{"id":79068,"date":"1967-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967"},"modified":"2015-11-10T00:01:36","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T18:31:36","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1353, \t\t 1967 SCR (2) 583<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB.   K. TAKKAMORE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/02\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1353\t\t  1967 SCR  (2) 583\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1969 SC 707\t (49)\n R\t    1976 SC 232\t (10,18)\n R\t    1987 SC 570\t (14)\n F\t    1989 SC1185\t (23)\n\n\nACT:\nCity of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (C.P. & Berar Act 2  of\n1950),\t  s.\t408-Municipality--Supersession-Grounds\t  of\ninterference  in writ application-Order if sustainable\twhen\none of the two charges found not proved.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nBy  s. 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act,  1948\t the\nState  Government  may, after giving an opportunity  to\t the\nCorporation  to\t show cause, pass an order  superseding\t the\nCorporation, if it is of opinion that the Corporation is not\ncompetent  or persistently makes default in the\t performance\nof the duties imposed on it by or under the Act.  After\t the\nrequisite show cause notice the State Government passed\t the\nimpugned Order superseding the Nagpur Municipal Corporation.\nThe  High  Court,  in a writ  petition,\t quashed  the  Order\nholding that the State Government exercised its power' under\ns.  408 on grounds which were not reasonably related to\t its\nLegitimate  exercise  and that the finding  upon  which\t the\nOrder was passed was rationally impossible on the  materials\nbefore the State Government.  On appeal to this Court:\nHELD:The  Order of supersession was valid and could  not  be\nset aside.\n(i)Of  the two grounds on which the opinion of\tthe  State\nGovernment   was  based\t the  first  ground  could  not\t  be\nsustained,   firstly   because\tthe   Corporation   had\t  no\nopportunity to show cause against the charge, and  secondly,\nbecause\t no  reasonable person on the materials\t before\t the\nState  Government could possibly form the opinion  that\t the\ncharge\twas proved.  Regarding the second ground there\twere\nmaterials  before the State Government upon which  it  could\nfind  that the Corporation was not competent to perform\t the\nduties imposed upon it. [588H; 592D]\nIn a writ application the court will not review the facts as\nan appellate body.  But the Order of supersession is  liable\nto be set aside, as in excess of the, statutory power  under\ns. 408, if no reasonable person on a proper consideration of\nthe  materials\tbefore the State Government  will  form\t the\nopinion that the Corporation is not competent to perform  or\npersistently  defaults\tin  the performance  of\t the  duties\nimposed on it.\t'Me Order is also liable to be set aside  if\nit was passed in bid faith or due opportunity to show  cause\nwas not given. [585H]\n(ii)The Order cannot be set aside for the reason that one of\nthe grounds is found to be non-existent or irrelevant.\t The\nOrder,\tread  with the show cause notice shows that  in\t the\nopinion of the State Government the second ground by  itself\nwas serious enough to warrant action under s.408. [595 A-B]\n An administrative or quasi-judicial Order based on  several\ngrounds,  all taken together, cannot be sustained if  it  be\nfound\tthat  some  of\tthe  grounds  are  non-existent\t  or\nirrelevant  and there is nothing to show that the  authority\nwould  have  passed  the Order on the  basis  of  the  other\nrelevant and\n584\nexisting  grounds.  But, an Order based on  several  grounds\nsome of which are found to be non-existent or irrelevant can\nbe  sustained if the Court is satisfied that  the  authority\nwould  have passed the Order on the basis of other  relevant\nand existing grounds and the exclusion of the irrelevant  or\nnon-existent  grounds could not have affected  the  ultimate\n'opinion or decision. [594 E-G]\nDwarka\tDas  Bhatia v. State of Jammu  and  Kashmir,<\/a>  [19651\nS.C.R,\t948.  Dhirajilal  Girdharilal  v.  Commissioner\t  of\nIncome-tax,  A.I.R.  1956  S.C.\t 271,  State  of  Orissa  v.\nBidyabhushan  Mahapatra,  [1963]  Supp.\t  I  S.CR.  648\t and\nNaursinha  v.  State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R.\t[1958]\tM.P.\n397. referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2340 of 1966.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1966  of
\nthe Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Special Civil  Appli-
\ncation No. 940 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C.\t Setalvad,  N.\tS.  Bindra and\tR.  H.\tDhebar,\t for
\nappellant No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
A.   S. Bobde, and S. G. Kukdey, for respondent No. 1.
\nM.   M. Kinkhede, G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for
\nrespondents  Nos. 3-16, 19-31, 33, 34, 36-45, 47-53, 55\t and\n<\/p>\n
57.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat, J. This appeal arises out of a writ petition filed
\nby  respondent No. 1 before the Nagpur Bench of\t the  Bombay
\nHigh Court, challenging the show-cause notice dated July 21,
\n1965 and the order dated September 29, 1965, superseding the
\nmunicipal corporation of the city of Nagpur.  In July, 1962,
\nthe term of office of the present Councillors commenced.  On
\nJuly 21, 1965, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notice
\nto  respondent\tNo.  1, the Mayor of  the  Nagpur  Municipal
\nCorporation,  asking him to show cause why  the\t corporation
\nshould not be superseded.  On August 1, 1965, respondent No.
