{"id":95398,"date":"2011-08-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-05-29T14:09:52","modified_gmt":"2017-05-29T08:39:52","slug":"state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                           REPORTABLE\n\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n\n                            I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009\n\n\n                                        IN\n\n\n\n                   ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 6  OF 2004\n\n\n\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh                                       .... Applicant(s)\/\n\n                                                                 Plaintiff\n\n             Versus\n\n\n\nUnion of India & Anr.                                      .... Respondent(s)\/\n\n                                                                Defendants\n\n\n\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)    In the year 2004, the State of Madhya Pradesh has filed <\/p>\n
Original Suit No. 6 of 2004 before this Court under Article 131 <\/p>\n
of   the   Constitution   of   India  calling   for   the   records   relating   to <\/p>\n
the   impugned   Notifications\/Orders   dated   02.11.2004   and <\/p>\n
04.11.2004 issued by the Ist Defendant-Union of India under <\/p>\n
Sections   58(3)   and   58(4)   of   the   Madhya   Pradesh   Re-\n<\/p>\n
organisation   Act,  2000  (hereinafter   referred  to  as  “MPR   Act”), <\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
notifying   the   date   of   dissolution   of   the   M.P.   Electricity   Board <\/p>\n
(in   short   “the   MPEB”)   for   the   undivided   State   of   Madhya <\/p>\n
Pradesh   and   apportioning   its   assets,   rights   and   liabilities <\/p>\n
between   the   successor   Electricity   Boards   for   the   reorganized <\/p>\n
States   of   Madhya   Pradesh   and   Chhattisgarh   and   to   declare <\/p>\n
them   null  and   void  as the   same   are  unconstitutional   and  for <\/p>\n
certain other reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
2)    In   the   said   suit,   the   plaintiff-State   of   Madhya   Pradesh <\/p>\n
filed an application for amendment of plaint being I.A. No.4 of <\/p>\n
2009   seeking,  inter   alia,  the   amendment   to   the   effect   that <\/p>\n
Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act are violative of Article <\/p>\n
14   of   the   Constitution   of   India   inasmuch   as   it   enables   the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   to   determine   without   any   guidelines   the <\/p>\n
manner   of   exercise   of   power   while   deciding   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
apportionment   of   the   assets   and   liabilities   of   the   successor <\/p>\n
Boards.\n<\/p>\n
3)    Ist   Defendant-Union   of   India,   apart   from   disputing   its <\/p>\n
maintainability on delay and laches also contested on merits.\n<\/p>\n
4)     2nd  Defendant-State   of   Chhattisgarh   has   objected   to   the <\/p>\n
amendment   on   the   ground   that   the   same   is   totally <\/p>\n
                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
misconceived   and   untenable   in   law   and   that   no   recourse <\/p>\n
whatsoever   can   be   permitted   to   challenge   the   validity   of   a <\/p>\n
Central   law   under   the   exclusive   jurisdiction   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
under   Article   131   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     The   State   of <\/p>\n
Chhattisgarh   has   also   contended   that   the   plaintiff-State   of <\/p>\n
M.P., on the one hand is seeking a prayer that Ist Defendant <\/p>\n
must perform its duty in accordance with the Statute and, on <\/p>\n
the   other   hand,   is   challenging   the   validity   of   the   very   same <\/p>\n
Statute and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
5)     Heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel for <\/p>\n
the   applicant\/plaintiff-State   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   Mr.   H.P.\n<\/p>\n
Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General for Respondent No. <\/p>\n
1\/Ist Defendant-Union of India and Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, <\/p>\n
learned   senior   counsel   for   Respondent   No.   2\/2nd  Defendant-\n<\/p>\n
State of Chhattisgarh.\n<\/p>\n
6)     In view of the fact that at present we are concerned with <\/p>\n
I.A.No.4  of 2009  –  application for  amendment  of  plaint,  there <\/p>\n
is   no   need   to   traverse   all   the   factual   details   as   stated   in   the <\/p>\n
