{"id":46964,"date":"2003-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003"},"modified":"2018-07-26T01:41:22","modified_gmt":"2018-07-25T20:11:22","slug":"kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 2003 (5) BomCR 656, 2003 (3) MhLj 442<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: C Thakker<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: C Thakker, D Chandrachud<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>C.K. Thakker, C.J.  <\/p>\n<p>1. Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government<br \/>\nPleader, appears and waives service of notice of<br \/>\nrule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the<br \/>\nacts and circumstances, the matter was taken up<br \/>\nfor final hearing with the consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. This Writ Petition is filed by the<br \/>\npetitioners for an appropriate writ, direction or<br \/>\norder quashing and setting aside an order dated<br \/>\nJanuary 22, 2003 passed by the District Deputy<br \/>\nRegistrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik,<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 herein, under Section 44 of the<br \/>\nMaharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing<br \/>\n(Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8220;the Act&#8221;), and the Maharashtra Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Rules&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The case of the petitioners in the petition<br \/>\nis that petitioner No. 1, Kalwan Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Market Committee, is an Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Market Committee constituted in accordance<br \/>\nwith the provisions of the Act. Petitioner Nos. 2<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">to 16 are elected members of petitioner No. 1<\/span><br \/>\nCommittee. Respondent No. 1 is the State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is the District Deputy<br \/>\nRegistrar to whom the powers have been delegated<br \/>\nby the State Government in respect of amalgamation<br \/>\nor division of Market Committees. Respondent No. 3<br \/>\nis the Director of Marketing, Pune, an authority<br \/>\nhaving supervisory control over Register of Co-<br \/>\noperative Societies. Respondent No. 4 is the State<br \/>\nAgricultural Marketing Board constituted under<br \/>\nSection 39-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. According to the petitioners, petition No. 1<br \/>\nCommittee was established in 1971 and was having a<br \/>\nmarket area of 179 villages in the territorial<br \/>\nlimits of Kalwan Taluka in Nashik District. The<br \/>\nManaging Committee of petitioner No. 1 was<br \/>\nconstituted in accordance with provisions of<br \/>\nSection 13 of the Act. On or about June 23, 1999, a<br \/>\nnotification was issued under the Maharashtra Land<br \/>\nRevenue code, 1966 by which certain villages were<br \/>\ncarved out from Kalwan Taluka and another Taluka<br \/>\nnamed Deola Taluka came to be established. Our of<br \/>\n179 villages which were with petitioner No. 1, 29<br \/>\nvillages were included in Deola Taluka and<br \/>\nremaining 150 villages continued to remain in<br \/>\nmarket area of petitioner No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. According to the petitioners, with a view to<br \/>\nachieving political goal, a proposal for division<br \/>\nof petitioner No. 1 Committee into two Committees<br \/>\nstarted in the year 1999 in purported exercise of<br \/>\npower under Section 44 of the Act and a decision<br \/>\nwas taken to divide petitioner No. 1 Committee into<br \/>\ntwo Committees. The proposal and the decision were<br \/>\nstrongly objected by petitioner No. 1 as well as by<br \/>\nthe villagers which compelled the State Government<br \/>\nto revoke the decision. Thereafter, there was no<br \/>\nproposal by the respondents to make division of<br \/>\npetitioner No. 1 Committee into two Committees.