{"id":48199,"date":"2003-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003"},"modified":"2019-03-07T15:33:28","modified_gmt":"2019-03-07T10:03:28","slug":"b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 12\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN\n\nW.P. NO. 11869 OF 1997 AND W.P.NO. 18445 OF 1997\nAND\nW.M.P. NO. 29090 OF 1997\n\nW.P. NO. 11869 OF 1997\n\nB.V.V.S.S. Narayana                                    .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy\n\n2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n   By its Senior Divisional Manager\n   Visakhapatnam\n   Andhra Pradesh.\n\n3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n   By its Regional Manager\n   Visakapatnam\n   Andhra Pradesh.\n\n4. Union of India rep. By\n   the Secretary, Ministry\n   of Petroleum and Natural Gas\n   New Delhi.                                           .. Respondents\n\nW.P. NO.18445 OF 1997\n\nMedapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy\nChandra Agencies\nTallarevu\nNeelapalli Tallarevu Mandal\nEast Godavari District\nAndhra Pradesh.                                 .. Petitioner\n\n- Vs -\n\n1. Union of India rep. By\n   the Secretary, Ministry\n   of Petroleum and Natural Gas\n   New Delhi.\n\n2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n   By its Senior Divisional Manager\n   Visakhapatnam\n   Andhra Pradesh.\n\n3.  B.V.V.S.S. Narayana                         .. Respondents\n\n        W.P.  No.11869\/97 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.\n        W.P.  No.18445\/97 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\n\n\n\nFor Petitioners :  Mr.  C.S.Prakasa Rao in\n                WP 11869\/97 & R3 in WP 18445\/97\n                Mr.  P.  Subba Reddy in\n                WP 18445\/97 & R3 in WP 11869\/97\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.  O.R.Santhanakrishnan\n                for BPCL (R2 in both WPs)\n                Mr.S.Swaminathanm for HPCL\n                (R3 in WP No.11869\/97)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
1.  In W.P.  No.11869 of  1997,  the  writ  petitioner  B.V.V.S.S.Narayana  of
\nYanam,  has  prayed  for  the  issue  of  a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd
\nrespondent, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to  resite  the  retail  petrol
\noutlet  of  M\/s.Chandra  Agencies  (first  respondent)  located  at Yanam to a
\nsuitable place within Andhra Pradesh and outside  Yanam,  part  of  the  Union
\nTerritory of Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.  In  W.P.  No.18445 of 1997, the petitioner, Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy
\nof Chandra Agencies, has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to  call
\nfor the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent made in
\nE.  No.19018\/39\/96-MC dated 9.5.97 and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
3.  According  to  the  petitioner  in  W.P.  No.11869\/97, Hindustan Petroleum
\nCorporation Ltd., invited applications for the location of a retail outlet  in
\nYanam in  Union  Territory  for  sale  of  petroleum products.  The outlet was
\nreserved for physically disabled, retired paramilitary personnel, etc.  One of
\nthe qualification being that the applicant  should  be  a  resident  of  Union
\nTerritory of  Pondicherry  for  a  period  of  not  less than five years.  The
\npetitioner applied for the said dealership as a physically handicapped person.