plaint and written statement.   However, it is relevant to point <\/p>\n
                                                                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
out   the   reliefs   prayed   for   by   the   plaintiff   in   the   main   suit <\/p>\n
which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
      “(a)    Call   for   the   records   relating   to   the   impugned <\/p>\n
              Notifications\/Orders             dated         02.11.2004         and <\/p>\n
              04.11.2004 and declare the same as null and void as <\/p>\n
              the same is unconstitutional and in violation of Article <\/p>\n
              14 of the Constitution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)     Direct   1st  defendant   to   dissolve   MPEB   in   consonance <\/p>\n
              with   other   orders\/directions   dated   12.04.2001, <\/p>\n
              04.12.2001   and   23.05.2003   passed   by   the   1st <\/p>\n
              defendant under Section 58(4) of MPRA;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c)     Direct   the   1st     Defendant   by   way   of   mandatory <\/p>\n
              injunction   to   perform   its   constitutional   and   the <\/p>\n
              statutory   duty   to   lay   down   proper   criteria   for <\/p>\n
              apportionment   of   assets,   rights   and   liabilities   in <\/p>\n
              accordance with law and to ensure equitable, just, fair <\/p>\n
              and   reasonable   apportionment   of   assets,   rights   and <\/p>\n
              liabilities   amongst   the   successor   Boards   on   the   basis <\/p>\n
              of   revenue   potential   so   as   to   avoid   undue   hardship <\/p>\n
              and disadvantage to any of the successor Boards; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (d)     Pass any other order and\/or direction, as this Hon’ble <\/p>\n
              Court   may   deem   fit   and   proper   in   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
              circumstances of the case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
7)    In   the   present   application,   i.e.,   I.A.   No.4   of   2009,   the <\/p>\n
applicant-State   of   M.P.   has   prayed   for   amendment   of   the <\/p>\n
plaint by adding the following relief:\n<\/p>\n
      “(b)     to   permit   additional   relief   to   be   incorporated   in   the <\/p>\n
      Plaint   viz.,   declare   Sections   58(3)   and   58(4)   of   the   Madhya <\/p>\n
      Pradesh   State   Re-organisation   Act,   2000   is   being <\/p>\n
      unconstitutional,   arbitrary  and   violative   of   Article   14   of   the <\/p>\n
      Constitution”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
8)    In   order   to   consider   the   claim   of   the   plaintiff   and   the <\/p>\n
opposition   of   the   defendants,   it   is   desirable   to   refer   the <\/p>\n
relevant   provisions.     Order   VI   Rule   17   of   the   Code     of   Civil <\/p>\n
Procedure,   1908   (in   short   `the   Code’)   enables   the   parties   to <\/p>\n
make amendment of the plaint which reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
      “17.  Amendment   of   pleadings   –  The   Court   may   at   any <\/p>\n
      stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend <\/p>\n
      his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be <\/p>\n
      just,   and   all   such   amendments   shall   be   made   as   may   be <\/p>\n
      necessary for the purpose of determining  the real questions <\/p>\n
      in controversy between the parties:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             Provided   that   no   application   for   amendment   shall   be <\/p>\n
      allowed   after   the   trial   has   commenced,   unless   the   Court <\/p>\n
      comes   to   the   conclusion   that   in   spite   of   due   diligence,   the <\/p>\n
      party   could   not   have   raised   the   matter   before   the <\/p>\n
      commencement of trial.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   above   provision   deals   with   amendment   of  pleadings.     By <\/p>\n
Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted.  It has <\/p>\n
again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an <\/p>\n
added   proviso   to   prevent   application   for   amendment   being <\/p>\n
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes <\/p>\n
to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could <\/p>\n
not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.\n<\/p>\n
