{"id":92717,"date":"2004-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004"},"modified":"2016-04-13T23:42:32","modified_gmt":"2016-04-13T18:12:32","slug":"n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3137 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nN.K. Prasada\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGovernment of India and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nCJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant herein was respondent No. 8 in one of the
\npublic interest litigations being No. 6240 of 1997 which was
\ndisposed of along with another public interest litigation
\nbeing No. 5717 of 1997 and Contempt Case No. 779 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe appellant herein has not questioned the correctness
\nor otherwise of the impugned judgment dated 6th July, 1998
\npassed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
\nin the aforementioned matters but only is concerned with
\ncertain observations made therein as also imposition of a
\nsum of Rs. 20,000\/- by way of costs.  These two public
\ninterest litigations were filed successively by one B.
\nKistaiah, said to be a former Member of Legislative Assembly
\nand the Writ Petition No. 6240 of 1997 by Digumarthi
\nPremchand, said to be a journalist.  In the said purported
\npublic interest litigations alleged malfunctioning of the
\nCommissioner of Central Excise resulting in loss of several
\ncrores of rupees as also purported dismantling of the
\nSpecial Investigating Team headed by the appellant herein
\nwere in question.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe writ petitioners contended that the said Special
\nInvestigation Team was dismantled by the Commissioner-I
\nCentral Excise & Customs, Hyderabad Commissionerate only
\nwith a view to help the dishonest traders and to prevent the
\ncases relating to evasion of excise duty.  The appellant was
\nnot initially a party therein but despite the same an order
\nof transfer passed against him and others dated 10.3.1997
\nbearing Establishment Order (G.O.) No. 43\/97 was questioned
\nin the said writ petition.  The cause of action for filing
\nwrit petition No. 5717 of 1997 was also said to be issuance
\nof the said order of transfer dated 10.3.1997.  A Division
\nBench of the High Court by an order dated 21.03.1997
\ndirected the appellant (although thence he was not a party)
\nnot to hand over any record in any pending case which was or
\nis under his investigation to M.V.S. Chowdary till
\n26.3.1997.  The respondents were also purported to be
\nrelying on or on the basis of the additional affidavit
\ndirected by the High Court to file their counter-affidavits
\nand produce the records relating to setting up of the
\nSpecial Investigation Team and its disbanding.  The writ
\npetitioner, however, instructed his counsel to withdraw the
\nwrit petition stating:\n<\/p>\n
“My conscience, however, does not
\npermit me to proceed with the said writ
\npetition. I am also uncertain of the
\neffect of the matter will have and I am
\nconstrained, for my personal reasons,
\nand for my personal safety to seek the
\npermission of the Hon’ble Court to
\nwithdraw the writ petition.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhen the said matter was pending, another writ petition
\nmarked as W.P. No. 6240 of 1997 came to be filed by
\nDigumarthi Premchand wherein the averments made, except for
\none paragraph were verbatim the same of those contained in
\nwrit petition bearing No. 5717 of 1997.  In the said writ
\npetition also the appellant herein was impleaded as a party
\nand the main attack therein was directed against the said
\nproceedings dated 10.03.1997 transferring the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt appears that the Director General, NACEN and Chief
\nCommissioner, Hyderabad by an order dated 08.05.1997
\ndirected that the appellant should be taken back on the
\nrolls of Hyderabad Commissionerate and furthermore should be
\nhanded over the cases for investigation.  A further
\ndirection was made to examine how his period of absence can
\nbe regularised.  The writ petitioner filed an application
\ndated 22.5.1997 for implementation of the said proceedings
\nwhich was marked as WPMP (SR) No. 55758 of 1997.
