{"id":99186,"date":"2004-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004"},"modified":"2017-06-18T13:23:11","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T07:53:11","slug":"sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","title":{"rendered":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: Bhan<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.K.Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  992 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nSona Chandi Oal Committee & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/12\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK BHAN & A.K.Mathur\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
BHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by grant of leave is directed against the judgment
\nand order of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Writ
\nPetition No. 314 of 1993.  The High Court in the impugned judgment
\nhas upheld the validity of provisions of Section 9-A of the Bombay
\nMoney Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as
\namended by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which, according to the
\nappellants, who are licensed money lenders, is ultra vires the
\nprovisions of the Constitution of India insofar as it seeks to levy
\ninspection fee for the renewal of money lender’s licence.  Appellants
\ntherefore seek striking down of Section 9-A of the Act and consequent
\nthereto the quashing of the demand notice for payment of inspection
\nfee.\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder Section 3 of the Act, the State Government has the power
\nto appoint Registrar General, Registrars and Assistant Registrars for
\nthe purpose of exercising powers and performing duties under the
\nAct.  Under Section 6 every money lender has to submit an application
\nin the prescribed form to the Assistant Registrar of the area, within the
\nlimits of which he carries on or intends to carry on his business,  for
\nthe grant of licence to carry on business of money lending every year
\non or before such date as may be prescribed by the State Government.
\nThe money lender is required to deposit licence fee [which has been
\nfixed at Rs. 200\/-] as per the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 6
\nof the Act.  The application so made is required to be processed under
\nSection 8 of the Act.  Section 9 prescribes the term of licence to be up to
\n31st July from the date on which the licence is granted.  The licence is
\nmade valid until the application for renewal of licence, if made to the
\nRegistrar within the prescribed time, is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 9-A, in respect of levy of inspection fee, was introduced
\nby Bombay Act No. 50 of 1959 which came into force w.e.f. 26.9.1959.
\nThe first amendment to Section 9-A was made by the Maharashtra Act
\nNo. 76 of 1975 which came into force from 26.7.1976.  Section 9-A was
\namended for the second time by Maharashtra Act No. 7 of 1992 which
\ncame into force w.e.f. 28.4.1992.  The amended provisions of Section
\n9-A, with which we are concerned in this appeal, are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“9-A.\tLevy of inspection fee :-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tAn inspection fee shall, in addition to the
\nlicence fee leviable under Section 6, be
\nlevied from a money lender applying for a
\nrenewal of a licence at the rate of one per
\ncent of the maximum capital utilised by him
\nduring the period of the licence sought to be
\nrenewed or rupees five thousand,
\nwhichever is lesser.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIn default of payment of an inspection fee
\nleviable under sub-section (1), it shall be
\nrecoverable from the defaulter in the same
\nmanner as an arrears of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation – For the purposes of this section,
\n“maximum capital” means the highest total amount
\nof the capital sum which may remain invested in
\nthe money lending business on any day during the
\nperiod of a licence.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 11 of the Bombay Money Lenders Rules, 1959 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Rules’) deals with the levy of inspection fees and the
\nsame reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“11.\tLevy of inspection fee :-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tOn receipt of an application for the renewal
\nof a licence, the Assistant Registrar to whom
\nthe application has been made, shall call