\nI  filed his reply to the show-cause notice.   On  September
\n29,  1965,  the State Government passed the  impugned  order
\nsuperseding  the  corporation under ss. 408 and 409  of\t the
\nCity  of Nagpur Corporation Act 1948 (C.  P. & Berar Act  11
\nof  1950).  On September 30, 1965, respondent No. I filed  a
\nwrit  petition\tchallenging the show-cause  notice  and\t the
\norder  of  supersession.  The High Court  allowed  the\twrit
\npetition  and quashed the order of supersession.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  held  that the State Government exercised  its  power
\nunder S. 408 on grounds which were not reasonably related to
\nits legitimate exercise and the finding upon which the order
\nwas passed was rationally impossible on the materials before
\nthe State Government.  The State of Maharashtra now  appeals
\nto  this Court on a certificate granted by the\tHigh  Court.
\nBy an order of this Court, the Administrator of the City  of
\nNagpur\t appointed  under  the\torder  of  supersession\t  of
\nSeptember 29, 1965, has been joined as the second appellant.\n<\/p>\n
585<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 408 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act 1948 is
\nin ‘these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t       “408. (1) If at any time upon representations
\n\t      made  or\totherwise it appears  to  the  State
\n\t      the Corporation is not competent to perform or
\n\t      persistently makes default in the\t performance
\n\t      of  the duties imposed on it by or under\tthis
\n\t      Act  or  any other law for the time  being  in
\n\t      force,  or  exceeds or abuses its\t powers\t the
\n\t      State  Government may’, after having given  an
\n\t      opportunity to the Corp oration to show  cause
\n\t      why  such an order should not be made,  or  if
\n\t      it”  appears to the State Government that\t the
\n\t      case  is one of emergency, forthwith issue  an
\n\t      order directing that all the Councillors shall
\n\t      retire  from office as and from such  date  as
\n\t      may  be appointed and declare the\t Corporation
\n\t      to   be  superseded.   Such  order  shall\t  be
\n\t      published\t in the Gazette and the reasons\t for
\n\t      making it shall be stated therein.
\n\t      (2)   Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      sections\t17  and 20,  all  Councillors  shall
\n\t      vacate  their office from the  date  mentioned
\n\t      in- any order under sub-section (1).”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The consequence of supersession of the corporation under  s.
\n408 is that all its members vacate their office,  all powers
\nand  duties of the; corporation; the Standing Committee\t and
\nthe  chief  executive  officer\tmay  be\t exercised  by\t the
\nadministrator of the city appointed by the State government,
\nand  all  property vested in the corporation  vests  in\t the
\nadministrator (s. 408).\n<\/p>\n
The conditions for the exercise of he power under s. 408 are
\nclearly stated in the section.\tIt must appear to the  State
\ngovernment   that  the\tcorporation  is\t not  competent\t  or
\npersistently makes default in the performance of the  duties
\nimposed\t on it by or under the Act or any other law for\t the
\ntime  being  in\t force, or exceeds  or\tabuses\tits  powers.
\nExcept\tin  cases of emerge icy, the State  government\tmust
\ngive to the corporation an opportunity to show cause why the
\norder  under  the  section  should not be  made.   If  on  a
\nconsideration\tof   the  explanation\tsubmitted   by\t the
\ncorporation, the State government considers that there is no
\nground\tfor  making the order, the Government may  drop\t the
\nproceeding.  Otherwise, it may issue an order declaring\t the
\ncorporation  to\t ‘be superseded and directing that  all\t the
\nCouncillors  shall  retire from office.\t The order  must  be
\npublished in the Gazette and the reasons: For-making it must
\nbe stated therein.  There is no appeal to the court from the
\norder under s. 408. in a writ application the court will not
\nreview\tthe  facts as an appellate body.  But the  order  is
\nliable\tto be set aside if no reasonable person on a  proper
\nconsideration  of the materials before the State  government
\ncould  form  the  opinion  that\t the  corporation  “is\t not
\ncompetent  to perform, or persistently makes default in\t the
\nperformance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act
\nor any other law for the
\n586<\/span>
\ntime  being  in\t force, or exceeds or  abuses  its  powers”.
\nLikewise,  the\torder is liable to be set aside\t if  it\t was
\npassed\tin bad faith or if in a case which was not  one,  of
\nemergency,  due opportunity to show cause was not  given  to
\nthe corporation.  In all such cases, the order is in  excess
\nof the statutory power under s. 408 and is invalid.