\nAfter holding a selection, the Oil Selection Board, Tamil Nadu interviewed the
\ncandidates including the  petitioner  and  the  petitioner  was  selected  for
\nappointment as  a dealer for the retail outlet at Yanam.  The letter of intent
\nwas issued on 6.5.94 with effect from 6.5.94.  Yanam is a small  area  forming
\npart of  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry.    but  located adjacent to Andhra
\nPradesh.  The petitioner located the retail outlet at Yanam and operating  the
\nretail outlet.\n<\/p>\n
4.  Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddykrishna of Chandra Agencies was appointed as
\na  retail petroleum dealer of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Tallarevu,
\nEast Godavari District (A.P.) from the category of educated unemployed,  which
\nretail outlet   he   was   carrying   on  since  198  9  onwards.    The  said
\nM.Venkatakrishna Reddy was selected by the Oil Selection Board  after  calling
\nfor  application  to  cater the needs of Tallarevu Mandal in Godavari District
\ncovering a radius of 40 Kms.  Though he was granted retail outlet to be  sited
\nat  Tallarevu,  the  said  Venkatakrishna  Reddy applied to the Sub Divisional
\nMagistrate, Yanam, for grant of a  no  objection  certificate  to  locate  the
\nretail outlet at  Yanam.  The petitioner at that stage filed W.P.  No.11135 of
\n1996 seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the Sub Divisional
\nMagistrate from granting no objection certificate  applied  for  by  the  said
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy as it amounts to resiting outside the territory for which
\nhe was  granted  dealership.    The said writ petition came to be dismissed as
\npremature since such no objection certificate under the petroleum rules, if at
\nall, could be issued only after grant of licence  and  such  a  retail  outlet
\ncould be  established.   The petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
5.  Based upon the no objection certificate,  the  said  Venkatakrishna  Reddy
\napplied to  the  Deputy  Chief  Controller  of  Explosives for a licence.  The
\npetitioner once again filed  W.P.    No.12085\/96  and  the  same  came  to  be
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.   The  petroleum  company  took  up  the matter questioning the resiting of
\nM.Venkatakrishna Reddy’s  retail  outlet  from  Tallarevu  to   Yanam.      By
\ncommunication  dated  9.5.97,  the  Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum
\nissued directions  to  the  petroleum  company  and  in  particular  the  said
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy  to  shift his outlet back to A.P.  from Yanam and locate
\nit back in Tallaruevu.  Despite the said direction, the said  M.Venkatakrishna
\nReddy  continued  his  retail outlet at Yanam and due to the continued illegal
\nresitement the petitioner has filed the present writ petition  seeking  for  a
\nmandamus  directing  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation Ltd., to resite the retail
\npetrol outlet of the said Venkatakrishna Reddy of  Chandra  Agencies  to  some
\nsuitable place in A.P.  And outside Yanam region.\n<\/p>\n
7.  W.P.  No.18445 of 1997 has been filed by the said Medapatti Venkatakrishna
\nReddy  of  Chandra  Agencies challenging the proceedings of the Union of India
\ndirecting the  writ  petitioner  Medapatti  Venkatakrishna  Reddy  of  Chandra
\nAgencies  holding  that  the  resitement  by  Venkatakrishna  Reddy and Bharat
\nPetroleum Corporation Ltd., being unauthorised and  irregular,  directed  that
\nthe outlet be relocated at the old site or any other side in the same class or
\nmarket in  A.P.,  with the approval of other industries.  Challenging the said
\norders  of  the  Government  of  India  dated  9.5.97,  the   said   Medapatti
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy of Chandra Agencies has filed the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
8.   According  to  the  petitioner  Venkatakrishna Reddy, he was selected and
\ngranted dealership to carry on business in petroleum products at  Neelampalli,
\nTallarevu, East Godavari District during 1989.  It is admitted that the retail
\noutlet was located in the name of M\/s.Chandra Agencies in the year 1989 at the
\nsite approved  by  Bharat  Petroleum  Corporation  Ltd.    Neelampalli is at a
\ndistance of 1.8 Kms., from Yanam.  The 3rd  respondent  B.V.V.S.S.Narayana  in
\nthis writ  petition,  who is the petitioner in W.P.  No.11869 of 1997 has been
\ngranted dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Yanam, which is
\n2 Kms., away from the retail outlet at Neelampalli in A.P.    There  has  been
\ncertain objections  and  correspondence.   The petitioner Venkatakrishna Reddy
\nfinding that the levy of sales tax at Neelampalli in A.P.  Is 17.4  %  whereas
\nin  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry it was only 7%, far less and, therefore,
\nsale of MS\/HSD is 27.31%, whereas in Yanam it is  only  7%.    Therefore,  the
\nmovement of petroleum products at Yanam was higher than that at Neelampalli as
\nthe prices were higher.  Therefore, he had suffered huge losses.  Hence, sales
\ncame  down  consequent  to the conferment of dealership by Hindustan Petroleum
\nCorporation Ltd., at Yanam in favour of B.V.V.S.S.Narayana.    Hence,  he  had
\napplied  for  shifting  of  retail  outlet from Thallaravu to Yanam, which was
\ngranted by BPC.   The  petitioner  resited  as  dealer  at  Yanam.    The  3rd
\nrespondent  Narayana filed earlier writ petitions and they were all dismissed.
