{"id":95841,"date":"1973-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973"},"modified":"2016-12-13T00:11:10","modified_gmt":"2016-12-12T18:41:10","slug":"state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","title":{"rendered":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1307, \t\t 1973 SCR (3) 755<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNARAYANA VELUR BEEDI MANUFACTURING FACTORY & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 1307\t\t  1973 SCR  (3) 755\n 1973 SCC  (4) 178\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1976 SC 277\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nMinimum\t Wages\tAct, 1948,  s.\t9-'Independent\tpersons'--If\ninclude Government officials.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant-Government passed an order  revising  minimum\nwages\tin  the\t Bidi  industry.   It  was  based   on\t the\nrecommendation\tof a Committee of six members consisting  of\npersons\t representing employers and employees and the  Chief\ninspector and Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories.   Section\n9  of  the  Minimum  Wages  Act,  1948,\t requires  that\t the\nCommittee   shall   consist   of   an\tequal\tnumber\t  of\nrepresentatives\t of  the employer and the employees  and  of\nindependent  persons  not exceeding one third of  its  total\nnumber.\t   On  the  question  whether  the  two\t  Government\nofficials could be regarded as independent persons,\nHELD  :\t The mere fact that they happened to  be  Government\nofficials or Government servants will not divest them of the\ncharacter of independent persons. [761C]\nThe  language of s. 9 does not contain any  indication\tthat\npersons\t in  the  employment  of  the  Government  would  be\nexcluded from the category of 'independent persons'.   These\nwords have essentially been employed in contradistinction to\nrepresentatives of employers and employees.  In other words,\napart  from the representatives of employers  and  employees\nthere  should be persons who should be independent of  them.\n[76OG-H]\nFurther, the presence of high government officials, who\t may\nhave   actual  working\tknowledge  about  the  problems\t  of\nemployers  and employees can afford a good deal of  guidance\nand  assistance\t in formulating the advice which  is  to  be\ntendered.   It\tmay be that in\tcertain\t circumstances\tsuch\npersons\t may cease to have an independent character  if\t the\nquestion  of fixation of minimum wages in an  employment  in\nwhich  the  appropriate Government is  directly\t interested,\narises.\t  It would therefore depend upon the facts  of\teach\nparticular case whether the persons who have been  appointed\ncould be regarded' as independent or not.  It is not correct\nto  say that a Government official will have a bias or\tthat\nhe  may favour the policy which the  appropriate  Government\nmay  be inclined to adopt. be,cause, when he is a member  of\nan  Advisory Committee he is expected to give  an  impartial\nand  independent  advice and not merely carry out  what\t the\nGovernment may be inclined to do.  Government officials are\nresponsible persons and are capable of taking a detached and\nimpartial view.\n\t\t\t  [76OH: 761A-E]\nJaswant\t Rai  Berl & Others v. State of\t Punjab\t &  another,\nA.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425, D. M. S. Rao & Others v. The Stare of\nKerala\t&  Another, A.I.R. 1963 Kerala\t115,  Bengal  Motion\nPictures  Employees  Union, Calcutta  v.  Kohinoor  Pictures\nPrivate\t Ltd.  &  Ors.\tA.I.R.<\/a>\t1964  Cal.  619,  Ramkrishna\nRaninath  Nagpur  & Another v. Tile State of  Maharashtra  &\nAnother,  A.I.R.  1964 Bom, 51,\t Chandrabhave  Boarding\t and\nLodging\t & Others v. State of Mysore, A.I.R.<\/a> 1968  Mys.\t 156\nand  P.\t Gangadharan  Pillai v. State of  Kerala  &  Others,\nA.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218, approved.\n756\nNorotamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gourikar, Inspector, Minimum\nWages, A.I.R. 1961 M.B. 182 and Kohinoor Pictures  (Private)\nLtd.   'V.  State of West Bengal & Others, [1961]  2  L.L.J,\n741, over ruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  1659  to
\n1662 of 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by  certificate from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 31,  1964  of\tthe Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  at
\nHyderabad  in Writ Petition Nos. 337\/63, 746\/62, 735\/62\t and
\n807\/62, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the appellant.