\nOn  the\t question  whether  the order under  s.\t 408  is  an
\nadministrative\tor  quasi-judicial act,\t our  attention\t was
\ndrawn  to the decisions in Municipal Committed,\t Karali\t and
\nAnother,  v.  The  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh(1)  and\tShri
\nRadheshyam Khare and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
\nOthers.(2) These cases turned on the construction of ss. 53A
\nand 57 of the C. P. & Berar Municipalities Act 1922 (Act  11
\nof  1922).   The  point whether the order under\t s.  408  is
\nquasi-judicial\tor administrative act is not very  material,
\nfor it is common ground,that the present case was not one of
\nemergency  and\tthe  State  government\twas  bound  to\tgive
\nopportunity  to the corporation to show cause why the  order
\nshould not be made.\n<\/p>\n
The order dated September 29, 1965 was in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Whereas it is reported to the Government  of
\n\t      Maharashtra that the Municipal Corporation  of
\n\t      the City of Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as
\n\t      ‘the Municipal Corporation’) constituted under
\n\t      the City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation\tAct,
\n\t      1948 (C.P. & Berar Act 11\t      of       1950)
\n\t      (hereinafter. referred to as ‘the said Act’)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   has,   since  the  present\t Councillors
\n\t      entered\tupon  their  office,   planned\t its\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      -expenditure   on\t the  basis   of   uncertain
\n\t      receipts as shown below, that is to say-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Year\t  Receipts in budget as\t\t  Actual of previous
\n\tpassed by Corporation\t\t  year
\n\t Rs. in lacs\t\t\t  Rs. in lacs.\n<\/p>\n
1963-64\t       351\t\t\t  173\n1964-65\t       221\t\t\t  190\n1965-66\t       258\t       (200 to 215 lacs anticipated.\n<\/pre>\n
and  without exercising the proper controls provided  by  or
\nunder  the  said Act has allowed its financial\tposition  to
\ndeteriorate rapidly and-seriously to such an extent that the
\nfree  cash balance of Rs. 5.81 lacs approximately  in  March
\n1962  was  reduced to Rs. 53,000 approximately on  the\t12th
\nJuly, 1965: and that the Corporation had no funds even to
\n(1) A.I.R. 1958 M.P. 323.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1959] S.C.R. 1440.\n<\/p>\n
587<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      disburse\tthe  salaries of  its  officers\t and
\n\t      ‘servants as is noticed from the Resolution of
\n\t      the  Municipal Corporation No. 98,  dated\t the
\n\t      4th September, 1965; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   has\t  neglected   to  under\t  take\t the
\n\t      improvement  of water supply and to provide  a
\n\t      sufficient supply of suitable water for public
\n\t      and private purposes;\n<\/p>\n
\t      And  whereas, an opportunity was given to\t the
\n\t      Municipal Corporation to show cause why in the
\n\t      aforesaid\t   circumstances   an\t order\t  of
\n\t      supersession under sub-section (1) of  section
\n\t      408 of the said Act should not be made-,
\n\t      And  whereas, after considering the  reply  of
\n\t      the  Municipal Corporation and  subsequent  it
\n\t      submissions  made\t by  it\t the  Government  of
\n\t      Maharashtra   is\tof  the\t opinion  that\t the
\n\t      Municipal\t Corporation  is  not  competent  to
\n\t      perform  the duties imposed on it by or  under
\n\t      the said Act;\n<\/p>\n
\t      Now’  therefore,\tin exercise  of\t the  powers
\n\t      conferred\t by sub-section (1) of\tsection\t 408
\n\t      and subsection (1) of section 409 of the\tsaid
\n\t      Act,  and of all other powers enabling  it  in
\n\t      this behalf, the Government of Maharashtra for
\n\t      the reasons specified aforesaid, hereby-
\n\t      (1)   directs that all the Councillors of\t the
\n\t      Municipal Corporation shall retire from office
\n\t      as and from the 1st day of October, 1965;\n<\/p>\n
\t       (2) declares the Municipal Corporation to  be
\n\t      superseded from that date; and
\n\t      (3)   appoints  Shri D. H. Deshmukh to be\t the
\n\t      Administrator of the City of Nagpur
\nFrom  the  order it appears that there were two\t grounds  on
\nwhich  the  State  government formed the  opinion  that\t the
\ncorporation was not competent to perform the duties  imposed
\non  it\tby or under the Nagpur\tMunicipal  Corporation\tAct,
\n1948.\n<\/p>\n
Annexure 2 to the show-cause notice dated July 21, 1965\t Set
\nout  the  following  facts relatable  to  the  first  ground
\nmentioned in paragraph 1(a) of the order:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “II. (1) In March 1962, the free cash  balance
\n\t      with the Corporation was Rs., 5. 81 lacs.\t  On
\n\t      12-7-65,\tthe  opening  cash  balance  of\t the
\n\t      Corporation  “,as Rs. 53,821.   The  Statement
\n\t      ‘A’ appended hereto will reveal the financial.