\nThe order  of  the  Government  of  India,  Ministry  of  Petroleum  directing
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy  of Chandra Agencies, the petitioner in W.P.  No.18445\/97
\nto resite the petroleum agency within A.P.   State  is  illegal  and  shifting
\nshould not  have  been  ordered.   The directions have been issued only at the
\ninstance of the sai d Narayana, the 3rd respondent.   The  order  is  illegal,
\nviolative of  the  policy  and violative of The Constitution of India.  Hence,
\nthe direction issued by the Government of India, Ministry of  Petroleum  dated
\n9.5.97 in E.No.19018\/39\/97-MC is illegal and liable to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
9.   As  the  two  writ  petitions,  one  being counter to the other, to avoid
\nconfusion, it is better to  refer  to  the  parties  by  name.    Concedingly,
\nNarayana was selected by the Oil Selection Board for location of retail outlet
\nat Yanam  within  the  Union  Territory  of  Pondicherry.  Equally there is no
\ndispute that Venkatakrishna Reddy was selected, granted and  appointed  retail
\noutlet  dealership  by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., at Tallarevu in East
\nGodavari District, A.P.  Venkatakrishna Reddy has to locate the retail  outlet
\nwithin the  area  for  which he was selected and appointed as a dealer.  It is
\nthe policy that no resitement will be permitted outside  the  jurisdiction  or
\narea for which the dealership was granted.  Despite, Narayana, who was granted
\na  dealership  at Yanam by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has the right
\nto locate the retail outlet within Yanam region within the Union Territory  of
\nPondicherry  and,  therefore,  he was aggrieved by the unauthorised or illegal
\nresitement of the petrol outlet by Venkatakrishna Reddy within  Yanam  region.
\nNarayana moved the earlier writ petition, but on certain technical objections,
\nthose  writ  petitions  were disposed of while giving liberty to him to move a
\ncomprehensive or appropriate writ at the appropriate stage.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The said Narayana took up the matter with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
\nLtd., who in turn took up the matter with the oil companies serving the region
\nand ultimately it went up to the level of Ministry of Petroleum, Government of
\nIndia.  After affording opportunity to Venkatakrishna Reddy  and  calling  for
\nreports, the Ministry of Petroleum issued directions taking into consideration
\nof  the  fact that Venkatakrishna Reddy has resited outside the area and it is
\nan unauthorised and irregular resitement, which is impermissible  as  per  the
\npolicy.  The impugned communication order of Union of India dated 9.5.97 reads
\nthus :-\n<\/p>\n
“To
\nThe Director (Marketing)
\nBPCL, Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
Subject :  Resitement of BPCL RO, M\/s.Chandra Agencies, Tallevra East Godavari
\nDistt.  (A.P.) to Yanam in Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
Sir,
\nWith reference to BPCL’s letter No.  MKR.CLD.CON.RS.  Dated March 27, 1 997 on
\nthe above noted subject, this is to state that the matter has been examined in
\ndetail  in  the  Ministry, it is found that the resitement is unauthorised and
\nirregular,  and  consequently  the  Government  has  decided  to  cancel   the
\nresitement of  BPCL’s  Retail  outlet,  M\/s.   Chandra Agencies from Tallavera
\n(A.P.) to Yanam in Pondicherry on the following grounds :\n<\/p>\n
(i) The resitement of the subject RO has been done  without  consulting  other
\nindustry members.    The matter should have been put up before the state level
\ncommittee through the SLC.  This was not done by BPCL.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The resitement is not covered by existing guidelines which provide  inter
\nalia  that  resitement  of  a  retail  outlet  should  not  be  permitted  for
\nimprovement or sales.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Merely drop in sales in a single year, without which for; long enough is
\nnot enough ground for resitement.  There many cases of this  type,  which,  if
\npermitted  without  following any procedure, will put the total marketing plan
\nin jeopardy and create choosing in the field.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Resitement is not in the trading area.  The trading area can’t go  beyond
\nthe boundary  of  the  State.  Under the marketing plan, resiting is confirmed
\nwithin the State.  That is the category under which this  RO  was  set  up  in
\nA.P., would stand reduced, if it is resited outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
(v)  The  resitement is unauthorised and irregular and if such resitements are
\nallowed, market discipline will be destroyed.    Further,  other  dealers  and
\ncompanies will also be motivate and encouraged to indulge in each resitement.\n<\/p>\n
2)  It  is, therefore, requested that M\/s.Chandra Agencies may be relocated at
\nthe old site or any other site in the same class of market in  Andhra  Pradesh
\nwith the approval of other industry members.\n<\/p>\n
3)  Necessary  action  may  be  taken  in  the matter under intimation to this
\nMinistry.\n<\/p>\n
Yours faithfully,
\n(O.N.Singh)
\nDeputy Sectetary to
\nGovt.  Of India
\nT.  No.3385339″\n<\/p>\n
11.  Heard Mr.  C.S.Prakasa  Rao,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  writ
\npetitioner in  W.P.   No.11869 of 1997, who is also the 3rd respondent in W.P.
