{"id":61568,"date":"2005-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005"},"modified":"2018-05-14T16:39:28","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T11:09:28","slug":"government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated:25\/08\/2005\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice\n\nand\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN\n\nWrit Appeal No. 884 of 2005\nand\nW.A.M.P.No. 1654 of 2005\n-----------\n\n1. Government of Tamil Nadu\n     rep. by its Secretary,\n     Health and Family Welfare Department,\n     Fort.St.George, Chennai  600 009.\n\n2.  The Director of Medical Education,\n      Kilpauk, Chennai  10.            . Appellants\n\n-vs-\n\nSri Nandha Educational Trust,\nRep. by its Chairman and Managing Trustee,\nMr.V.Shanmugam                          . Respondent\n\n\n        Appeal  filed  under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order\npassed in W.P.No.  9384 of 2004 dated 21.02.2005.\n\n!For Appellants .  Mr.A.L.Somayaji,\n                Additional Advocate General,\n                Assisted by Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram,\n                Special Government Pleader.\n\n^For Respondent .  Mr.G.Masilamani,\n                        Senior Counsel\n                    for Mrs.B.Saraswathi\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Honble The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n
        This  writ  appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
\nlearned single Judge dated 21.02.2005.\n<\/p>\n
        2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal)  with  a  view  to
\nstart  B.Sc.,  (Nursing)  Course applied to the State Government on 28.8.1 997
\nfor grant of No Objection Certificate to start  the  said  course  from  the
\nacademic year  1998-99.    Since there was no reply or response from the State
\nGovernment, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.1883  of  2  000  seeking  for  a
\ndirection   to  the  respondents  to  consider  and  decide  the  petitioners
\napplication.  The said writ petition (W.P.No.1883 of 2000) was allowed by this
\nCourt and by its order dated 10.07.2000, this Court directed  the  respondents
\ntherein  to  consider  and  dispose of the petitioners application within six
\nweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Pursuant to the above said order of this Court,  the  Director  of
\nMedical  Education  deputed  an  inspection  team  to inspect the petitioners
\ncollege vide his order dated 28.7.2000, and report about the  availability  of
\ninfrastructure facility to conduct B.Sc., (Nursing) course.  An inspection was
\nmade  on  9.9.2000,  and a report about the availability of infrastructure was
\nalso submitted.  Thereafter the Director of Medical Education  by  his  letter
\ndated 21.9.2000 addressed to the Dean, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
\nCollege  and  Hospital, Salem called for some particulars regarding land break
\nup with building plan for B.Pharmacy, Physiotherapy College, clinical  tie-up,
\ndetails  about  free  beds  for poor patients, details regarding Mens hostel,
\nsolvency certificate for Rs.30 lakhs, land details of College of Nursing for
\nB.Sc., course, etc.  The petitioner replied by  its  letter  dated  13.10.2000
\nclarifying  all  the  particulars  mentioned  in the letter of the Director of
\nMedical Education dated 21.9.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   Thereafter,  the  Dean,  Government  Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical
\nCollege and Hospital, Salem by his letter dated 30.11.2000 called for  further
\nadditional particulars from the petitioner, and the petitioner by letter dated
\n13.12.2000  sent the additional particulars sought for to the Dean relating to
\nprovision of 50% free beds for poor patients, provision  of  boys  hostel  and
\napproved plan  for  classrooms,  library,  office  and  principals  room.  The
\nDirector of Medical Education then by his letter dated 11.01.2001 called  upon
\nthe petitioner to provide an endowment of Rs.10 lakhs, which was also complied
\nwith by  the  petitioner  on  24.01.2001.    The Director of Medical Education
\nfurther by his letter dated 23.3.2001 called upon the  petitioner  to  provide
\neither (i) bank guarantee for Rs.30 lakhs or Solvency Certificate for the said
\namount  (ii)  details  regarding  tie-up  arrangement  with IRT PMCH and Lotus
\nApollo Hospitals.  The same was complied with,  and  reply  was  sent  by  the
\npetitioner on 12.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   The  Director of Medical Education by his letter dated 26.11.2001
\nthen sought from the petitioner a declaration that  Lotus  Hospitals  has  not
\ngiven  tie-up  to  any  other Paramedical college, a declaration of the trust,
\nmanagement about the Physical facilities and payment of Rs.5,000\/- for  second
\ninspection.   These  requests  were  also  complied  with by the petitioner on
\n06.12.2001.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The Director then by his letter dated 31.12.2001 addressed to  the
\nDean,  M.K.Government  Medical  College and Hospital, Salem called for certain
\nparticulars which was replied to by the petitioner on 4.2.200  2.    The  said
\nparticulars are:  –\n<\/p>\n
  (1)  Construction of separate hostel for B.Sc Nursing boys as per INC norms
\napproved building plan was enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Solvency Certificate for Rs.30 lakhs from the Revenue Authority.