\nM. C. Chagla, H. K. Puri and Niranjana Shah, for the res-
\npondents (in C. A. No. 1659) respondents 1 to 10, 12 to\t 14,
\n16  and\t 19 to 29 (in C.A. No. 1660), Respondent No.  1\t (in
\nC.A.  No.  1661) and Respondents Nos. 1 to 5  (in  C.A.\t No.
\n1662).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGROVER,\t J.-The\t sole question which has to  be\t decided  in
\nthese  appeals by certificate from a judgment of the  Andhra
\nPradesh High Court is the meaning of the word  “independent”
\nin  S. 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, hereinafter  called
\nthe “Act”.\n<\/p>\n
The Act was enacted to provide for fixing the minimum  rates
\nof  wages  in  certain employments.   Section  2  gives\t the
\ndefinition of various expressions.  Clauses (e) (h) and\t (i)
\ngive  the  meaning  of the  words  “employer”,\t“wages”\t and
\n“employee”  respectively.  Section 3 provides for fixing  of
\nthe minimum rates of wages by the appropriate government and
\ntheir  review  at certain intervals.  Section  5  gives\t the
\nprocedure for fixing and revising minimum wages.  Section  5
\nreads
\n\t      S. 5 (1) “In fixing minimum rates of wages  in
\n\t      respect  of any scheduled employment  for\t the
\n\t      first  time  under  this Act  or\tin  revising
\n\t      minimum\trates\tof  wages  so\tfixed,\t the
\n\t      appropriate government shall either-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)appoint  as  many  committees\tand  sub-\n<\/p>\n
\t      committees  as it considers necessary to\thold
\n\t      enquiries\t and  advise it in respect  of\tsuch
\n\t      fixation or revision, as the case may be, or\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)  by notification in the Official  Gazette,
\n\t      publish  its proposals for the information  of
\n\t      persons  likely  to be  affected\tthereby\t and
\n\t      specify  a date not less than two months\tfrom
\n\t      the  date\t of the notification, on  which\t the
\n\t      proposals will be taken into considers
\n\t      (2)After\tconsidering  the  advice  of  the
\n\t      committee or committees appointed under clause\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a) of sub-section
\n757<\/span>
\n\t      (1)or as the case may be, all  representations
\n\t      received\tby it before the date  specified  in
\n\t      the notification under clause (b) of that sub-
\n\t      section, the appropriate government shall,  by
\n\t      notification in the Official Gazette, fix, or,
\n\t      as  the case may be, revise the minimum  rates
\n\t      of   wages  in  respect  of   each   scheduled
\n\t      employment,   and\t unless\t such\tnotification
\n\t      otherwise\t provides, it shall come into  force
\n\t      on the expiry of three months from the date of
\n\t      its issue :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided……………………….”
\nSection\t 9 relates to composition of committees etc. and  is
\nin these terms
\n\t      S.9.”Each\t of the\t committees,  sub-committees
\n\t      and  the\tAdvisory  Board\t shall\tconsist\t  of
\n\t      persons  to  be nominated by  the\t appropriate
\n\t      Government    representing    employers\t and
\n\t      employees\t in the scheduled  employments,\t who
\n\t      shall  be\t equal in  number,  and\t independent
\n\t      persons not exceeding, one-third of its  total
\n\t      number  of  members; one of  such\t independent
\n\t      persons shall be appointed the Chairman by the
\n\t      appropriate Government.”\n<\/p>\n
The  Government\t Order which was challenged related  to\t the
\nrevision  of  minimum wages in the Bidi\t industry.   It\t was
\nbased on the recommendation of a committee consisting of six
\nmembers,  two  of whom were Chief  Inspector  of  Factories,
\nHyderabad,   and’  Deputy  Chief  Inspector  of\t  Factories,
\nHyderabad;  the\t former\t being\tthe  Chairman.\t These\t two
\nofficers  were\tto  be\ton the\tcommittees  from  among\t the
\ncategory of independent persons mentioned in s. 9. The whole
\ncontroversy  has  centered  on\tthe  question  whether\t the
\naforesaid two officers could be regarded as independent per-
\nsons.\tThere are a number of decisions of the High  Courts.
\nIn  majority of them, namely, Jaswant Rai Beri &  Others  v.
