{"id":27041,"date":"2009-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-04-07T09:02:13","modified_gmt":"2014-04-07T03:32:13","slug":"ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 22048 of 2009(A)\n\n\n1. M\/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD., SEOND FLOOR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION,\n\n3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :10\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J.\n                ---------------------\n                W.P.(C).No.22048 OF 2009\n              ------------------------\n            Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009.\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Petitioner is a High Tension consumer of the Kerala<\/p>\n<p>State Electricity Board. They executed Ext.P1 agreement<\/p>\n<p>with the respondents, for supply of electrical energy. In so<\/p>\n<p>far as this writ petition is concerned,        petitioner was<\/p>\n<p>allocated 90 KVA of power and the petitioner had installed<\/p>\n<p>a transformer with a capacity of 200 KVA.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.   Subsequently, it would appear that the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>had installed a transformer with 315 KVA capacity, which<\/p>\n<p>according to the petitioner was based on Ext.P5 approval<\/p>\n<p>granted by the Chief Electrical Inspector. It is stated by the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P5, they applied for<\/p>\n<p>additional allocation of 160 KVA.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. However, without obtaining approval of the Board,<\/p>\n<p>the installation of transformer was completed and that lead<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(c).No.22048\/09               2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to the issuance of Exts.P10 and P14. It is stated that following<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P14, power supply to the transformer in question was<\/p>\n<p>disconnected and that lead the petitioner to file this writ<\/p>\n<p>petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4. Along with I.A.No.10020\/2009, counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner produced Exts.P15 to P17. Counsel submits that in<\/p>\n<p>view of Ext.P14, they have removed the 315 KVA transformer<\/p>\n<p>and reinstalled the earlier transformer with 200 KVA.<\/p>\n<p>According to the petitioner, the Electrical Inspector has also<\/p>\n<p>granted temporary sanction under Rule 63 for energizing the<\/p>\n<p>transformer with 200 KVA. It is stated that immediately on<\/p>\n<p>receipt of the said order, they have filed Ext.P17 application<\/p>\n<p>before the first respondent, requesting to do the needful for<\/p>\n<p>energizing     the transformer   and    reinstate  the   service<\/p>\n<p>connection.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>According to the respondents, the installation of the<\/p>\n<p>transformer with 315 KVA was without prior approval of the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(c).No.22048\/09               3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Board    and     the petitioner  has   also   not   applied    for<\/p>\n<p>regularization of the installation. In so far as Ext.P17 request<\/p>\n<p>made by the petitioner for energizing the 200 KVA transformer<\/p>\n<p>is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents on<\/p>\n<p>instruction submits that,    unless the petitioner removes the<\/p>\n<p>same unauthorised installation or regularizing the said<\/p>\n<p>installation, the respondents cannot restore power supply.<\/p>\n<p>This submission of the      learned Standing Counsel for the<\/p>\n<p>respondents is contradicted by the counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>who contends that the installation in place is the one which<\/p>\n<p>they had installed at the time when 200 KVA was installed.<\/p>\n<p>      6. In view of Ext.P17 request made by the petitioner for<\/p>\n<p>restoring the power supply, what stands in the way of the<\/p>\n<p>Board is the presence of the installation with a higher capacity<\/p>\n<p>and the Board wants the same to be removed. On the other<\/p>\n<p>hand, the case of the petitioner is that installation is the same<\/p>\n<p>as the one which was installed by them at the time when 200<\/p>\n<p>KV    transformer was installed. Taking into       this disputed<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(c).No.22048\/09                4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>question, which cannot be resolved in a writ petition, I dispose<\/p>\n<p>of this writ petition with the following directions.<\/p>\n<p>      I direct the first respondent to consider Ext.P17, inspect<\/p>\n<p>the installation of the petitioner and       on instruction, if he<\/p>\n<p>satisfied that the installation of the petitioner available at the<\/p>\n<p>site was the one installed at the time when 200KV transformer<\/p>\n<p>was available, the respondent shall take necessary steps for<\/p>\n<p>restoration of the supply, subject to usual conditions that are<\/p>\n<p>imposed by them. This shall be done at any rate, within 7 days<\/p>\n<p>from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.<\/p>\n<p>      Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before<\/p>\n<p>the first respondent for compliance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       (ANTONY DOMINIC)<br \/>\n                                                JUDGE<br \/>\nvi\/<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">WP(c).No.22048\/09    5<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 22048 of 2009(A) 1. M\/S.IDEA CELLULAR LTD., SEOND FLOOR, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE ASST.ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, 3. THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW For [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-07T03:32:13+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=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T03:32:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":602,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T03:32:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 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":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-07T03:32:13+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":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T03:32:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009"},"wordCount":602,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009","name":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T03:32:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-idea-cellular-ltd-vs-the-dy-chief-engineer-on-10-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Idea Cellular Ltd. vs The Dy.Chief Engineer on 10 August, 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\/27041","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=27041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}