\nNo.18445  of  1997,  Mr.P.Subba  Reddy,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioner in  W.P.    No.18445  of  1997  and  who is the first respondent in
\nW.P.No.11869 of 1997 and Mr.  O.R.    Santhanakrishnan,  learned  counsel  for
\nM\/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and Mr.S.  Swaminathan, learned counsel
\nfor M\/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
12.  One  other  writ  petition,  which was pending, namely, W.P.  No.12085 of
\n1996 came to be dismissed as having become unnecessary.   In  these  two  writ
\npetitions,  common  arguments were advanced and with the consent of counsel on
\neither side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The points that arise for consideration in both the writ petitions are :-
\n“i) Whether the petitioner, Narayana, in W.P.  No.11869\/97 is entitled to  the
\nissue of writ of mandamus as prayed for ?\n<\/p>\n
ii) Whether  the petitioner Venkatakrishna Reddy in W.P.  No.18445 of 1 997 is
\nentitled to the relief of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings  of
\nthe first respondent Union of India in E.  No.19018\/3 9\/96-MC dated 9.5.97 ?”
\nBoth  the  points  could be considered together as they are interconnected and
\none is consequential to other.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Factually there is  no  controversy  that  Narayana  has  to  locate  his
\npetroleum  retail  outlet  within  Yanam  region  in  the  Union  Territory of
\nPondicherry for which dealership he  was  selected  and  appointed  under  the
\nspecial category.    Equally there is no dispute that Venkatakrishna Reddy was
\nselected by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., to  locate  the  retail  outlet
\nwithin  Thallaravu  Mandal  in East Godavari District within the State of A.P.
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy has no right whatsoever to locate or resite the petroleum
\noutlet outside A.P.  and particularly within Yanam region.  Such a  resitement
\nis impermissible  as  per  the  policy then existing.  There is no controversy
\nwith respect to the policy that existed at that time.  No dealership has  been
\ngranted  in  favour  of Venkatakrishna Reddy for locating his retail outlet in
\nYanam region.  The oil company, namely, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., has
\nno authority or right to permit Venkatakrishna Reddy to resite  his  petroleum
\nagency  within  Yanam  region  nor  the  authorities  in  Union  Territory  of
\nPondicherry are conferred with any such power to grant licence or no objection
\ncertificate.   Venkatakrishna  Reddy  has  to  confine  his  operation  within
\nTallarevu or  in A.P., and not outside Andhra Pradesh.  This is clear from the
\npolicy as well as the directions issued by the Government of India.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The conferment  of  dealership  or  retail  outlet  was  subject  to  the
\ncondition  that  the same shall be located and it shall be operated within the
\narea.  The two Oil Companies, as per the policy laid down by the Government of
\nIndia have agreed and also stipulated a  condition  that  resitement  will  be
\npermitted  only in the same market\/trading area or in the same class of market
\nin the same district.  The condition which is binding on the two oil companies
\nand their retail dealers reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
”       Generally resitement will  be  permitted  only  in  the  same  market\/
\ntrading area or in same class of marked in same district.”