\nupon the applicant to produce his accounts
\nfor inspection.  He shall then assess the
\ninspection fee payable under Section 9-A in
\nrespect of inspection of books of accounts
\nand call upon the applicant to pay the
\ninspection fee in the manner prescribed in
\nRule 10.  The inspection fee shall be paid
\nwithin ten days of the receipt of the order in
\nthis behalf by the applicant or within such
\nfurther period not exceeding thirty days in
\nthe aggregate of the receipt of the order as
\nthe Registrar may grant in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe Registrar may suo motu or on an
\napplication made in that behalf revise
\nthe order of assessment made under
\nsub-rule (1) if he thinks fit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tInspection fee is payable at the time of renewal of licence and the
\ncharge of inspection fee is @ 1% of the maximum capital utilized by
\nthe money lender during the period of licence sought to be renewed or
\nRs. 5,000\/- whichever is less.  The term ‘maximum capital’ has been
\nexplained in explanation to Section 9-A to mean highest amount of
\ncapital sum which may remain invested in the money lending
\nbusiness on any day during the period of the licence.  Therefore,
\naccording to the appellants, amount of inspection fee differs from
\nmoney lender to money lender and depends upon the utilization of
\nthe maximum capital on any day during the period of licence.\n<\/p>\n
\tMoney lenders are required to maintain books of accounts under
\nSection 18 of the Act read with Rule 16 and 17 of the Rules.  Section 18
\ndeals with the duty of the money lender to keep accounts and
\nmaintain cash books and the ledger in such form and in the manner as
\nmay be prescribed as also to furnish copies to debtors as well as
\nAssistant Registrars.  The section also provides that money lender
\nupon repayment of loan in full shall  make entries indicating payment
\nor cancellation and discharge every mortgage, restore every pledge,
\nreturn every note and cancel or reassign every assignment given by
\nthe debtor as security for loan.  Rules 16 and 17 read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“Rule 16 ? Forms of cash book, ledger and of
\nstatement and receipt under Section 18  The cash
\nbook and ledger to be maintained by a money
\nlender under sub-section (1) of Section 18 shall be
\neither in Form Nos. 4 and 7 respectively or in Form
\nNos. 5 and 6 respectively.  The statement under
\nclause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 18 shall be in
\nForm No. 8.  The receipts under sub-sections (3)
\nand (4) of Section 18 shall be in Form Nos. 9 and 10
\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n
Rule 17 ? Capital Account  Every money lender
\nshall open a capital account in Form No. 11 for the
\npurpose of Section 9-A.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAll these accounts are required to be verified before the grant of
\nrenewal of the licence.\n<\/p>\n
The State Legislature is competent to make laws for such State or
\nany part thereof with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List
\nII of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. Under Entry 30 of
\nList II the State Legislature can make laws on the subjects of money
\nlending, money lenders and relief of agricultural indebtedness.  The
\nsame reads:-\n<\/p>\n
“30.\tMoney lending and money lenders; relief of
\nagricultural indebtedness.”\n<\/p>\n
\tEntry 66 which reads:\n<\/p>\n
“66. Fees in respect of any of the matters in this List,
\nbut not including fees taken in any court.”\n<\/p>\n
authorises the State Legislature to levy fees in respect of any of the
\nmatters enumerated  in List II excluding the fees taken in any court.
\nAppellants’ case is that under Article 265 of the Constitution there is a
\nprohibition for imposition or levy or collection of tax by the State,
\nexcept by authority of law, and that fee can be imposed only in respect
\nof the subjects specified in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution.  Under the List II, State Legislature is not competent to
\nlevy any tax in respect of subject matters of money lending or money
\nlenders.  Thus, according to them, the State Legislature is competent to
\nmake laws laying down fees only in respect of items enumerated in
\nEntry 30 of List II and not the tax.   Though the provisions of Section 9-
\nA are styled as inspection fee, it is in fact the collection of tax by the
\nState without any authority of law.   According to the appellants, there