\n\t      position of the Corporation.  On the basis  of
\n\t      average  daily receipts the  Corporation\twill
\n\t      have  an opening balance of Rs. 7 -74 lacs  on
\n\t      1-8-65   as  against  that   their   immediate
\n\t      liabilities  are\tof the order of\t Rs.  30  84
\n\t      lacs.  ‘It is
\n\t      588<\/span>
\n\t\tthus clear that the  Corporation  is heading
\n\t      for a grave. financial crisis and it will\t not
\n\t      be  in  a\t position  even\t to  pay  fully\t the
\n\t      salaries\tand  wages of  their  permanent\t and
\n\t      temporary employees.  Under Chapter IV of\t the
\n\t      City   of\t  Nagpur   corporation\t Act,\t the
\n\t      Corporation  is  required to pay\tsalaries  to
\n\t      their officers and servants as provided for in
\n\t      Sections\t47, 49 and 50 of the said Act.\t The
\n\t      liability\t arising  out  of  the\tpayment\t  of
\n\t      salaries; and wages is the third charge on the
\n\t      municipal fund the. previous two charges being
\n\t      repayment\t  of  all  loans  payable   by\t the
\n\t      Corporation  under Chapter IX of that Act\t and
\n\t      the second being the payment for discharge  of
\n\t      all liabilities imposed on the Corporation  in
\n\t      respect\tof   debts’  and   obligations\t and
\n\t      contracts of’ the Municipality, of Nagpur,  to
\n\t      whom  the Corporation- is a successor.  It  is
\n\t      assumed  that  such liabilities do  -not\tany’
\n\t      longer  exist.  Thus the payment\tof  salaries
\n\t      etc.,  is the ,second charge on the  municipal
\n\t      fund, and it is very obvious from the  figures
\n\t      in  Statement `A’ that the Corporation is\t not
\n\t      in a position to discharge that liability.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  opinion of the State, government so far as it is  based
\non  the\t first ground cannot be supported.   The  show-cause
\nnotice\tdid  not  mention the charge  that  the\t Councillors
\nplanned\t the expenditure on the basis of uncertain  receipts
\nor  that they did not exercise .proper controls provided  by
\nor  under  the\tAct.   No  opportunity\twas  given  to\t the
\ncorporation  to explain the charge.  Without giving such  an
\nopportunity,  the  State government could not  lawfully\t and
\nthat  the charge was proved.  The cash balances of the\tcor-
\nporation  vary from day to day.\t No reasonable person  could
\npossibly  come to the conclusion hat the financial  position
\nof  the corporation had deteriorated from the fact that\t the
\ncash balances were Rs. 5,81,000 in March 1962 and Rs. 53,000
\non July 12, 1965. The, statement that the corporation had no
\nfunds to disburse the salaries of its officers and  servants
\nhad no factual basis.  As a matter of fact, the\t corporation
\npaid  the  salaries.  The dearness allowance  was  not\tpaid
\nbecause\t the  bills were not  scrutinized.’  The  resolution
\ndated September 4, 1965\t referred to in the order was passed
\nlong  after  the  show-cause   notice  was  issued  and\t the
\ncorporation  was  not given an, opportunity to\texplain\t it.
\nThe  resolution\t did not say that the co’  oration  had\t no’
\nfunds  even  to disburse’ the salaries of its  officers\t and
\nservants.  The, corporation resolved to raise a loan of\t Rs.
\n15  lacs from the State; Government, but, the; loan was\t not
\nraised.\t  The High Court also pointed out that many  of\t the
\nstatements  in the. statement “A” referred to in  the  show-
\ncause  notice were factually incorrect.\t The opinion of\t the
\nState  government,  based  on the  first  ground  cannot  be
\nsustained,   firstly   because\tthe  corporation   had\t no,
\nopportunity to show cause against the charge, and  secondly,
\nbecause no reasonable Person on the materials
\n589<\/span>
\nbefore the State government could possibly form the  opinion
\nthat the charge was proved:-\n<\/p>\n
The  second.  ground referred to in paragraph 1 (b)  of\t the
\norder  dated  September 29, 1965 is more  serious.   Section
\n57(1)(k)  of  the  City\t of  Nagpur  Corporation  Act,\t1948
\nprovides that the corporation shall make adequate  provision
\nby  any means or measures which it may lawfully use or\ttake
\nfor………..\t“(k) the management and maintenance  of\t all
\nmunicipal  water-works and the construction and\t maintenance
\nof  new works and Means for providing sufficient  supply  of
\nsuitable water for public and private purposes.” The  charge
\nwas   that  the\t corporation  neglected\t to  undertake\t the
\nimprovement  of\t water, supply and to provide  a  sufficient
\nsupply\tof suitable water for public and  private  purposes.