\nSuch  resitement  proposal  will  be as approved\/decided by the Regional\/Zonal
\nheads of the company as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
16.  Therefore, as per the policy laid down and as  per  the  minutes  of  the
\nmeeting  of  the various oil companies operating in the region, resitement, if
\nany, by Venkatakrishna Reddy should be within the District or area  for  which
\nhe was conferred with the retail outlet dealership and not outside.\n<\/p>\n
17.   The  impugned order makes it clear that the resitement by Venkatakrishna
\nReddy outside A.P., and in Yanam region is not covered by existing  guidelines
\nand, therefore, he has to shift his outlet from Yanam back to Tallarevu.  That
\napart,  Venkatakrishna  Reddy  cannot  go  beyond  the  boundary of the State,
\nnamely, State of  A.P.    Therefore,  it  is  clear  that  the  resitement  by
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy  is  unauthorised,  irregular and illegal.  In that view,
\nthe Government of India rightly issued the impugned orders.  In the  light  of
\nthe  policy decision referred to, this Court finds that there is no illegality
\nor impropriety or error with the order passed by the Union of India, which  is
\nthe subject  matter  of  challenge  in  W.P.  No.18445\/97 at the behest of the
\npetitioner Venkatakrishna Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
18.  When once this Court comes to the conclusion that the order of  Union  of
\nIndia directing Venkatakrishna Reddy to go back and relocate the outlet within
\nA.P.,  it  follows  automatically  that  the  writ  petition filed by Narayana
\nseeking for the relief of mandamus has to be issued automatically.\n<\/p>\n
19.  Mr.Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing  for  the  petitioner  in  W.P.
\nNo.18445\/97 contended that Narayana, who is a rival in trade cannot invoke the
\nwrit  jurisdiction  and  a rival in trade not being an aggrieved person cannot
\nmaintain a writ petition.  In this respect, the learned  counsel  relied  upon
\nthe pronouncement  in  JASBHAI  MOTIBHAI  DESAI VS.  ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR
\nAHMED & OTHERS reported in AIR 1976 SC 578 = 1976 (1) SCC 671.\n<\/p>\n
20.  The said contention of Mr.Subba Reddy cannot be sustained at  all  as  in
\nthe  present  case  the  various  Oil Companies in India has to act as per the
\npolicy laid down by the Union of India and they  have  to  confine  themselves
\nwith  respect  to their sales, promotions and location of retail outlet and no
\ndeviation is permissible.  When Venkatakrishna Reddy has to locate the  retail
\noutlet  within the territorial limits of A.P., he has no right to relocate his
\nretail outlet in Yanam region.  Merely because there is a  fall  in  sales  or
\nsales  tax  component  is  higher  and  the retail price is less at Yanam and,
\ntherefore, he has to locate the outlet at  Yanam  is  impermissible.    Having
\nsecured  a  retail  outlet on the basis of selection to locate at Tallarevu in
\nA.P., M.Venkatakrishna Reddy cannot  resite  the  retail  outlet  outside  the
\nterritory of  A.P and in Yanam.  The right of Venkatakrishna Reddy, if any, as
\ngranted by the oil company, is to locate his retail  outlet  only  within  the
\nterritory of A.P.    and not outside A.P.  The very location itself is illegal
\nand rightly been ordered to be wound up and taken back to Tallarevu.\n<\/p>\n
21.  Narayana has been granted  exclusive  dealership  to  locate  HSD  retail
\noutlet at  Yanam.    Therefore,  his right is interfered as per the policy and
\nguidelines laid down by the Government of India and Narayana is  an  aggrieved
\nperson.   A  legal  right  conferred  on  Narayana  as  per  the policy of the
\nGovernment of India and, therefore, he could very well enforce such a right by
\nseeking the relief of mandamus.  The legal duty is cast on the Union of  India
\nand  other  oil companies to follow the policy guidelines laid with respect to
\nthe binding sitement and resitement of HSD, MS retail outlets.  The  existence
\nof  legal  right and legal duty are condition precedent for issue of mandamus,
\nwhich is obviously present in favour of Narayana on the facts of  the  present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
22.  In  STATE  OF  ORISSA  & OTHERS VS.  RAJASAHEB CHANDENMULL INDRAKUMAR (P)
\nLTD.  & ANOTHER reported in AIR 1972 SC 2112, the Apex Court held that  unless
\nthe  legal  rights  are established, no relief could be granted in exercise of
\nwrit jurisdiction.  In this case, the legal right has been established by  the
\npetitioner, Narayana.\n<\/p>\n
23.  In  UMAKANT  SARAN VS.  STATE OF BIHAR reported in AIR 1973 SC 964 = 1973
\n(1) SCC 485, the Apex Court held that in order to issue writ  of  mandamus  to
