{"id":41544,"date":"1982-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982"},"modified":"2018-11-20T03:10:37","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T21:40:37","slug":"p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","title":{"rendered":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1016, \t\t 1982 SCR (3) 510<\/div>\n
Author: R Misra<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra, R.B. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.P. ENTTERPRISES ETC. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nBENCH:\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1016\t\t  1982 SCR  (3) 510\n 1982 SCC  (2)\t33\t  1982 SCALE  (1)184\n\n\nACT:\n     Sugar (Control)  order 1966,  clause 5  read with order\nNo. G.S.R.  410C  E\/Ess.  Com.\/Sugar  dated  14-7-1980-order\nprescribing maximum quantity of sugar (Vacuum Pan Sugar) and\nKhandsari (open\t Pan Sugar)  to be  kept in  stock,  whether\nviolative of  Articles 14  and 19(1)(g)\t of the Constitution\nand also  ultra vires section 3 of the Essential Commodities\nAct. 1955.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In exercise  of powers  conferred by  section 3  of the\nEssential Commodities  Act, 1955,  Sugar Control  order 1966\nwas  issued   by  the\tGovernment  of\tIndia,\tMinistry  of\nAgriculture Clause  5 of  that order  empowered the  Central\nGovernment to  issue directions,  inter alia,  to recognised\ndealers regarding production, maintenance of stock, storage,\nsale, grading, packing, making weighment, disposal, delivery\nand distribution of sugar.\n     By order  No. GSR-410-E\/Ess. Com\/Sugar dated 14-7-1980,\nthe Central  Government issued directions to the effect that\nno recognised  dealer shall  keep in  stock at\tany time (a)\nVacuum pan  sugar in  excess of,  (i) in  Calcutta and other\nextended area  recognised  dealers  who\t import\t sugar\tfrom\noutside West Bengal, 3500 quintals; other recognised dealers\n250 quintals;  (ii) in other places in cities and towns with\na population  of one  lakh or  more 250\t quintals and with a\npopulation of  less  than  one\tlakh  100  quintal  and\t (b)\nKhandsari  (open   pan\tsugar)\t 250  quintals.\t Further  no\nrecognised dealer  shall hold  any stock of vacuum pan sugar\nor khandsari (open pan sugar) for a period exceeding 10 days\nfrom the  date of  receipt by  him of such stock of sugar or\nkhandsari.\n     The  recognised   dealers,\t there-fore,   assailed\t the\nconstitutional validity\t of the said order on three grounds:\n(I) the\t impugned order\t is not\t covered by section 3 of the\nEssential  Commodities\tAct  and  is  ultra  vires  (2)\t the\nimpugned order\timposes\t unreasonable  restrictions  on\t the\nright of  the petitioners  to carry on their trade and so it\nis violative  of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution: (3)\nthe impugned  order is\talso violative\tof Article 14 of the\nConstitution for  two reasons: (a) the petitioners have been\nsingled out  for hostile  treatment from  other\t dealers  of\nsugar at  Calcutta: (b)\t the impugned  order is unreasonable\nand impracticable.\n     Dismissing the petitions, the Court\n^\n     HELD: 1,  The order  dated 14-7-1980 is not ultra vires\nsection 3  of  the  Essential  Commodities  Act,  1955.\t The\nexpression \"to secure their equitable\n511\ndistribution and  availability\tat  fair  prices\",  is\twide\nenough to cover the impugned  order Likewise, the expression\n\"storage and distribution\" used in clause (d) of sub-section\n(2) of\tsection 3  of the  essential Commodities  Act,\t1955\nshould be given a liberal construction to give effect to the\nlegislative intent  of public  welfare.\t Sugar,\t which\tterm\nincludes khandsari,  is an  essential commodity and over the\nyears it  has become  a\t scarce\t commodity.  In\t the  public\ninterest it became essential to pass the order to secure its\nequitable distribution\tand availability  at fair prices. To\nthat end it became 'necessary to prevent hoarding and black-\nmarketing. [515 F-H, 516 A-E]\n     2. Restrictions  put by  the impugned  order can  by no\nmeans be  said to be unreasonable. It is only regulatory and\nnot prohibitory.  The direction\t enjoined recognized  dealer\nnot to\tkeep sugar  in stock  at any  time in  excess of the\nquantity specified  therein. It\t only seeks  to regulate the\nlimit of storage of sugar and does not prohibit its storage.\nBy the\tImpugned order\tthe  Central  Government  sought  to\nprevent\t hoarding   and\t black-marketing,   and\t to   ensure\nequitable distribution\tand availability  of sugar  at\tfair\nprices in the open market.