\nis a difference between tax and fee and fees are levied essentially for
\nthe services rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo
\nbetween the person who pays the fee and the public authority which
\nimposes it.  Quid pro quo is an essential element in a fee and since there
\nis no quid pro quo, the levy is in the nature of tax which the State
\nGovernment is not competent to impose.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother submission made on behalf of the appellants is that the
\nwork of inspection is required to be done by the respondent authority
\nto see that the terms of licence granted earlier are observed and the
\naccounts required are properly maintained as per the provisions of the
\nRule.  Therefore, there is no question of co-relation of the amount of
\nlevy with the inspection fee or licence fee to cost of any service.  The
\ninspection of books of accounts of money lenders can by no stretch of
\nimagination be considered service rendered to the money lenders
\neither for the grant of licence or for renewal of the same.  Levy of
\nlicence fee or inspection fee is, in fact, a tax which the State
\nGovernment is not empowered to impose.  It is also alleged by the
\nappellants that maximum levy of Rs. 5,000\/- is arbitrary and violative
\nof fundamental rights granted under Article 14 of the Constitution
\ninasmuch as it has no reference whatsoever to any service and no
\ninspection fee is liable to be imposed or recovered from money lenders
\nwhen already Section 6 provides for levy of licence fee.  Appellants
\ncannot be made to licence fee as well as inspection fee as inspection of
\nbooks is for renewal of the licence.  Licence fee would cover the
\ncharges for inspection as well.   Since the levy is credited in the
\nGeneral Public Funds Account and not appropriated towards any
\nspecific service rendered, goes to show that the levy is in fact in the
\nnature of a tax.  The levy is arbitrary and disproportionate to the so-
\ncalled services rendered.\n<\/p>\n
Another point raised by them is that inspection fee could not be
\ncharged for the period 1.8.1991 to 31.7.1992 as the amendment came
\ninto force w.e.f. 28.4.1992 by which time more than half of the licence
\nperiod had already expired.  \tThere was no justification whatsoever to
\nrecover the inspection fee retrospectively w.e.f. 1.8.1991.  The notices
\nwhich have been received by the appellants for recovery of inspection
\nfee for the years 1992-1993 were also put to challenge.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent-State in its response has pointed out that the Act
\nwas enacted to regulate and control money lending business so as to
\neradicate the mal practices in the money lending business and to
\nprotect the interest of debtors.  Thus, according to the respondent, the
\npurpose of the Act is not limited to providing services to the money
\nlenders but it is also regulatory in nature for the protection of the
\ninterests of the debtors as well.  The work under the Act is to regulate
\nand control the money lending business and to protect the debtors
\nfrom mal practices in the business by detecting illegal money lending
\netc.   Since the fee was regulatory in nature,  quid pro quo for the service
\nrendered to the person on whom the fee was imposed was not
\nrequired to be proved.  Relying upon some judgments of this Court, it
\nwas averred that in case the fee was regulatory in nature there need be
\nno direct advantage or service rendered to the person on whom the fee
\nis imposed, a mere casual relation or indirect service may be sufficient.
\nThe special benefit or advantage to the payers of fees may even be
\nsecondary as compared with the primary object of public interest.
\nThat primary object of the Act is to regulate the money lending
\nbusiness in public interest to protect and improve the economic
\nconditions of bulk of rural population and poorer sections of
\npopulation of towns and cities and to protect them from exploitation.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is further submitted that though the upper limit of Rs. 500\/-
\nhas been increased to Rs. 5,000\/- by the impugned amendment, the
\nrate of 1% of maximum capital utilised by the money lender has been
\nkept the same.   It is stated that there are about 5600 money lenders in
\nthe State of Maharashtra out of which about 2200 money lenders are
\nfrom Bombay and Greater Bombay.  Even in Bombay in case of more
\nthan 50% money lenders the maximum capital as defined in the Act is
\nbelow Rs. 50,000\/-.  The same in case of 20% is between Rs. 1 lac to Rs.
