← Labour Officer
Past Questions
Offences by the companies are dealt under __________ of the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act 1996.
A)
Section 10
B)
Section 11
C)
Section 12
D)
Section 13
Under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996, the legal framework for penalties and offences is outlined in the final sections of the Act. Section 12 specifically addresses 'Offences by Companies'. It stipulates that if a company commits an offence under this Act, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company itself, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence.
Breakdown of other options:
- Section 10: Generally deals with the recovery of unpaid cess as an arrear of land revenue.
- Section 11: Deals with the penalties for failure to pay cess or providing false information.
- Section 13: Typically relates to the rules or power to make rules/administrative provisions depending on the specific amendment version, but not the liability of companies.
Employment Exchange under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 means –
A)
an establishment which is not in the public sector
B)
an establishment own, controlled and managed by the government
C)
any office or place established and maintained by the government for collecting and furnishing information of potential employees
D)
any office or place where trade, industry, business or occupation is carried on
According to the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, an 'Employment Exchange' is specifically defined as an office or place established and maintained by the government for the purpose of collecting and furnishing information regarding vacancies in employment and the availability of potential employees.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is incorrect because an employment exchange is a government entity, not a non-public sector establishment.
- Option (b) is too broad; while it is managed by the government, the specific purpose of 'collecting and furnishing information' is the defining characteristic of an Employment Exchange.
- Option (c) is correct as it aligns with the statutory definition provided in the Act.
- Option (d) describes an 'establishment' (where business/trade is carried on), which is a separate term defined in the Act, rather than the 'Employment Exchange' itself.
The liability of the principal employer is provided under __________ of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employee & Condition of Services) Act, 1979.
A)
Section 14
B)
Section 16
C)
Section 18
D)
Section 20
Under the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, Section 16 specifically deals with the 'Liability of Principal Employer'. It stipulates that the principal employer shall be liable to pay the wages and other dues to the migrant workmen if the contractor fails to pay them. Furthermore, it allows the principal employer to recover such payments from the contractor.
Breakdown of other options:
- Section 14: Generally relates to the registration of establishments.
- Section 18: Relates to the appointment of inspectors.
- Section 20: Relates to the powers of inspectors to enter premises and examine records.
Under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 - Any person who employs one or more other persons to do any work in an establishment for remuneration and includes any person entrusted with the supervision and control of employees in such establishment is known as
A)
Appropriate Government
B)
Employer
C)
Occupier
D)
Employee
According to Section 2(e) of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, the term 'employer' is specifically defined. It refers to any person who employs one or more other persons to do any work in an establishment for remuneration. Crucially, the definition extends to include any person entrusted with the supervision and control of employees in such an establishment, ensuring that managers or supervisors can be held accountable under the Act's provisions.
Why other options are incorrect:
- (a) Appropriate Government: This refers to the Central or State government responsible for administering the Act in a particular area, not an individual employing persons.
- (c) Occupier: This term is typically used in the Factories Act, 1948, to denote the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, but it is not the defined term for this specific description in the 1959 Act.
- (d) Employee: An employee is the person who is employed to do the work for remuneration, not the person who employs others or supervises them.
For every State, the following classes of criminal courts are present
A)
Courts of session
B)
Judicial Magistrate of first class
C)
Executive magistrate
D)
All of the above
According to Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, besides the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any other law for the time being in force, there shall be in every State the following classes of Criminal Courts:
1. Courts of Session (Option a).
2. Judicial Magistrates of the first class (Option b).
3. Judicial Magistrates of the second class.
4. Executive Magistrates (Option c).
Since all three options (a, b, and c) are explicitly listed under Section 6 of the CrPC as classes of criminal courts present in every State, the correct answer is 'All of the above'.
In every metropolitan area, the State government may after consultation with _____, establish courts of Metropolitan magistrate at such places ani in such numbers as it thinks fit.
A)
Supreme Court
B)
Tribunal
C)
High Court
D)
Governor
The question pertains to the establishment of Metropolitan Magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to Section 16 of the CrPC, in every metropolitan area, the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, establish courts of Metropolitan Magistrates at such places and in such numbers as it thinks fit.
Reasoning for options:
- (a) Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the highest appellate authority and is not involved in the administrative setup of local magistrate courts.
- (b) Tribunal: A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body and does not have the authority to consult on the establishment of criminal courts.
- (c) High Court: Correct. The High Court exercises administrative and judicial superintendence over all subordinate courts in the state, making it the mandatory consulting body for the State Government in this matter.