[516 E, 519 D]\n     A person  has a right to carry on any occupation, trade\nor business  and the  only restriction\ton  this  unfettered\nright is  the authority\t of tho State to make a law imposing\nreasonable restrictions\t under clause  (6).  The  expression\nreasonable  restrictions'   signifies  that  the  limitation\nimposed on a person in eojoyment of that right should not be\narbitrary or  of an excessive nature beyond what is required\nin the\tinterest of  the public.  No cut and dry test can be\napplied to each individual statute impugned, nor an abstract\nstandard or  general pattern  of reasonableness\t can be laid\ndown as\t applicable in\tall cases. The Supreme Court in each\ncase has  to strike  a proper  balance between\tthe  freedom\nguaranteed by  Article 19  (1) (g)  and the  social  control\npermitted by clause (6) of Article - 19. [516 B-D]\n     State of  Mysore v.  H. Sanjeeviah,<\/a>  [1967] 2  SCR 360,\nexplained and distinguished.\n     M\/s. Laxmi\t Khandsari &  Ors. v.  State of U.P. & Ors.,\n[1981] 2 SCC 609, followed.\n     3. The  order is  not violative  of Article  14 of\t the\nconstitution. The  fixation of\tlimits for  storing sugar in\nCalcutta and  other places  is not arbitrary but is based on\nreasonable classification.  The government is the best judge\nof the\tsituation in a particular State and what quantity of\nsugar will  meet  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  at  a\nparticular place is purely a governmental function. For one,\nCalcutta serves as a feeder line to meet the requirements of\nsugar to the eastern part of the country, and therefore, the\nstocks of  sugar to  be held  by the dealers in Calcutta are\nnot required  for consumption  in Calcutta  alone.  Besides,\nCalcutta being\tfar away  from the sugar manufacturing units\nin Bihar  and Uttar Pradesh, from where bulk of supplies are\nobtained, sugar\t is transported\t by the wholesale dealers in\nrailway wagons\twhich take sometime unusually longer time in\ntransit. These\tand various  other factors  have been  taken\ninto  consideration  by\t the  Government  while\t fixing\t the\nstorage limits of sugar for the dealers in Calcutta. [519 F-\nH, 520 A]\n512\n     The fact  that over the years sugar has become a scarce\ncommodity  and\t people\t have  to  purchase  it\t even  at  a\nprohibitive price,  the dealers\t would be  able to  sell the\nsugar in  their stock  without difficulty at any time at the\nprevalent market price. In a rare exceptional case there may\nbe some\t hardship on  that score  but it  cannot be said, on\nthat account,  that the\t order is violative of Article 14 of\nthe Constitution.  In such cases, we hope and trust that the\nconcern ed  Government would  allow a reasonable time within\nwhich the  dealers could  dispose of  the excess quantity of\nsugar, if any. [520 G, 5 21 A-C]\n     Suraj Mal\tKailash Chand  & Ors.  v. Union\t of India  &\nAnr.,  Writ  Petitions\tNos.<\/a>  8334-48  of  1981\t decided  on\nSeptember  25,\t1981  (unreported  case):  Bishambhar  Dayal\nChandra Moharl\t& ors, etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.\netc. Writ  Petitions Nos.  2907-2908 of\t 1981 and  connected\nwrit petitions\t(a group  of SOS  writ petitions) decided on\nNovember S, 1981, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:  Writ  Petition  Nos.  3846\/81,
\n6454-55\/80, 230-249,  502-510,\t524,  726-27,  777-96,\t803,
\n1069,  1207-09,1326,439-40,1607,1691-93,1702,1703-7,1734.36,
\n1737 40,  1759-72, 1789-90, 1879, 1946-47, 1948, 1959, 1972-
\n97, 2012-17, 2027-39, 2076, 2077-78, 2125-83, 2194-95, 2204-
\n11, 2284-2326,\t2361-62,2363-64, 2365-2404,2405-26, 2444-58,
\n2459-88,2497-2501, 2503-05,2513-19,  2520-25,2542-73,  2597,
\n2616-41,2642-48, 2661-63,  2665-66,2698-2700, 2702-21, 2723-
\n26, 2730-44  2756-62, 2766-76,\t2779-2802,2803-15,  2818-26,
\n2847-55, 2856-67,  2885-96, 2897  98, 2912-15,2917-26, 2968-
\n76, 2980-3001,\t3002-46, 3047-52,  3070-87, 3088-3102, 3165-
\n3205,  3210-17,\t  3259-64,  3268-77,  3286,  3305-11,  3312-
\n22,3325,3346, 3355,3357-70,  3371-91, 3403, 3477-82,3484-88,
\n3492-3504,3505-15, 3516,3517-34,3560,  3572-79, 3637,  3693-
\n3730,\t3732-36,    3757-75,\t3899-3912,4053-69,4192-4229,
\n4261,4329, 4495,  4496-4508,4606-09, 4617-21,4622-69,  4846-
\n75, 4978-86,  5218,5349, 5533-43,  5597-5609, 5623, 5626-42,
\n5728, 5746,  6577-81, 6814, 6934-42,7203, ,217-20,7409,7454-
\n56,7484,   7641,7659,7773,7943,\t  7944,\t  8084,8089,   8090,
\n8192,8195, 8201,  8431, 8436,  8834, 8862,  8878-81, 8924  &
\n8979 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
\n     Shanti Bhushan, V.M. Tarkunde, P.A. Francis and G.N.