\n3 lac and for 10% above Rs. 3.00 lac.  In the remaining parts of
\nMaharshtra about 70 to 75 per cent money lenders are having
\nmaximum capital below Rs. 50,000\/-.  Since the fees are to be collected
\nat the rate of 1 per cent subject to the maximum of Rs. 5,000\/- in
\nmajority of the cases there will be no difference in the inspection fee
\npayable by them. In the case of money lenders who have invested
\ncapital of Rs. 50,000\/- there will be no increase in the inspection fee
\npayable by them.    It is, therefore, submitted that the contention raised
\nby the appellants that the increase was arbitrary or excessive are
\ndevoid of any substance.\n<\/p>\n
The staff and the officers of the Department have to visit the
\nplaces of money lending business, inspect accounts and other matters
\nrelating to business.  According to them, the inspection fee is charged
\nnot for rendering services only but also for regulating and controlling
\nmoney lending business.  The increase in the levy is justified on the
\nground of heavy increase in the Pay and Allowance of the
\nGovernment Servants after 1991 who are employed for regulating and
\ncontrolling the activities under the Act.  The respondent has also
\npointed out that the strength of the staff looking after the money
\nlending business has been considerably and significantly increased in
\nthe recent past and receipts from the inspection fee and licence fee are
\nvery meagre in the range of Rs. 25 to 30 lakhs every year which are not
\nsufficient to meet the expenses incurred for the staff looking after the
\nmoney lending business.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit
\nin the contentions raised by the appellants.  It was held that there was
\nnexus between the fee charged and the service rendered.  The fee
\ncharged was regulatory in nature to further the objects of the Act so as
\nto control and supervise the functioning of the money lenders in order
\nto protect the debtors.  Such an exercise was a must for fulfilling the
\npurpose of the Act for which infrastructure was required.  Taking note
\nof the heavy increase in the Pay and Allowances of Establishment and
\nthe receipt from inspection and licence fee, it was observed that the
\nsame were meagre and not even sufficient to meet the expenses
\nincurred for the staff looking after the money lending business.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe basic question which we are called upon to decide is
\nwhether the fee of the nature impugned before us is, as a matter of
\nfact, a tax in the guise of fee and whether it is so excessive or
\nunreasonable as to loose the character of fee.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri G.L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel, placing heavy reliance
\non the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Corporation of
\nCalcutta & Anr.  v.  Liberty Cinema<\/a> [(1965) 2 SCR 477] in support of
\nhis submission contended that quid pro quo is a must in the case of fee
\nand in the absence of the same, the levy would be deemed to be a tax.
\nSince in the present case there is no quid pro quo and no benefit is being
\nrendered to the person paying the fee, the levy imposed is in the
\nnature of tax though described as fee. Facts of the case were, under the
\nCalcutta Municipal Act, 1951, a person was required to take a licence
\nfrom the Corporation to run a cinema house for public amusement.
\nUnder Section 548(2), for every licence under the Act, a licence fee
\ncould be charged at such rate as fixed from time to time by the
\nCorporation.  In 1948 the Corporation fixed fees on the basis of the
\nannual valuation of the cinema halls.  The assessee who was the owner
\nand licensee of the cinema theatre had been paying licence fee @ Rs.
\n400\/- per year.  In 1958 the Corporation by a resolution changed the
\nbasis of assessment of the fee.  Under the new method the fee was to
\nbe assessed at rates prescribed per show according to the sanctioned
\nseating capacity of the cinema houses and the assessee had to pay a fee
\nof Rs. 6,000\/- per year.  The assessee filed a petition in the High Court
\nfor the issuance of a writ for quashing the resolution.  The writ petition
\nwas allowed.  The Corporation came up in appeal to this Court, which
\nwas accepted.   The case of the Corporation was that the levy was a tax
\nand not a fee.  Accepting the plea of the Corporation, it was observed
\nthat in order to make a levy a fee for services rendered, the levy must
\nconfer special benefits to the person on whom it is imposed.  The levy
\nunder Section 548(2) was not a “fee in return for services” as the Act
\ndid not provide for any services of a special kind being rendered,
\nresulting in benefits to the person on whom it was imposed.  The levy
\nwas held to be a tax.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.
\nSri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt<\/a> [(1954) SCR
\n1005] this Court enumerated the different characteristics of tax and fee.
\nIt was held that the tax was levied as a part of common burden while a
\nfee was a payment for special benefits or privilege to the person
\npaying the same.  Though it was not possible to formulate a definition
\nof fee that could apply to all cases as there were different kinds of fee,
\nbut a fee may generally be defined as a charge for special service
\nrendered to individuals by some governmental agency.  It was
\nobserved that amount of fee levied is supposed to be based on the
\nexpenses incurred by the Government in rendering the service.