\nThe  relevant facts were set out in annexure 1-1(1)  to\t (4)
\nand  annexure  11 to the show-cause notice.  It\t is’  common
\nground\tthat  the  water supply of the city  of\t Nagpur\t was
\ninadequate.  The population of the city was fast  increasing
\nand  it\t was  the duty of the  corporation  to\taugment\t the
\nsupply.\t  The  improvement of the head works at\t the  Kanhan
\nStage  III and also the re-modelling and redesigning of\t the\n<\/p>\n
-distribution\tsystem\t was   necessary   for\t  augmenting
\nand,improving\tthe  water  supply.   The  work\t at   Kanhan
\nStage.111  commenced  in  1964 and.  for  that\tpurpose\t the
\nGovernment  sanctioned an ad hoc loan of Rs. 21\t lacs.\t The
\ncost of the remaining work at Kanhan Stage III and the\twork
\nof  re-modelling and redesigning of distribution system\t was
\nestimated to be Rs. 70 lacs.  The corporation could not meet
\nthe cost without. raising a loan.  II had the power to raise
\na  loan for this purpose with the previous sanction  of\t the
\nState  government  under  s.  90  of  the  City\t of   Nagpur
\nCorporation Act 1948.  The corporation was not in a position
\nto  raise 1 he loan in the open market unless the  repayment
\nof the loan was guaranteed by the Government.  It approached
\nthe.  Government to give the guarantee.\t The Government\t was
\nwilling\t to  give  the\tguarantee  if  two  conditions\twere
\nfulfilled  (1) the co oration would meter the  water  supply
\nimmediately, and (2) in the annual budget, the budget of the
\nwater  works  department for the supply of  water  would  be
\nshown  separately.  The Government was not willing to,\tgive
\nthe   guarantee\t unless\t conditions  were   fulfilled.\t  In
\nMay\/June,.965,\tthese conditions were communicated  by,\t the
\nminister  in  charge to the municipal commissioner  and\t the
\nchairman  of the standing committee.  On June 5,  1965,\t the
\nstanding committee resolved:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(i)  The\t Corporation may raise in  the\topen
\n\t      market loan of Rs. 70 lacs for the purpose  of
\n\t      completing the Kanhan Stage III head works and
\n\t      provision\t  of   Alteration  plant   and\t for
\n\t      re-modelling   -and  redesigning\t the   water
\n\t      distribution system in Nagpur Corporation are.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      590<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  The principle of universal\tmeterisation
\n\t      should be accepted and all water connection in
\n\t      future should only be in the meter system’\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) The\t principle of providing\t a  separate
\n\t      subsidiary  budget for water supply should  be
\n\t      accepted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
At a meeting held on June 30, 1965, the corporation  appears
\nto  have disapproved of the standing committee’s  resolution
\nregarding  the\tprinciple  of  universal  meterisation\t and
\nsetting\t up  a separate subsidiary budget for  water  supply
\nthough no specific resolution to that effect was passed.   A
\nmeeting\t of the corporation on July 5, 1965 was convened  to
\ndiscuss the matter of raising a loan of Rs. 70 lacs.  In the
\nnotice\tcalling\t the  meeting,\tthe  following\toffice\tnote
\nappeared at the foot of the relevant agenda:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  this\t connection  the  State\t  Government
\n\t      demanded the following two assurances from the
\n\t      Corporation,
\n\t      (1)   Nagpur  Corporation\t should\t meter\t the
\n\t      water
\n\t      supply\t immediately.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (2)  In\t  the\tannual\t budget\t   of\t the\n\t      Corporation,budget   of\tthe   water    works\n<\/pre>\n
\t      department  should  be  shown  separately\t for
\n\t      supply of water.\tIn the said budget provision
\n\t      for payment of loans, sinking. fund and future
\n\t      increase,\t  in  expenditure  should  be\tmade
\n\t      separately. After making these provisions\t the
\n\t      Corporation  can\texpend the money  for  other
\n\t      works.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       On  July 5, 1965, the meeting was  adjourned.
\n\t      On July 1,2, 1965, the corporation passed the,
\n\t      following resolution:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  Corporation\t gives its approval  to\t the
\n\t      raising of a loan of Rs. 70 lakhs, in the next
\n\t      three years.  Such a loan comprising of Rs. 24
\n\t      lakhs  for  Kanhan 3 Stage scheme and  Rs.  45
\n\t      lakhs  for  improvement  in  the\tDistribution
\n\t      System necessitated in view of the  additional
\n\t      29  million  gallons  of water  that  will  be
\n\t      available\t after\tcompletion of the  Kanhan  3
\n\t      Stage Scheme.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  office  should take necessary  action  to
\n\t      obtain  the guarantee of the State  Government
\n\t      for  raising this loan in the open  market  in
\n\t      accordance with the above Resolution.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  resolution\t is not printed in the paper  book,  but  an
\nagreed\tcopy  of the resolution was filed  before  us.\t:The
\nState  government  was of the view that\t by  the  resolution
\ndated  July 12, 1965, the corporation refused to accept\t the
\ntwo conditions mentioned in the office note and thereby made
\nit  impossible\tfor  the corporation to\t meet  the  cost  of
\nconstruction of the head works and the. remodelling and
\n591<\/span>
\nredesigning  of\t the distribution system and  to  provide  a
\nsufficient  supply  of\twater for  the\tpublic\tand  private
\npurposes.  The corporation could not raise the loan  without
\nthe  Government\t guarantee  and the  government\t could,\t not
\nreasonably  guarantee the loan unless the two conditions  of
\nuniversal meterisation and the separate budget for the water
\nsupply\twere accepted.\tThe two conditions were\t reasonable.