\nSurprisingly enough, the said application was purported to
\nhave been directed to be placed for House Motion before a
\nDivision Bench purported to be under the orders of the Chief
\nJustice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which admittedly
\nwas found to be wrong.  The appellant herein filed two
\napplications on the same day one, to implead him as one of
\nthe respondents and the other to give effect to the said
\nproceedings dated 8.5.1997 issued by the Chief Commissioner,
\nHyderabad.  Despite the fact that the Registry of the High
\nCourt was not supposed to receive the said applications
\nwithout the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, the same was
\ndone on a wrong premise that a direction in that behalf had
\nbeen issued by the Chief Justice.  Interestingly, the writ
\npetitioner informed the Registrar (Judicial) that he would
\nnot be insisting for House Motion as his advocate would not
\nbe available but keeping in view the purported order passed
\nby the Chief Justice, a Bench was constituted in relation
\nwhereto admittedly no direction had been issued by the Chief
\nJustice. It also stands admitted that even no direction had
\nbeen issued to number the said applications, whence the
\napplication filed by the appellants were placed before the
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
The Registry submitted several reports before the
\nCourt, on having been asked to do so, which reveal as to how
\na fraud was practised upon the court presumably in collusion
\nwith some officers of the Registry.  A contempt proceeding
\nwas initiated against Digumarthi Premchand relying or on the
\nbasis of the said reports but as the writ petitioner had
\nbeen evading service of notice, not only non-bailable
\nwarrant was issued in absence of any correct address of writ
\npetitioner having been furnished; the CBI was also asked to
\ncause to make a detailed enquiry\/investigation into the
\nfollowing issues:\n<\/p>\n
“(a) whether there is any person by
\nname Digumarthi Premchand, Journalist,
\nr\/o. Narayanaguda and if such a person
\nis available, cause his production
\nbefore this Court on or before 19-9-
\n1997, (b) if there is no such person by
\nname Digumarthi Premchand, the sixth
\nrespondent shall investigate and find
\nout as to under what circumstances this
\nwrit petition came into existence and
\nthe person or persons responsible for
\nfiling the same.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tUpon making an enquiry into the matter, a report was
\nfiled by the CBI on 19.9.1997 before the division bench of
\nthe High Court.  The appellant herein thereafter appeared
\nbefore the Court on 17.10.1997.  The CBI submitted a final
\nreport stating that a chargesheet under Section 120-B read
\nwith Sections 199, 200, 201, 416, 465 and 471 of Indian
\nPenal Code and Sections 109 thereof had been filed by it
\nagainst the writ petitioner, the appellant herein and one M.
\nKali Prasada who is his close relative.  The material
\nportions of the said report read as under:\n<\/p>\n
“On 17-3-1997 Sri N.K. Prasada met one
\nSri B. Kistaiah an Ex.MLA who had got
\nclose association with Sri B.P. Agarwal
\nTextile Mill owner of Shadnagar with
\nwhom the said Sri N.K. Prasada also had
\nacquaintance. On the same day Sri
\nKistaiah filed a WP No.5717 of 1997
\nalleging irregularities in Customs and
\nCentral Excise, Hyderabad and also filed
\nseveral documents along with writ
\npetition which were supplied by N.K.
\nPrasada.\n<\/p>\n
Not contended with filing of the above
\nwrit petition Sri N.K. Prasada A2 also
\ngot filed another WP No.6240 of 1997
\nthrough Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, senior
\nAdvocate and Seshagiri Rao, Advocate.
\nSince, the subject-matter of both the
\nwrit petitions are one and the same, the
\nHon’ble High Court posted the matter for
\nhearing before Hon’ble Justice V.
\nBhaskar Rao and Hon’ble Justice Sri B.