\n(3) Declaration in bond paper from Lotus Apollo Hospitals that they  have  not
\ngiven any tie-up facility to any one except petitioner.<\/p>\n
        8.  The State Government thereafter by letter dated 24.5.2002 rejected
\nthe   petitioners   application   for   NOC   pointing  out  certain  alleged
\ndeficiencies, which was replied to  by  the  petitioner  on  27.3.2003.    The
\ndetails are as follows:  –\n<\/p>\n
Sl.No
\nDeficiency pointed out
\nReply\n<\/p>\n
1.
\n2nd Instalment of Endowment of Rs.10 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
1st Instalment of endowment is for 1st year and II instalment for 2  nd  year,
\n1st Instalment of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid, since the college has not started
\nat all much less 2nd year, hence 2nd instalment does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
2.
\nSeparate Hostel for Boys
\nSeparate Hostel for boys.  Photogr\n<\/p>\n
3.
\n3  Additional  class  rooms,  Auditorium of 500 capacity and Assembly Hall for
\nExamination Hall of 400 seats not provided.\n<\/p>\n
3 Additional  class  rooms  provided.    Auditorium  of  500   capacity,   and
\nExamination Hall of 400 seats provided.  Photograph enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nBank Guarantee for Rs.  30 lakhs
\nSolvency Certificate  already  provided.   Bank Guarantee also provided though
\nnot necessary.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\nLand Deed in favour of Trust.\n<\/p>\n
Land deed more than 30 acres of land in favour of Trust already enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
The reply dated 27.3.2003 was submitted in person on 16.4.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   In  paragraph 13 of the petitioners affidavit it stated that the
\nabove correspondence would show that the respondents are  going  on  rejecting
\nthe  No  Objection Certificate on matters which have been complied with, and
\ncalling for the same particulars again and again.  It is further pertinent  to
\nnote  that every time a new deficiency is pointed out, the respondent had been
\ncomplying with the same, but still the respondents had been delaying grant  of
\nNo Objection Certificate to the petitioner to start B.Sc., (Nursing) course.
\nHence the petitioner was left with no other option but to file W.P.No.13077 of
\n2003  praying  for the issue of a Certiorarified Mandamus or Writ of Direction
\nto call for the records of the 1st respondent in  letter  no.39132\/PME\/2000-01
\ndated 24.5.2002 and quash the same, and direct the 1st respondent to grant No
\nObjection  Certificate  to  start B.Sc (Nursing) Course in Nandha College of
\nNursing Erode, for the academic year 2003-2 004.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  By his letter dated 03.10.2003 the Director of Medical  Education
\nconstituted  another  inspection  team  to look into five alleged deficiencies
\ncited in his letter dated 24.5.2002.   The  Petitioner  by  its  letter  dated
\n5.11.2002  replied  by giving its compliance and the inspection team inspected
\nthe college on 7.11.2002 and was satisfied with the  infrastructure,  but  the
\nrespondent failed  to  issue No Objection Certificate.  Hence the petitioner
\nwas compelled to file a writ petition being W.P.No.13077 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the judgment dated 24.2.2004 in the aforesaid  writ  petition,
\nthis  court noted that after rejection of the petitioners application for No
\nObjection Certificate  by  order  24.5.2002,  the  petitioner  had  sent  the
\ncompliance  report  on  27.3.2003, and thereafter on 5.11.200 3 the petitioner
\nsent a communication to the  Dean,  Government  Mohan  Kumaramangalam  Medical
\nCollege  Hospital, Salem, and informed him that the defects pointed out during
\nthe last inspections have been duly rectified and  submitted  the  application
\nagain for perusal and consideration.\n<\/p>\n
12.  In the judgment dated 24.2.2004, this Court observed:  –
\n In the impugned order dated 24.5.2002 five defects were pointed out.  One of
\nthem is that the endowment of Rs.10 lakhs has not been deposited  for  the  II
\nyear, for which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount has
\nbeen deposited in the joint account with Director of Medical Education.\n<\/p>\n
        The second defect pointed out is that separate hostel for boys was not
\nprovided, for which the petitioner has replied that a separate hostel for boys
\nwas provided which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
a.  Ground Floor                :  3692 Sq.ft.\nb.  First Floor                 :  3692 Sq.ft\n                                --------------\n        Total                   7384 Sq.ft\n                                ---------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
        The third defect is that the petitioner has not constructed three more
\nlecture  theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500 persons and
\nan assembly or examination hall having capacity of 400 seats as per INC Norms.
