{"id":98966,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2"},"modified":"2014-08-21T02:58:51","modified_gmt":"2014-08-20T21:28:51","slug":"sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 25\"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010\nBEFORE _\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGE.R.I'j:I.I,   I\nWRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 201D (LBI\u00a5BTAP)\u00bb   '-\nBETWEEN: I  I\n\nSRI JAMES\n\nS\/O LATE SR1 D CHOWRAPPA\n\nAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS .   \n\nRESIDING AT 42\/: ASHOKA ROAD  _ 2\n\nST. THOMAS TOWN  '     \n\nBANGALORE ~ 560 084       PETITIONER\n\n(BY SR1 \"q:;;r.~Vk>\"|-)\"VP\\lA.V\u00a7\".A'N::N  A'Dv:OC'AT.E3\nAND: I. I   I I\n\n1. THE DIRECTOR'~ ', _  _\nCOUNTRY AND TO' ..NY-_.PLAN'N_1NG DEPARTMENT\nBANGALORE P.LANNING~.ARE.AC'-- \nB B M P, BANGALORE  '  '\n\n2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR\n\" - .ITOw_e$I\"\u00abPLAINr\u00bb.!1NG --\"1\u00ab  _____ _. \u00ab\n Y'ELAH.AN'I<E'c:.UTIvE ENGINEER\n\nDASA44RAHAL.L_I':'SUB DIVISION\nA B B MP, BANGALORE -- 24  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
‘ A  (BTSRI I G GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)<\/p>\n
I 2. THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227<\/p>\n
It I.5F,__I’TI’HEi CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE<\/p>\n
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN<\/p>\n
IIf’-FORYOCONSTRUCTING RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE<\/p>\n
WITH SUB~DI\\fISION REGULATIONS NO.6.1(A) FRAMED UNDER
\nREVISED MASTER PLAN 2015, CLAUSE 7.4 OF PART III OF BUILDING
\nBYE LAWS OF BMP 2003 & RULE 80 OF ELECTRICITY RULES 1956 AND
\nETC.\n<\/p>\n
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG. IN ‘B’<\/p>\n
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n<\/p>\n
QBDER<\/p>\n
The petitioner’s grievance is that the’:.res’_poIiiden_ts~ h’ave:’iI.ot’I1.i_’<\/p>\n
approved of the building plan submitte_d~.,by the petitio,h’\u00e9\u00a7’_\u00bb,,…,. <\/p>\n
2. Sri R.Prasanna, the.{earnedT’Tco’u–:n,segli’~for the”‘p’etitioner
\nsubmits that none of the grounds’E-entlirnlelrated~IAi.n,TSection 303 of<\/p>\n
the Karnataka Munici’p’a’i*\u00ab,1.g,Corporation  refusing the<\/p>\n
approval or p:.ermissio’n tVo:Z?.,c0nsi:ruct_ the building are present in
\nthis case. He brings to ‘m?y.n’oti’ce,” the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
the said Section, which reads.”-asvfollows:<\/p>\n
“3o3._,i ;c;roun..+is.,’\u00a7V\ufb01~–,__whIch approval or site for, or
\n|.’)8I”I’I’|iS_SiQI.1 tc:_i:orIs1:Ifu_’;:t building, may be refused.- (1)<\/p>\n
l_”gThe only g_rourids.__O~n” which approval of a site for the<\/p>\n
7_’co’nstrIIction or reco-nstruction of a building or permission to
\n{construct or reconstruct a buiiding may be refused, are the
\n_ _f’Ol_lOwing, nameiyg,~<\/p>\n
, ff:-T) I “that the work or the use of the site for the work or<\/p>\n
” _ any-\u00bboft’the particulars comprised in the site pian, ground<\/p>\n
 ‘  pien, eievations, sections, or specification wouid
\n  “contravene some specified provision of any {aw or some<\/p>\n
\ufb01S!-L<\/p>\n
specified order, ruie, declaration or bye–iaw made under
\nany iaw;\n<\/p>\n
(b) that the appiication for such permission does
\ncontain the pariricuiars or is not prepared in the man_neir=,_
\nrequired under ruies or bye-Eaws; W ” ‘<\/p>\n
(c) that any of the documents referred to in’:$’ecti’o.nVt’
\n299 have not been signed as required under |’.5.JiVeS”QrI”~.t)ye” <\/p>\n
(d) that any information or docurri”e.rats_Ar\u00e9jguiredfbyv
\nCommissioner under the ruiesor byesiaws has=or’.have ‘;
\nnot been duly furnished; ” ” V ~   ”\n<\/p>\n