- (d) Governor: While the Governor is the constitutional head of the state, the specific statutory requirement under the CrPC is consultation with the High Court.
A person aggrieved by a refusal to register an FIR by the police station may send the report to
A)
Station House Officer
B)
Superintendent of Police
C)
Inspector
D)
IGP
This question pertains to the procedure for filing a First Information Report (FIR) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). According to Section 154(3) of the CrPC, if an officer-in-charge of a police station (Station House Officer) refuses to record the information given to them on a cognizable offense, the aggrieved person has the legal remedy to send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police (SP). If the SP is satisfied that such information discloses a cognizable offense, they shall either investigate the case themselves or direct an investigation to be made by some other police officer.
Analysis of options:
- (a) Station House Officer: This is the person who initially refused the registration; sending it back to them does not constitute a remedy for refusal.
- (b) Superintendent of Police: This is the correct statutory authority designated under Section 154(3) CrPC for this specific grievance.
- (c) Inspector: An Inspector is generally a subordinate or peer to the SHO in the hierarchy and does not have the statutory authority to override an SHO's refusal to register an FIR under Section 154(3).
- (d) IGP: While the Inspector General of Police is higher in rank, the specific legal provision in the CrPC explicitly names the Superintendent of Police as the immediate authority for this process.
For the offence of theft, the taking of property should be
A)
Permanent
B)
Temporary
C)
Either permanent or temporary
D)
None of these
Under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), theft is defined as moving movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, with a 'dishonest intention'. The key to 'dishonest intention' (as defined in Section 24 IPC) is the intent to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to another. For an act to constitute theft, the intention must be to take the property permanently or to deprive the owner of the property permanently. If a person takes property with the intention of returning it shortly (temporary borrowing without intent to deprive), it generally does not satisfy the 'dishonest intention' required for theft. While some judicial interpretations allow for 'permanent' to include a long period of deprivation, the fundamental legal requirement for the offence of theft is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
A search warrant is a written authority given to a police officer or any other person for the search of any place
A)
Generally
B)
For specified things or documents
C)
Generally as well as for specified things or documents
D)
None of the above
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a search warrant is not a general license to search any place for anything. It is a judicial order issued by a Magistrate that must specify the place to be searched and the particular things, documents, or persons to be sought.
1. Specificity: A warrant must be specific to prevent arbitrary exercise of power and to protect the fundamental right to privacy. If a warrant were 'general' (Option a), it would be considered a 'General Warrant,' which is legally invalid in most democratic jurisdictions as it allows for 'fishing expeditions.'
2. Legal Requirement: The warrant typically describes the items to be seized (e.g., a specific ledger, a weapon, or a particular document) and the location where they are believed to be hidden.
3. Distinction: While a police officer may have certain powers to search without a warrant under urgent circumstances (Section 165 CrPC), a formal 'Search Warrant' issued by a court is specifically targeted toward identified evidence or objects related to a crime.
Therefore, Option b is correct because a search warrant is issued for specified things or documents.
An inquiry is never conducted by the
A)
Police
B)
Magistrate
C)
Advocate
D)
Public prosecutor
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), there is a clear legal distinction between 'Investigation' and 'Inquiry'.
1. **Inquiry**: According to Section 2(g) of the CrPC, an 'inquiry' is defined as every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court. Therefore, an inquiry is a judicial proceeding conducted by a Magistrate.
2. **Investigation**: According to Section 2(h) of the CrPC, an 'investigation' is conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf. The primary purpose of an investigation is the collection of evidence.
Analysis of Options:
- **Police (Option a)**: The police conduct 'Investigations', not 'Inquiries'. By legal definition, an inquiry is conducted by a Magistrate/Court. Thus, an inquiry is never conducted by the police.
- **Magistrate (Option b)**: As per Section 2(g), the Magistrate is the primary authority who conducts an inquiry.
- **Advocate (Option c) and Public Prosecutor (Option d)**: While these roles are part of the legal process, they do not 'conduct' the inquiry in the statutory sense; however, the question specifically tests the fundamental distinction between the Police (Investigation) and the Magistrate (Inquiry). In the context of standard CrPC examination questions, the 'Police' is the definitive answer because their role is strictly limited to investigation.
Which one of the following is not an example of vicarious liability?
A)
Liability of the parents for the tort of his children
B)
Liability of master for the tort of his servant
C)
Liability of partners for each others torts
D)
Liability of the principle for the tort of his agent
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine where one person is held liable for the torts committed by another, based on a specific legal relationship.