\nSudarshan Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
Sri Padmanabham, clerk of Sri
\nRamachander Rao informed that on 22-5-
\n1997 Sri N.K. Prasada came to the office
\nof Sri Ramachander Rao and asked him for
\nthe house motion petition of D.\n<\/p>\n
Premchand and Sri Padmanabham showed him
\nthe bundle from which Sri N.K. Prasada
\ntook out the petition informing him that
\nhe is taking the house motion petition
\nof D. Premchand.\n<\/p>\n
Sri N.K. Prasada, (A2) has obtained this
\nwrit petition back from the Registrar of
\nthe High Court since some objections
\nwere raised by the Registrar and Sri
\nN.K. Prasada also signed in return
\nregister maintained by the Registrar
\noffice in token of receipt of the
\npetition back.\n<\/p>\n
The register as well as specimen
\nsignatures of Sri N.K. Prasada have been
\nreferred to GEQD who opined that the
\nsignatures on the register pertains to
\nSri N.K. Prasada.\n<\/p>\n
The investigation disclosed that the
\norigin of all Phonogram was from public
\ntelephone booth bearing No. 243 980,
\nlocated at Basheerbagh and other PCO
\ntelephone No.332917 located at
\nErramanzil Colony.\n<\/p>\n
Investigpation disclosed that on the day
\nof filing of WP No.6240 of 1997 i.e.,
\n26-3-1997 Sri Kali Prasada was taken to
\nthe office of Sri S. Ramachander Rao by
\nSri N.K. Pramda and Sri B.P. Agarwal.
\nInvestigation also disclosed that on 26-
\n3-1997, Sri D. Premchand was present at
\nSrikakulam and he has not come to
\nHyderabad nor he signed the affidavit
\nenclose with the WP No.6240 of 1997.
\nThe GEQD has opined that the signature
\non WP No.6240 of 1997 was not that of
\nSri D. Premchand. But Sri D. Premchand
\nwith a fraudulent and dishonest
\nintention filed an affidavit before the
\nHon’ble High Court on 7-11-1997 stating
\nthat he himself has signed the affidavit
\nenclosed with the WP No.6240 of 1997 and
\nthat he himself filed the petition.
\nSri S. Ramachander Rao, Sr. Advocate and
\nSri Seshagiri Rao, Advocate who filed
\nthe WP No.6240 of 1997 have also stated
\nin their statements recorded under
\nSection 164 Cr.PC before the II MM
\nHyderabad that the person Sri D.\n<\/p>\n
Premchand who had surrendered before
\nHon’ble High Court on 19-9-1997 was not
\nthe person who came along with Sri N.K.
\nPrasada and who signed the WP No.6240 of
\n1997 on 26-3-1997.\n<\/p>\n
The document filed along with WP No.5717
\nof 1997 of Sri B. Kistaiah, Ex.MLA,
\nShadnagar were supplied by Sri N.K.
\nPrasada has stated by Sri K.R. Prabhakar
\nRao, Advocate for Sri B. Kistaiah, Sri
\nB. Kistaiah also stated before the
\nHon’ble High Court that Sri N.K. Prasada
\nrequested him not to withdraw the
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
By the aforesaid acts all the accused
\nentered into criminal conspiracy and
\nfraudulently filed WP No.6240 of 1997
\nand in which process A3 impersonated A1
\nunder the active connivance of A2 and
\nthereby played fraud on the higher
\njudiciary. A1 has falsely stated through
\nan affidavit before the Hon’ble High
\nCourt of A.P. on 7-11-1997 that he
\nhimself filed WP No.6240 of 1997.
\nThus, all the three accused i.e., A1 to
\nA3 committed offences punishable under
\nSection 120-B read with 199, 200, 201,
\n419, 465 and 471 IPC and Section 109
\nIPC.\n<\/p>\n
It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble
\nCourt may take cognizance of the case
\nagainst the accused and they may be
\ndealt with according to law.\n<\/p>\n
Hence the charge-sheet.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe CBI was also directed by the High Court by an order
\ndated 19.9.1997 to make investigation into the question as
\nto:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) whether the petitioner, himself,
\ngot the information required for the
\npurpose of filing this writ petition and
\nif so, who are the persons from whom the
\npetitioner had gathered the information.
\nIt is also just and necessary to find
\nout as to (2) how and on what basis the
\naverments in the affidavit filed in
\nsupport of the writ petition are made
\nand the persons responsible for making
\nor engineering the averments made in the
\naffidavit.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tA direction was also issued to find out as to under
\nwhat circumstances the writ petitioner proposed to withdraw
\nthe writ petition as also who were the persons redsponsible
\nfor getting the letter of withdrawal filed by the writ
\npetitioner.  The CBI in its report inter alia opined that
\nthe appellant herein was the person working behind the
\nscene.  Interestingly, during the said investigation the
\nappellant could not be traced out.  The aforementioned B.