The   proviso,   to   some   extent,   curtails   absolute   discretion   to <\/p>\n
allow   amendment   at   any   stage.     Now,   if   application   is   filed <\/p>\n
                                                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
after commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of <\/p>\n
due   diligence,   such   amendment   could   not   have   been   sought <\/p>\n
earlier.     The   purpose   and   object   of   Order   VI   Rule   17   of   the <\/p>\n
Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in <\/p>\n
such manner and on such terms as may be just.  Amendment <\/p>\n
cannot   be   claimed   as   a   matter   of   right   and   under   all <\/p>\n
circumstances,   but   the   Courts   while   deciding   such   prayers <\/p>\n
should   not   adopt   a   hyper-technical   approach.     Liberal <\/p>\n
approach   should   be   the   general   rule   particularly,   in   cases <\/p>\n
where   the   other   side   can   be   compensated   with   costs.\n<\/p>\n
Normally,   amendments   are   allowed   in   the   pleadings   to   avoid <\/p>\n
multiplicity of litigations.\n<\/p>\n
9)    Inasmuch   as   the   plaintiff-State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   has <\/p>\n
approached this Court invoking the original jurisdiction under <\/p>\n
Article   131   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the   Rules   framed   by <\/p>\n
this Court, i.e., The Supreme Court Rules, 1966 (in short `the <\/p>\n
Rules)   have   to   be   applied   to   the   case   on   hand.     Order   XXVI <\/p>\n
speaks about “Pleadings Generally”.   Among various rules, we <\/p>\n
are concerned about Rule 8 which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
       “The   Court   may,   at   any   stage   of   the   proceedings,   allow <\/p>\n
       either party to amend his pleading in such manner and on <\/p>\n
       such   terms   as   may   be   just,   but   only   such   amendments <\/p>\n
       shall   be   made   as   may   be   necessary   for   the   purpose   of <\/p>\n
       determining   the   real   question   in   controversy   between   the <\/p>\n
       parties.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The   above   provision,   which   is   similar   to   Order   VI   Rule   17   of <\/p>\n
the Code  prescribes  that at  any  stage  of the  proceedings,  the <\/p>\n
Court   may   allow   either   party   to   amend   his   pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
However, it must be established that the proposed amendment <\/p>\n
is necessary for the purpose of determining the  real question <\/p>\n
in controversy between the parties.\n<\/p>\n
10)    This   Court,   while   considering   Order   VI   Rule   17   of   the <\/p>\n
Code, in several judgments has laid down the principles to be <\/p>\n
applicable   in   the   case   of   amendment   of   plaint   which   are   as <\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
(i)    Surender   Kumar   Sharma   v.   Makhan   Singh,<\/a>   (2009)  <\/p>\n
       10 SCC 626, at para 5:\n<\/p>\n
       “5.  As   noted   hereinearlier,   the   prayer   for   amendment   was <\/p>\n
       refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first <\/p>\n
       ground   is   concerned   i.e.   the   prayer   for   amendment   was   a <\/p>\n
       belated   one,   we   are   of   the   view   that   even   if   it   was   belated, <\/p>\n
       then   also,   the   question   that   needs   to   be   decided   is   to   see <\/p>\n
       whether   by   allowing   the   amendment,   the   real   controversy <\/p>\n
       between   the   parties   may   be   resolved.   It   is   well   settled   that <\/p>\n
       under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide <\/p>\n
       powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the <\/p>\n
       court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such <\/p>\n
                                                                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
         a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just <\/p>\n
         and   proper.   Even   if,   such   an   application   for   amendment   of <\/p>\n
         the   plaint   was   filed   belatedly,   such   belated   amendment <\/p>\n
         cannot   be   refused   if   it   is   found   that   for   deciding   the   real <\/p>\n
         controversy   between   the   parties,   it   can   be   allowed   on <\/p>\n
         payment   of   costs.   Therefore,   in   our   view,   mere   delay   and <\/p>\n
         laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a <\/p>\n