1. Option (b) 'Liability of master for the tort of his servant' is the classic example of vicarious liability under the doctrine of 'Respondent Superior' (let the master answer), provided the act was done in the course of employment.
2. Option (c) 'Liability of partners for each others torts' is a form of vicarious liability arising from the partnership relationship, where partners are jointly and severally liable for wrongs committed by a partner in the ordinary course of business.
3. Option (d) 'Liability of the principle for the tort of his agent' is a standard form of vicarious liability based on the agency relationship.
4. Option (a) 'Liability of the parents for the tort of his children' is NOT a general rule of vicarious liability. In law, parents are generally not held vicariously liable for the torts of their children simply because of the parental relationship. A parent may only be held liable if it is proven that the parent was negligent in their supervision or if the child was acting as the parent's agent. Therefore, it is not an automatic example of vicarious liability like the other three options.
The punishments not included under IPC for liable offenders
A)
Death
B)
Imprisonment for life
C)
Forfeiture of property
D)
Seizure of property
Under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the punishments to which offenders are liable are specifically enumerated. These include:
1. Death
2. Imprisonment for life
3. Imprisonment (Rigorous or Simple)
4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine.
Analyzing the options:
- Option (a) Death: Explicitly mentioned in Section 53.
- Option (b) Imprisonment for life: Explicitly mentioned in Section 53.
- Option (c) Forfeiture of property: Explicitly mentioned in Section 53.
- Option (d) Seizure of property: While 'seizure' is a procedural action taken by investigating agencies during an investigation (under the Code of Criminal Procedure), it is not a 'punishment' prescribed by the IPC for a convicted offender. Forfeiture is the legal penalty where ownership is permanently transferred to the state upon conviction, whereas seizure is a temporary hold on property for evidence or recovery.
Which is not a stolen property
A)
Possession whereof was obtained by cheating
B)
Possession whereof was obtained by forgery
C)
Possession whereof was obtained by dacoity
D)
Possession whereof criminal breach of trust
The definition of 'Stolen Property' is provided under Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to Section 410, property is considered 'stolen' if it is:
1. Property stolen (theft).
2. Property obtained by extortion.
3. Property obtained by robbery.
4. Property obtained by dacoity (Option c).
5. Property obtained by cheating (Option a).
6. Property obtained by forgery (Option b).
Crucially, property obtained through a 'Criminal Breach of Trust' (Section 405 IPC) is NOT included in the definition of stolen property under Section 410. In a criminal breach of trust, the property is initially entrusted to the person legally; the crime occurs when they misappropriate it. Because the initial possession was lawful (entrusted), it does not fall under the category of 'stolen property' as defined by the IPC, whereas cheating, forgery, and dacoity involve obtaining possession through illegal means from the start.
Which one of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code deals with vicarious liability
A)
Section 120 A
B)
Section 121
C)
Section 154
D)
Section 159
Vicarious liability in criminal law refers to the principle where a person is held responsible for the acts of another. While the general rule in criminal law is personal liability, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides exceptions through the concept of 'Joint Liability' or 'Common Intention'.
1. Section 120A defines 'Criminal Conspiracy'. In a conspiracy, once the agreement to commit an illegal act is made, every member of the conspiracy becomes vicariously liable for the acts done by any other member in furtherance of that common design. Therefore, Section 120A (and the punishment under 120B) is the primary mechanism for vicarious liability in the options provided.
2. Section 121 deals with 'Waging war against the Government of India', which is a specific offense rather than a general principle of liability.
3. Section 154 deals with 'Abetting the committing of an offense by a public servant', which is a specific form of abetment.
4. Section 159 deals with 'Whoever corrupts a public servant', which is a specific offense.
Among the given options, Section 120A (Criminal Conspiracy) is the only one that establishes a framework for vicarious liability, where the act of one conspirator is attributed to all others.
‘Good faith’ is defined under
A)
Section 21 of IPC
B)
Section 52 of IPC
C)
Section 50 of IPC
D)
Section 48 of IPC
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 'Good faith' is specifically defined in Section 52. According to this section, 'Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or believed without due care and attention.' This definition emphasizes that the presence of 'due care and attention' is the essential criterion for an act to be considered as being done in good faith, regardless of the actor's subjective intention.
Analysis of other options:
- Section 21: Relates to the definition of 'Public Servant'.
- Section 50: Relates to the definition of 'Chief Justice of India'.
- Section 48: Relates to the definition of 'Country'.
Therefore, Option (b) is the correct legal provision.