(e) that streets or roads have=..not_. bee’n’*m_ade7 as
\nrequired by Section 280;’  ‘   i V<\/p>\n
(F) that the Proposed.”  be an
\nencroachment upon Goyemmentvor\ufb01orporation land;<\/p>\n
(g) that the-j_sii_:e of su_c’nfbui’idii’ng}does not abut on a
\nstreet or._a_ pro_1_e’ct’ed_ st.”-e_et__ancI ‘there; is no access to such
\nbuiidirzg fronmany such street by a passage or pathway
\nappertaining to”such”isite._and’not Eess than five metres<\/p>\n
wide at’any.part.V   ‘<\/p>\n
(2) Whenever th’e..C’omm._issi–0nVer’ or the Standing Committee
\nrefuses to approve a sitefor a” building or to grant permission to
\nconstructor reconstruct’ a…b_.uiiding the reasons for such refusal
\nshall’bes’pecificalEy~stated in the order.<\/p>\n
‘V3’.-“___ties:’a.lvsoVAV.t’Vi3VrEngs to my notice Rule 80 of the Indian<\/p>\n
V”stElectricity R:.;’Ees._of’i956, the provisions of which are extracted<\/p>\n
‘4 H'”hi\u00e9re’ir1bel0w:’i-* it<\/p>\n
4”;~..’_’s\u00a3:. c;e’a’i–ance from buildings of high and extra-high vottage
\n‘ Iines___—‘ (1) Where a high or extra~high voitage overhead line passes<\/p>\n
HS}-l<\/p>\n
above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on
\nthe basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part
\nof the building immediately under such line, of not less than – <\/p>\n
(a) for high voltage lines up to and including 33,000 volts<\/p>\n
3.7 m.etr\u00a7’:’s_”i-\n<\/p>\n
(b) for extra\u00bbhigh voltage lines …………. .. 3.7 metres plus 0.30”’—-._ <\/p>\n
metre for every.addji’ti.onaMl ”\n<\/p>\n
33,’00Q’vol’ts or
\n\u00ab 0 I’-lai”t_:the’reof. ‘  s<\/p>\n
(2) The horizontal clearance between’the–.nearest _conducto’r.a0n’d.<\/p>\n
any part of such building shall, on the basis._oF maxirnumv def!eci:icn_’,<\/p>\n
due to wind pressure, be not less than<\/p>\n
(a) for high voltage iines up tyo..ain’d_includin’g” 1  volts<\/p>\n
 ._1V.V2-._metres
\n(lo) for high voltage lines’ and up to and
\nincluding 33,000 volts.,3:i….*;,.:..g._…2;0 ‘metres\n<\/p>\n
(c) for extra~h’;ig’lh_uvoltage iines\u00e9l.;….’.’;.’.2;0″‘metres plus 0.3
\n        V metre for even!<\/p>\n
 additional 33,000 volts<\/p>\n
or part thereof. ”\n<\/p>\n
4. l\\iextlyt.._he_i3Vrin.gs notice Bye–law No.7.4 of the
\ni;%.angaio.r-sit.iVl’ahanag”a.ra_ Palike Building Bye~Laws, 2003, the<\/p>\n
provislo-ngs of viphigohare extracted hereinbeiowz<\/p>\n
*z.4~9ista’a;<:e* of building from electrical |ines.– No
\nbu~il_ding' shall be erected below an electrical line, as well<\/p>\n
. as wigthin the horizontal distance from the electrical line
\n  indicated in the Table 3. The vertical distance below the
\n "ievel of the electrical line and the topmost surface of the
\n" . builciing corresponding to the minimum horizontal
\n"V-distance, shall be as indicated in Table 3. The minimum<\/p>\n
R81-f.\n<\/p>\n
vertical clearance is not applicable if the horizontal
\ndistance exceeds the minimum prescribed.<\/p>\n
TABLE 3
\n(Bye-law 7.4)   4. _
\nDistance of buildings from electrical lines  ~  V ”<\/p>\n
Eiectrical iines Vertical Hor’i~:?Von?ifa’l. in
\nclearance in fcle’ara’_n<:e"~.\n<\/p>\n
Metres  A -in Metres <\/p>\n
(a) Low and medium voltage lines  ._ .. , . V
\nsen\/ice lines upto 11 KV V 2.5:  1–..l2″ . 2 V\n<\/p>\n
(b) High voitage lines upto and   ”\n<\/p>\n
including 11 KV    ‘\n<\/p>\n
(c) High voltage line above 11  _  \u00e9_
\nand upto and including 33 K\\!.  Q31?\n<\/p>\n
5. with reference to the” afovre~fextr=a.ct\u00e9d..if-‘provisions, Sri<\/p>\n
Prasanna submits t_fha’tf;tthe.proposed” t:):Vu:i’l’din.gi\u00e9 is not within the<\/p>\n
forbidden distarice:slot’::\u00a7t’i*ie:”*’.V,h:i-oheterision wire. His further
\ngrievance  B.B.M.P. authorities have