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. There was a fresh election of Managing<br \/>\nCommittee in 2001 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 16 were<br \/>\nduly elected as members of Managing Committee. The<br \/>\ntenure of the Managing Committee is five years. It<br \/>\nis alleged by the petitioners that since persons of<br \/>\ntheir choice were not elected, respondents again<br \/>\nstarted initiating action of division of<br \/>\npetitioner No. 1 Committee into two separate Market<br \/>\nCommittees. When the petitioners came to know<br \/>\nabout such move, they objected. In spite of such<br \/>\nobjection and without consulting the petitioner<br \/>\nCommittee, or the State Marketing Board and without<br \/>\naffording opportunity of making representation<br \/>\nagainst such action, a decision was taken by<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 under Section 44 of the Act, by<br \/>\nwhich petitioner No. 1 Market Committee was divided<br \/>\ninto two Market Committees, (i) Kalwan Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Market Committee: and (ii) Deola<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee. The said<br \/>\naction is illegal, contrary to law, not in<br \/>\nconsonance with the provisions of the Act and<br \/>\ninconsistent with several decisions of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt as well as of this Court. The petitioners,<br \/>\ntherefore, have approached this Court by filing the<br \/>\npresent petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. On February 11, 2003, a mention was made to<br \/>\nthis Court to take up the matter as the petitioners<br \/>\nwanted ad-interim relief. The matter was taken up.<br \/>\nNotice was issued to the respondents and ad-interim<br \/>\nrelief in terms of prayer Clause (b) was granted.<br \/>\nIn prayer Clause (b), the petitioners prayed stay<br \/>\nof execution, operation and implementation of the<br \/>\nordered dated January 22, 2003, passed by respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 in exercise of power under Section 44 of the<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. The respondents were then served with the<br \/>\nnotices. Affidavits and counter-affidavits were<br \/>\nfiled. Civil Application for joining parties as<br \/>\nwell as for vacating interim relief were also filed<br \/>\nand appropriate orders were passed thereon. As<br \/>\nalready stated, with the consent of parties, we had<br \/>\ntaken the matter for final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. In the affidavit in reply filed by the<br \/>\nChairman, Deola Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee, it was stated that action was taken by<br \/>\nthe second respondent in exercise of power under<br \/>\nSection 44 of the Act and the petitioners have no<br \/>\nright to make grievance against such action. It was<br \/>\nalso stated that the process of bifurcation and<br \/>\ndivision of Kalwan Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee was not a development of &#8220;over night&#8221;. It<br \/>\nhad started in 1999 when a separate Taluka, viz.<br \/>\nDeola Taluka, came to be established. The<br \/>\nMarketing Board vide its letter dated July 3,<br \/>\n1999, informed the Director of Marketing that in<br \/>\nthe 61st meeting of the Directors of Agricultural<br \/>\nMarketing Board held on 30th June, 1999, the issue<br \/>\nwas discussed that Kalwan Agricultural Produce<br \/>\nMarket Committee should be bifurcated into two<br \/>\nCommittees, and the said action would be<br \/>\nfinancially viable. The Marketing Board had<br \/>\napproved it and gave its consent for such<br \/>\nbifurcation. A copy of the letter is annexed to the<br \/>\naffidavit. The deponent further stated that the<br \/>\nsecond respondent sent a report\/proposal dated<br \/>\nAugust 1, 2002 to the Government of Maharashtra for<br \/>\nsuch division. The Director of Agricultural<br \/>\nMarketing vide his letter dated August 12, 2002,<br \/>\ninformed the General Manager of Maharashtra State<br \/>\nAgricultural Marketing Board that the second<br \/>\nrespondent had sent a proposal on August 1, 2002,<br \/>\nregarding division of Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee at Kalwan and Deola. The second<br \/>\nrespondent vide his letter dated August 29, 2002,<br \/>\nsubmitted his report to the Government in favour of<br \/>\ndivision. The Maharashtra State Marketing<br \/>\nFederation vide its letter dated September 7, 2002,<br \/>\ninformed respondent No. 2 that a meeting of Board of<br \/>\nDirectors of Marketing Federation was held on 22nd<br \/>\nAugust, 2002 in which the proposal was discussed<br \/>\nand a recommendation was made for such division.<br \/>\nIt was denied by the deponent that there was no<br \/>\nproper consultation or the action was otherwise<br \/>\narbitrary or illegal. Even petitioner No. 1 had<br \/>\ndiscussed the proposal for its division on January<br \/>\n24, 2002 and bifurcation was proposed. It was,<br \/>\ntherefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. A counter affidavit is also filed by<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik<br \/>\non behalf of Respondent No. 2. It was stated in the<br \/>\nsaid affidavit that the procedure of bifurcation of<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalwan into<br \/>\ntwo Committees; Kalan and Deola started in 1999.