{"id":69447,"date":"2009-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-27T10:52:24","modified_gmt":"2019-01-27T05:22:24","slug":"anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34836 of 2009(Y)\n\n\n1. ANZAR RAHIM, AGED 62 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RAHIYANATH AZAD, W\/O.AZAD RAHIM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,\n\n3. THE SECRETARY,\n\n4. THE TRIBUNAL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :18\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J\n              ................................................\n                 W.P(C) No. 34836 of 2009\n              .................................................\n        Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The subject matter of this writ petition is a lake resort and<\/p>\n<p>an auditorium at Kollam. Presently the same is being conducted<\/p>\n<p>by the 1st respondent who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>On expiry of the period of licence, she applied for renewal of<\/p>\n<p>licence. That was rejected by the Secretary of the Thrikkadavoor<\/p>\n<p>Grama Panchayath. The 1st respondent filed an appeal before<\/p>\n<p>the Panchayath committee against the order rejecting the<\/p>\n<p>renewal application. That appeal was also dismissed. The 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self<\/p>\n<p>Government Institutions.        The Tribunal, by Ext.P8 order, set<\/p>\n<p>aside the orders of the Secretary and the Panchayath and<\/p>\n<p>directed renewal of the licence for the period 2009-2010 as per<\/p>\n<p>the application of the 1st respondent.                   The petitioner is<\/p>\n<p>challenging Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioner, the 1st<\/p>\n<p>respondent is not one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner on<\/p>\n<p>his death and therefore without consent from all the legal heirs<\/p>\n<p>of the former owner under whom the 1st respondent was running<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 34836 of 2009          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>a restaurant, the licence cannot be renewed. The petitioner<\/p>\n<p>therefore submits that the order of the Tribunal is patently legal<\/p>\n<p>and unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>for the petitioner. The Secretary of the Panchayath rejected the<\/p>\n<p>application for renewal on two grounds. The first is that no<\/p>\n<p>documentary evidence of right to occupy the building has been<\/p>\n<p>produced by the petitioner. The second is that the lease deed on<\/p>\n<p>the basis of which the 1st respondent has claimed renewal of<\/p>\n<p>licence expired on 26.3.2009 and hence she is not eligible for<\/p>\n<p>renewal of licence for the period 2009-2010. These reasons have<\/p>\n<p>been negatived by the Tribunal thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;Pages 233 and 234 of the file produced by<br \/>\n        Counter Petitioners 1 and 2 is the application dated<br \/>\n        6.2.2009 for renewal of the licence of the resutarant for<br \/>\n        the period 2009-10. Pages 249 to 253 of the file contain<br \/>\n        two copies of the order dated 21.2.2009 rejecting the<br \/>\n        application dated 6.2.2009. Two reasons are stated as<br \/>\n        reasons for rejecting the application in the order of the<br \/>\n        Secretary.    The first reason is that no documents<br \/>\n        evidencing right to occupy the building is produced<br \/>\n        along with the application. There is no provision of law<br \/>\n        making it necessary to produce any such document<br \/>\n        along with an application for renewal of existing licnce.<br \/>\n        Right to possess the building is to be established only<br \/>\n        for granting the licence for the first time and not in<br \/>\n        renewing the existing licence for further period. The<br \/>\n        second ground stated in the order of the Secretary is<br \/>\n        that the lease deed produced expires on 26.3.2009 and<br \/>\n        hence it does not enable renewal of licence for the<br \/>\n        period 2009-10.     Once the lessee, the person will<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 34836 of 2009            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>        continue as a lessee until the lease is lawfully<br \/>\n        terminated.   It was held in Marimuthu vs. Director<br \/>\n        General of     Police   (1999(3) KLT 662)       that  the<br \/>\n        Corporation cannot insist upon the tenant holding over<br \/>\n        to production of written consent from the landlord for<br \/>\n        the purpose of issuing of licence for conducting<br \/>\n        business. As per the said decision even for granting<br \/>\n        licence for the first time it is not necessary to produce<br \/>\n        the written consent from the landlord by the tenant<br \/>\n        holding over. The application rejected by the Secretary<br \/>\n        by his order dated 21.2.2009 was not any application<br \/>\n        for licence for the first time but it was only an<br \/>\n        application for renewal of licence.         So the said<br \/>\n        application would have been allowed without insisting<br \/>\n        on any proof as to right to occupy the building.<br \/>\n        Apparently the order dated 21.2.2009 of the Secretary<br \/>\n        rejecting the application for renewal of licence is not<br \/>\n        sustainable. Pages 255 to 257 of the file is the Appeal<br \/>\n        filed by the Petitioner against the order of the<br \/>\n        Secretary dated 21.2.2009. As per the pleadings of the<br \/>\n        Counter Petitioners the impugned decision was taken<br \/>\n        on the said Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the<br \/>\n        order of the Secretary dated 21.2.2009. Copy of the<br \/>\n        said decision is produced from the side of Counter<br \/>\n        Petitioners 1 and 2 separately though no such copy is<br \/>\n        found in the file produced. For the reasons already<br \/>\n        pointed out above, the Appeal would have been allowed<br \/>\n        but the Panchayat Committee took the decision No.1<br \/>\n        dated 22.9.2009 to reject the Appeal only.         In the<br \/>\n        decision the Appeal is referred to as Appeal dated<br \/>\n        6.4.2009 but at the hearing no such Appeal dated<br \/>\n        6.4.2009 is pointed out from the side of Counter<br \/>\n        Petitioners and it is submitted that the Appeal disposed<br \/>\n        of by the impugned decision is the Appeal found on<br \/>\n        pages 255 to 257 of the file. It is Appeal dated 7.3.2009<br \/>\n        and endorsed as received on 12.3.2009 and is against<br \/>\n        the order of the Secretary dated 21.2.2009 rejecting<br \/>\n        the application for renewal of licence.           In the<br \/>\n        circumstances pointed       out above, the      impugned<br \/>\n        decision and consequential notice are not sustainable<br \/>\n        and are liable to be set aside, along with the order of<br \/>\n        the Secretary dated 21.2.2009 upheld by the impugned<br \/>\n        decision, and the application dated 6.2.2009 for<br \/>\n        renewal of the licence for the period 2009-10 is only to<br \/>\n        be allowed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 34836 of 2009        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      On a reading of the same, I do not find any infirmity<\/p>\n<p>whatsoever in the reasoning of the Tribunal. Therefore the writ<\/p>\n<p>petition is without merits and accordingly the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>Of course if the petitioner has any dispute regarding title etc it is<\/p>\n<p>for the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court for<\/p>\n<p>appropriate remedies. The dismissal of this writ petition will<\/p>\n<p>stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Civil Court for<\/p>\n<p>appropriate reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE<br \/>\nrhs<\/p>\n<p>                          \/\/ True copy \/\/<\/p>\n<p>                            PA to Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34836 of 2009(Y) 1. ANZAR RAHIM, AGED 62 YEARS, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. RAHIYANATH AZAD, W\/O.AZAD RAHIM, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 3. THE SECRETARY, 4. THE TRIBUNAL, For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN For [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69447","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":953,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009"},"wordCount":953,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009","name":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-27T05:22:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anzar-rahim-vs-rahiyanath-azad-on-18-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anzar Rahim vs Rahiyanath Azad on 18 December, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/69447","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=69447"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69447\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69447"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69447"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69447"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}