\nPointing out the distinction between a tax and fee, it was observed that
\ntax is a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public
\npurposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Chief Commissioner, Delhi v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills
\nCo. Ltd.<\/a> [(1978) 2 SCC 367], it was held by this Court that levy of fee
\nshould be in consideration of certain services which the individuals
\naccept either willingly or unwillingly and that the collection from such
\nlevy should not be set apart or merged with the general revenue of the
\nState to be spent for general public purpose but should be
\nappropriated for the specific purpose for which the levy is being
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Om Parkash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori<\/a> [(1986) 1 SCC 722] it
\nwas held that levy imposed could not be treated as a fee and was tax
\nprimarily because the collection so made was being utilised not for
\nfulfilling the objects of the Act under which the collection is
\nauthorised, but for the general requirement of the State’s functions.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri Sanghi also placed reliance on a recent judgment of this
\nCourt in Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, U.P. v. Chhata
\nSugar Co. Ltd.<\/a> [(2004) 3 SCC 466] wherein the question was whether
\nadministrative charges collected by the sugar factory for molasses sold
\nfrom the buyers\/allottees on behalf of the State Government in terms
\nof Section 8(5) of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964
\nconstituted a duty or impost in the nature of a tax and consequently,
\nnot includible in the value as defined in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of
\nthe Central Excise Act, 1944.  The Court, after analysing the provisions
\nof the Act, held that sugar factory was merely a collecting agent of
\nadministrative charges for the State Government.  The administrative
\ncharges were not a component of a consideration received by the
\nsugar factory and did not form part of the revenue of the sugar
\nfactory.  The administrative charges could not be appropriated to the
\nrevenue account of the sugar factory and, therefore, there was no
\nelement of quid pro quo as far as the administrative charges in the
\nhands of the sugar factory are concerned.  The administrative charges
\nwere thus held to be a tax and not a fee.\n<\/p>\n
\tA three Judge Bench of this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,
\nBombay and Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and
\nOthers<\/a> [(2001) 3 SCC 482], after considering a large number of
\nauthorities, has held that much ice has melted in Himalayas after the
\nrendering of the earlier judgments as there was a sea change in the
\njudicial thinking as to the difference between a tax and a fee since
\nthen.  Placing reliance on the following judgments of this Court in the
\nlast 20 years, namely, Sreenivasa General Traders Vs. State of
\nAndhra Pradesh, (supra);  City Corporation of Calicut Vs.
\nThachambalath Sadasivan, (1985) 2 SCC 112; Sirsilk Ltd. Vs. Textiles
\nCommittee,  (1989) Supp. 1 SCC 168; Commissioner & Secretary to
\nGovernment Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments
\nDepartment Vs. Sree Murugan Financing Corporation Coimbatore,
\n(1992) 3 SCC 488; Secretary to Government of Madras Vs.
\nP.R.Sriramulu, (1996) 1 SCC 345; Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. Vs.
\nState of U.P., \t(1997) 2 SCC 715; Research Foundation for Science,
\nTechnology & Ecology Vs. Ministry of Agriculture, (1999) 1 SCC 655
\nand Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’ Association Vs.
\nHyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, (1999) 2 SCC 274, it
\nwas held that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has
\nundergone considerable transformation.  So far as the regulatory fee is
\nconcerned, the service to be rendered is not a condition precedent and
\nthe same does not loose the character of a fee provided the fee so
\ncharged is not excessive.  It was not necessary that service to be
\nrendered by the collecting authority should be confined to the
\ncontributories alone.  The levy does not cease to be a fee merely
\nbecause there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in
\nit, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have a direct relation to the
\nactual service rendered by the authority to each individual who
\nobtains the benefit of the service.  The quid pro quo in the strict sence
\nwas not always a sine qua non for a fee.  All that is necessary is that
\nthere should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of fee and
\nthe services rendered.  It was observed that it was not necessary to
\nestablish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special
\nbenefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee was
\nbeing paid.  It was held that if one who is liable to pay, receives
\ngeneral benefit from the authority levying the fee, the element of
\nservice required for collecting fee is satisfied.\n<\/p>\n
We need not refer to the law laid down by this Court in each of
\nthe judgments which have been cited as the same have been analysed
\nand discussed at length by this Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum,
\nBombay and Others case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 was enacted during pre-
\nindependence period by the elected Government to control and
\nregulate money lending.  Money lenders were fleecing the poor
\npeasants, tenants, agricultural labourers and salaried workers who
\nwere unable to repay loans.  The agricultural debtors were loosing
\ntheir lands, crops or other securities to the money lenders.  To arrest
\nthis exploitation, the Money-Lenders Act was enacted to improve the
\neconomic conditions of the bulk of the rural population and the poorer
\nsections of the population in towns and cities.  Under the Act it was
\nmade mandatory first to take a licence to do the business of money
\nlending on payment of a licence fee of Rs. 200\/-.   Inspection fee is
\nlevied for renewal of licence and for that purpose it is necessary that
\nthe records maintained by the money lenders should be thoroughly
\nexamined in order to satisfy whether all the registers are maintained
\nproperly in accordance with the rules and it is only after the satisfying
\nthat no irregularities are committed, the money lender becomes
\nentitled to get the renewal of his licence.  ‘Inspection fee’ has been
\ndefined in Section 2(5-A) of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 to
\nmean the fee leviable under Section 9A in respect of inspection of
\nbooks of account of a money-lender.  Section 2(7) defines the ‘licence’
\nto mean licence granted under this Act and according to Section 2(8)
\n‘licence fee’ means fee payable in respect of a licence.  Renewal of
\nlicence is not automatic and can be refused on the grounds specified in
\nSection 8.  In order to ensure that the money lenders comply with the
\nprovisions of the Act and the Rules on which renewal of the licence
\ncan be refused under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 8, inspection of the
\nrecords maintained by the money lenders is absolutely necessary and
\nmust.  Rule 11 provides that on receipt of any application for renewal
\nof a licence, the Assistant Registrar, to whom the application has been
\nmade, shall call upon the applicant to produce his accounts for
\ninspection.  He shall then assess the inspection fee payable under
\nSection 9A in respect of inspection of books of accounts and call upon
\nthe applicant to pay the inspection fee in the manner prescribed in
\nRule 10.  Under Section 18, every money lender is required to keep
\nand maintain a cash book and a ledger in such form and in such
\nmanner as may be prescribed.  Under sub-section (2) every money
\nlender has to deliver or cause to be delivered to the debtor within 30
\ndays from the date on which a loan is made, a statement in any
\nrecognised language saying in clear and distinct terms the amount and
\ndate of loan and its maturity, the nature of the security, if any, for the
\nloan, the name and address of the debtor and of the money lender and
\nthe rate of interest charged.  Clause (b) of this sub-section provides
\nthat upon repayment of loan in full, the money lender is required to
\nmark indelibly every paper signed by the debtor with words
\nindicating payment or cancellation and discharge every mortgage,
\nrestore every pledge, return every note and cancel or reassign every
\nassignment given by the debtor as security for the loan.  Sub-section
\n(3) provides that no money lender shall receive any payment from a
\ndebtor on account of any loan without giving him a plain and
\ncomplete receipt for the payment.  Money lender under sub-section (4)
\nis debarred from accepting from a debtor any article as a pawn, pledge
\nor security for a loan without giving him a plain signed receipt for the
\nsame with its description, estimated value, the amount of loan
\nadvanced against it and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
\nUnder Section 19, every money lender is required to deliver or cause
\nto be delivered in every year to each of his debtors a legible statement
\nof such debtor’s accounts signed by the money lender or his agent of
\nany amount that may be outstanding against such debtor. Rule 16
\nprovides for the forms of cash book, ledger and of statement and
\nreceipt under Section 18.  Rule 17 provides for opening of a capital
\naccount in Form 11 for the purposes of Section 9A.  The inspection of
\nrecords, thus by itself, provides for service rendered by the State to the
\nmoney lenders which is done in connection with their request to
\nrenew the licences.  It is necessary to find out before granting renewal
\nof the licence that the applicant has complied with the provisions of
\nthe Act and the Rules and that he has not made any wilful default in