<br \/>\nAt that time, however, the Government reviewed the<br \/>\ndecision of bifurcation, and hence the process was<br \/>\nstopped. Regarding consultation with the Market<br \/>\nCommittee and the State Marketing Board, it was<br \/>\ndenied that there was no consultation. Respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 had forwarded Resolution No. 8 dated January<br \/>\n24, 2002, to the Government which showed effective<br \/>\nconsultation with Market committee by respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2. The proposal of bifurcation was sent through<br \/>\nrespondent No. 3, Director of Marketing, Pune, to<br \/>\nrespondent No. 4 i.e. State Marketing Board, who<br \/>\nconveyed its decision by a letter dated September<br \/>\n7, 2002. Thus, there was effective consultation<br \/>\nwith the Marketing Board. Referring to the<br \/>\nphraseology used in Section 44 of the Act that &#8220;the<br \/>\nState Government &#8216;may&#8217; after consulting the Market<br \/>\nCommittees or Committee as the case may be and the<br \/>\nState Marketing Board&#8221;, it was submitted by the<br \/>\ndeponent that the provision regarding consultation<br \/>\nwas not &#8220;mandatory&#8221;. However, the facts revealed<br \/>\nthat there was such consultation. It was,<br \/>\ntherefore, submitted that the action taken by the<br \/>\nauthorities was in accordance with law and the<br \/>\nrespondents had no right to challenge it. The<br \/>\npetition, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 10. In a further affidavit, petitioner No. 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>reiterated what was stated in the petition. It was<br \/>\nalso stated that after the election of new Managing<br \/>\nCommittee on December 21, 2001, first meeting for<br \/>\nelecting Chairman and Vice-Chairman was held on<br \/>\nJanuary 10, 2002. On January 17, 2002, an agenda<br \/>\nof meeting scheduled to be held on January 24,<br \/>\n2002, was issued. There were in all seven subjects<br \/>\non the agenda. The subject regarding proposed action<br \/>\nof division of Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee was no included. At the time of meeting.<br \/>\nhowever, a reference was casually made by some of<br \/>\nthe members and the matter was discussed. There was<br \/>\nno resolution approving the proposed action. One<br \/>\nMr. Popat had opposed the proposal of division of<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee. The State<br \/>\nGovernment called a report vide its letter dated<br \/>\nJuly 11, 2002 about the feasibility of division of<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee. The said<br \/>\nletter was also referred to in the report dated<br \/>\nAugust 1, 2002 submitted by respondent No. 2 to the<br \/>\nState Government. On the basis of the said report,<br \/>\nthe Director of Marketing wrote a letter on August<br \/>\n12, 2002 to respondent No. 4 for its opinion as to<br \/>\nwhether such division would be economically<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">feasible. On August 29, 2002, respondent No. 2<\/span><br \/>\nprepared a report regarding economic feasibility of<br \/>\nthe division. Surprisingly, however, by a letter<br \/>\ndated September 7, 2002, a Resolution approving the<br \/>\nproposed action was taken. Thus, there was nothing<br \/>\nto show that petitioner No. 1 Committee or the<br \/>\nState Marketing Board was ever consulted. The<br \/>\naction was, therefore, illegal and contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nparties. Mr. P.N. Joshi, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners contended that the action is<br \/>\nillegal, unlawful and inconsistent with the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 44 of the Act and deserves<br \/>\nto be quashed. He submitted that it is settled law<br \/>\nthat before bifurcation or division of an<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee, the State<br \/>\nGovernment is bound to consult the Market<br \/>\nCommittee or Committees and also the State<br \/>\nMarketing Board, which has not been done in the<br \/>\ninstant case. The counsel urged that there was non-application<br \/>\nof mind on the part of the State in not<br \/>\ngiving due importance to the condition precedent<br \/>\nthat such an action would be required for &#8220;securing<br \/>\nefficient regulation of marketing of agricultural<br \/>\nproduce in the marketing area&#8221;. In absence of such<br \/>\nsatisfaction, proceedings could not have been<br \/>\ninitiated under Section 44 of the Act. The action<br \/>\nis also mala fide and has been taken in<br \/>\ncolourable exercise of power, since some of the<br \/>\npersons who were elected as members of the Managing<br \/>\nCommittee were not liked by the respondents. The<br \/>\naction would adversely affect petitioner Nos. 2 to<br \/>\n16, as they had been elected as members of the<br \/>\nManaging Committee only in December, 2001 and the<br \/>\ntenure of such office is five years. The impugned<br \/>\naction curtail that statutory period which could<br \/>\nnot have been done. On all these grounds, it was<br \/>\nsubmitted that the impugned decision deserves to<br \/>\nbe quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Senior Advocate, appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the intervenors supported the action<br \/>\ntaken by the respondents. It was submitted that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">there was consultation with petitioner No. 1<\/span><br \/>\nCommittee as well as with the State Marketing<br \/>\nBoard. It was at the instance of petitioner No. 1<br \/>\nCommittee which had passed a Resolution favouring<br \/>\nand recommending division of Kalwan Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Market Committee into two Committees,<br \/>\nKalwan and Deola, that the proceedings were<br \/>\ninitiated. The Marketing Board was also of the same<br \/>\nopinion and on the basis of such decisions, the<br \/>\naction was taken under Section 44 of the Act.<br \/>\nNeither petitioner No. 1 Committee nor petitioner<br \/>\nNos. 2 to 16 have right to challenge legal and<br \/>\nvalid exercise of power by the authorities. It was<br \/>\nsubmitted that it is well settled that consultation<br \/>\ndoes not mean concurrence or consent, and even if<br \/>\nit is assumed for the sake of argument that<br \/>\npetitioner No. 1 or petitioner Nos. 12 to 16 did not<br \/>\nagree to such division, statutory power under<br \/>\nSection 44 could be exercised by the authority,<br \/>\nprovided conditions laid down therein were<br \/>\nfulfilled. According to the counsel, the action was<br \/>\nin exercise of statutory power which did not<br \/>\ndeprive the petitioners of any benefit nor resulted<br \/>\nin civil consequences. It was, therefore, not<br \/>\nnecessary to issue show cause notice, call for<br \/>\nexplanation, afford opportunity of hearing or<br \/>\nobserve principles of natural justice. An action of<br \/>\nsupersession of a body stands on a totally<br \/>\ndifferent footing and considerations relevant to<br \/>\nsupersession would not apply to amalgamation or<br \/>\ndivision of Committee. It was also submitted that<br \/>\neven in past, there was such proposal for division<br \/>\nof Marketing Committee. Hence, the action can never<br \/>\nbe termed as mala fide or colourable exercise of<br \/>\npower. It was, therefore, submitted that the<br \/>\ndecision does not deserve to be interfered with by<br \/>\nthis Court in exercise of extraordinary<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Mr. Patne, learned Assistant Government<br \/>\nPleader, supported the stand taken by Mr. Sawant.<br \/>\nHe submitted that even in past such exercise was<br \/>\nundertaken but petitioner No. 1 Committee approached<br \/>\nthis Court. This Court entertained the petition<br \/>\nand granted interim relief. Thereafter, once again<br \/>\nthe process was undertaken and in bona fide<br \/>\nexercise of power and after consulting the Market<br \/>\nCommittee and the State Marketing Board, the<br \/>\npresent action has been taken, which is legal and<br \/>\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>14. Having heard the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nparties, in our opinion, on a short ground of non-compliance<br \/>\nwith the conditions laid down in Section<br \/>\n44 of the Act, the petition deserves to be<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>15. Section 44 of the Act provides for<br \/>\namalgamation or division of Market Committees and<br \/>\nit reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>Amalgamation or division of Market<br \/>\nCommittees.