\nDikshit.\n<\/p>\n
     R.K. Jain,\t P.B. Jain,  Pankaj Kaira,  S. Mittar,\tM.G.
\nGupta, J  B.R.\tKapoor,\t Miss,\tBhajan\tRam  Rakhyani,\tS.R.
\nSrivastava, B.V.  Tawakley, Shobha  Dikshit, B.\t Dutta, B.D.
\nSharma, Miss A. Subhashini,
\n513<\/span>
\nN.N. Sharma, T.C Sharma, A. Ghosh, S.V. Tambwekar and Girish
\nChandra for the appearing parties. A
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     MISRA J.  In exercise  of powers conferred by section 3
\nof the\tEssential Commodities Act, 1955, Sugar Control order
\n1966 was  issued by  the Government  of India,\tMinistry  of
\nAgriculture. Clause  S of  that order  empowered the Central
\nGovernment to  issue directions,  inner alia,  to recognised
\ndealers regarding production, maintenance of stock, storage,
\nsale, grading, packing, making weighment, disposal, delivery
\nand distribution of sugar.\n<\/p>\n
     By Order  No. GSR-410-E\/Ess.  Com.\/Sugar dated the 14th
\nof July,  1980 the  Central Government\tissued the following
\ndirections:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In exercise\tof the\tpowers conferred by clause 5
\n     of the Sugar (Control) order, 1966, and in supersession
\n     of the order of the Government of India in the Ministry
\n     of\t ‘Agriculture\t(Department  of\t  Food)\t No.  GSR-60<\/p>\n
     (e)\/Ess. Com.\/Sugar, dated the 26th February, 1980, the
\n     Central Government\t hereby directs\t that no  recognised
\n     dealer shall keep in stock at any time-
\n     (1)   Vacuum pan  sugar, in the places mentioned below,
\n\t  in excess  of\t the  quantities  mentioned  against
\n\t  each-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (i) in Calcutta and extended area-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a)  recognised dealers who import sugar from
\n\t\t    outside West Bengal-3,500 quintals,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b)  other recognised dealers-250 quintals;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (ii) in other places-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (a)  in cities and towns with a population of
\n\t\t    one lakh or more-250 quintals;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (b)  in other towns with a population of less
\n\t\t    than one lakh-100 quintals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
514<\/span><\/p>\n
     (2)   Khandsari (open  pan\t sugar)\t in  excess  of\t 250
\n\t  quintals.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t no recognised dealer shall hold any
\n     stock of Vacuum pan sugar or Khandsari (open pan sugar)
\n     for a  period exceeding  ten  days\t from  the  date  of
\n     receipt by him of such stock of sugar or Khandsari. . .
\n\t  Provided further  that nothing in this order shall
\n     apply to the holding of stocks of sugar-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  on Government account; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) by  the recognised  dealers nominated\t by a  State
\n\t  Government or\t an officer authorised by it to hold
\n\t  such stock  for distribution\tthrough\t fair  price
\n\t  shops; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (iii) by the Food Corporation of India.