\nTo this, the petitioner has replied as follows:  –\n<\/p>\n
 In respect of lecture theatre, it is  submitted  that  we  have  constructed
\nthree  more  lecture theatres and one auditorium with seating capacity for 500
\npersons and an assembly or Examination Hall having capacity of  400  seats  as
\nper Indian Nursing Council Norms.  The details are as shown under:  –
\na.  Ground Floor:  3 class rooms 660 x 3 = 1980 sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n
b.  First Floor :  1 class room 660 sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n
        It  is  submitted  that one class room with an area of 660 sq.ft is to
\nconduct classes for the first year B.Sc Nursing course.  In addition to  this,
\nwe  have  constructed three more lecture theatres (660 x 3= 1980 sq.ft) as per
\napproved norms
\n        The  fourth  defect  was  non  production  of   bank   guarantee   for
\nRs.30,00,000\/-.  To this the petitioner has replied as follows:  –
\n Bank guarantee executed by Indian Overseas Bank, having its Head Quarters at
\n763,  Anna  Salai,  Chennai,  Tamil  Nadu and a branch at 33, 11 th Main Road,
\nPeriyar Nagar, Erode to the tune of Rs.30,00,000\/- ( Rupees thirty lakhs only)
\nis produced (vide letter of Guarantee No.0834\/03\/2003-2004  issued  by  Indian
\nOverseas Bank)
\n        The  last defect of land deed was not in favour of the petitioner; the
\npetitioner has obtained from advocate and notary with regard to title.\n<\/p>\n
        Learned Government Pleader has also produced  the  records.    Learned
\ncounsel  for  the  petitioner submits that the inspection report has also been
\ngiven by the inspection team.  In fact, the same is  available  in  the  file.
\nThereafter,  the  Director of Technical Education had requested the petitioner
\nto furnish photographs of  the  hostel,  laboratories,  buildings,  and  other
\ninfrastructure facilities  for  starting  B.Sc  (  Nursing)  Course.   Learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner submits that the photographs have also been sent.\n<\/p>\n
        It is difficult to appreciate the conduct of the respondents.  If  the
\npetitioner has not complied with the norms and has not provided the facilities
\nas  required or deposit the amount, it is open to the respondents to point out
\nall these defects in one communication and  the  petitioner  can  rectify  the
\ndefects.   An inspection team, which is appointed by the respondents, has gone
\nand given its report for its consideration to the Government.  Thereafter, the
\nrespondent has asked the petitioner to produce some photographs.\n<\/p>\n
        We do not know why no order has been passed by  the  respondents  even
\nthough the  petitioner has sent the photographs also.  The respondents are not
\nrequired to give a Certificate to the petitioner, if it does not  satisfy  the
\nnorms.   At  the  same  time,  the respondents shall also not hold back on one
\nflimsy ground or other, in case all the requirements have been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petition is disposed of directing  the  respondents  to  pass
\norders within  ten  days  from  the date of receipt of copy of this order.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n
        13.   Subsequent  to  the  aforesaid  judgment  dated  24.02.2004   in
\nW.P.No.13077  of  2003,  the  State Government again by order dated 26.03.2004
\nrejected the application for  No  Objection  Certificate  on  the  following
\ngrounds:  –\n<\/p>\n
 (i) Completion Certificate of building for Hostel (Ground Floor 369 2 sq.ft.
