No 1161\/88 vide its order dated 5.5.05 the Court had passed
\n               directions   requiring   the   respondents   to   look   into   various
\n               problems   relating   to   acquisition   proceedings   before   the
\n               authorities   and   to   prepare   guidelines.   In   Civil   Writ   No. <\/p>\n
               5463\/99 Deep Jot Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India<\/a> the Court
\n               in similar circumstances as of the present case had allowed
\n               the writ petition of the petitioners and imposed cost of Rs.
\n               10,000\/- to be recovered from the  erring officers. Despite  <\/p>\n
               specific directions of the Court that the amount of cost which
\n               was to be paid at the first instance by the respondents was to <\/p>\n
               be   recovered   from   the   salary   of   the   erring   officials   in
\n               accordance   with  law.   Despite   a   specific  direction  that   the
\n               report   should   be   submitted   within   three   months,   the <\/p>\n
               respondents have filed no report and it had been left to the
\n               imagination whether the direction and orders of the Court
\n               have been implemented by the respondents in its true spirit
\n               and substance or not.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.            From the above enunciated principles, it is clear that the public <\/p>\n
    functionaries and public bodies must act within the specified time provided <\/p>\n
    in the provisions of law and in absence thereof within a reasonable time.\n<\/p>\n
    The   concept   of   reasonable   time   is   applicable   to   administrative   action <\/p>\n
    particularly when the determination in exercise of such power is likely to <\/p>\n
    have effect on the rights and obligations of  individuals.  The citizens have <\/p>\n
    a right to claim performance of public duties by the public functionaries <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 23<\/span><\/p>\n
    within   a   reasonable   time   so   as   to   achieve   the   object   for   which   such <\/p>\n
    statutory or public functionaries are required to act.   In the present case, <\/p>\n
    Respondent No.2-Committee has been constituted only with an object of <\/p>\n
    dealing with and deciding the matters in relation to validity\/verification of <\/p>\n
    the caste certificates.  Once such a function is assigned to the Committee, it <\/p>\n
    is expected to keep the object and such function in its mind.   Therefore, it <\/p>\n
    is expected of Respondent No.2-Committee to work for the welfare of the <\/p>\n
    Applicants while ensuring that the delay in performance and discharge of <\/p>\n
    their duties does not result in frustration or taking away the rights which <\/p>\n
    would   be   available   to   the   applicants.   Undue   delay   in   the   normal <\/p>\n
    circumstances   has   the   effect   of   divesting   an   applicant’s   right   of   being <\/p>\n
    considered   for   employment   and   admission   to   academic\/professional <\/p>\n
    courses.   That   certainly   is   not   the   intent   of   the   law   under   which   the <\/p>\n
    Committee has been constituted.\n<\/p>\n
    9.               We are concerned with the case where Respondent No.2-\n<\/p>\n
    Committee has not only failed to act once, but has repeatedly failed to<\/p>\n
    act within a reasonable time, much less expeditiously. Vide order dated<\/p>\n
    25th April, 2008, the Court had directed the Respondent No.2-\n<\/p>\n
    Committee to decide tribal claim of the Petitioner within two months<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                              24<\/span><\/p>\n
    from 14th May, 2008. Interim protection granted to the Petitioner was<\/p>\n
    that the Petitioner’s admission should not be cancelled on the sole<\/p>\n
    ground that the Petitioner had not been able to tender caste validity<\/p>\n
    certificates. Despite this specific direction where the Court had fixed the<\/p>\n
    time, the Respondent No.2 – Committee had not only failed to decide<\/p>\n
    caste validity claim of the Petitioner within the specified time but it even<\/p>\n
    failed to seek extension from the Court in this regard. Not only this but<\/p>\n
    it also failed to seek appropriate directions from the Court in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    Even after the expiry of time specified by the Court and reminders of<\/p>\n
    the Petitioner it still failed to act and decide the question of caste<\/p>\n
    claim\/validity certificate of the Petitioner.       According to the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
    she has lost two jobs as she could not furnish caste validity certificate<\/p>\n
    either to Co-operative Department ( in Class-III category ) in the office of<\/p>\n
    Divisional     Deputy      Registrar,    Co-operative     Societies         (Auditor),<\/p>\n
    Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad in the Scheduled Tribe Category as<\/p>\n
    well   as    for   the   post   of   Clerk-Typist   (English)   in    the     General<\/p>\n
    Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Petitioner claims<\/p>\n