&#8211;(1) Where the State<br \/>\nGovernment is satisfied that for securing<br \/>\nefficient regulation of marketing of any<br \/>\nagricultural produce in any market area,<br \/>\nit is necessary that two or more Market<br \/>\nCommittees therein should be amalgamated<br \/>\nor any Market Committee therein should be<br \/>\ndivided into two or more Market<br \/>\nCommittees, then the State government<br \/>\nmay, after consulting the Market<br \/>\nCommittees or Committee, as the case may<br \/>\nbe, and the State Marketing Board by<br \/>\nnotification in the Official Gazette,<br \/>\nprovide for the amalgamation or division<br \/>\nof such Market Committees into a single<br \/>\nMarket Committee or into two or more<br \/>\nMarket Committees, for the market area in<br \/>\nrespect of the agricultural produce<br \/>\nspecified in the notifications with such<br \/>\nconstitution, property, rights, interests<br \/>\nand authorities and such liabilities,<br \/>\nduties and obligations (including<br \/>\nprovision in respect of contracts,<br \/>\nassets, employees, proceedings, and such<br \/>\nincidental, consequential and<br \/>\nsupplementary matters as may be necessary<br \/>\nto give effect to such amalgamation or as<br \/>\nthe case may be, the division) as may be<br \/>\nspecified in the notification.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) Where more Market Committees than<br \/>\none are established in any market area<br \/>\nunder Sub-section (1), the State<br \/>\nGovernment may, notwithstanding anything<br \/>\ncontained in this Act, issue general or<br \/>\nspecial directions as to which of the<br \/>\nMarket Committees shall exercise the<br \/>\npowers, perform the duties and discharge<br \/>\nthe functions of the Market Committee<br \/>\nunder this Act, in which they are<br \/>\njointly interested or which are of a<br \/>\ncommon nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) Where any direction are issued<br \/>\nunder Sub-section (2), the cost incurred<br \/>\nby a Market Committee in pursuance of the<br \/>\ndirections shall be shared by the other<br \/>\nMarket Committees concerned in such<br \/>\nproportion as may be agreed upon, or, in<br \/>\ndefault of agreement, as may be<br \/>\ndetermined by the State Government or<br \/>\nsuch officer as that Government may<br \/>\ndirect in this behalf. The decision of<br \/>\nthe State Government of such officer<br \/>\nshall be final.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Now, it cannot be gainsaid that whenever an Act<br \/>\nprovides for consultation with the bodies likely to<br \/>\nbe affected, such consultation is mandatory and not<br \/>\ndirectory. Moreover, such consultation must be<br \/>\nreal, effective and meaningful (vide<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1304035\/\">Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. High Court of Patna,<\/a><br \/>\n; <a href=\"\/doc\/1302865\/\">Union of India v. Sankalchand<br \/>\nHimatlal Sheth,<\/a> ; S. Kewal Ram v.\n<\/p>\n<p>District Registrar of Co-operative Societies,<br \/>\n(1986) 2 SCALE 398; Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\nCommittee, Dharni and Ors. v. District Deputy<br \/>\nRegistrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati, 1986<br \/>\nMah LJ 374; Shalikram Shivram Khabragade and Ors. v.<br \/>\nDivisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society,<br \/>\nNagpur and Ors., ; and <a href=\"\/doc\/548493\/\">Vithal<br \/>\nSampatrao Fartade v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.<br \/>\nW.P.<\/a> 2864 of 2001 decided on January 29, 2003). It,<br \/>\ntherefore, cannot successfully be contended that<br \/>\nconsultation is directory, enabling or permissive.<br \/>\nSection 44, no doubt, uses the expression &#8220;may&#8221;,<br \/>\nbut considering the ambit and scope of the<br \/>\nprovision and keeping in mind the fact that such<br \/>\npower can only be exercised to achieve the object<br \/>\net out in the said section, it must be held that<br \/>\nno action can be taken by the State<br \/>\nGovernment before consulting the Market Committee<br \/>\nor the State Marketing Board.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. Moreover, the point is concluded by more than<br \/>\none decision of this Court. It may be profitable to<br \/>\nrefer to a recent decision in Appasaheb Sheshrao<br \/>\nChavan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,<br \/>\n. In Appasaheb Sheshrao,<br \/>\nseveral petitions were filed against the decision<br \/>\nof bifurcation of Committees. The Court was called<br \/>\nupon to consider whether the provision relating to<br \/>\nconsultation was mandatory? Considering the<br \/>\nrelevant provisions of law, this Court held that<br \/>\nconsultation with the bodies referred to in the Act<br \/>\nwas mandatory, and final decision can be taken only<br \/>\nafter such consultation. A decision taken without<br \/>\nconsulting such bodies could not be said to be a<br \/>\ndecision in the eye of law and must be declared<br \/>\nvoid and