\n+ First Floor 3692 sq.feet = 7384 sq.ft) has not been produced.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Completion Certificate of 3 more lecture theatres and one auditorium with
\nseating  capacity  of  500  persons  and  Assembly  or Examination Hall having
\ncapacity of 400 seats have not been produced.  The Trust  has  submitted  plan
\nshowing  3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing Course but not for B.Sc
\n(Nursing) Course.<\/p>\n
        14.  In  relation  to  the  grounds  for  rejecting  the  petitioners
\napplication  for  No  Objection  Certificate contained in the order dated 26
\n.3.2004, the petitioner sent a reply dated 27.3.2004 stating as follows:  –
\n (a) Completion Certificate for Hostel Building  (G+1),  4  lecturer  theatre
\n(Classroom), Auditorium and Examination hall not produced.
\nReply:\n<\/p>\n
(a)When the Inspection team has verified physically Hostel, 4 lecture theatres
\n(class  rooms),  Auditorium  & Examination Hall exclusively for B.Sc (Nursing)
\nCourse, along  with  approved  building  plan  etc,  insisting  on  Completion
\nCertificate is  unwarranted.  In any case since you have asked for the same, I
\nam enclosing the completion certificate.\n<\/p>\n
b.  Plan indicates 3 class rooms intended for Diploma in Nursing  Course,  but
\nnot for B.Sc (Nursing) Course.\n<\/p>\n
Reply:  Separate  plan  already  given  to  you.  One plan shows three storied
\nbuilding, (G+2) Main Building, with 4 lecturers  theatres  (  Classrooms)  and
\nLaboratories  for  B.Sc.,  (Nursing) Course, 2nd plan in the adjacent building
\nshows auditorium for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and  the  3rd  plan  in  another
\nadjacent building shows Hostel Building (G+1) for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course, and
\nthe  fourth plan in another adjacent building shows 400 sq.ft examination hall
\nfor B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and the extra 3 class rooms in the  said  building
\nis  being  used  for Diploma in Nursing Course, which does not mean that there
\nare no class rooms, i.e., Lecturers room for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course.  Further
\nthe Inspection team having inspected and verified, how it can be  stated  that
\nit  is  not  provided  for B.Sc., (Nursing) Course and it is provided only for
\nDiploma.  The rejection on  said  point  is  unwarranted  and  incorrect,  the
\nInspection will reveal the same.<\/p>\n
        15.  The writ petitioner has alleged in the  writ  petition  that  the
\nrespondents  have  arbitrarily  rejected  its  application  for  No Objection
\nCertificate on flimsy grounds despite three inspections.  The writ petitioner
\nhas given endowment for Rs.20 lakhs and spent huge amount  on  infrastructure,
\nand  the  Government is rejecting the writ petitioners application since 1997
\narbitrarily.  It is alleged that the inspection team has  physically  verified
\nand  inspected  the hostel, 4 classrooms, Auditorium and Examination hall, etc
\nfor B.Sc., (Nursing) Course  alongwith  approved  building  plan,  etc.    The
\nInspection  has  revealed  that there are four classrooms lecture theatres for
\nB.Sc., (Nursing) Course.  Hence to reject the application on the  ground  that
\nthe  plan  indicates  3  classrooms  for Diploma in Nursing Course and not for
\nB.Sc., (Nursing) Course is baseless  and  without  application  of  mind.    A
\nseparate  plan  has been produced by the writ petitioner showing four adjacent
\nbuildings for hostel, main building  consisting  of  4  lecture  theatres  for
\nB.Sc.,  (Nursing) and Laboratories and another plan for Auditorium and further
\nanother plan for examination hall and the 3 rooms in the building for  Diploma
\nCourse.   It  is  alleged  by  the  writ petitioner that ignoring all this the
\nrespondents are  arbitrarily  rejecting  its  application  for  No  Objection
\nCertificate pointing out nonexistent deficiencies.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  It may be mentioned  that  in  the  order  dated  24.2.2004,  the
\nlearned  single  Judge  observed it is difficult to appreciate the conduct of
\nthe respondents.  It was open to the respondents to point out all the  defects
\nin  one  communication  for  the  petitioner  to rectify. This shows that the
\nrespondents are acting wholly arbitrarily and with a  pre-determined  mind  to
\nreject the application for ulterior motives.  We agree with the learned single
\nJudge  that all the deficiencies, if any, should be pointed out in one letter,
\nand it is not proper for the respondents to keep mentioning a fresh deficiency
\nonce the earlier deficiency pointed out has been removed.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The writ petitioner in the writ petition prayed for  quashing  of