\nKistaiah (writ petitioner in W.P. No.6240 of 1997) made a
\nsolemn statement before the High Court wherein also he named
\nthe appellant herein as a person who was responsible for
\ngetting the writ petition filed through the advocate
\nalthough he did not know him personally.  He further alleged
\nthat the requisite documents for filing the writ petition
\nhave been handed over to the learned Advocate by the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court upon analysis of the pleadings and other
\nmaterials placed before it noticed:\n<\/p>\n
“On analysis of the pleadings before us
\nand various reports filed by the CBI and
\nthe sworn statement of the petitioner in
\nWP No.5717 of 1997 would lead to an
\nirresistable conclusion that both these
\nwrit petitions are engineered and
\nbrought into existence by the 8th
\nrespondent herein with an oblique motive
\nof avoiding an order of simple transfer
\ndated 8-5-1997. It is the 8th respondent
\nwho has acted from behind the scene and
\nhad set up the petitioner to file the
\nwrit petition making reckless and
\nunfounded allegations against the
\nrespondents. All this has been done only
\nto avoid an order of simple transfer. To
\nwhat extent the 8th respondent can stoop
\ndown is amply demonstrated from the
\ncontents of his own affidavit filed into
\nthis Court. In one of his counter-
\naffidavits to the report of the CBI
\ndated 17-10-1997 the 8th respondent
\ninter alia states that “on the day Sri
\nB.P. Agarwal introduced me to the
\nadvocate but I had met Sri S.\n<\/p>\n
Ramachandra Rao later on my own to seek
\nadvice whether I should file in CAT or
\nin High Court. As per his directions, I
\nhad given him relevant papers which he
\nsaid he would examine and advise me
\naccordingly. However, without my
\nknowledge or authorisation he used the
\ndocuments to file a Public Interest
\nLitigation. I came to know much later
\nthat the Hon’ble High Court has issued
\ncertain directions on the PIL filed by
\nB. Kistaiah, At no point of time did I
\ninfluence or induce anyone to file a
\npetition on my behalf.” It is further
\nstated that “the role of Sri S.\n<\/p>\n
Ramachander Rao as a senior Advocate
\nlooks very dubious in this context. This
\nis apart from misusing the documents
\ngiven by me to him in good faith for
\nfiling my own petition. This is a clear
\ncase of breach of client’s
\nconfidentiality and interest.” It is now
\nclear that it is the 8th respondent who
\nmade available the entire material filed
\ninto Court as material papers in these
\nwrit petitions. Obviously, the writ
\npetition is drafted on the basis of the
\nmaterial supplied by the 8th respondent.
\nIt would be totally altogether a
\ndifferent matter as to whether the
\naffidavit is signed by the petitioner or
\nby somebody else at the instance of
\nRespondent No.8. But the feet remains
\nthat material has been admittedly made
\navailable by the 8th respondent,
\nundoubtedly he is the king pin in the
\nwhole drama and operating from behind
\nthe scene.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tBefore the High Court Shri E. Seshagiri Rao, advocate
\nwho had filed the writ petition affirmed an affidavit
\nwherefrom it transpired that the writ petition had been
\nfiled from the Office of Shri S. Ramchander Rao, a senior
\nadvocate purported to be on the instructions of one Shri
\nB.P. Agarwal, the appellant herein and some other persons.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court noticed gross abuse of the process of
\nthe Court in the manner of filing the aforementioned two
\nwrit petitions said to be in the nature of public interest
\nlitigations.  The High Court also went into the merit of the
\nmatter and arrived at a finding that the writ petitions were
\nfiled at the instance of the appellant herein.  The High
\nCourt while finding the said writ petitions to be without
\nany merit opined that no relief can be granted to the writ
\npetitioner.  The High Court also expressed its unhappiness
\nover the role of the lawyers.  The High Court although
\nnoticed that the writ petitioner in writ petition No. 5717
\nof 1997 appeared in person and wanted to withdraw the writ
\npetition but did not absolve him of his responsibility in
\nthe matter in filing the writ petition at the instance of
\nthe appellant herein.  However, it took a lenient view and
\ndismissed the writ petition without awarding any cost
\nagainst him.  The High Court, however, administered severe
\nwarning to him to be careful in future and not to play any
\ngame with judicial process.\n<\/p>\n
 \tSo far as writ petition No. 6240 of 1997 is concerned,
\nthe High Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“So far as WP No.6240 of 1997 is
\nconcerned, we have already observed that
\nthe petitioner, as well as the 8th
\nrespondent are guilty of abuse of the
\njudicial process in the name of public
\ninterest litigation. They have put the
\ndevice of public interest litigation to
\nnaked abuse. The weapon invented by the
\nApex Court with a noble cause intended
\nto serve the deprived sections of the
\nSociety pressed into operation for
\ndestructive purpose. The streams of
\njustice are polluted by their conduct.