non-est. Though, some of the petitions<br \/>\nwere dismissed, other petitions were allowed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench holding that there was no<br \/>\nconsultation with the Committee on the proposal of<br \/>\nbifurcation or division of Committees. For<br \/>\ninstance, in Writ Petition Nos. 4436 of 1998 and<br \/>\n4912 of 1998, the Court held that bifurcation of<br \/>\nPathri Committee into two separate Market<br \/>\nCommittees viz. Pathri and Hadgaon had been done<br \/>\nwithout consultation. No doubt, it was stated that<br \/>\na Resolution was passed in the meeting dated 17th<br \/>\nJune, 1998 regarding bifurcation of Committees, but<br \/>\nit was not a subject in the agenda of the meeting<br \/>\nand the question was not discussed. The Court also<br \/>\nnoted that it was contended by the petitioners that<br \/>\nthe power to be exercised under Section 44 of the<br \/>\nAct must precede by the procedure calling for<br \/>\nobjections, if any, from all those likely to be<br \/>\naffected. As it was not done, the action was<br \/>\nillegal and contrary to law. Similarly, in Writ<br \/>\nPetition No. 5003 of 1998, Jalna Market Committee<br \/>\nwas bifurcated into two market Committees, Jalna<br \/>\nMarket Committees and Badnapur Market Committee. The<br \/>\nDirector of Market Committee informed the<br \/>\nGovernment about bifurcation of the said Committee<br \/>\non February 17, 1995. The communication was<br \/>\nconsidered in a meeting dated April 28, 1995 by the<br \/>\nMarket Committee and the proposal was opposed. The<br \/>\nChairman of the Committee expressed the opinion in<br \/>\nfavour of bifurcation. It was held that such<br \/>\naction could not be said to be in consonance with<br \/>\nlaw. Hence, the order was set aside. The Court<br \/>\nalso observed that the consultation must be real,<br \/>\neffective and meaningful and in the absence of such<br \/>\nconsultation, the action cannot be said to be in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>17. In the instance case also, reliance was sought<br \/>\nto be placed on a Resolution dated January 24, 2002<br \/>\n(Exhibit-C). An English translation is supplied by<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the petitioners. In the<br \/>\nsaid Resolution, it was stated that a general<br \/>\nmeeting of petitioner No. 1 Committee was held on<br \/>\nthat day, i.e. on January 24, 2002 and Resolution<br \/>\nNo. 8 was passed. It is clear from the agenda of the<br \/>\nmeeting that bifurcation of Committee was not one<br \/>\nof the subjects to be discussed nor was it<br \/>\nincorporated in the agenda which was prepared on<br \/>\nJanuary 17, 2002. The subject was taken as an<br \/>\nadditional subject with the permission of the chair<br \/>\non the date of the meeting. From Resolution No. 8<br \/>\nalso, it is clear that no decision regarding<br \/>\nbifurcation or division of Kalwan Agricultural<br \/>\nProduce Market Committee into two Committees viz.<br \/>\nKalwan and Deola was taken and the action was<br \/>\napproved but the matter was discussed and<br \/>\nunanimously a note was taken regarding such<br \/>\ndiscussion.\n<\/p>\n<p>18. The relevant sentence reads as under:<br \/>\nojhy izek.ks ppkZ dj.ksu vkyh- ckcu uksn \/ks.;ku<br \/>\n;koh vls lokZuers Bjys-\n<\/p>\n<p> The English translation as supplied reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The discussion took place as above. It<br \/>\nwas unanimously agreed to take note of<br \/>\nthis matter.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It further appears that though at the end it was<br \/>\nstated that the Resolution was passed unanimously,<br \/>\nfrom the body of the Resolution, it is clear that<br \/>\nthe proposal was opposed by Popat Dhana Khairnar<br \/>\nUpasabhapati of the Samiti. Thus, it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that on January 24, 2002, a decision was taken<br \/>\nby petitioner No. 1 Committee and a Resolution was<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">passed to bifurcate or divide petitioner No. 1<\/span><br \/>\nCommittee into two Committees. It is, therefore,<br \/>\nnot correct to say that a decision was taken<br \/>\nregarding bifurcation as has been submitted by the<br \/>\nrespondents, that petitioner No. 1 Committee had<br \/>\nagreed and passed a Resolution for division of<br \/>\nKalwan Committee into two Committees.