         ground to refuse the amendment.”\n<\/p>\n
(ii)     North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v.\n<\/p>\n
         Bhagwan   Das   (dead)   by   LRS,   (2008)   8   SCC   511,   at <\/p>\n
         para16:\n<\/p>\n
         “16.  Insofar   as the   principles  which  govern  the   question  of <\/p>\n
         granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 <\/p>\n
         CPC   (as   it   stood   at   the   relevant   time)   are   concerned,   these <\/p>\n
         are   also   well   settled.   Order   6   Rule   17   CPC   postulates <\/p>\n
         amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In <\/p>\n
         Pirgonda  Hongonda Patil  v.  Kalgonda  Shidgonda  Patil<\/a>  which <\/p>\n
         still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to <\/p>\n
         be   allowed   which   satisfy   the   two   conditions:   (a)   of   not <\/p>\n
         working   injustice   to   the   other   side,   and   (b)   of   being <\/p>\n
         necessary for the purpose of determining  the real questions <\/p>\n
         in  controversy   between   the   parties.  Amendments   should   be <\/p>\n
         refused  only  where   the  other  party   cannot be   placed in  the <\/p>\n
         same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, <\/p>\n
         but the amendment would cause him an injury which could <\/p>\n
         not be compensated in costs.”\n<\/p>\n
(iii)    Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahamd and Others,<\/a> (2008) 3 SCC  <\/p>\n
         717, at para 13:\n<\/p>\n
         “13. Mr Bharuka, on the other hand, invited our attention to <\/p>\n
         another   decision   of   this   Court   in  Baldev   Singh  v.  Manohar  <\/p>\n
         Singh.  In  para  17  of the decision,  it was held  and  observed <\/p>\n
         as follows: (SCC pp. 504-05)<\/p>\n
             “17.   Before   we   part   with   this   order,   we   may   also   notice <\/p>\n
         that   proviso   to   Order   6   Rule   17   CPC   provides   that <\/p>\n
         amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial <\/p>\n
         of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have <\/p>\n
                                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
        examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not <\/p>\n
        yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties <\/p>\n
        have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From <\/p>\n
        the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge <\/p>\n
        of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
        That   apart,   commencement   of   trial   as   used   in   proviso   to <\/p>\n
        Order   6   Rule   17   in   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   must   be <\/p>\n
        understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing <\/p>\n
        of   the   suit,   examination   of   witnesses,   filing   of   documents <\/p>\n
        and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties <\/p>\n
        are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to <\/p>\n
        reject   the   application   for   amendment   of   the   written <\/p>\n
        statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which <\/p>\n
        confers wide power and unfettered discretion on the court to <\/p>\n
        allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of <\/p>\n
        the proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and  <\/p>\n
        Others,<\/a> (2006) 4 SCC 385, at paras 15 & 16:\n<\/p>\n
        “15.  The object of the rule is that the courts should try the <\/p>\n
        merits   of   the   case   that   come   before   them   and   should, <\/p>\n
        consequently,  allow   all   amendments  that   may  be   necessary <\/p>\n
        for determining the real question in controversy between the <\/p>\n
        parties   provided   it   does   not   cause   injustice   or   prejudice   to <\/p>\n
        the other side.\n<\/p>\n
        16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first <\/p>\n
        part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to order <\/p>\n
        amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) <\/p>\n
        and   enjoins   the   court   to   allow   all   amendments   which   are <\/p>\n
        necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in <\/p>\n
        controversy between the parties.”\n<\/p>\n
(v)     Revajeetu               Builders            and           Developers               v.\n<\/p>\n
