{"id":33028,"date":"2009-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-08T07:40:08","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T02:10:08","slug":"e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 15557 of 2008(B)\n\n\n1. E. PRADEEP, S\/O. KRISHNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE,\n\n3. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :17\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                    ---------------------------\n                   W.P.(C) No.15557 of 2008\n                -------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioner is a Scribe and a Document writer. Exhibits P1<\/p>\n
and P2 are the Document writer’s licence and the Scribe licence<\/p>\n
respectively. By Exhibit P3(a) dated 16\/05\/2008, the first<\/p>\n
respondent suspended petitioner’s licences. A reading of Exhibit<\/p>\n
P3(a) shows that the said order was passed, acting upon the<\/p>\n
directions as contained in letter dated 6\/05\/2008 issued by the<\/p>\n
Government, which in turn, was        on the basis of Exhibit P7,<\/p>\n
report submitted by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Exhibit P7 report shows that, on enquiry, the second<\/p>\n
respondent found that a Power of Attorney was falsely created in<\/p>\n
favour of one Anoop, who is the clerk of the petitioner, and<\/p>\n
that an unidentified person     was introduced by the petitioner<\/p>\n
before the Notary Public as the executor of the Power of<\/p>\n
Attorney.   It is stated that on the strength of the Power of<\/p>\n
Attorney, 4.8 cents of land owned by one P.M. Iqubal was<\/p>\n
transferred to one Sirajudeen vide document          no. 1213\/1\/04,<\/p>\n
Registered Deed dated 14\/06\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.15557 \/2008
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.     Another finding in Exhibit P7 report is that a Power of<\/p>\n
Attorney was created in favour of one Assu,          where also an<\/p>\n
unidentified person was presented before the Notary Public , who<\/p>\n
was allegedly introduced by the petitioner. It is stated that on the<\/p>\n
strength of the Power of Attorney,             Transfer Deed No.<\/p>\n
4157\/2004 was registered on 20\/12\/2004. Yet another finding is<\/p>\n
that one Kamalabai had transferred to her son 15.35 cents of<\/p>\n
land vide document no.2396\/2001 and that impersonating as<\/p>\n
Kamalabai, some unidentified persons, registered documents<\/p>\n
transferring a portion of the 15.35 cents in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the balance in favour of others. The involvement<\/p>\n
of the petitioner in      creating bogus documents is also seen<\/p>\n
recommended to the police for registration of criminal case for<\/p>\n
impersonation and for cheating others.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Thus it was on the basis of Exhibit P7 that by<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3(a)        licences of the petitioner were eventually<\/p>\n
suspended without specifying any period. Although, several<\/p>\n
contentions have been raised by the Petitioner to impugne the<\/p>\n
validity of Exhibit P3(a), including the incorrectness of the factual<\/p>\n
findings in Exhibit P7 Report and that even if the allegations in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.15557 \/2008
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
Exhibit P7 are taken at its face value, they do not call for any<\/p>\n
action under Kerala Document Writers Rules, 1960, I feel that<\/p>\n
pronouncement of those contentions may not be necessary in<\/p>\n
this proceedings. This is for the reason that Exhibit P3(a) was not<\/p>\n
preceded by a show cause notice nor was it passed after<\/p>\n
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      5.    Going on by the provisions contained in Kerala<\/p>\n
Document Writers       Rules,1960, I am inclined to think that<\/p>\n
suspensions, by itself is a punishment, in as much as, three<\/p>\n
suspensions suffered by a licencee during a period of two years<\/p>\n
will render himself liable for the cancellation of his licence in<\/p>\n
terms of Rule 30 of the Rules.    Therefore, the suspension could<\/p>\n
not have been validly imposed without issuing a show cause<\/p>\n
notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent<\/p>\n
licencee.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Learned Government Pleader contended that since<\/p>\n
suspension was in pursuance to Exhibit P7 report and as the<\/p>\n
report was submitted by the second respondent after questioning<\/p>\n
the Petitioner, there is no warrant for a second       opportunity,<\/p>\n
when consequential action is taken by the first respondent. I am<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.15557 \/2008
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
not in a position to agree with this submission. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned is the<\/p>\n
first respondent. If the first respondent has to act on a report<\/p>\n
submitted to him by any other authority, natural justice requires<\/p>\n
that the petitioner should be heard before any such action is<\/p>\n
taken.     In such a case alone, will the petitioner get an<\/p>\n
opportunity to      contend before the first respondent, that the<\/p>\n
findings in the enquiry report are factually incorrect.<\/p>\n
      7.    In this particular case it is the specific case of the<\/p>\n
petitioner that he did not introduce anybody before the Notary<\/p>\n
Public contrary to what is reported in Exhibit P7, the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Report.     In fact Petitioner himself has produced copy of the<\/p>\n
Notarial Register as Exhibit P5 in support of his contentions.    If<\/p>\n
he had been given an opportunity, the petitioner could have<\/p>\n
produced it before the first respondent and contended that the<\/p>\n
finding in Exhibit P7 are incorrect. Since, such an opportunity<\/p>\n
was not extended, in my view, Exhibit P3(a) is vitiated for<\/p>\n
violation of principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
      8.    Therefore, for the reason that natural justice has been<\/p>\n
violated, I set aside Exhibit P3(a) order, leaving it open to the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.15557 \/2008
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
first respondent to take appropriate action against the petitioner<\/p>\n
as is permissible in law, but however only after issuing Show<\/p>\n
Cause Notice and giving him an opportunity to be heard.<\/p>\n
      9.    It is clarified that I have not considered the other<\/p>\n
contentions raised by both sides, and it is for the first respondent<\/p>\n
to deal with those contentions.\n<\/p>\n
       10. Proceedings shall be initiated as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
possible and at any rate within one month of receipt of a copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment and shall be concluded without any, for the reason<\/p>\n
that if there is any truth in the allegation, public interest requires<\/p>\n
that necessary action should be taken.\n<\/p>\n
            Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<\/p>\n
scm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 15557 of 2008(B) 1. E. PRADEEP, S\/O. KRISHNAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE, 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner […]<\/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-33028","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nE. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 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\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T02:10:08+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T02:10:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":905,\"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\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\",\"name\":\"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T02:10:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 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":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 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\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T02:10:08+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T02:10:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009"},"wordCount":905,"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\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009","name":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T02:10:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-pradeep-vs-the-deputy-inspector-general-of-on-17-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E. Pradeep vs The Deputy Inspector General Of on 17 February, 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\/33028","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=33028"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33028\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33028"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33028"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33028"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}