\nWe, under those circumstances, consider
\nit appropriate to dismiss the writ
\npetition – Writ Petition No.6240 of 1997
\nwith exemplary costs quantified at
\nRs.25,000\/-(Rupees twenty five thousand
\nonly); out of which a sum of Rs.5,000.00
\n(Rupees five thousand only) shall be
\npaid by the petitioner, Digumarthi
\nPremchand and the remaining sum of
\nRs.20,000\/- (Rupees twenty thousand
\nonly) shall be paid by the respondent
\nNo.8, N.K. Prasada. The amount shall be
\ndeposited by the petitioner and the 8th
\nrespondent with A.P. State Legal
\nServices Authority.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn the contempt proceedings the writ petitioner was
\nfound guilty and punishment till the rising of the court was
\nawarded to the writ petitioner.  The High Court, however,
\nkeeping in view the pendency of the criminal case observed:\n<\/p>\n
“However, we would like to make very
\nclear that we have not expressed any
\nopinion whatsoever with regard to the
\nmerits of the prosecution and the
\ncharge-sheet filed by the CBI against
\nthe petitioner as well as 8th respondent
\nand one Kali Prasada. The trial Court
\nshall proceed with the trial
\nuninfluenced by any of the observations
\nmade by us in this order. We have not
\nexpressed any opinion about any of the
\naspects and merits of the allegations
\nlevelled against the petitioner and the
\n8th respondent. The observations, if
\nany, made by this Court while referring
\nto the reports of the CBI and the
\ncharge-sheet are confined for the
\npurpose of disposal of this writ
\npetitions and the contempt case. The
\ntrial Court shall dispose of the
\ncriminal case uninfluenced by any
\nobservation whatsoever made in this
\ncase.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tContentions of Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior
\ncounsel appearing on behalf of the appellant are two-fold.
\nFirstly he drew our attention to a First Information Report
\npurported to have been lodged by him against one T.N. Rao,
\nDy. S.P. CBI Hyderabad and urged that as the said officer
\nhad himself been facing a criminal charge of asking for
\nbribe, his report filed before the High Court should not
\nhave been relied upon.  The learned counsel would secondly
\nurge that although the appellant was impleaded as a party,
\nno opportunity of hearing having been granted to him the
\nimpugned judgment cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Anoop G. Choudhary, learned senior counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand,
\nwould submit that the High Court itself could have been
\nmoved for expunction of the remarks by the appellant herein.