    to have also got employment in Respondent No.3 but again was unable<\/p>\n
    to join the same for want of caste validity certificate.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           Great disadvantage and harm has been caused to the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner as a result of untimely action on the part of the Respondent-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                         25<\/span><\/p>\n
    Committee and its office.     Whatever be the reasons for delay, the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner certainly cannot be blamed for the same. She has doubly<\/p>\n
    suffered at the hands of the Respondent Committee, firstly,                    the<\/p>\n
    Respondents did not act timely causing disadvantage to the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    for losing her job and secondly she has been compelled to approach the<\/p>\n
    Court again and again which could have been avoided, obviously,<\/p>\n
    putting her to unnecessary expenses.        The Committee must realise<\/p>\n
    that it is expected to act timely and that it is answerable and<\/p>\n
    accountable to the public as well as to the law under which it is<\/p>\n
    constituted.     The Respondent No.2-Committee has not even denied<\/p>\n
    before us that the application of the Petitioner is still not pending and\/or<\/p>\n
    has been decided by the competent authority. All the averments made<\/p>\n
    in the Petition are primarily supported by the Court orders and inaction<\/p>\n
    on the part of the Respondents which is obviously the result of<\/p>\n
    irresponsible attitude by the Committee and its office cannot be ignored<\/p>\n
    by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    11.            We are compelled to pass an order imposing cost on the<\/p>\n
    members of the Committee who are responsible for the delay because it<\/p>\n
    is a glaring case of breach of public accountability. In our opinion, sense<\/p>\n
    of public accountability, which applies to the facts of the present case,<\/p>\n
    clearly is lacking in the members of the Committee and its officers who<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                        26<\/span><\/p>\n
    failed to discharge their duties within time. Whatever be the reasons for<\/p>\n
    non-performance of the public duty timely by them, the same has<\/p>\n
    caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner. Breach of duty is actionable<\/p>\n
    wrong in law and some benefit thus must accrue to the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12          Thus, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to<\/p>\n
    Respondent No.2-Committee and all its members to ensure that the<\/p>\n
    application of the Petitioner be decided within a period of four weeks<\/p>\n
    from today without fail. This, however, would not preclude the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    from pursuing such other remedy as may be advised. The Petitioner is<\/p>\n
    entitled to costs of Rs.25,000\/- from the Respondents and particularly<\/p>\n
    from Respondent No.2-Committee. We further direct the State to fix<\/p>\n
    responsibility of the erring committee members\/officers\/officials who are<\/p>\n
    responsible for not complying with the order dated 25th April, 2008 of<\/p>\n
    this Court and recover costs to be paid by the State exchequer from<\/p>\n
    each one of them in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         In view of the above, rule is made absolute as aforestated.\n<\/p>\n
                                               CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>
\n            27<\/span><\/p>\n
                A.M. KHANWILKAR, J<\/p>\n
                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:25:52 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7055 OF 2009 Vaishali D\/o Atmaram Suryawanshi, ) Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil, ) R\/o: C\/o. Atmaram Mango Suryawanshi, ) Hirtma, 1-A, Auditor Colony, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268029","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - 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\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-29T11:26:39+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=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T11:26:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":6955,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-29T11:26:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - 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\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-29T11:26:39+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":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T11:26:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2"},"wordCount":6955,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2","name":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-29T11:26:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaishali-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaishali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/268029","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=268029"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268029\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}