\n\t  Explanation:-For  the\t  purpose  of\tthis  order,
\n     “Calcutta and  extended area” means the areas specified
\n     in the  Schedule to  the notification of the Government
\n     of West Bengal No. 7752 F.S.\/14-R-92\/61, dated the 16th
\n     December, 1964.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The petitioners  in this  groups of  petitions, who are
\ndealers in  sugar,  seek  to  challenge\t the  constitutional
\nvalidity of  the- said\torder  on  three  grounds;  (I)\t the
\nimpugned order\tis not covered by section 3 of the Essential
\nCommodities Act\t and is\t Ultra vires; (2) the impugned order
\nimposes\t unreasonable  restrictions  on\t the  right  of\t the
\npetitioners to\tcarry on  their trade and so it is violative
\nof Article  19(2)(g) of\t the Constitution;  (3) the impugned
\norder is  also violative  of Article  14 of the Constitution
\nfor two\t reasons: (as  the petitioners have been singled out
\nfor  hostile  treatment\t from  other  dealers  of  sugar  at
\nCalcutta,  (b)\t the  impugned\torder  is  unreasonable\t and
\nimpracticable.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Shanti Bhushan, senior counsel appearing in one of
\nthe petitions  viz., Writ Petition No. 3846 of 1981, took up
\nthe first  point. and  urged that  the impugned order is not
\ncovered by  any of the clauses of section 3 of the Essential
\nCommodities Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 3\tof  the\t Essential  Commodities\t Act,  1955,
\ninsofar as  it is  material for\t the purposes  of this case,
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
515<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “3. (1)  If the  Central Government  is of opinion
\n     that  it  is  necessary  or  expedient  so\t to  do\t for
\n     maintaining or  increasing supplies  of  any  essential
\n     commodity or  for securing their equitable distribution
\n     and availability  at fair\tprices, or  for securing any
\n     essential commodity  for the  defence of  India or\t the
\n     efficient conduct\tof military  operations it  may,  by
\n     order,  provide   for  regulating\tor  prohibition\t the
\n     production, supply\t and distribution  thereof and trade
\n     and commerce therein
\n     (2)   With prejudice  to the  generality of  the powers
\n\t  conferred  by\t  sub-section  (1),  an\t order\tmade
\n\t  thereunder may provide-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  ………. (b) ………. (c)…………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)   for regulating  by licences, permits or otherwise
\n\t  the storage,\ttransport,  distribution,  disposal,
\n\t  acquisition, use  of consumption of, any essential
\n\t  commodity.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The language  of section  3 (1) coupled with clause (d)
\nof subsection  (2) of  section 3 is wide enough to cover the
\nimpugned  order.   Section  3  (1)  authorises\tthe  Central
\nGovernment to  pass an\torder for  regulating or prohibiting
\nthe production,\t supply and  distribution  of  an  essential
\ncommodity and trade and commerce therein if it is of opinion
\nthat it\t is necessary or expedient to do so for securing the
\nequitable distribution\tand availability. at a fair price of
\nthe essential  commodity. The  same power has been made more
\nspecific by  clause (d)\t of sub-section\t (2) of\t section  3,
\nwhich  provides\t for  regulating  by  licences.\t permits  or
\notherwise, the\tstorage, transport,  distribution, disposal,
\nacquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity.