\nThe adoption of universal meterisation would have  curtailed
\nthe wastage of water and secured adequate revenues necessary
\nfor  the  repayment  of the loan and the setting  up  of  an
\nadequate sinking and development fund for the water  supply.
\nA separate budget for the supply of water would have ensured
\nthat  the receipts from the\/ supply of water were a  located
\nto  the expenditure on the water supply scheme.\t The  answer
\nof  the\t corporation  was  twofold.   The  corporation\tsaid
\nfirstly\t that  the resolution dated July  12,  1965  neither
\naccepted nor rejected the two conditions and the question of
\naccepting  the conditions was left for\tfuture\tnegotiations
\nwith the government after the government would be approached
\nfor the sanction of the loan under s. 420(2)(r) of the\tCity
\nof  Nagpur  Corporation Act 1948, read with City  of  Nagpur
\nCorporation Loans Rules 1951.  The corporation said secondly
\nthat   the  cost  of  immediate\t meterisation  of  the\t old
\nconnections  would be Rs. 52 lacs and it was impossible\t for
\nthe  corporation  to raise this sum, nor could\tit  lawfully
\ndivert\tany portion of the loan of Rs. 70 lacs\tfor  meeting
\nthis cost.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court accepted the contention that at the  meeting
\nheld on July 12, 1965, the corporation had resolved that-the
\nmatter\twith  regard  to  the  conditions  imposed  by\t the
\ngovernment  for giving the loan should be left\tfor  further
\nnegotiations  with the government.  But it is to be  noticed
\nthat the resolution dated July 12, 1965 did riot state\tthat
\nthere should be any further negotiations with the government
\non  the\t matter, nor did it disclose the  financial  problem
\nwith regard to meterisation or the basis upon which  further
\nnegotiations  should  take  place.  On\tJune  30,  1965,  he
\ncorporation  had  talked  out  the  recommendation  of\t the
\nstanding committee with regard to the universal meterisation
\nand   separate\tbudget.\t  In  this  background,\t the   State
\ngovernment.  could reasonably hold that the passing  of\t the
\nresolution  excluding  the office note amounted\t to  virtual
\nrejection of the conditions mentioned in the note.  The High
\nCourt was in error in accepting the first contention.
\nThe High Court was also in error in holding that the Govern-
\nment  passed  the  order  of  September\t 29,  1965   without
\nconsidering  that universal meterisation posed a  formidable
\nproblem\t which could not be overcome without a loan  of\t Rs.
\n52,  lacs  in  addition to the loan of\tRs.  70\t lacs.\t The
\nresolution  of\tJuly  12,  1965\t did  not  state  that\t the
\ncorporation  wanted an additional loan of Rs. .52  lacs\t for
\nmeeting\t the  cost of universal meterisation.  Even  in\t the
\nanswer to the showcause notice, the corporation did not\t say
\nthat it wanted to raise
\n592<\/span>
\nan  additional loan of Rs. 52 lacs.  The answer stated\tthat
\nthe   raising\tof  this  sum  for  the\t  present   was\t  an
\nimpossibility.\t There\tis nothing to show that\t the  State,
\ngovernment  would  not\thave guaranteed\t repayment  of\tthis
\nadditional  loan  or that it was not possible to  raise\t the
\nloan  backed,  by  a  government  guarantee.   In  the\twrit
\npetition respondent No.1 gave a summary of the reply to\t the
\nshow-cause  notice.  But there was no specific\taverment  in
\nthe  petition  supported by affidavit that Rs. 52  lacs\t was
\nnecessary for the meterisation and that the raising of\tthis
\nsum  was  an impossibility.  That is why the point  was\t not
\ndealt  with  in\t the return to\tthe  writ,  petition.\tEven
\nassuming that the meterisation would cost Rs. 52 lacs, there
\nis  nothing  to\t show that the\tgovernment  would  not\thave
\nguaranteed  the\t loan for this sum or that  the\t corporation
\ncould  not  have  raised  the  loan  with  this,  guarantee.