\nState  of Punjab & Another;(1) D. M. S. Rao & Others v.\t The
\nState  of  Kerala  & Another,  (2)  Bengal  Motion  Pictures
\nEmployees Union, Calcutta v. Kohinoor Pictures Private\tLtd.
\n&  Others,<\/a>  (3) Ramkrishna Ramnath Nagpur & Another  v.\t The
\nState of Maharashtra & Another; (4 ) Chandrabhava Boarding &
\nLodging and Others v. State of Mysore.<\/a>(5) and P. Gangadharan
\nPillai v. State of Kerala & Others, (6)\t has been held\tthat
\nthe  mere  fact\t that a person happens to  be  ,  government
\nservant or that he is an officer, he does not cease to be an
\nindependent person within the meaning of S. 9. The only\t two
\ndecisions  in  which  a contrary view  has  been  taken\t are
\nNarottamdas Harjivandas v. P. V. Gowarikar, Inspector,
\n(1)   A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 425.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 156.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1963 Kerala 115.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A.T.R. 1964 Bom. 51.\n<\/p>\n
(6)   A.I.R. 1968 Kerala 218.\n<\/p>\n
16–L761Sup.C.I.\/73
\n758<\/span>
\nMinimum\t Wages(1)  and Kohinoor Pictures (Private)  Ltd.  v.
\nState  of West Bengal & Others;(2) the latter is a  judgment
\nof the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court.\t  It
\nmay  be\t mentioned  that in the judgment  under\t appeal\t the
\nAndhra\tPradesh High Court has also taken the same  view  as
\nthe Madhya Pradesh court.\n<\/p>\n
The  reasoning\tof Bishan Narain J.. in the Punjab  case  is
\nquite  simple.\t The learned Judge considered  that  in\t the
\ncontext of S. 9 an independent person means a person who  is
\nneither\t an employer nor an employee in the  employment\t for
\nwhich  minimum\twages  are  to be  fixed,  The\tpresence  of
\nindependent persons is necessary to safeguard the  interests
\nof those whose requirements are met by the trade  concerned.
\nIn a welfare State, according to him, it is the business  of
\nthe   Government  to  create  conditions   wherein   private
\nemployers can carry on their trade profitably as long as the
\nworkmen\t are  not  exploited.\tIn  such  circumstances\t the
\nappointment of a Labour Commissioner, who is conversant with
\nthe  employment\t conditions, cannot be objected\t to  on\t the
\nground that he was not an independent person.  In the  first
\nKerala case C. A Vaidialingam J.. as he then was, gave\tsome
\nadditional reasons for supporting the view of Bishan  Narain
\nJ.  He\treferred to s. 2(i) of the Industrial  Disputes\t Act
\n1947  for illustrating that a person shall be deemed to\t be
\nindependent  for the purpose of his appointment as  Chairman
\nor  other  members of a Board, Court or Tribunal if  he\t was
\nunconnected  with  the industrial dispute referred  to\tsuch
\nBoard,\tCourt  or Tribunal or with  any\t industry  directly.
\neffected  by such dispute.  This is what the  learned  Judge
\nobserved with reference to the provisions of S. 9:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “When-it speaks of persons to be nominated  by
\n\t      the  Government to the committee\trepresenting
\n\t      employers\t and  employees\t in  the   scheduled
\n\t      employments   and\t also.\tof   nominating\t  an
\n\t      “independent  person”, in my view, the  object
\n\t      of  the  enactment is  that  the\t“independent
\n\t      person”  should be who has nothing to do\twith
\n\t      the  employers or employees in  the  scheduled
\n\t      employment  in  question.\t It may\t that  under
\n\t      particular circumstances, when an industry, in
\n\t      which the State Government as an employer\t may
\n\t      also  be vitally interested and in which\tcase
\n\t      it can be considered to be an employer, it may
\n\t      not  be proper to nominate an official to\t the
\n\t      committee\t treating  him\tas  an\t independent
\n\t      member”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A  division bench of the Calcutta High Court  consisting  of
\nBose  C. J. and G. K. Mitter J., as he then was,  in  Bengal
\nMotion Pictures Employees Union v. Kohinoor Pictures P. Ltd.