\nSugar,\twhich  term  includes  khandsari,  is  an  essential
\ncommodity  and\tover  the  years  it  has  become  a  scarce
\ncommodity. In  the public  interest it\tbecame essential  to
\npass the impugned order to secure its equitable distribution
\nand availability  at fair  prices. To  that  end  it  became
\nnecessary  to  prevent\thoarding  and  black-marketing.\t The
\nexpression  “to\t secure\t their\tequitable  distribution\t and
\navailability at\t fair prices”  is wide\tenough to  cover the
\nimpugned  order.   Likewise,  the  expression  “storage\t and
\ndistribution” used  in clause  (d)  of\tsub-section  (2)  of
\nsection 3  should be  given a  liberal construction  to give
\neffect to  the legislative  intent  of\tpublic\twelfare.  So
\nconstrued, the impugned order is fully pro-\n<\/p>\n
516<\/span><\/p>\n
tected and  is not  ultra vires\t section 3  of the Essential
\nCommodities Act, 195 5.\n<\/p>\n
     This leads\t us to\tthe second  contention, namely,\t the
\nimpugned order\tbeing violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of The
\nConstitution inasmuch as it imposed unreasonable restriction
\non the\tright of  the  petitioners  to\tcarry  on  trade  or
\nbusiness.\n<\/p>\n
     A person  has a right to carry on any occupation, trade
\nor business and only restriction on this unfettered right is
\nthe authority of the State to make a law imposing reasonable
\nrestrictions under  clause (6).\t The expression\t ‘reasonable
\nrestrictions’ signifies\t that the  limitation imposed  on  a
\nperson in enjoyment of that right should not be arbitrary or
\nof an  excessive nature\t beyond\t what  is  required  in\t the
\ninterest of  the public.  No cut and dry test can be applied
\nto  each   individual  statute\timpugned,  nor\tan  abstract
\nstandard or  general pattern  of reasonableness\t can be laid
\ndown as\t applicable in all cases. The Court in each case has
\nto strike a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed by
\nArticle 19  (1) (g)  and the  social  control  permitted  by
\nclause (6)  of Article 19. By the impugned order the Central
\nGovernment has only put an embargo on the dealers on keeping
\nsugar in  excess of  the quantity  specified. It  was passed
\nonly with  a view  to prevent  hoarding and black-marketing,
\nand to\tensure equitable  distribution and  availability  of
\nsugar at fair prices in the open market.\n<\/p>\n
     Reliance was  placed by Shri Shanti Bhushan on State of
\nMysore\tv.   H.<\/a>\t sanjeeviah.(J)\t  In  that  Case  the  State
\nGovernment of  Mysore  had  framed  rules  to  regulate\t the
\ntransit of  timber, firewood,  charcoal and bamboos from all
\nlands in  exercise of  powers conferred by section 37 of the
\nMysore Forest  Act 11  of 1900.\t By rule 2 framed on October
\n13, 1952, it was provided that no person shall import forest
\nproduce into,  export forest  produce from,  or move  forest
\nproduce within,\t any of\t the areas  specified in  Schedule A
\nunless\tsuch   forest  produce\t is  accompanied  by  permit
\nprescribed in  rule 3. On April 15, 1959 the State of Mysore
\nissued a  notification adding a proviso to rule 2 which read
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
517<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Provided that  no such permit shall authorise any
\n     person to\ttransport forest produce between SUN set and
\n     sun-rise in any of the areas specified in Schedule A.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
By another  notification dated\tSeptember 14, 1960 the State
\nGovernment introduced  the second  proviso to  rule 2  which
\nread:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “provided further  that permission  may be granted
\n     to timber\tmerchants  on  their  request  to  transport
\n     timber upto  10  p.m.  (22\t hrs)  under  the  following
\n     conditions:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i)   the party  who wishes  to avail of the concession
\n\t  should pay  a cash deposit of Rs. 1000 as security
\n\t  for the  compliance with  the timber transit rules
\n\t  as in force;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) that\tthe deposit  may be  forfeited to government
\n\t  for breach  of any of the conditions of the timber
\n\t  transit rules.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The dealers  in timber\tchallenged the\ttwo provisos  on the
\ngrounds inner  alia that  they were  beyond the\t rule making
\nauthority conferred  upon the State Government by section 37
\nof the\tMysore Forest  Act 11  of 1900\tand in any event the
\nprovisos imposed unauthorized restrictions on the freedom of
\ntrade, commerce\t and intercourse.  The High  Court held that
\nthe State Government while seeking to regulate the transport
\nof timber stopped transport altogether. This Court upholding