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. Even on interpretation of law, the action<br \/>\ncannot be said to be in accordance with law. In our<br \/>\nopinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner is<br \/>\nright in contending that petitioner No. 1 Committee<br \/>\nwas required to be consulted on the proposal<br \/>\nregarding amalgamation or division of Market<br \/>\nCommittee. It is only after such proposal is mooted<br \/>\nout that Market Committees or Committee, as the<br \/>\ncase may be, and the State Marketing Board should<br \/>\nbe consulted. As is clear from the record and even<br \/>\nadmitted by the respondents that the proposal<br \/>\nstarted from August 1, 2002 by a communication of<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1-the State of<br \/>\nMaharashtra. Thereafter on August 12, 2002, the<br \/>\nDirector of Agriculture, Marketing, on August 12,<br \/>\n2002, informed the General Manager of Maharashtra<br \/>\nState Agricultural Marketing Board as well as<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 regarding dividing or bifurcating<br \/>\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Kalwan, into<br \/>\ntwo Agricultural Produce Market Committees,<br \/>\nKalwan and Deola. Hence, what was required by law<br \/>\nwas the consultation of petitioner No. 1 Committee<br \/>\nas also State Marketing Board in connection with<br \/>\nthe proposal dated August 1, 2002. Any action<br \/>\ntaken prior to August 1, 2002, could not be said to<br \/>\nbe in exercise of power under Section 44 of the<br \/>\nAct. Therefore, even if any Resolution was passed<br \/>\nearlier to such proposal, it could not be said to<br \/>\nbe in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A<br \/>\ndivision or bifurcation of Committees required to<br \/>\nbe made under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 as<br \/>\nregarding the proposal of bifurcation or division.<br \/>\nSince that proposal was moved on August 1, 2002,<br \/>\nthe consultation would be only after August 1, 2002<br \/>\nand before the impugned order dated January 23,<br \/>\n2003. As no consultation had ever been made during<br \/>\nthe said period, the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioners must be upheld that<br \/>\nthere was no consultation and the order deserves to<br \/>\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion,<br \/>\nthe petition deserves to be allowed and is<br \/>\naccordingly allowed. The order dated January 22,<br \/>\n2003 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed<br \/>\nand set aside. Since we are upholding the<br \/>\ncontention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners that there was no consultation with the<br \/>\npetitioner No. 1 Committee as envisaged by Sub-section<br \/>\n(1) of Section 44 of the Act and the action<br \/>\ndeserves to be quashed and set aside on that<br \/>\nground, we are not expressing any opinion on mala<br \/>\nfide or colourable exercise of power on the part<br \/>\nof the respondents, as contended by the<br \/>\npetitioners. The petition is accordingly allowed.<br \/>\nRule is made absolute. In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, however, there shall be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> Parties be given copies of this order duly<br \/>\nauthenticated by the Sheristedar\/Private Secretary.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 (5) BomCR 656, 2003 (3) MhLj 442 Author: C Thakker Bench: C Thakker, D Chandrachud JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J. 1. Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - 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\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-25T20:11:22+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T20:11:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3891,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T20:11:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - 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\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-25T20:11:22+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T20:11:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003"},"wordCount":3891,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003","name":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, The ... on 26 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T20:11:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalwan-agriculture-produce-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-the-on-26-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalwan Agriculture Produce &#8230; vs The State Of Maharashtra, The &#8230; on 26 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/46964","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=46964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}