\n(3) referred
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 182.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1964 Cal. 519.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  1961 2 L.L.J. 741.\n<\/p>\n
759<\/span><\/p>\n
to  the legislative policy underlying the enactment  of\t the
\nAct.  What is aimed at is the; statutory fixation of minimum
\nwages  with a view to obviating the chances of\texploitation
\nof  labour.   Such being the main object it was\t natural  to
\nexpect\tthat  the Government would seek\t the  assistance  of
\npersons\t who  were well conversant with\t the  conditions  of
\nlabour industrial competition, profits from the industry and
\nvarious other relevant factors which are to be considered in
\nfixing\tthe minimum wages.  It could hardly be doubted\tthat
\npersons\t like the Labour Commissioner or the  Deputy  Labour
\nCommissioner  are most suitable persons to be consulted\t for
\nthe  purpose.  The other reason given in the  Calcutta\tcase
\nwas  similar to the one which prevailed with  Bishan  Narain
\nJ.,  in\t the Punjab case.  In the Bombay case  the  Division
\nBench  referred to certain rules framed under s. 30  of\t the
\nAct  by\t the  Government of Bombay.   According\t to  Rule  4
\nprovision  was\tmade for terms of office of members  of\t the
\nBoard and a distinction was made in subrules 2 and 3 between
\nthe  non-official  member  and the official  member  of\t the
\nBoard.\t From the scheme of the rules it was  inferred\tthat
\neven  Government officials were contemplated to fall  within
\nthe category of “independent persons”.\tIt is unnecessary to
\nrefer to the other decisions which favour the majority view.
\nIn the Madhya Pradesh case P. V. Dixit, C.J., delivering the
\njudgment of the Bench said that the expression\t“independent
\npersons” did riot mean persons who were independent only  of
\nemployers and employees in the scheduled employment and\t in-
\ncluded\tofficials.   The ordinary connotation  of  the\tword
\n“independent person”, it was pointed out, is of a person who
\nis not dependent on any body, authority or Organisation\t and
\nwho  is able to form his own opinion without any control  or
\nguidance  of  any outside agency.  It appears that  in\tthis
\ncase the learned Judges were influenced by the consideration
\nthat  the State is actively interested in the  wage  earners
\nand  in\t the  matter of fixation  of  minimum  wages.\tThat
\nprecluded Government officials from falling within the class
\nof  independent\t persons provided for by S. 9.\tIn  Kohinoor
\nPictures  case(1) a learned single judge while\tappreciating
\nthat  the advisory committees constituted under 5 read\twith
\ns.  9 of the Act have a purely advisory function,  took\t the
\nview  that the appropriate Government in fixing the  minimum
\nrates  of wages was not at all a disinterested\tperson.\t  He
\nalso   took-into  consideration\t the  interest\t which\t the
\nGovernment may have in fixing the minimum wages.   According
\nto  him\t the  fixation\tof minimum  wages  is  an  operation
\ncompelling the employer to make a payment whether he  wishes
\nit  or not and in most cases contrary to his wishes.   Three
\nparties\t are involved in such compulsory  fixation,  namely,
\nthe Government, the employer and the employed.\tIf
\n(1) [1961] 2.L.L.J. 741.\n<\/p>\n
760<\/span><\/p>\n
the  advisory committee is really to consist of\t independent
\npersons\t  categories. they should be independent of all\t the
\nthree
\nMr.  Chagla for the respondents has relied a great  deal  on
\nthe dictionary meanings of the word ”independent” as  given
\nin Shorter oxford English Dictionary.  One of the  principal
\nmeaning\t given\tis  “not depending  upon  the  authority  of
\nanother;  not in position of subordination; not\t subject  to
\nexternal  control  or  rule”.  According  to  Mr.  Chagla  a
\nGovernment  official  cannot  be  regarded  as\t independent
\nbecause he is to depend upon the authority of the government
\nand  is\t in  position of subordination\tand  is\t subject  to
\nexternal  control.  It has been strenuously urged  that\t the
\nwhole  object of having an advisory committee is to  get  an
\nimpartial  opinion  or\tadvice in the matter  of  fixing  of
\nminimum\t  wages.    The\t  committee  has   to\tconsist\t  of
\nrepresentatives\t of  employers\tand  the  employees  in\t the
\nscheduled  employment who have to be equal in  number.\t The
\npresence  of independent persons not exceeding one third  of
\nthe  total number of members is necessary to ensure  that  a
\nproper\tbalance\t is  maintained\t between  the  view  of\t the
\nrepresentatives\t  of   the  employers  and   the   employees
\nrespectively.  If a government official and, in\t particular,
\none  associated\t either\t with labour  or  factories  in\t his
\nofficial  capacity  is\tbrought into the  committee  he\t is.