\nthe order of the High Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Power  to   impose  restrictions  of\t the  nature
\n     contemplated by  the two  provisos to r. 2 is not to be
\n     found in  any of the clauses of sub-s. (2) of s. 37. By
\n     sub-s. (I)\t the State  Government is  invested with the
\n     power to  regulate trans  port of\tforest\tproduce\t “in
\n     transit by\t land or  water.” The  power which the Stale
\n     Government may  exercise is  however power\t to regulate
\n     transport of  forest produce,  and not  the   power  to
\n     prohibit or  restrict transport.  Prima facie,  a\trule
\n     which totally  prohibits the movement of forest produce
\n     during the\t period\t between  sun-set  and\tsun-rise  is
\n     prohibitory or  restrictive of  the right\tto transport
\n     forest produce.  A rule  regulating  transport  in\t its
\n     essence   permits\t transport,   subject\tto   certain
\n     conditions devised to promote trans port.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
518<\/span><\/p>\n
     This Court further observed:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “If the  provisos are\t in truth restrictive of the
\n     right to  transport the  forest produce,  however, good
\n     the grounds  apparently  may  be  for  restricting\t the
\n     transport\tof  forest  produce,  they  cannot  on\tthat
\n     account transform\tthe power  conferred by the provisos
\n     into a power merely regulatory.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The facts of the present cases are materially different from
\nthe facts  of H. Sanjeeviah’s case (supra). In that case the
\nimpugned  provisos  to\trule  2\t completely  prohibited\t the
\ntransport of  the forest  produce between  sun-set and\tsun-
\nrise. But  in the  cases in  hand the  direction enjoined  a
\nrecognised dealer  not to keep sugar in stock at any time in
\nexcess of  the quantity\t specified therein. It only seeks to
\nregulate the limit of storage of sugar and does not prohibit
\nits storage. The case of H. Sanjeeviah, therefore, is not of
\nmuch help to the petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
     In M\/s.  Laxmi Khandsari  & Ors.  v. State\t of  U.P.  &
\nors.(l) this  Court made  the following\t observations  about
\nreasonable restrictions on the right conferred by Article 19
\n(1) (g) of the Constitution in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As to  what\tare  reasonable\t restrictions  would
\n     naturally depend on the nature and circumstances of the
\n     case, the character of the statute, the object which it
\n     seeks to  serve, the existing circumstances, the extent
\n     of the evil sought to be remedied as also the nature of
\n     restraint or  restriction placed  on the  rights of the
\n     citizen. It  is difficult to lay down any hard and fast
\n     rule of  universal application  but  in  imposing\tsuch
\n     restrictions the State must adopt an objective standard
\n     amounting to  a social control by restricting the right
\n     of the  citizens where the necessities of the situation
\n     demand. The restrictions must be in public interest and
\n     are imposed  by striking  a just  balance\tbetween\t the
\n     deprivation of  right and the danager or evil sought to
\n     be avoided.  If the  restrictions imposed\tappear to be
\n     consistent\t with  the  directive  principles  of  State
\n     policy they  would have  to be upheld as the same would
\n     be in public
\n519<\/span>
\n     interest\tand    manifestly    reasonable.    Further,
\n     restrictions   may be  partial, complete,\tpermanent or
\n     temporary but  they must  bear a  close nexus  with the
\n     object in\tthe interest  of  which\t they  are  imposed.
\n     Another important\ttest is\t that restriction should not
\n     be excessive  or arbitrary.  The court must examine the
\n     direct and\t immediate import  of –\t the restrictions on
\n     the  rights  of  the  citizens  and  determine  if\t the
\n     restrictions  are\t in  larger  public  interest  while
\n     deciding the  question that they contain the quality of
\n     reasonableness. In\t such cases  a doctrinaire  approach
\n     should not be made but care should be taken to see that
\n     the real  purpose\t which is  sought to  be achieved by
\n     restricting the  rights of\t the citizens is sub-served.
\n     At the  same time,\t the possibility  of an\t alternative
\n     scheme which  might have been but has not been enforced
\n     would not\texpose the  restrictions to challenge on the
\n     ground that they are not reasonable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Judged in  that light and on an overall consideration of the
\nvarious aspects\t of the\t matter,  restrictions\tput  by\t the
\nimpugned order\tcan by\tno means be said to be unreasonable.