\nalready sapnctiolnled  plan in respect of the simiiariy
\nplaced a.._i;pliQ_ants\/ownierst-\u00ab-\u00ab\u00abWhen the road formation below the<\/p>\n
 permitted by the respondent authorities in<\/p>\n
‘Vt-…i.t.he caseodf oth.ers,..sthe deniai of the permission to the petitioner<\/p>\n
.4V_l\u00abi’_–\u00abam’ounts to~~disg_r:rimination.<\/p>\n
 I.G.Gachchinamath, the learned counsei for the<\/p>\n
wlrespo-ridents would support the impugned order. He submits<\/p>\n
HER’.\n<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
that as the high–tension wire passes through the land abutting
\nthe proposed buiiding, the respondent authorities are justified in<\/p>\n
turning down the petitioner’s request for the approva.E\u00bb’~.oi?_yi_the<\/p>\n
building plan. He submits that public safety <\/p>\n
road should be formed below the high~te_n.sio_n lin_e’.'”””=iW . <\/p>\n
7. My perusal of the impugned ordeir}”dated_”G.3V.Jr2rZ–Qb*3:.<\/p>\n
(Annexure–i-I) reveals that it is a no_ri-*r.easoAned endors\u00abe_’rn~e.nt. It = i’<\/p>\n
does not speak of the distance betwe.en”*’t.he..high\u00a5t’ension\u00a7line and
\nthe construction site. It does’   -of permission to<\/p>\n
construction is barregdby w’r’i’ich.:prov.i$.i_onV’.of?iaw. It does not<\/p>\n
make refereincle   p:roy;i’sion”_”V’o’fV’V law. It is therefore
\nabsoluteiy unsupportablejandunsustainabie. The same is liable
\nto quashed and a”cco_VrdVingiy”i_t Vislquashed.<\/p>\n
  T’he Eresp’ic.ijicients'”a’rAe directed to consider the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
applicaxtiion&i’fo:rj.thejapproval of the building plan by taking into<\/p>\n
‘ =__ “a ccou nt __<\/p>\n
 the-tiistance between the piace where the road is<\/p>\n
 ”  proposed to be formed and the high-tension wire,<\/p>\n
Vi   Mb) the provisions of law,<\/p>\n
3814.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
c) what has been done in similar cases,<\/p>\n
(:1) requirements of pubiic safety.\n<\/p>\n
9. The respondents shail consider the case’.Vof’:”th”eV.<\/p>\n
petitioner for the approvai of the building pian me_a”i’ii.ng’f\u00a71’i.iy   <\/p>\n
pass the necessary orders within one mo’VnAtVh”fi’*om._the.Ad_ate.of:the1<\/p>\n
issuance of the certified copy of today’s order,’\n<\/p>\n
10. This petition is according’I’y,:a!Iowed.._V_ ‘No’-iord\u00e9ewriias to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
we <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25″‘ DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE _ THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGE.R.I’j:I.I, I WRIT PETITION NO. 348 OF 201D (LBI\u00a5BTAP)\u00bb ‘- BETWEEN: I I SRI JAMES S\/O […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-20T21:28:51+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-20T21:28:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1315,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-20T21:28:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - 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\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-20T21:28:51+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-20T21:28:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2"},"wordCount":1315,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2","name":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-20T21:28:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-james-vs-the-director-on-25-november-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri James vs The Director on 25 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/98966","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=98966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}