{"id":46611,"date":"2004-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004"},"modified":"2017-01-30T12:52:36","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T07:22:36","slug":"e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:27\/9\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nW.P.No.10316 of 2004\nand\nWPMP Nos.12033 and 12034 of 2004\n\nE.  Manoharan                                          ..  Petitioner\n\n-vs-\n\nThe General Manager\nTamil Nerd State Transport\nCorporation Ltd.\n(Coimbatore Division)\n37, Mettupalayam Road\nCoimbatore 43.                                          .. Respondent\n        This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.S.Ayyathurai\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.Rajanish Pathiyil\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        With the consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is  taken  up<br \/>\nfor disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The petitioner seeks the relief, which runs as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;Issue  a  writ  of  certiorarified  mandamus calling for the records from the<br \/>\nrespondent relating to the order made in Ref.No.1\/G.10\/5385\/  TSTC\/2002  dated<br \/>\n27.10.2003 and quashing the same and directing the respondent to reinstate the<br \/>\npetitioner  with  all  the  benefits  including  providing  light  work to the<br \/>\npetitioner.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Heard the learned Counsel  for  the  petitioner  and  the  learned<br \/>\nCounsel for  the  respondent  also.    Affidavit in support of the petition is<br \/>\nperused.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  As could be seen from  the  available  materials  and  submissions<br \/>\nmade,  the  petitioner  on  appointment, has been working as a Mechanic in the<br \/>\nrespondent Transport Corporation.  He suffered a heart attack in  August  2000<br \/>\nand underwent  a  surgery  on  8.2.2001.   He filed an application for medical<br \/>\nreimbursement.  The same was originally refused,  but,  subsequently  ordered.<br \/>\nWhile  so,  there  was  a departmental enquiry for his absence from duty for a<br \/>\nperiod of 10 days from 24.1.2000.  The petitioner produced the medical records<br \/>\nalong with an application; but, no orders were passed on the same.  Under such<br \/>\ncircumstances, he came forward to file a writ application before this Court in<br \/>\nW.P.No.58 53\/2002 for a direction to the respondent to allot some  light  work<br \/>\nfor him  in  view  of  his  health  condition.   The said writ application was<br \/>\nseriously objected to by the respondent Transport Corporation.   There  was  a<br \/>\ndirection  given  by this Court that the representation made by the petitioner<br \/>\nwas to be considered within the time stipulated.  Thereafter,  the  respondent<br \/>\nrejected   the   request   by  a  communication  dated  10.4.2002,  which  was<br \/>\nsubsequently the subject matter of a writ petition in  W.P.No.23488  of  2002.<br \/>\nWhile  disposing  of  the  same, this Court made an observation, accepting the<br \/>\nplea of the management that there were several persons  like  the  petitioner,<br \/>\nand  the  management  was  not in a position to provide light work due t o the<br \/>\nfinancial difficulties, and thus, an order  of  dismissal  of  the  said  writ<br \/>\npetition came to be passed.  Thereafter, the management referred the matter to<br \/>\nthe  Medical  Board,  where a certificate was issued to the effect that he was<br \/>\nmedically unfit to do the work, on the basis of which he was served  with  the<br \/>\nimpugned  order  of  retirement  stating  that  he  was medically invalidated.<br \/>\nHence, the aggrieved petitioner has brought forth this writ application before<br \/>\nthis Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit  that  instead<br \/>\nof  retiring  him  on  the  ground  that  he  was  medically  invalidated, the<br \/>\nmanagement should have given him a light work and should have given  him  some<br \/>\nother  work,  which  he  could  do; but, his request was not considered by the<br \/>\nmanagement, and hence, the impugned order has got to be set aside.  In support<br \/>\nof his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court reported in (20 03) 4  SUPREME  COURT  CASES  524  (KUNAL<br \/>\nSINGH V.  UNION OF INDIA) and also a decision of this Court reported in 2004 &#8211;<br \/>\nIII &#8211; LLJ 152 ( RAVICHANDRAN K.  VS.  M.T.C.  LTD.).\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel for<br \/>\nthe respondent that in the instant case, originally, there was a writ petition<br \/>\nfiled  by  the  petitioner  before  this  Court,  seeking  a  direction to the<br \/>\nrespondent management to give him a light work on  the  basis  of  his  health<br \/>\ncondition;  that this Court gave a direction to the respondent to consider the<br \/>\nrepresentation of the petitioner; that pursuant to the  same,  the  respondent<br \/>\nhas  rejected  the  request of the petitioner; that thereafter, the petitioner<br \/>\nfiled another writ petition against the said rejection, which was dismissed by<br \/>\nthis Court; that subsequently, he was referred to the Medical Board,  where  a<br \/>\ncertificate  has been issued that he has been medically invalidated, and under<br \/>\nsuch circumstances, there was no option for the management  to  give  him  any<br \/>\nwork,  and hence, he has been served with the order of retirement, and in view<br \/>\nof these reasons, the order has got to be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas a Mechanic, and he underwent a heart surgery.  He gave a representation to<br \/>\nthe respondent for allotment of light work to him.  On rejection of the  same,<br \/>\nhe  moved  this  Court, and this Court made an observation, accepting the plea<br \/>\nmade by the respondent Transport Corporation that  light  work  could  not  be<br \/>\ngiven to him, in view of the fact that there were several persons like him and<br \/>\nin view  of the financial difficulties also.  Further, the petitioner has been<br \/>\nreferred to the Medical Board, where a certificate has been issued that he was<br \/>\nmedically invalidated.  In such circumstances, the petitioner was served  with<br \/>\nthe impugned  order.    The  Court  is of the considered opinion that both the<br \/>\ndecisions relied on by the petitioner&#8217;s Counsel  are  not  applicable  to  the<br \/>\npresent facts  of the case.  In the two decisions one by the Supreme Court and<br \/>\nthe other by this Court, referred to above, one was a Police Constable and the<br \/>\nother was a Conductor, and both could be given substituted job.  But,  in  the<br \/>\ninstant  case,  the petitioner, who was a mechanic, has been found to be unfit<br \/>\nto do mechanical or manual work and medically invalidated, and on the  earlier<br \/>\noccasion  he  sought  a direction of this Court to the respondent to allot him<br \/>\nlight work, and the same was denied by this Court in view of the plea  of  the<br \/>\nmanagement that they are not in a position to provide light work to him due to<br \/>\nfinancial difficulties.    Under  such circumstances, the management cannot be<br \/>\nfound fault with.  The Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit<br \/>\ncase where the relief asked for could be granted in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Therefore, this writ petition fails, and the  same  is  dismissed.<br \/>\nNo costs.  Consequently, connected WPMPs are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The General Manager<br \/>\nTamil Nerd State Transport<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Coimbatore Division)<br \/>\n37, Mettupalayam Road<br \/>\nCoimbatore 43.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:27\/9\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM W.P.No.10316 of 2004 and WPMP Nos.12033 and 12034 of 2004 E. Manoharan .. Petitioner -vs- The General Manager Tamil Nerd State Transport Corporation Ltd. (Coimbatore Division) 37, Mettupalayam [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T07:22:36+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-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T07:22:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1029,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\",\"name\":\"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T07:22:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T07:22:36+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-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T07:22:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004"},"wordCount":1029,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004","name":"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T07:22:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-manoharan-vs-the-general-manager-on-27-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E. Manoharan vs The General Manager on 27 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/46611","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=46611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}