{"id":34610,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-31T14:13:27","modified_gmt":"2018-01-31T08:43:27","slug":"mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 35032 of 2009(Y)\n\n\n1. MARY THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, W\/O.THOMAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. DAISON, AGED 32 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,\n\n3. I.K.SEKHARAN, ITHIKKAD HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :28\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n                 W.P.(C) No. 35032 of 2009 Y\n             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n              Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           According         to     the     petitioners,        1st  petitioner<\/p>\n
purchased a shop room, sometime in 1999, where her<\/p>\n
husband has been running a ration shop since then. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that, in 2009, by virtue of settlement deed executed<\/p>\n
by the 1st petitioner, the property now belongs to the 2nd<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   According to the petitioners, third respondent owns<\/p>\n
a shopping complex, which is situated on the three sides of<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s shop room. Petitioners allege that the third<\/p>\n
respondent made an attempt to purchase the building and<\/p>\n
that the petitioners were unwilling to part with the property.<\/p>\n
      3.   It is stated that as a result of the above, the third<\/p>\n
respondent made a complaint to the first respondent alleging<\/p>\n
that, in 2008, the 1st petitioner made an unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction on the upper floor of the shop room. Thereupon,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                               : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
first respondent issued Ext.P2 notice to which the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted Ext.P3 reply, contending that the upper floor of the<\/p>\n
shop room was constructed in 1999, when that area was a<\/p>\n
part of Ayyanthole Panchayat. It is a case of the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
that, at that time, the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were<\/p>\n
not applicable to the area and that building permit was not<\/p>\n
required to be obtained. It is also her case that, despite the<\/p>\n
above, she made the construction only after intimating the<\/p>\n
same to the Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   While the matter was thus pending, the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the first<\/p>\n
respondent, reiterating the above contentions and requesting<\/p>\n
to drop further proceedings against her.        On Ext.P3, first<\/p>\n
respondent made an endorsement, requiring the Building<\/p>\n
Inspector to conduct an enquiry into the case of the petitioner<\/p>\n
that the building was constructed when the area was under<\/p>\n
the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. The Building Inspector was<\/p>\n
also required to report the point of time when the construction<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                                : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
was completed. It is the case of the petitioners that report in<\/p>\n
pursuance to Ext.P3 was not submitted.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Petitioners state that, even in spite of it, further<\/p>\n
notices were issued and replies were also submitted and that<\/p>\n
during the course of the hearing on one occasion, at the<\/p>\n
instance of the first respondent, the 1st petitioner was also<\/p>\n
made to submit an application for regularisation of the<\/p>\n
construction and that by Ext.P8, the second respondent<\/p>\n
required the 1st petitioner to make certain modifications for<\/p>\n
getting the construction regularised. At that stage, the third<\/p>\n
respondent filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.15595\/2009, complaining that his objection against the<\/p>\n
proposal for regularisation of the building was not considered<\/p>\n
by the Municipal authorities. That writ petition was disposed<\/p>\n
of by Ext.P9 judgment, directing the first respondent to hear<\/p>\n
both parties and consider the application made by the 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner for regularisation of the construction.<\/p>\n
      6.    Accordingly, the parties were heard and by<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                                 : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P10, 1st petitioner was allowed 30 days time to make<\/p>\n
certain modifications. 1st petitioner’s case is that within the<\/p>\n
time allowed by Ext.P10, she made modifications as<\/p>\n
suggested in Ext.P8. It is stated that, despite the above, 1st<\/p>\n
petitioner was issued Ext.P12 notice, by the second<\/p>\n
respondent, requiring her to cure the defects mentioned<\/p>\n
therein.    Ext.P12 was followed by Ext.P13 notice of the<\/p>\n
second respondent asking the 1st petitioner to comply with<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 within ten days.              Challenging the aforesaid<\/p>\n
proceedings, writ petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Although petitioner seeks various reliefs in this writ<\/p>\n
petition, when the case was taken up for hearing, the only<\/p>\n
prayer which the counsel for the petitioners made was that,<\/p>\n
before any further action is taken on Exts.P12 and P13, the<\/p>\n
enquiry ordered by the first respondent in Ext.P5 should also<\/p>\n
be completed and the report which is to be submitted by the<\/p>\n
Building Inspector should also be considered as and when<\/p>\n
orders are passed.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                                : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.    Although the counsel for the third respondent<\/p>\n
contended that, 1st petitioner herself had made an application<\/p>\n
for regularisation of the building and that the request of the<\/p>\n
petitioner    itself pre-supposes     that    the   objectionable<\/p>\n
construction was made in violation of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Building Rules. On this basis, it is argued that, if so, there is<\/p>\n
no necessity to enquire into the question whether the building<\/p>\n
in question was constructed prior to the implementation of the<\/p>\n
Building Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    Although it is the admitted fact that the 1st petitioner<\/p>\n
made an application for regularisation in paragraph 6 of the<\/p>\n
writ petition, she has offered her explanation about the<\/p>\n
background in which such an application happened to be<\/p>\n
made by her. According to the 1st petitioner, it was at the<\/p>\n
instance of the first respondent that such an application was<\/p>\n
made and that it was without realising the consequences that<\/p>\n
the request was made by her.          These averments are not<\/p>\n
denied by the first respondent in the counter affidavit filed.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                               : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       10. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the<\/p>\n
assertion made by the 1st petitioner, if factually the building<\/p>\n
was constructed prior to the implementation of the Building<\/p>\n
Rules, there is no reason why the first petitioner should have<\/p>\n
been deprived of any benefit she is otherwise entitled to. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P5, considering the request made by the 1st petitioner, the<\/p>\n
first respondent has already called for a report and the report<\/p>\n
is yet to be submitted. In that view of the matter, I am inclined<\/p>\n
to think that the request of the petitioner is a reasonable one.<\/p>\n
       11. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, directing<\/p>\n
that the first respondent will ensure that the report as ordered<\/p>\n
by him in Ext.P5 is obtained from the Building Inspector.<\/p>\n
Once the report is obtained as above, the same will be made<\/p>\n
available to the second respondent, who has issued Exts.P12<\/p>\n
and P13. Thereupon the second respondent will issue notice<\/p>\n
to the petitioners and the third respondent and take further<\/p>\n
action based on Exts.P12 and P13, duly adverting to the<\/p>\n
report thus submitted by the Building Inspector also.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.35032\/2009
\n                             : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
     12. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment<\/p>\n
before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance.<\/p>\n
     13. Needless to say the contentions on merits raised<\/p>\n
by both sides are left open.\n<\/p>\n
     14. It is clarified that once the report is obtained as<\/p>\n
above, it will be open to the parties to approach the first<\/p>\n
respondent seeking copies of the same as above.<\/p>\n
                                  (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 35032 of 2009(Y) 1. MARY THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, W\/O.THOMAS, … Petitioner 2. DAISON, AGED 32 YEARS, Vs 1. SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, … Respondent 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, 3. I.K.SEKHARAN, ITHIKKAD HOUSE, For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH […]<\/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-34610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-31T08:43:27+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-31T08:43:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1090,\"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\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-31T08:43:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - 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\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-31T08:43:27+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-31T08:43:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":1090,"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\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010","name":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-31T08:43:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-thomas-vs-secretary-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mary Thomas vs Secretary on 28 October, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/34610","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=34610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}