\nIt was pointed out that the appellant took part in the CBI
\nenquiry, filed an application for reqularisation of leave
\nand keeping in view the report submitted by the Central
\nBureau of Investigation, his involvement in getting the writ
\npetition filed is apparent on the face of the record.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe writ petitioner who had been arrayed as respondent
\nNo. 8 in the Special Leave application has filed an
\naffidavit.  He in his affidavit does not deny or dispute the
\nfindings of the High Court.  He does not say that the writ
\npetition was not filed at the instance of the appellant
\nherein.\n<\/p>\n
It is not in dispute that although the appellant was
\nnot a party in the writ petition the order of transfer
\npassed against him dated 10.3.1997 was the subject matter
\nthereof and an interim order had been passed by the Division
\nBench of the High Court.  The fact that he derived benefit
\nof the said interim order is not denied or disputed.  The
\nfact that he filed two applications, one for impleading
\nhimself as a party in the pending writ proceeding and
\nanother for an interim order purported to be for
\nimplementing the order of the Chief Commissioner dated
\n08.05.1997 also stands admitted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe may recall that the original writ petitioner also
\nfiled a similar application.  The High Court arrived at its
\nconclusion not only on the basis of the report of the
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation which, inter alia, contains
\nthe statements of the clerk of Shri S. Ramchandra Rao,
\nAdvocate and his involvement in filing the application and
\ntaking the same back from the Registry which is borne out of
\nthe return register maintained by the Registry but also the
\ndetailed reports submitted by the Registrar (Judicial)
\nbefore the High Court from time to time as also other
\naffidavits, sworn statements and other materials brought on
\nrecord.\n<\/p>\n
As the finding of the High Court is to the effect that
\nthe appellant herein was the king pin of the entire episode
\nand had engineered the entire game with a view to getting
\nhis order of transfer stayed is prima facie in nature, we do
\nnot find any reason to interfere therewith.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe writ petition and the contempt proceedings pending
\nbefore the High Court were disposed of on the basis of the
\nmaterials on record.  The materials not only included
\naffidavits of the parties as also that of the appellant but
\nalso the sworn statements of the writ petitioner and the
\nAdvocate appearing for the writ petitioner.  In view of the
\nfact that even the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
\nthe writ petitioner categorically stated that at the time of
\ndrawing of the writ petition the appellant was present, no
\nfault with the findings of the High Court can be found out
\nif reliance had been placed thereupon.  The appellant had
\nintervened in the writ applications as far back as on
\n22.5.1997.  He, it will bear repetition to state, filed an
\napplication for grant of an interim relief. The same was
\npending and, thus, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever,
\nhaving regard to the fact that the Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation was making enquiry;  the appellant herein must
\nbe held to have been aware thereabout. His two applications
\nwere also pending and presumably pressed (as there is
\nnothing on record to show that at any point of time, he
\nintended to withdraw the same), and thus a presumption can
\nbe drawn to the effect that he\/ his advocate had been
\nkeeping a watch over the entire proceeding. Despite the same
\nat no point of time the appellant wanted to cross-examine
\nany witness.  He never brought the fact to the notice of the
\ncourt that a criminal case had also been filed against the
\nDy. S.P. of the C.B.I. allegedly for taking bribe.  He
\nallowed the proceedings before the High Court to go on.  He
\nsat on the fence.  He, as has been noticed by the High
\nCourt, even could not be traced out for some time.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, he appeared to be on leave during the
\nfollowing period:\n<\/p>\n
“1. 83 days EL from 3-4-1997 to 24-6-1997.\n<\/p>\n
2. 138 days EL from 26-6-1997 to 10-11-1997.\n<\/p>\n
3. 15 days EL from 11-11-1997 to 25-11-1997.\n<\/p>\n
4. 115 days Half-pay leave from 26-11-1997 to 29-
\n4-1998.\n<\/p>\n
5. 32 days extraordinary leave from 30-4-1998 to
\n31-5-1998.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tHe, as noticed hereinbefore, filed application for
\nregularisation of the said period of leave pursuant to or in
\nfurtherance of the observations made by the Chief
\nCommissioner, Hyderabad in his order dated 08.05.1997.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe principles of natural justice, it is well-settled,
\ncannot be put into a strait-jacket formula.  Its application
\nwill depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
\nIt is also well-settled that if a party after having proper
\nnotice chose not to appear, he a later stage cannot be
\npermitted to say that he had not been given a fair
\nopportunity of hearing.  The question had been considered by
\na Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta (Dead) through LRs.