\nthe  order  dated  26.03.2004, and for a direction to the respondents to issue
\nNo Objection  Certificate  to  the  petitioner  to  start  1st  year  B.Sc.,
\n(Nursing) Course.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  The learned single Judge by his judgment dated 21.02.2005 allowed
\nthe  writ  petition  and  quashed the impugned order, and further directed the
\nfirst respondent (State of Tamil Nadu) to issue No Objection Certificate  to
\nthe writ petitioner within a period of 3 weeks.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   Mr.A.L.Somayaji,  Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing
\nfor the appellants, has relied on  the  Constitution  Bench  decision  of  the
\nSupreme Court in Veerappa v.  Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 1 92, in which
\nthe Supreme Court observed (vide paragraph 24):  –\n<\/p>\n
 Further, it will be noticed that the High Court here, did not content itself
\nwith  merely  quashing  the  proceedings,  it  went  further  and directed the
\nRegional Transport Authority, Tanjore,
\nto grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of
\nwhich  a  joint  application  was  made  originally  by  the  petitioner   and
\nBalasubramania  Pillai  and  that in case the above buses have been condemned,
\nthe petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such times as
\nmay be prescribed by the authorities.<\/p>\n
        20.   Relying  on  the above observation of the Supreme Court, learned
\nAdditional Advocate General submitted that the learned single Judge could  not
\nhave validly issued a direction to the first respondent to grant No Objection
\nCertificate,  but could only have directed the State Government to reconsider
\nthe matter in accordance with law expeditiously.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  It may be mentioned that in the aforesaid case the High Court had
\ndirected the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore  to  grant  permit  to  the
\npetitioner.  The Supreme Court was of the view that grant of permits is in the
\ndiscretion  of  the  Regional  Transport  Authority,  and hence the High Court
\ncannot perform the function of the Statutory Authority, but  can  only  direct
\nthe authority concerned to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  In Union of India v.  S.B.Vohra,<\/a> (2004) 2 SCC 150 (vide paragraph\n<\/p>\n
33), the Supreme Court observed:  –\n<\/p>\n
       It is, however, trite that ordinarily the Court will not exercise  the
\npower of  the  statutory authorities.  It will at the first instance allow the
\nstatutory authorities to perform their own function and would  not  usurp  the
\nsaid jurisdiction itself.<\/p>\n
        23.  The above view was followed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P.
\nv.  Section Officer Brotherhood,<\/a> (2004) 8 SCC 286 (vide paragraph 25).\n<\/p>\n
        24.  In  U.P.State  Road  Transport  Corporation and another v.  Mohd.
\nIsmail, (1991) 3 SCC 239, the Supreme Court observed:  – (vide paragraph 12 )
\n  The  High  Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer
\nalternative job to  drivers  who  are  found  to  be  medically  unfit  before
\ndispensing with  their services.  The court cannot dictate the decision of the
\nstatutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion  in  a
\ngiven case.    The court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the
\ndiscretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law.    The  Court
\ncould  only  command  the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform
\nits duty by exercising the discretion according to law.   Whether  alternative
\njob  is  to  be  offered  or  not  is  a  matter left to the discretion of the
\ncompetent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the
\ndiscretion in individual cases.  The Court cannot command the  Corporation  to
\nexercise  discretion  in  a  particular  manner  and in favour of a particular
\nperson.  That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  Similarly in State of U.P v.  Raja Ram Jaiswal,<\/a> (1985) 3 SCC  131
\n,  the  Supreme  Court observed that the High Court cannot issue a mandamus to
\nthe licensing authority to  grant  a  license.    The  Supreme  Court  further
\nobserved:  –\n<\/p>\n
       The  High Court was, of course, clearly in error in issuing a mandamus
\ndirecting the District Magistrate to grant a licence.  Where a statute confers
\npower and casts a duty to perform any function before the power  is  exercised
\nor   the  function  is  performed,  the  Court  cannot  in  exercise  of  writ
\njurisdiction supplant  the  licensing  authority  and  take  upon  itself  the
\nfunctions of  the  licensing  authority.    The  High Court was hearing a writ
\npetition praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the  order  of  remand.