\nIt is only regulatory and not prohibitory.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t now  take  up\tthe  last  contention,\tnamely,\t the
\nimpugned  order\t  being\t violative  of\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution. The learned counsel seeks to invoke Article 14
\non  two\t  grounds:  (1)\t  the  impugned\t order\tapplies\t two
\nstandards, one\tfor the\t dealers, at  Calcutta, who had been
\nauthorised to  keep 3,500  quintals at\tone time,  while the
\ndealers at  other places  have been  authorised to keep only
\n250 quintals  in cities\t with a\t population of\tone lakh  or
\nmore, and only 100 quintals in other towns with a population
\nof less than one lakh. F
\n     The fixation  of limits  for storing  sugar in Calcutta
\nand other places is not arbitrary but is based on reasonable
\nclassification. The  government is  the best  judge  of\t the
\nsituation in  a particular  State and that quantity of sugar
\nwill meet  the exigencies  of the  situation at a particular
\nplace is  purely a  governmental function. For one, Calcutta
\nserves as a feeder line to meet the requirements of sugar to
\nthe eastern  part of  the country, and therefore, the stocks
\nof sugar  to be\t held by  the dealers  in Calcutta  are\t not
\nrequired for consumption in Calcutta alone Besides, Calcutta
\nbeing far  away from  the sugar manufacturing units in Bihar
\nand Uttar Pradesh, from where bulk of supplies are obtained,
\nsugar is transported by the wholesale
\n520<\/span>
\ndealers in  railway wagons  which  take\t sometime  unusually
\nlonger time in transit. These and various other factors have
\nbeen taken into consideration by the Government while fixing
\nthe storage limits of sugar for the dealers in Calcutta.\n<\/p>\n
     His second\t ground\t for  invoking\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution is\t that the impugned order is unreasonable and
\nimpracticable in  that no  dealer can be sure of the sale of
\nsugar on  any particular  day. If per chance a dealer is not
\nable to\t dispose of the excess sugar on a particular. day he
\nwould  expose  himself\tto  punishment\tunder  the  Act.  No
\nprovision has been made in the order or in the rules for the
\npurchase by  the Government  of the  excess sugar.  For\t the
\nState it  was contended\t that similar  orders with regard to
\nwheat came  up for  consideration in this Court in Suraj Mal
\nKailash Chand\tOrs. v. Union of India & Anr. and Bishambhar
\nDayal Chandra  Mohan Ors.<\/a>  etc. v.  State of Uttar Pradesh &
\nors. etc.(2)  when this\t Court upheld  the validity of these
\norders. In view of the decision of this Court in those cases
\nit is  not open\t to Shri  Shanti Bhushan  to  challenge\t the
\nconstitutional validity of the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Shanti  Bhushan, however, refutes the argument and
\nsays that  those decisions  do not  stand in  the way of the
\npetitioners. The  situation with  regard to  wheat was quite
\ndifferent inasmuch  . s\t clause 25  of the impugned order in
\nSutlaj Mal’s case (supra) provided that the State Government
\nor the\tCollector  or  the  Licensing  Authority  may  issue
\ndirections to  any dealer  with regard\tto  purchase,  sale,
\ndisposal, storage  or exhibition of the price and stock list
\nof all\tor any\tof the\ttrade articles. But there is no such
\nprovision in  the impugned  order in  the instant  case and,
\ntherefore,   the dealers can expose themselves to punishment
\nmerely because at any particular point of time the stock was
\nin excess  of the prescribed limits. Bishambhar Dayal’s case
\n(supra) also  related to  wheat. There\twas a scheme for the
\nprocurement of wheat by the State Government but there is no
\nsuch scheme in respect of sugar. This fact distinguishes the
\npresent case for the facts-of the aforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n
     The argument though attractive cannot be accepted. Over
\nthe years sugar has become a scare commodity and people have
\nto
\n521<\/span>
\npurchase  it   even  at\t  a  prohibitive   price.   In\t the
\ncircumstances it A cannot be expected that the dealers would
\nnot be\table to\t sell the  sugar in  their stock.  There  is
\nabsolutely no difficulty in selling the sugar at any time at
\nthe prevalent  market price.  If in  a rare  case  there  is
\ndifficulty  on\tthat  score  we\t hope  and  trust  that\t the
\nconcerned Government  would allow  a reasonable\t time within
\nwhich the petitioners are permitted to dispose of the excess
\nquantity of  sugar, if\tany. In any case, in some given case
\nthere may  be some  hardship but  it cannot  be said on that
\naccount that  the impugned  order is violative of Article 14
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  foregoing discussion  the writ  petitions must
\nfail. They  are accordingly  dismissed. In the circumstances
\nof the case there shall, however, be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t       Petitions dismissed.\n522<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1016, 1982 SCR (3) 510 Author: R Misra Bench: Misra, R.B. (J) PETITIONER: P.P. ENTTERPRISES ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/03\/1982 BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41544","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - 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\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\" \/>\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=\"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-19T21:40:37+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T21:40:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\"},\"wordCount\":3028,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\",\"name\":\"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-19T21:40:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982\"}]},{\"@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":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - 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\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-19T21:40:37+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982","datePublished":"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T21:40:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982"},"wordCount":3028,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982","name":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-19T21:40:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-entterprises-etc-etc-vs-union-of-india-others-etc-on-16-march-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.P. Entterprises Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Others Etc on 16 March, 1982"}]},{"@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\/41544","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=41544"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41544\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}