\nand Others Vs. Asha Devi Gupta (Smt.) and Others [(2003) 7
\nSCC 492] of which two of us (V.N. Khare, CJI and Sinha, J.)
\nare parties wherein upon noticing a large number of
\ndecisions it was held:\n<\/p>\n
“29.The principles of natural justice,
\nit is trite,  cannot be put in a
\nstraitjacket formula.  In a given case
\nthe party should not only  be required
\nto show that he did not have a proper
\nnotice resulting in violation of
\nprinciples of natural justice but also
\nto show that he was seriously prejudiced
\nthereby…”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe principles of natural justice, it is well-settled,
\nmust not be stretched too far.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn any event, it is not a case where this Court should
\nexercise its discretion in favour of the appellant.  It is
\ntrite that in a given case, the Court may refuse to exercise
\nits discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
\nConstituiton.  (See Chandra Singh and Others Vs. State of
\nRajasthan and Another [(2003) 6 SCC 545] and State of Punjab
\n& Ors. Vs. Savinderjit Kaur [JT 2004 (3) SC 470] <\/p>\n
\tThe scope of public interest litigation has recently
\nbeen noticed by this Court in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing
\nCommittee and Another vs. C.K. Rajan and others<\/a> [(2003) 7
\nSCC 546] holding :\n<\/p>\n
“…Statutory functions are assigned to
\nthe State by the Legislature and not by
\nthe Court.  The Courts while exercising
\nits jurisdiction ordinarily must remind
\nitself about the doctrine of separation
\nof powers which, however, although does
\nnot mean that the Court shall not step-
\nin in any circumstance whatsoever but
\nthe Court while exercising its power
\nmust also remind itself about the rule
\nof self-restraint. The Courts, as
\nindicated hereinbefore, ordinarily is
\nreluctant to assume the functions of the
\nstatutory functionaries.  It allows them
\nto perform their duties at the first
\ninstance.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe court steps in by Mandamus when
\nthe State fails to perform its duty.  It
\nshall also step in when the discretion
\nis exercised but the same has not been
\ndone legally and validly.  It steps in
\nby way of a judicial review over the
\norders passed.  Existence of alternative
\nremedy albeit is no bar to exercise
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India but ordinarily it
\nwill not do so unless it is found that
\nan order has been passed wholly without
\njurisdiction or contradictory to the
\nconstitutional or statutory provisions
\nor where an order has been passed
\nwithout complying with the principles of
\nnatural justice. (See Whirlpool
\nCorporation vs. Registrar of Trade
\nMarks, Mumbai and Others<\/a> (1998) 8 SCC\n<\/p>\n
1).\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt is trite that only because
\nfloodgates of cases will be opened, by
\nitself may not be no ground to close the
\ndoors of courts of justice.  The doors
\nof the courts must be kept open but the
\nCourt cannot shut its eyes to the ground
\nrealities while entertaining a public
\ninterest litigation.\n<\/p>\n
 \tExercise of self-restraint, thus,
\nshould be adhered to, subject of course
\nto, just exceptions.”\n<\/p>\n
 (See also Maharashtra State Board of
\nSecondary Education Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh
\nKumarsheth etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543.)<\/p>\n
\tThe said decision has been followed in Chairman & MD,
\nBPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and Others<\/a>  [(2003) 8 SCC 567],
\nwherein it was noticed :\n<\/p>\n
“Dawn Oliver in Constitutional Reform
\nin the UK under the heading ‘The
\nCourts and Theories of Democracy,
\nCitizenship, and Good Governance’ at
\npage 105 states:\n<\/p>\n
     “However, this concept of
\ndemocracy as rights-based with
\nlimited governmental power, and in
\nparticular of the role of the
\ncourts in a democracy, carries high
\nrisks for the judges – and for the
\npublic.  Courts may interfere
\ninadvisedly in public
\nadministration.  The case of
\nBromley London Borough Council v.