        Narayanaswamy   and   Sons   and   Others,   (2009)   10  <\/p>\n
        SCC 84, at para 63:\n<\/p>\n
        “63.  On   critically   analysing   both   the   English   and   Indian <\/p>\n
        cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken <\/p>\n
                                                                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
      into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application <\/p>\n
      for amendment:\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  whether  the   amendment   sought   is  imperative   for proper <\/p>\n
      and effective adjudication of the case;\n<\/p>\n
      (2)   whether   the   application   for   amendment   is   bona   fide   or <\/p>\n
      mala fide;\n<\/p>\n
      (3)   the   amendment   should   not   cause   such   prejudice   to   the <\/p>\n
      other   side   which   cannot   be   compensated   adequately   in <\/p>\n
      terms of money;\n<\/p>\n
      (4)   refusing   amendment   would   in   fact   lead   to   injustice   or <\/p>\n
      lead to multiple litigation;\n<\/p>\n
      (5)   whether   the   proposed   amendment   constitutionally   or <\/p>\n
      fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case;\n<\/p>\n
      and<\/p>\n
      (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if <\/p>\n
      a   fresh   suit   on   the   amended   claims   would   be   barred   by <\/p>\n
      limitation on the date of application.\n<\/p>\n
      These are some of the important factors which may be kept <\/p>\n
      in   mind   while   dealing   with   application   filed   under   Order   6 <\/p>\n
      Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.”\n<\/p>\n
The   above   principles   make   it   clear   that   Courts   have   ample <\/p>\n
power   to   allow   the   application   for   amendment   of   the   plaint.\n<\/p>\n
However, it must be satisfied that the same is required in the <\/p>\n
interest of justice and for the purpose of determination of real <\/p>\n
question in controversy between the parties.   We have already <\/p>\n
pointed out the relief prayed for in the plaint.  According to the <\/p>\n
plaintiff-State   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   the   Notifications\/Orders <\/p>\n
dated   02.11.2004   and   04.11.2004   have   to   be   declared   null <\/p>\n
and void since the same are unconstitutional and in violation <\/p>\n
of   Article   14   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     The   other   relief, <\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
prayed for by the plaintiff, is to direct the Ist Defendant-Union <\/p>\n
of   India   to   dissolve   the   MPEB   in   consonance   with   the <\/p>\n
orders\/directions   dated   12.04.2001,   04.12.2001   and <\/p>\n
23.05.2003 passed by the Union of India under Section 58(4) <\/p>\n
of   MPR   Act.     In   addition,   the   plaintiff-State   of   M.P.   has   also <\/p>\n
prayed   for   to   direct   the   Union   of   India   by   way   of   mandatory <\/p>\n
injunction   to  perform   its constitutional  and   statutory  duty  to <\/p>\n
lay   down   proper   criteria   for   apportionment   of   assets,   rights <\/p>\n
and liabilities in accordance with law and to ensure equitable, <\/p>\n
just,   fair   and   reasonable   apportionment   of  assets,   rights   and <\/p>\n
liabilities   amongst   the   successor   Boards   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
revenue   potential   so   as   to   avoid   undue   hardship   and <\/p>\n
disadvantage to any of the successor Boards.\n<\/p>\n
11)     Mr.   C.   S.   Vaidyanathan,   learned   senior   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff-State   of   M.P.,   by   drawing   our   attention   to   various <\/p>\n
averments   in   the   plaint   relating   to   the   purported   exercise   of <\/p>\n
power   by   the   Central   Government   submitted   that   the   same <\/p>\n
being   arbitrary,   unjust   and   unfair   had   resulted   in   serious <\/p>\n
anomalies in the apportionment of assets and liabilities by the <\/p>\n
impugned   Notifications\/Orders   dated   02.11.2004   and <\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
04.11.2004.          He   also   pointed   out   that   the   impugned <\/p>\n
Notifications\/Orders   have   resulted   in   an   unequal   division   of <\/p>\n
generating   capacity,   created   a   huge   gap   in   demand   and <\/p>\n
supply, affecting the power supply and also the finances of the <\/p>\n
Board   of   the   plaintiff-State.     He   further   pointed   out   that <\/p>\n
Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of MPR Act provided unguided powers <\/p>\n
to the Central Government to determine the apportionment of <\/p>\n
assets,   rights   and   liabilities   between   the   successor   States   of <\/p>\n
M.P. and Chhattisgarh.  According to him, these provisions do <\/p>\n
not   provide   for   the   Central   Government   to   record   reasons   in <\/p>\n
support of its decision.   In the absence of any guidelines, any <\/p>\n
decision   by   the   Central   Government   is   arbitrary,   unjust, <\/p>\n
unfair, unreasonable, unconstitutional and violative  of Article <\/p>\n
14   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   in   particular.     In   those <\/p>\n
circumstances,   according   to   him,   the   amendment   of   plaint <\/p>\n
sought for is reasonable and acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
12)     As   against   the   above   claim,   Mr   Rawal,   learned   ASG, <\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   Union   of   India   submitted   that   there   is   no <\/p>\n
merit   in   the   claim   for   amendment   of   plaint.   At   any   rate,   the <\/p>\n
amendment sought for is not maintainable at this juncture.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
13)     Mr.   Ravi   Shankar   Prasad,   learned   senior   counsel   for <\/p>\n
second Defendant-State of Chhattisgarh strongly objected  the <\/p>\n
proposed amendment both on the ground of delay and laches <\/p>\n
and on merits.   Mr. Prasad highlighted that verification of the <\/p>\n
Court   proceedings   would   show   that  the   pleadings   in  the   suit <\/p>\n
are   complete,   evidence   by   way   of   affidavits   has   been   filed, <\/p>\n
issues for adjudication have been framed, admission\/denial of <\/p>\n
documents filed  in support of the pleadings have taken place <\/p>\n
and the suit is now to be finally heard by this Court.   He also <\/p>\n
contended   that   the   application   at   this   belated   stage   is   not <\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
14)  It is not in dispute that after complying all the formalities <\/p>\n
even as early as on 16.04.2007, this Court has framed issues <\/p>\n
and  as rightly pointed  out by Mr  Prasad,  the  suit could have <\/p>\n
been disposed of by that time, however, the plaintiff has filed <\/p>\n
the present application for amendment of plaint at this belated <\/p>\n
stage.   It is true that there is no embargo in Order VI Rule 17 <\/p>\n
of the Code and in Order XXVI Rule 8 of the Rules which alone <\/p>\n
govern the procedural aspects.  However, the fact remains that <\/p>\n
the plaintiff has not assigned any reason for not taking steps <\/p>\n
                                                                           1<\/span><\/p>\n
when  the  State  had approached  this Court  under  Article  131 <\/p>\n
by way of a suit even in the year 2004 and waited till 2009.\n<\/p>\n
15)     The   next   objection   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   2nd <\/p>\n
Defendant is that in the light of the language used in Rule 8 of <\/p>\n
Order   XXVI   of   the   Rules,   the   present   application   for <\/p>\n
amendment   substantially   alters   the   nature   of  lis\/claim <\/p>\n
originally   preferred   by   the   plaintiff-State   of   M.P.     We   have <\/p>\n
already adverted to the reliefs prayed for in the suit.  The main <\/p>\n
relief relates to scope and manner of exercise of power by the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   under   Sections   58(3)   and   58(4)   of   the <\/p>\n
MPR   Act      qua     dissolution   of   the   erstwhile   MPEB   and <\/p>\n
apportionment of its assets, rights  and liabilities  between the <\/p>\n
successor   Electricity   Boards   of   the   reorganized   States.     The <\/p>\n
claim was that the purported exercise of power by the Central <\/p>\n
Government was arbitrary, unjust and unfair and had resulted <\/p>\n
in serious anomalies in apportionment of assets and liabilities <\/p>\n
between the two Boards by the impugned Notification\/Orders <\/p>\n
dated 02.11.2004 and 04.11.2004.   What was challenged was <\/p>\n
the   manner   of   exercise   of   power   by   the   Central   Government <\/p>\n
and not the statutory provisions in the form of Sections 58(3) <\/p>\n
                                                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
and   58(4)   of   the   MPR   Act   which   vested   such   powers   in   the <\/p>\n
Central   Government.     As   rightly   pointed   out   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