\nlikely\tto be biased in his views for various  reasons.\t  He
\nmay-know the policy of the government or he may himself have
\nparticipated in the formulation of that policy.\t He may have
\ncertain\t predilection because of special knowledge  obtained
\nby  him\t while serving in a department which  is  connected.
\nwith labour or industry.  All these matters would divest him
\nof the character of an independent person.
\nIn our judgment the view which has prevailed with the  majo-
\nrity of the High Courts must be sustained.  The committee or
\nthe  advisory  board  can only tender advise  which  is\t not
\nbinding on the government while fixing the minimum wages  or
\nrevising  the  same  as\t the case may  be.   Of\t course\t the
\ngovernment   is\t expected,  particularly  in   the   present
\ndemocratic  set\t up,  to take  that  advice  seriously\tinto
\nconsideration  and act on it but it is not bound to  do\t so.
\nThe language of s. 9 does not contain any indication whatso-
\never that persons in the employment of the government  would
\nbe excluded from the category of independent persons.  These
\nwords have essentially been employed in contradistiction  to
\nrepresentatives of employers and employees.  In other words,
\napart  from the representatives of employers  and  employees
\nthere  should be persons who should be independent of  them.
\nIt does not follow that persons in theservice or employ of
\nthe government were meant to be excluded and they cannot  be
\nregarded as independent persons vis-a-vis therepresentatives
\nof  the\t employers  and\t employees.   Apart  from  this\t the
\npresence of high government officiaIs
\n761<\/span>
\nwho may have actual working knowledge about the problems  of
\nemployers  and employees can afford a good deal of  guidance
\nand  assistance\t in formulating the advice which  is  to  be
\ntendered  under S. 9 to the appropriate government.  It\t may
\nbe that in certain circumstances such persons who are in the
\nservice\t of the government may cease to have an\t independent
\ncharacter  if  the question arises of  fixation\t of  minimum
\nwages  in a scheduled employment, in which  the\t appropriate
\ngovernment  is\tdirectly interested.  It  would,  therefore,
\ndepend\tupon the facts of each particular case\twhether\t the
\npersons\t who  have been appointed from out of the  class  of
\nindependent  persons can be regarded as independent or\tnot.
\nBut  the  mere\tfact  that  they  happen  to  be  government
\nofficials  or government servants will not divest  them\t of
\nthe character of independent persons.  We are not  impressed
\nwith  the reasoning adopted that a government official\twill
\nhave  a\t bias  or that he may favour the  policy  which\t the
\nappropriate government may be inclined to adopt because when
\nhe  is\ta  member of an advisory committee or  board  he  is
\nexpected to give an impartial and independent advice and not
\nmerely carry out what the Government may be inclinded to do.
\nGovernment officials are responsible persons and it  cannot
\nbe  said that they are not capable of taking a detached\t and
\nimpartial view.\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons given above the appeals are allowed and\t the
\njudgment  of the High Court is hereby set aside.   As  other
\nmatters\t were  left undecided in the writ petitions  out  of
\nwhich  these appeals have arisen the case shall go  back  to
\nthe High Court for disposal ,in accordance with law.   Costs
\nshall abide the event.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t       Appeals allowed.\n76 2\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 1307, 1973 SCR (3) 755 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: NARAYANA VELUR BEEDI MANUFACTURING FACTORY & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1973 BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. […]<\/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-95841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - 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-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-12T18:41:10+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=\"15 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-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T18:41:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\"},\"wordCount\":2450,\"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-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\",\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-12T18:41:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - 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-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-12T18:41:10+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973","datePublished":"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T18:41:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973"},"wordCount":2450,"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-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973","name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi ... on 26 March, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-12T18:41:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-andhra-pradesh-vs-narayana-velur-beedi-on-26-march-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Narayana Velur Beedi … on 26 March, 1973"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95841","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=95841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}