\nThe High Court could have quashed the order of remand if it was satisfied that
\nthe order  suffers  from  an  error  apparent  on  the  record.  But there its
\njurisdiction would come to an end.  The High Court cannot then proceed to take
\nover the functions  of  the  licensing  authority  and  direct  the  licensing
\nauthority by a mandamus to grant a licence.<\/p>\n
        26.   In  view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, we were at
\nfirst inclined to set aside the direction issued by the learned  single  Judge
\nin  his  impugned  judgment  to  the  first respondent to issue  No Objection
\nCertificate to the writ petitioner.   However,  Mr.G.    Masilamani,  learned
\nsenior counsel for the respondent pointed out several decisions of the Supreme
\nCourt which have held that in exceptional circumstances, the High Court itself
\ncan perform the function of the statutory authority.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   Thus  in  The  Comptroller  and  Auditor  General of India, Gian
\nPrakash, New Delhi and Another v.  K.S.Jagannathan & Another, AIR<\/a> 1987 SC 537,
\nthe Supreme Court observed:  –\n<\/p>\n
 There is thus no doubt that  the  High  Courts  in  India  exercising  their
\njurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a
\nwrit in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions
\nwhere  the  Government  or  a  public  authority has failed to exercise or has
\nwrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a
\npolicy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion  mala  fide
\nor on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and
\nmaterials  or  in  such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such
\ndiscretion or the policy for  implementing  which  such  discretion  has  been
\nconferred.   In  all  such  cases  and in any other fit and proper case a High
\nCourt can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ
\nof mandamus or a writ in the nature  of  mandamus  or  pass  orders  and  give
\ndirections  to  compel  the  performance  in a proper and lawful manner of the
\ndiscretion conferred upon the Government or  a  public  authority,  and  in  a
\nproper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties,
\nthe  Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or
\nthe public authority should have passed or given had it properly and  lawfully
\nexercised its discretion.<\/p>\n
        28.  Similarly  in  Al-Karim  Educational Trust & Another v.  State of
\nBihar & Others, AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1469, the Supreme Court observed:  –
\n In the matter of grant of  affiliation,  it  is  ordinarily  for  the  State
\nGovernment  after  consulting  the  Medical  Council  of  India to arrive at a
\ndecision.  However, if it is found that  the  affiliation  is  being  withheld
\nunreasonably  or  the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other,
\nthis  Court  would,   though   reluctantly,   be   constrained   to   exercise
\njurisdiction.<\/p>\n
        29.   In  service  matters,  it  is  ordinarily  for  the disciplinary
\nauthority to award a punishment to an employee for a misconduct.  Hence if the
\nHigh Court sets aside an order of punishment of the disciplinary authority  it
\nshould  ordinarily remand the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing
\na fresh order, but i t should not itself substitute that order by an order  of
\npunishment of its  own.    However, in exceptional cases e.g.  where there has
\nbeen a great deal of delay or such a remand order would be  futile,  the  High
\nCourt can itself award the punishment.\n<\/p>\n
30.  Thus  in B.C.Chaturvedi v.  Union of India,<\/a> (1995) 6 SCC 749, the Supreme
\nCourt observed:  (vide paragraph 28):  –\n<\/p>\n
 The High Court\/Tribunal, while exercising  the  power  of  judicial  review,
\ncannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other
\npenalty.   If  the  punishment  imposed  by  the disciplinary authority or the
\nappellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court\/Tribunal, it would
\nappropriately mould the relief, either  directing  the  disciplinary\/appellate
\nauthority  to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it
\nmay itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment  with
\ncogent reasons in support thereof.<\/p>\n
31.   Thus,  in the above case, the Supreme Court has held that in exceptional
\ncases, the High Court can itself do the function which  is  ordinarily  to  be
\nperformed by the concerned authority.\n<\/p>\n
32.  The  above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in U.P.  State Road
\nTransport Corporation v.  Mahesh Kumar Mishra,<\/a> (2000) 3 SCC 45 0, Chairman and
\nManaging Director, United Commercial Bank v.  P.C.  Kakkar,<\/a> (2003) 4 SCC  364,
\nKailash Nath  Gupta  v.   Enquiry Officer,<\/a> (2003) 9 SCC 480, Regional Manager,
\nU.P.SRTC, Etawah and others v.  Hoti Lal and<\/a> another, (2003) 3 SCC 605, etc.<\/p>\n
33.  In the present case, the grant of No  Objection  Certificate  has  been
\ndelayed  or  rejected  for the past seven years despite compliance by the writ
\npetitioner on ten occasions of directives of the  respondents  to  remove  the
\nalleged  deficiencies,  and  inspection  by  the  inspection  teams  on  three
\noccasions, and filing of three writ petitions on  three  occasions.    We  are
\nsatisfied  that  all the requirements of the State Government for establishing