senior counsel for the defendants throughout the pendency of <\/p>\n
the   suit   since   01.12.2004,   no   issue   whatsoever   was   ever <\/p>\n
raised  by the plaintiff as to the validity or constitutionality of <\/p>\n
these statutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n
16)  It is brought to our notice that MPEB being the successor <\/p>\n
Electricity Board for the reorganized State of M.P., a necessary <\/p>\n
party to the present lis, had filed a separate Writ Petition being <\/p>\n
No.   675   of   2004   before   this   Court   under   Article   32   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   of   India   where   identical   pleadings   and   prayers <\/p>\n
were made.  There is no serious dispute as to the relief prayed <\/p>\n
in   the   said   writ   petition.     Though  the   MPEB   approached   this <\/p>\n
Court   by   way   of   a   writ   petition   under   Article   32,   admittedly, <\/p>\n
the     vires     of   those   sections   were   never   challenged.\n<\/p>\n
Subsequently,   the   said   writ   petition   being   No.   675   of   2004 <\/p>\n
along  with three other  writ  petitions  were disposed  of by this <\/p>\n
Court vide judgment dated 13.09.2006.  It is not clear and not <\/p>\n
explained   to   this   Court   why   such   recourse   was   not   adopted <\/p>\n
when the MPEB itself had approached this Court by way of a <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
writ   petition   to   challenge   the  vires  of   those   provisions   and, <\/p>\n
ultimately, this Court dismissed the said writ petition filed by <\/p>\n
the Board.   It  is to  be noted  that this  Court  did  not find any <\/p>\n
infirmity whatsoever in the manner of exercise of power by the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   under   Sections   58(3)   and   58(4)   of   the <\/p>\n
MPR   Act   while   upholding   the   notifications   dated   02.11.2004 <\/p>\n
and 04.11.2004 as being constitutional and not suffering from <\/p>\n
any   vice   of   arbitrariness   as   claimed   by   the   plaintiff-State   of <\/p>\n
M.P.   and   MPEB.     It   was   also   pointed   out   and   also   not   in <\/p>\n
dispute that in the said writ petition, the present plaintiff was <\/p>\n
also   a   party,   even   then   the   plea   of   constitutionality   was   not <\/p>\n
raised.\n<\/p>\n
17)   By way of present amendment, the plaintiff-State of M.P.\n<\/p>\n
is   seeking   to   challenge   the   validity   of   the   Central   law   in   a <\/p>\n
proceeding   (suit)   initiated   under   Article   131   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution.     Normally,   for   questions   relating   to   validity   of <\/p>\n
Central   or   other   laws,   the   appropriate   forum   is   the <\/p>\n
extraordinary   writ   jurisdiction   under   Articles   32   and   226   of <\/p>\n
the Constitution of India in a writ petition and not an original <\/p>\n
suit  filed under   Article   131   which  vests   exclusive  jurisdiction <\/p>\n
                                                                               1<\/span><\/p>\n
of this Court as regards the dispute enumerated therein.  It is <\/p>\n
relevant   to   point   out   that   Article   131A   of   the   Constitution <\/p>\n
inserted by (42nd  Amendment) Act 1976, provides for exclusive <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   to   this   Court   in   regard   to   questions   as   to <\/p>\n
constitutionality   of   Central   laws.     The   said   Article   131A <\/p>\n
viewed as substantially curtailing the power of judicial review <\/p>\n
of the writ courts, that is, High Courts under Article 226 and <\/p>\n
this Court under Article 32 was omitted vide Constitution (43rd <\/p>\n
Amendment) Act, 1977.   It follows that when the Central laws <\/p>\n
can   be   challenged   in   the   State   High   Courts   as   well   and   also <\/p>\n
before this Court under Article 32, normally, no recourse can <\/p>\n
be   permitted   to   challenge   the   validity   of   a   Central   law   under <\/p>\n
the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under <\/p>\n
Article 131.\n<\/p>\n
18)   As regards the absence of guidelines in the provisions of <\/p>\n
Sections   58(3)   and   58(4)   of   MPR   Act,   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
defendants   it  was   pointed   out   that   the   manner   of  exercise   of <\/p>\n
power   by   the   Central   Government   has   been  laid  down   in   the <\/p>\n
Sections   itself.     It   is   further   pointed   out   that   various <\/p>\n
correspondences   exchanged   between   the   plaintiff   and   the <\/p>\n