\ncomplying with or knowingly acted in contravention of any
\nrequirements of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis is the direct service rendered to the money lenders as the
\nrenewal of licence depends upon the inspection of their accounts
\nwhich is required to be carried out under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis apart the fee charged is regulatory in nature to control and
\nsupervise the functioning of the money lending business to protect the
\ndebtors the vast majority of which are poor peasants, tenants,
\nagricultural labourers and salaried workers who are unable to repay
\ntheir loans.  The object of the Act is to control the money lending
\nbusiness and protect the debtors from the malpractices in the business
\nby detecting illegal money lending.  This exercise is a must to carry out
\nthe object of the Act for which lot of infrastructure is required.    The
\nduty of the staff and the officers of the Department is to visit the places
\nof money lending business, inspect the accounts and other matters
\nrelating to the business, to find out illegal money lending, carry out
\nraids in suspicious cases and do regular inspection as provided in the
\nAct.  The Act serves a larger public interest.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent State in its counter affidavit has stated that the
\nstrength of the staff looking after money lending work has been
\nconsiderably and significantly increased in the recent past.  The total
\nreceipts from inspection fees and licence fees under the Act are very
\nmeagre in the range of 25 to 30 lakhs every year.   Receipts from
\ninspection fees and licence fees under the Act  form a very small part
\nof the total receipts of the Co-operative Department which are to the
\ntune of Rs. 21 crores.   The licence fees and inspection fee under the
\nAct are not even sufficient to meet out the expenses incurred on the
\nstaff looking after the money lending business.  Since the Act is a
\nsocial legislation with the intention to protect the debtors from the
\nmalpractices in the business the State is performing its duties even
\nthough the revenue under the Act is not even sufficient to meet the
\nexpenditure on the staff performing duties under the Act.  In view of
\nthese submissions it cannot be held that the fees are either arbitrary or
\nexcessive.\n<\/p>\n
\tContention raised by Shri G.L. Sanghi, senior counsel for the
\nappellants that the fees have to be uniform has no merit in view of the
\njudgment of this Court in Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners’
\nAssociation Vs. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,
\nHyderabad,(supra) and State of Maharashtra Vs. The Salvation
\nArmy, Western India Territory, 1975 (1) SCC 509.  It has been held in
\nthese judgments that fees are ordinarily uniform but absence of
\nuniformity is not the sole criterion on which it can be said that the levy
\nis in the nature of tax.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Sanghi has also urged that the impugned fee has been
\nimposed on the basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders.  It
\nis contended that assuming that the respondent had the authority in
\nlaw to  levy the fee under challenge, the same could not be levied on
\nthe basis of the annual turnover of the money lenders because such
\nlevy would amount to a tax on turnover.  We do not find any force in
\nthis submission as well.  This Court in B.S.E. Brokers’ Forum, Bombay
\nand Others v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others,<\/a>
\n(supra) held that annual turnover of a broker was not the subject-
\nmatter of the levy but was only a measure of the levy.    In this case as
\nwell the annual turnover is not the subject matter of fee but only a
\nmeasure of levy.\n<\/p>\n
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sreenivasa General
\nTraders Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (4) SCC 353, it was held
\nthat merely because the fees were taken to the Consolidated Fund of
\nthe State and not separately appropriated towards the expenditure for
\nrendering the service  by itself was not decisive  to determine as to
\nwhether it was a fee or a tax.   It was also held that fees are ordinarily
\nuniform but absence of uniformity by itself was not a criterion on
\nwhich alone it could be said that the levy was in the nature of tax.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this
\nappeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 Author: Bhan Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.K.Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 992 of 2003 PETITIONER: Sona Chandi Oal Committee & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/12\/2004 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & A.K.Mathur JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/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-99186","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T07:53:11+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=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T07:53:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\"},\"wordCount\":5334,\"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\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\",\"name\":\"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T07:53:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T07:53:11+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":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004","datePublished":"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T07:53:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004"},"wordCount":5334,"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\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004","name":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T07:53:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sona-chandi-oal-committeeors-vs-state-of-maharashtra-on-16-december-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sona Chandi Oal Committee&Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/99186","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=99186"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99186\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}