Who cannot serve Summons
A)
Police Officer
B)
At the request of complainant or accused, the court may serve summons on his own
C)
By an officer, subject to such rules as the Provincial Govt may prescribe
D)
Advocate
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), specifically Section 62 to 69, the law prescribes the specific modes and persons authorized to serve a summons.
1. **Police Officers**: Under Section 62, a summons may be served by a police officer.
2. **Court Officers**: The court can serve summons through its own process servers or officers appointed for this purpose (Option b refers to the court's authority to ensure service).
3. **Prescribed Officers**: Section 62 also allows service by an officer subject to rules prescribed by the State/Provincial Government (Option c).
An **Advocate** is a legal representative of a party to the case. They are officers of the court in a professional capacity, but they do not possess the statutory authority to act as a process server for the court. Serving a legal summons is an official act of the state/judiciary; allowing private advocates to serve summons would lead to conflicts of interest and lack of official verification of service. Therefore, an advocate cannot legally serve a summons.
The case of Gian Kaur vrs State of Punjab is related to
A)
Murder
B)
Culpable homicide
C)
Abetment of suicide
D)
Attempt to commit suicide
The case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India concerning the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes the 'attempt to commit suicide'. In this case, the court examined whether the 'Right to Life' guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the 'Right to Die'. The Supreme Court held that the Right to Life is a natural right, but it does not include the right to terminate one's own life. Therefore, the court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC is constitutional and does not violate Article 21.
Why other options are incorrect:
- a. Murder: This is dealt with under Section 302 of the IPC; Gian Kaur's case was specifically about self-harm.
- b. Culpable homicide: This is dealt with under Section 299/304 of the IPC; the case did not involve the killing of another person.
- c. Abetment of suicide: This is dealt with under Section 306 of the IPC; the focus of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab was on the act of the person attempting suicide themselves, not the person encouraging them.
Forgery is an offence relating to
A)
Documents
B)
Property
C)
Hurt
D)
None of the above
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Forgery is specifically defined and penalized under Chapter XX, which deals with 'Offences Relating to Documents and to Property'. Specifically, Section 463 of the IPC defines forgery as the act of making a false document or an electronic record with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) Documents: Correct. Forgery is fundamentally the creation of a false document.
- Option (b) Property: While forgery is often committed to steal property or create a false title to property, the act of forgery itself is committed against a 'document', not the property itself (which would fall under theft, cheating, or criminal misappropriation).
- Option (c) Hurt: This relates to bodily injury (Sections 319-338 IPC) and has no relation to forgery.
- Option (d) None of the above: Incorrect as option (a) is the precise legal definition.
Under Section 498A of IPC, cruelty includes
A)
Harassment of the woman
B)
Physical cruelty only
C)
Mental cruelty only
D)
None of the above
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines 'cruelty' broadly to protect women from domestic violence. According to the statute, 'cruelty' means: (i) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical), or (ii) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
Analysis of options:
- Option (a) is correct because 'harassment' (specifically for dowry or unlawful demands) is explicitly mentioned in the definition of cruelty under Section 498A.
- Option (b) is incorrect because cruelty is not limited to physical violence; it encompasses mental health and psychological torture.
- Option (c) is incorrect because cruelty is not limited to mental torture; it includes physical injury and danger to life.
- Option (d) is incorrect as option (a) is a valid component of the definition.
Sexual intercourse by a man with a woman even with her consent is a rape, if she is below the age of
A)
17 years
B)
16 years
C)
18 years
D)
15 years
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Section 375, the definition of rape includes sexual intercourse with a woman who is under a certain age, regardless of whether she consented to the act. According to the law (as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013), sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is under 16 years of age is considered rape, even if she gives her consent. This is based on the legal principle that a person below the age of 16 is deemed incapable of giving valid legal consent for sexual intercourse. Note: While the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, sets the age of consent at 18 years for various sexual offenses, the specific provision within the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the age of consent for the definition of rape is 16 years.
Which of these is incorrect about the first information report
A)
It may not be oral
B)
Copy of FIR must be given for free
C)
Copy of FIR must be given to the informant
D)
Telephonic FIR is admitted
The question asks for the INCORRECT statement regarding the First Information Report (FIR) under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
1. Analysis of Option (a): 'It may not be oral'. This statement is incorrect. Under Section 154 of the CrPC, while the law states that the information should be reduced to writing, it is well-established that an FIR can be given orally, which the police officer then records in writing. Therefore, saying it 'may not be oral' is a false statement.
2. Analysis of Option (b) and (c): 'Copy of FIR must be given for free' and 'Copy of FIR must be given to the informant'. These are correct. Section 154(2) of the CrPC explicitly mandates that a copy of the information recorded shall be given to the informant free of cost immediately.