\ncompel  which must be established or show that the law impose a legal duty and
\nthe aggrieved party has a legal right in law.  In the present  case,  Narayana
\nhas  got  a legal right and the other respondents including the Union of India
\nhas the legal duty and, therefore, he could  very  well  maintain  a  writ  of
\nmandamus.\n<\/p>\n
24.  Even JASBHAI MOTIBHAI DESAI VS.  ROSHAN KUMAR, HAJI BASHIR AHMED & OTHERS
\nreported  in AIR 1976 SC 578 = 1976 (1) SCC 671, the very decision relied upon
\nby Mr.Subba Reddy, it has been held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“33.  This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to  have
\nthe  locus  standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226,
\nan applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal or  individual  right
\nin  the  subject-matter  of the application, though in the case of some of the
\nwrits like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified.  In
\nother words, as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or  prejudice
\nto  some  legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a
\nlocus standi in the matter – (See State of Orissa v.  Madan Gopal,<\/a> 1952 SCR 28
\n= (AIR 1952 SC 12); Calcutta Gas Co.  V.  State of West Bengal,  1962  Supp  1
\nSCR 1  = (AIR 1962 SC 1044); Ram Umeshwari Suthoo v.  Member, Board of Revenue
\nOrissa, (1967) 1 SCA 413; Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v.    Government  of  Andhra
\nPradesh, AIR<\/a>  1966 SC 828; State of Orissa v.  Rajasaheb Chandanmall, AIR<\/a> 1972
\nSC 2112; Dr.Satyanarayana Sinha v.  M\/s.  S.Lal & Co., AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 2720).\n<\/p>\n
* * * *<\/p>\n
40.  Did the appellant have a legal right under the  statutory  provisions  or
\nunder  the general law which has been subjected to or threatened with injury ?
\nThe answer in the circumstances  of  the  case  must  necessarily  be  in  the
\nnegative.”\n<\/p>\n
25.   Narayana  being a person aggrieved, as he has got a genuine grievance as
\nnot only there is a violation of the policy guidelines subject  to  which  the
\nexclusive  dealership was granted in favour of the retailers or dealers by the
\noil company, but also he is affected by the violation or infringement  of  his
\nlegal rights.    Narayana has a legal right, which is recognised by law and it
\nhas been infringed.  Therefore, the contention that Narayana is not  a  person
\naggrieved cannot  be  sustained.    Hence, the contention advanced by Mr.Subba
\nReddy, learned counsel appearing for  the  petitioner  in  W.P.    No.18445\/97
\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
26.   The  no  objection certificate or other permits or licence was issued by
\nthe authorities on the premise that there is a valid dealership in  favour  of
\nVenkatakrishna  Reddy  and,  therefore,  the same will not confer any right on
\nVenkatakrishna Reddy to locate or resite the retail outlet in Yanam.\n<\/p>\n
27.  Nextly it was contended that as of today there has been a relaxation with
\nrespect to the location of petroleum retail outlets and, therefore, neither  a
\nmandamus need  be  issued  nor a certiorari deserves to be issued.  It is true
\nthat in respect of location of petroleum retail outlets on  National  Highways
\nthere  has  been a change in policy, but that does not mean that in respect of
\nrural areas like Yanam or Neelampalli in Tallarevu could be equated  to  those
\nlocated on the highways.\n<\/p>\n
28.The policy laid down by Union Government, which confers a right on Narayana
\nhas  been  infringed  by  the  resitement  without  reference to the other oil
\ncompany.  Therefore, on the admitted facts, merely because there  has  been  a
\nsubsequent  change  in  the  policy,  the petitioner, Medapatti Venkatakrishna
\nReddy could locate the retail outlet at any place  of  his  choice  cannot  be
\nsustained.   The very grant of privilege is to locate the retail outlet at the
\nparticular location or area and to serve the area and not  to  go  beyond  the
\nterritorial limits.    Merely  because  there was a fall in sales or sales tax
\nelement and the price is lower in Union Territory of Pondicherry, that  cannot
\nbe a ground to resite the outlet at the choice of Venkatakrishna Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
29.The  very  condition  subject to which Venkatakrishna Reddy was granted the
\nright and the condition being that he has to locate the retail  outlet  within
\nthe  particular  area  of operation, when infringed and it interferes with the
\nlegal right of Narayana, he is  well  founded  in  coming  before  this  Court
\nseeking the writ of mandamus.\n<\/p>\n
30.  The  petitioner  Venkatakrishna  Reddy  in  W.P.  No.18445 of 1997 has no
\nright to locate the retail outlet in Yanam and outside the territory  of  A.P.