\nthe Nursing College and grant of No Objection Certificate have been complied
\nwith.  Hence we agree with the learned single Judge that it is  not  necessary
\nfor  us  to again remand the matter to the appellants to consider the grant of
\nNo Objection Certification to the respondent\/trust as that will only lead to
\nfurther delay, and further arbitrariness.\n<\/p>\n
34.  The facts of this case show that though the writ petitioner  had  applied
\nfor  No  Objection Certificate as far back as on 28.08.1997, its request has
\nbeen repeatedly rejected arbitrarily, and for some ulterior motives.   On  six
\noccasions  the  writ  petitioner  was  told  to  make good the deficiency, but
\nwhenever it made good that deficiency, a fresh letter would be  issued  to  it
\npointing out  another  deficiency  which  it  had  to  comply.   This has been
\nrepeatedly going on for a long time, which gives rise to  an  apprehension  in
\nour mind  about  the  real  motives  of  the  respondents.    As many as three
\ninspections have been done, and all the facilities have been provided  for  by
\nthe  writ  petitioner,  but  yet  the  No Objection Certificate has not been
\ngranted to it.  Hostel building, auditorium, lecture theatres,  etc  have  all
\nbeen  constructed  and  reports  about the completion of the construction have
\nbeen furnished to the State Government.  Hence  it  appears  to  us  that  the
\nrefusal  to  grant  No Objection Certificate was really due to some ulterior
\nmotives or some demand by the  respondents,  which  the  writ  petitioner  was
\nunable or  unwilling  to  fulfil.  There was no valid ground for rejecting the
\nwrit petitioners application for No Objection Certificate.  The respondents
\nhave acted wholly arbitrarily  and  it  is  well  settled  that  arbitrariness
\nviolates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi v.  Union of India,
\nAIR<\/a> 1978 SC 597<\/p>\n
35.   We  are pained to make these observations, but considering the standards
\nof public morality  and  the  state  of  affairs  prevailing  in  the  country
\nnow-a-days,  one  cannot but make the comment that the appellants (respondents
\nin the writ petition) refusal to grant No Objection Certificate to the  writ
\npetitioner\/trust  was for some ulterior motives, though what is this motive is
\nbest known to the appellants themselves.  Suffice it to say that they have not
\nacted fairly towards the writ petitioner (respondent in this appeal).\n<\/p>\n
        36.  Thrice the petitioner has been compelled to approach this  Court,
\nand this  state  of affairs cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.  If we
\nagain remand the matter to the respondents, we apprehend that again  for  some
\nreason  its  application  will  be  rejected  for  some frivolous or untenable
\ngrounds, and the petitioner  will  be  compelled  to  file  yet  another  writ
\npetition.   Considering the background of the case, it is difficult to believe
\nthat the appellants will act fairly towards the writ petitioner, and hence  we
\nhave no alternative but to uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   In  the  circumstances,  the  writ  appeal is dismissed, and the
\nappellants are directed to grant No Objection Certificate as prayed  for  to
\nthe writ petitioner  within  two  weeks from to-day.  No costs.  Consequently,
\nW.A.M.P is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes
\npv\/<\/p>\n
Copy to:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Government of Tamil Nadu
\nrep.  by its Secretary,
\nHealth and Family Welfare Department,
\nFort.St.George, Chennai  600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Medical Education,
\nKilpauk, Chennai  10.\n<\/p>\n
pv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:25\/08\/2005 Coram The Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN Writ Appeal No. 884 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.No. 1654 of 2005 ———– 1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. […]<\/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-61568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGovernment Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - 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\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-14T11:09:28+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T11:09:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4453,\"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\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\",\"name\":\"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T11:09:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - 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\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-14T11:09:28+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T11:09:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005"},"wordCount":4453,"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\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005","name":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T11:09:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-sri-nandha-educational-trust-on-25-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Sri Nandha Educational Trust on 25 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/61568","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=61568"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61568\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}