\nMoreover,  if the Government was right in assuming that\t the
\ncorporation  had  refused  to  entertain  the  proposal\t  of
\nmeterisation,\tthe  question  of  raising  funds  for\t the
\nmeterisation  would not arise and would be irrelevant.\t The
\ngovernment passed the order after taking into  consideration
\nthe reply to the show-cause notice.  There were materials be
\n“ore the State Government upon which it could find that\t the
\ncorporation  had  neglected to undertake an  improvement  of
\nwater supply and to provide a sufficient supply of water for
\nprivate\t and public purpose.  On the basis of this  finding,
\nthe  State  government\tcould  form  the  opinion  that\t the
\ncorporation was not competent to perform the duties  imposed
\non it by or under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Bobde contended that the opinion of the State government
\nwas based on two grounds arid as one of them is found to  be
\nnon-existent or irrelevant, the order is invalid and  should
\nbe  set aside.\tThe cases relied on by him may,\t be  briefly
\nnoticed.  In a number of cases, the Court has quashed orders
\nof  preventive\tdetention based on several  grounds  one  of
\nwhich  is  found  to  be  irrelevant  or  illusory.    After
\nreviewing the earlier cases Jagannadhadas J, in Dwarka\tDass
\nBhatia v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir<\/a> (1) said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The principle underlying all these  decisions
\n\t      is   ‘this.   Where  power  is  vested  in   a
\n\t      statutory authority to deprive the liberty  of
\n\t      a subject on its subjective satisfaction\twith
\n\t      reference\t  to  specified\t matters,  if\tthat
\n\t      satisfaction is stated to be based on a number
\n\t      of  grounds or for a variety ‘of\treasons\t all
\n\t      taken  together, and if some out of  them\t are
\n\t      found  to be non-existent or  irrelevant,\t the
\n\t      very  exercise of that power is bad.  This  is
\n\t      so because the matter being one for subjective
\n\t      satisfaction, it must be properly based on all
\n\t      the reasons on which it purports to be  based.
\n\t      If  ‘some\t out of them are found\tto  be\tnon-
\n\t      existent or irrelevant, the Court cannot\tpre-
\n\t      dicate what the subjective satisfaction of the
\n\t      said   authority\twould  have  been   on\t the
\n\t      exclusion of those grounds or
\n\t      (1)   [1956] S.C.R. 948,955.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t   593<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      reasons.\t To uphold the validity of  such  an
\n\t      order  in spite of the invalidity of -some  of
\n\t      the reasons or grounds would be to  substitute
\n\t      the  objective standards of the Court for\t the
\n\t      subjective  satisfaction\tof  the.   statutory
\n\t      authority.   In  applying\t these\t principles,
\n\t      however, the Court must be. satisfied that the
\n\t      vague  or irrelevant grounds are such  as,  if
\n\t      excluded,\t might reasonably have affected\t the
\n\t      subjective  satisfaction\tof  the\t appropriate
\n\t      authority.   It  is not  merely  because\tsome
\n\t      ground  or  reason  of  a\t comparatively\t un-
\n\t      essential\t nature\t is defective that  such  an
\n\t      order based on subjective satisfaction can  be
\n\t      held to be invalid.  The Court, while  anxious
\n\t      to  safeguard  the  personal  liberty  of\t the
\n\t      individual  will\tnot lightly  interfere\twith
\n\t      such orders.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  Maursinha  v.  State of Madhya  Pradesh(1),\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh\t  High\tCourt,\tfollowing  the\tprinciple   of\t the
\npreventive   detention\t cases,\t held  that  an\t  order\t  of
\nsupersession of the municipality under s. 208 of the  Madhya
\nBharat\tMunicipal ties Act 1954, based on  several  grounds,
\nmost of which were found to be irrelevant, was invalid.\t  In
\nDhirajlal  Girdharilal\tv.  Commissioner  of   Income-tax(2)
\nMahajan,  C.  J.,  said with reference to the  order  of  an
\nincome-tax tribunal
\n\t      “The learned Attorney-General frankly conceded
\n\t      that it could not be denied that to a  certain
\n\t      extent  the  Tribunal had drawn upon  its\t own
\n\t      imagination  and had made use of a  number  of
\n\t      surmises\tand  conjectures  in  reaching\t its
\n\t      result.\t  He,\thowever,   contended\tthat
\n\t      eliminating  the irrelevant material  employed
\n\t      by the Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion,
\n\t      there  was  sufficient material on  which\t the
\n\t      finding  of fact could be supported.  -In\t our
\n\t      opinion, this contention is not well  founded.
\n\t      It  is well established that when a  court  of
\n\t      facts  acts on material, partly  relevant\t and
\n\t      partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say  to
\n\t      what  extent  the\t ‘mind\tof’  the  court\t was
\n\t      affected by the irrelevant material used by it
\n\t      in arriving at its finding.  Such a finding is
\n\t      vitiated\tbecause of the use  of\tinadmissible
\n\t      material and thereby an issue of law arises.”