\nAnd  by  such  a resitement of the outlet, Narayana is affected and he is well
\nfounded in his contention.    The  petitioner  Venkatakrishna  Reddy  in  W.P.
\nNo.18445  of 1997 has no right to resite the retail outlet within Yanam region
\noutside the territory of A.P.   Therefore,  as  rightly  pointed  out  by  the
\nlearned  counsel  for Narayana and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., it is
\nonly Venkatakrishna Reddy, who is not the aggrieved party nor he  could  claim
\nto  be  aggrieved by the directions issued by the Union of India directing him
\nto go back to the original sitement or to locate within the territorial limits
\nof A.P.\n<\/p>\n
31.  In any view of the matter,  this  Court  holds  that  W.P.    No.18445\/97
\ndeserves to be  dismissed  and W.P.  No.11869\/97 moved by B.V.V.S.S.  Narayana
\nhas to be allowed and a mandamus is issued as prayed  for  with  cost.    This
\nCourt  is inclined to grant cost as B.V.V.S.S.Narayana has suffered consequent
\nto the location of the petrol bunk outside the territorial limits of A.P.  and
\nwithin Yanam region in Pondicherry.  Venkatakrishna Reddy is directed to pay a
\ncost of Rs.5000\/= to each of the respondents in W.P.  No.18445\/97.\n<\/p>\n
32.  W.P.  No.11869\/97 is allowed and Rule NISI is made absolute with cost  of
\nRs.5,000\/= against the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
33.  The  first  respondent  in  W.P.    No.11869\/97 shall forthwith close the
\nHSD\/MSD retail outlet located by him in Yanam region and he shall  locate  the
\nretail  outlet  in  Tallarevu  Mandal  within  the territorial limits of A.P.,
\nwithin 15 days.  If Venkatakrishna Reddy fails to resite  the  HSD\/MSD  retail
\noutlet  to Tallarevu Mandal within 15 days, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
\nshall stop supply HSD\/MSD to Venkatakrishna Reddy after 15 days of this  order
\nand  so  long  as the outlet is continued within Yanam region within the Union
\nTerritory of Pondicherry.   The  District  Magistrate  and  Regional  Officer,
\nYanam,  are directed to revoke the licence granted in favour of Venkatakrishna
\nReddy forthwith on production of a copy by Narayana.\n<\/p>\n
34.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
GLN<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Senior Divisional Manager
\nBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Visakhapatnam
\nAndhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Regional Manager
\nHindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Visakapatnam
\nAndhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Secretary
\nUnion of India
\nMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN W.P. NO. 11869 OF 1997 AND W.P.NO. 18445 OF 1997 AND W.M.P. NO. 29090 OF 1997 W.P. NO. 11869 OF 1997 B.V.V.S.S. Narayana .. Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-07T10:03:28+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T10:03:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4164,\"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\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\",\"name\":\"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-07T10:03:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 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":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - 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\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-07T10:03:28+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T10:03:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003"},"wordCount":4164,"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\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003","name":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-07T10:03:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-v-v-s-s-narayana-vs-medapatti-venkatakrishna-reddy-on-12-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.V.V.S.S. Narayana vs Medapatti Venkatakrishna Reddy on 12 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\/48199","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=48199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}