                                                                              1<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants placed on record would show that the plaintiff has <\/p>\n
never   acted   under   the   very   same   provisions,   instead   the <\/p>\n
plaintiff-State  has constituted its  own Electricity  Board.   It is <\/p>\n
also   pointed   out   that  the   Ist  Defendant-Union   of  India,   in   its <\/p>\n
written statement highlighted that the Central Government did <\/p>\n
resolve the dispute by passing the impugned Notifications after <\/p>\n
considering the claims of the affected parties.\n<\/p>\n
19)     Finally,   the   original   plaint   proceeds   that   the   exercise   of <\/p>\n
power   by   the   Central   Government   by   passing   the   impugned <\/p>\n
Notifications   dated   02.11.2004   and   04.11.2004   under <\/p>\n
Sections 58(3) and 58(4) of the MPR Act was arbitrary, unjust <\/p>\n
and   unfair   and   had   resulted   in   serious   anomalies   in   the <\/p>\n
apportionment   of   assets   and   liabilities.     In   our   view,   after <\/p>\n
praying for such relief, if the amendment as sought for by the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   allowed   and   the   plaintiff   is   permitted   to   challenge <\/p>\n
the  vires  of the said provisions, then the very basis on which <\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   is   claiming   its   right   to   apportionment   of   assets, <\/p>\n
rights and liabilities of the undivided Board will cease to be in <\/p>\n
existence   and   the   entire   suit   of   the   plaintiff   will   be   rendered <\/p>\n
infructuous.   Moreover, it is settled principle of law that leave <\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
to amend will be refused if it introduces a totally different, new <\/p>\n
and inconsistent case or challenges the fundamental character <\/p>\n
of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
20)   In spite of the above conclusion, we feel that the plaintiff <\/p>\n
may   be   given   an   opportunity   to   put   forth   its   stand   that   the <\/p>\n
Central   Government   issued   impugned   Notifications\/Orders <\/p>\n
without   proper   guidelines   and   affording   opportunity   to   the <\/p>\n
parties   concerned.     It   is   made   clear   that   we   have   not   either <\/p>\n
accepted or concluded the said claim of the plaintiff but in the <\/p>\n
interest   of   justice,   plaintiff-State   of   M.P.   is   permitted   to   raise <\/p>\n
such   objections   at   the   time   of   trial   by   placing   acceptable <\/p>\n
materials.\n<\/p>\n
21)  With the above observation, I.A. No. 4 of 2009 is disposed <\/p>\n
of with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                     ………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                      (P. SATHASIVAM) <\/p>\n
                                     ………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                     (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
AUGUST 17, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.A. NO. 4 OF 2009 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 6 OF 2004 State of Madhya Pradesh …. Applicant(s)\/ Plaintiff Versus Union of India […]<\/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-95398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - 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\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-29T08:39:52+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-29T08:39:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3853,\"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\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\",\"name\":\"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-29T08:39:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - 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\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-29T08:39:52+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-29T08:39:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011"},"wordCount":3853,"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\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011","name":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-29T08:39:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-m-p-vs-union-of-india-anr-on-17-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of M.P vs Union Of India & Anr on 17 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/95398","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=95398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}