\nGreater London Council ([1983] 1 AC
\n768, HL) is a classic example.  The
\nHouse of Lords quashed the GLC
\ncheap fares policy as being based
\non a misreading of the statutory
\nprovisions, but were accused of
\nthemselves misunderstanding
\ntransport policy in so doing.  The
\ncourts are not experts in policy
\nand public administration – hence
\nJowell’s point that the courts
\nshould not step beyond their
\ninstitutional capacity
\n(Jowell,2000).  Acceptance of this
\napproach is reflected in the
\njudgments of Laws LJ in
\nInternational Transport Roth GmbH
\nVs. Secretary of State for the Home
\nDepartment ([2002] EWCA Civ 158,
\n[2002] 3 WLR 344) and of Lord Nimmo
\nSmith in Adams v. Lord Advocate
\n(Court of Session, Times, 8 August
\n2002) in which a distinction was
\ndrawn between areas where the
\nsubject matter lies within the
\nexpertise of the courts (for
\ninstance, criminal justice,
\nincluding sentencing and detention
\nof individuals) and those which
\nwere more appropriate for decision
\nby democratically elected and
\naccountable bodies.  If the courts
\nstep outside the area of their
\ninstitutional competence,
\ngovernment may react by getting
\nParliament to legislate to oust the
\njurisdiction of the courts
\naltogether.  Such a step would
\nundermine the rule of law.\n<\/p>\n
Government and public opinion may
\ncome to question the legitimacy of
\nthe judges exercising judicial
\nreview against Ministers and thus
\nundermine the authority of the
\ncourts and the rule of law.”\n<\/p>\n
In Onkarlal Bajaj and Others Vs. Union of India and
\nAnother [(2003) 2 SCC 673] it was observed:
\n“The expression ‘public interest’ or
\n‘probity in governance’, cannot be put
\nin a straitjacket. ‘Public interest’
\ntakes into its fold several factors.
\nThere cannot be any hard and fast rule
\nto determine what is public interest.
\nThe circumstances in each case would
\ndetermine whether Government action was
\ntaken is in public interest or was taken
\nto uphold probity in governance.
\nThe role model for governance and
\ndecision taken thereof should manifest
\nequity, fair play and justice. The
\ncardinal principle of governance in a
\ncivilized society based on rule of law
\nnot only has to base on transparency but
\nmust create an impression that the
\ndecision-making was motivated on the
\nconsideration of probity. The Government
\nhas to rise above the nexus of vested
\ninterests and nepotism and eschew window
\ndressing. The act of governance has to
\nwithstand the test of judiciousness and
\nimpartiality and avoid arbitrary or
\ncapricious actions. Therefore, the
\nprinciple of governance has to be tested
\non the touchstone of justice, equity and
\nfair play and if the decision is not
\nbased on justice, equity and fair play
\nand has taken into consideration other
\nmatters, though on the face of it, the
\ndecision may look legitimate but as a
\nmatter of fact, the reasons are not based
\non values but to achieve popular
\naccolade, that decision cannot be allowed
\nto operate.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe are pained to see how the forum of public interest
\nlitigation is being abused.  This Court recently had also
\nthe occasion to notice the same.  (See Ashok Kumar Pandey
\nVs. State of West Bengal, 2003 AIR SCW 6105 and Dr. B. Singh
\nVs. Union of India and Others, 2004 AIR SCW 1494).\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any
\nmerit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.  No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: Cji, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3137 of 1999 PETITIONER: N.K. Prasada RESPONDENT: Government of India and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2004 BENCH: CJI, S.B. Sinha & S.H. Kapadia. JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-92717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - 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\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-13T18:12:32+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T18:12:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5141,\"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\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\",\"name\":\"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-13T18:12:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - 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\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-13T18:12:32+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T18:12:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004"},"wordCount":5141,"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\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004","name":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-13T18:12:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-k-prasada-vs-government-of-india-and-ors-on-12-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.K. Prasada vs Government Of India And Ors on 12 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/92717","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=92717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/92717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=92717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=92717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=92717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}