3. Analysis of Option (d): 'Telephonic FIR is admitted'. This is correct. While the traditional method is written or oral in person, various High Courts and the Supreme Court have recognized the validity of information provided via telephone or electronic means as a starting point for an FIR, provided it is subsequently reduced to writing and signed.
Since option (a) is the only false statement, it is the correct answer to the question asking for the 'incorrect' option.
A hangman who hangs the prisoners pursuant to the order of the court is exempt from criminal liability by virtue of
A)
Section 77 of IPC
B)
Section 78 of IPC
C)
Section 79 of IPC
D)
Section 76 of IPC
The question asks about the legal exemption for a hangman executing a court order. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), General Exceptions are provided for acts that are not considered offenses.
1. **Section 78 of the IPC** specifically states: 'Act done pursuant to the judgment of a Court'. It provides that nothing is an offence which is done in pursuance of a judgment or order of a Court of Justice, when done in good faith. Since a hangman executes a death sentence based on a valid court judgment, they are protected under this section.
2. **Section 76** relates to acts done by a person who is bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law to do it (e.g., a soldier following a superior's legal order).
3. **Section 77** relates to acts done by a judge when acting judicially.
4. **Section 79** relates to acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person without consent (e.g., a surgeon performing an emergency operation).
Therefore, the execution of a court-ordered death sentence falls squarely under Section 78.
A took a sum of Rs 50,000 from B by putting B in fear of death. A has committed
A)
Cheating
B)
Robbery
C)
Mischief
D)
Extortion
Step-by-step reasoning:
1. **Analysis of the Act**: A obtained money (Rs 50,000) from B by putting B in 'fear of death'.
2. **Defining Extortion**: Under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), extortion occurs when a person intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or any other person, and thereby dishonestly induces them to deliver any property or valuable security.
3. **Applying the Law**: In this scenario, the 'fear of death' constitutes the 'fear of injury', and the delivery of Rs 50,000 constitutes the delivery of property. This fits the exact definition of Extortion.
4. **Evaluating other options**:
- **Cheating (Section 415)**: Requires deception or fraudulent inducement. Here, there is no deception; there is a threat.
- **Robbery (Section 390)**: Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. Extortion becomes robbery if the offender is present at the time of delivery and puts the person in fear of *instant* death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint. The question states 'fear of death' but does not specify that the fear was of 'instant' death or that the offender was present to execute it immediately. In standard legal examination problems, unless 'instant' or 'immediate' is specified, the primary offense is Extortion.
- **Mischief (Section 425)**: Involves causing destruction of property to cause loss to the public or a person. It does not involve taking money through threats.
Dowry death is described in IPC under
A)
Section 308 of IPC
B)
Section 306 of IPC
C)
Section 304B of IPC
D)
Section 302 of IPC
Step-by-step analysis of the options under the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
1. **Section 304B (Correct):** This section was specifically inserted into the IPC to address 'Dowry Death'. It states that if a woman dies within seven years of marriage due to burns, bodily injury, or under abnormal circumstances, and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with any demand for dowry, such death is deemed to be a 'dowry death'.
2. **Section 308 (Incorrect):** This section deals with 'Attempt to commit culpable homicide'.
3. **Section 306 (Incorrect):** This section deals with 'Abetment of suicide'. While dowry harassment often leads to suicide, the specific legal classification of 'Dowry Death' is governed by 304B.
4. **Section 302 (Incorrect):** This section provides the punishment for 'Murder'.
Therefore, the correct legal provision for Dowry Death is Section 304B.
Applicant under this act includes
A)
a petitioner
B)
any person from or through whom an applicant derives his right to apply
C)
both (a) & (b)
D)
the respondent
In the context of Procedural Law (specifically relating to the Limitation Act, which governs the time limits for filing applications/suits), the definition of an 'applicant' is expanded to ensure that legal rights are protected even when transferred.
1. A 'petitioner' (Option a) is the primary person who files a petition or application to the court seeking a remedy; therefore, they are fundamentally an applicant.
2. The law also recognizes 'derivative rights' (Option b). This means that if a person acquires a right to apply through another person (e.g., through inheritance, assignment, or legal representation), they are also considered an 'applicant' under the act to prevent the loss of a legal remedy due to the death or transfer of the original right-holder.
Since both the original petitioner and the person deriving the right are included in the legal definition of an applicant, option (c) is the correct choice. Option (d) is incorrect because the respondent is the party against whom the application is filed, not the one applying.