\nIn   State  of\tOrissa\tv.  Bidyabhushan   Mahapatra(3)\t  an
\nadministrative tribunal in a disciplinary proceeding against
\na public servant found the second charge and four out of the
\nfive heads under the first charge proved and recommended his
\ndismissal.   The  Governor  after giving  him  a  reasonable
\nopportunity  to show cause against the\tproposed  punishment
\ndismissed  him.\t The High Court held that, the\tfindings  on
\ntwo  of\t the  heads  under the first  charge  could  not  be
\nsustained as in arriving at those findings the tribunal\t had
\nviolated rules of natural justice.  It held that the  second
\ncharge and only
\n(1) A.I.R. 1958 M.P. 397   (2) A.I.R. 1956 S.C., 271  273.
\n(3)  [1963] Supp.  I S.C.R. 618,665-6.\n<\/p>\n
594<\/span><\/p>\n
two heads of the first charge were established and  directed
\nthe  Governor  to reconsider whether on the basis  of  these
\ncharges\t the punishment of dismissal should  be\t maintained.
\nOn appeal, this Court set aside the order of the High Court.
\nIn the course of the judgment, Shah, J, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t       “If the High Court is satisfied that if\tsome
\n\t      but  not all of the findings of  the  Tribunal
\n\t      were ‘unassailable’, the order of the Governor
\n\t      on  whose powers by the rules no\trestrictions
\n\t      in determining the appropriate punishment\t are
\n\t      placed,  was final, and the High Court had  no
\n\t      jurisdiction to direct the Governor to  review
\n\t      the  penalty, for as we have already  observed
\n\t      the  order Of dismissal passed by a  competent
\n\t      authority\t  on  a\t public\t servant,   if\t the
\n\t\t\t    conditions of the constitutional prote
\nction ha*
\n\t      been   complied  with,  is  not\tjusticiable.
\n\t      Therefore if the order may be supported on any
\n\t      finding  as  to substantial  misdemeanour\t for
\n\t      which the punishment can lawfully be  imposed,
\n\t      it  is not for the Court to  consider  whether
\n\t      that ground alone would have weighed with\t the
\n\t      authority\t in dismissing the  public  servant.
\n\t      The Court\t has no jurisdiction if the findings
\n\t      of the enquiry officer or the  Tribunal  prima
\n\t      facie  make  out a case  of  misdemeanour,  to
\n\t      direct the authority to reconsider that  order
\n\t      because in respect of same of the findings but
\n\t      not  all\tit  appears  that  there  had\tbeen
\n\t      violation of the rules of natural justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The principle underlying these decisions appears to be this.
\nAn  administrative or quasi-judicial order based on  several
\ngrounds,  all taken together, cannot be sustained if  it  be
\nfound\tthat  some  of\tthe  grounds  are  non-existent\t  or
\nirrelevant, and there is nothing to show that the  authority
\nwould  have  passed  the order on the  basis  of  the  other
\nrelevant and existing grounds.\tOn the other hand, an  order
\nbased on several grounds some of which are found to be\tnon-
\nexistent  or  irrelevant, can be sustained if the  court  is
\nsatisfied that the authority would have passed the order  on
\nthe  basis of the other relevant and existing  grounds,\t and
\nthe  exclusion\tof the irrelevant  or  non-existent  grounds
\ncould not have affected the ultimate opinion or decision.
\nNow,   the  opinion  of\t the  State  government\t  that\t the
\ncorporation was not competent to perform the duties  imposed
\non  it by or under the Act, was based on two grounds one  of
\nWhich  is  relevant  and the  other  irrelevant.   Both\t the
\ngrounds\t as also other grounds were set out in paragraphs  1
\nand  2 read with annexures 1 and 2 of the  showcause  notice
\ndated  July  21,  1965.\t Para 3\t of  the  show-cause  notice
\nstated,\t “And whereas the grounds aforesaid jointly as\twell
\nas  severally appear serious enough to warrant action  under
\nsection 408(1) of the said Act”.  The (order dated September
\n29, 1965,
\n595<\/span>
\nread  with the notice dated July 21, 1965 shows that in\t the
\nopinion of the State government the second ground alone\t was
\nserious\t enough\t to warrant action under s. 408(1)  and\t was
\nsufficient  to\testablish  that\t the  corporation  was\t not
\ncompetent  to  perform its duties under the Act.   The\tfact
\nthat  the first ground mentioned in the order is  now  found
\nnot  to exist and is irrelevant, does not affect the  order.
\nWe  are reasonably certain that the State  government  would
\nhave  passed  the order on the basis of\t the  second  ground
\nalone.\t The  order is, therefore, valid and cannot  be\t set
\naside.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the\tHigh
\nCourt  is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.\t  In
\nall the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in
\nthis Court and, in the court below.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
supCI\/67-9
\n596<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1353, 1967 SCR (2) 583 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: B. K. TAKKAMORE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/02\/1967 BENCH: BACHAWAT, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\"},\"wordCount\":4881,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967","datePublished":"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967"},"wordCount":4881,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967","name":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T18:31:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-vs-b-k-takkamore-ors-on-2-february-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs B. K. Takkamore & Ors on 2 February, 1967"}]},{"@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\/79068","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=79068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}