{"id":101556,"date":"1965-12-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-12-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965"},"modified":"2017-02-02T21:44:25","modified_gmt":"2017-02-02T16:14:25","slug":"mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","title":{"rendered":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1364, \t\t  1966 SCR  (3)\t 40<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Satyanarayanaraju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMAFATLAL NARAINDAS BAROT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDIVISIONAL  CONTROLLER,\t STATE\tTRANSPORT  CORPORATION\t AND\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/12\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\nBENCH:\nSATYANARAYANARAJU, P.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1364\t\t  1966 SCR  (3)\t 40\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC1828\t (11)\n RF\t    1973 SC 855\t (24,26)\n RF\t    1975 SC1331\t (26,27,31,171,188,189)\n R\t    1976 SC 888\t (31)\n R\t    1980 SC 840\t (11)\n RF\t    1989 SC 341\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nDismissal-employee  absent  without  leave  and\t failing  to\nreport\tfor duty when directed-Dismissed on payment  of\t two\nmonths'\t salary\t in  lieu  of  notice-Regulations  governing\nservice\t condition providing for opportunity to\t show  cause\nagainst\t proposed punishment not complied with--Property  of\ndismissal.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant,  who  was  a  permanent  employee  of\t the\nrespondent  State  Transport Corporation,  proceeded  on  15\ndays'  leave on January 15, 1962 and thereafter applied\t for\nan  extension  of  his\tleave  on  medical  grounds.\tThis\nextension  was\trefused\t and  although\tthe  appellant\t was\ndirected to report for duty immediately, he continued to  be\nabsent\tand  wrote  to\tthe respondent\ton  March  3,  1963,\nintimating him of his inability to join duty as he was still\nnot  well.   By an order of the respondent  dated  March  9,\n1962,  the appellant's services were terminated with  effect\nfrom January 16, 1962 on the ground of long absence.\nAfter\this   representations  and  an\tappeal\t to   higher\nauthorities  in\t the  ;Corporation had\tbeen  rejected,\t the\nappellant  filed  a petition for a writ\t of Certiorari\tto\nquash  the dismissal order, but this petition was  dismissed\nin limine.\nIt  was\t contended  on\tbehalf\tof  the\t appellant  that  in\naccordance with Clauses 4(b), 38 and 40 of Schedule A to the\nRegulations  governing\this  service  conditions,  a  charge\nshould have been framed against him and that be was entitled\nto  an\topportunity  to\t show  cause  against  the  proposed\n'punishment.   On  the other hand it  was  the\trespondents'\ncontention  that though the order of dismissal\treferred  to\nlong  absence as the cause of termination,  the\t termination\nitself\twas not by way of punishment and the only  right  of\nthe appellant under Regulation 61 was to two months'  notice\nin   lieu   of\tpay;  and  that\t an   examination   of\t the\ncorrespondence and the circumstances of the case showed that\nthe  appellant had been given to opportunity to\t show  cause\nand that there was in fact and in substance compliance\twith\nthe rules of natural justice.\nHELD : The order of termination passed against the appellant\nmust  be quashed as it was bad in law since  it\t contravened\nthe  provisions of cl. 4(b) of the Regulations and also\t the\nprinciples of natural justice. [44 B]\nClauses\t 38 and 40 provided that absence without  leave\t and\nwithout\t reasonable cause, and failure,\t without  sufficient\ncause.. to report for duty when directed amount to acts\t of\nmisconduct.   Under clause 4(b) it was therefore  obligatory\non  the\t part  of the respondent to  give  the\tappellant  a\nreasonable opportunity to show cause, by providing him\twith\na copy of the charge or charges as well as the statement  of\nthe allegations that had been made against him. [43 F]\n41\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil APPEAL  No. 757 of<br \/>\n1964.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and Order,  dated<br \/>\nthe  28th  May, 1963 of the Gujarat High  Court\t in  Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No. 419 of 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.   Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>N.   S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. A char, for the respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nSatyanarayana  Raju,  J. This appeal, by special  leave,  is<br \/>\nagainst the judgment and order of the High Court of  Gujarat<br \/>\nat  Ahmedabad, dated May 28, 1963, dismissing in  limine  an<br \/>\napplication  filed  by the appellant under Art. 226  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  facts material for the purposes of this appeal  may  be<br \/>\nbriefly\t stated.  &#8216;Me appellant was a permanent employee  of<br \/>\nthe   State  Transport\tCorporation,  Gujarat,\t hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the Corporation.\t At the material time he was<br \/>\nemployed   as  a  Writer  in  the  Visnagar  Depot  of\t the<br \/>\nCorporation in Mahasana District.  On January 15, 1962,\t the<br \/>\nappellant  applied  to\tthe  Divisional\t Controller,   State<br \/>\nTransport,  Mahasana,  for leave for 15 days on\t the  ground<br \/>\nthat he had to attend to his &#8216;personal work.  On January 16,<br \/>\n1962, he was transferred from Visnagar to Ambaji where there<br \/>\nwas  a\tvacancy\t in the office of  the\tDepot  Manager.\t  On<br \/>\nJanuary 31, 1962, a formal order transferring the  appellant<br \/>\nfrom  Visnagar to Ambaji was passed, and he was directed  to<br \/>\njoin duty at Ambaji.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  that date, the appellant applied for extension of  leave<br \/>\non medical grounds but his request was refused by an  order,<br \/>\ndated February 15, 1962.  He was directed to report for duty<br \/>\nat  Ambaji within 48 hours of the receipt of notice  failing<br \/>\nwhich, he was warned, he would be removed from service.\t  On<br \/>\nMarch  3,  1962,  the  appellant  wrote\t a  letter  to\t the<br \/>\nDivisional  Controller\tintimating him of his  inability  to<br \/>\njoin  duty  as he was still not well.  To  this\t letter,  he<br \/>\nenclosed a medical certificate.\n<\/p>\n<p>By  an\torder,\tdated March 9, 1962,  the  services  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant were terminated with effect from January 16, 1962,<br \/>\non  the\t ground\t of  long absence.   The  appellant  made  a<br \/>\nrepresentation\tto  the Divisional Controller on  March\t 17,<br \/>\n1962  and  thereafter  preferred an appeal  to\tthe  General<br \/>\nManager of the Corporation.  Both of them were rejected.   A<br \/>\nfurther appeal preferred by him to the<br \/>\n L9SUPCI\/66&#8211;4<br \/>\n4 2<br \/>\nappellate  Committee was also unsuccessful.   The  Committee<br \/>\nheld that the leave applications of the appellant were\tmade<br \/>\nonly with a view to evade joining duty at Ambaji.<br \/>\nThe  appellant\tapplied to the High Court of  Gujarat  under<br \/>\nArts.  226  and\t 227 of\t the  Constitution,  impleading\t the<br \/>\nDivisional Controller as respondent, for the issue of a writ<br \/>\nof  certriorari\t to  quash  the\t order\tof  dismissal.\t His<br \/>\npetition  was dismissed in limine on May 28, 1963.  On\tJune<br \/>\n17, 1963, the appellant applied for a certificate to  appeal<br \/>\nto this Court but it was refused.  Thereafter he applied for<br \/>\nspecial leave and that was granted by this Court.<br \/>\nIt  may\t be stated at the outset that the respondent  is  an<br \/>\nautonomous statutory Corporation formed under the provisions<br \/>\nof  the\t Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950.\t It  is\t not<br \/>\ndisputed that the appellant could not invoke the  provisions<br \/>\nof Art. 311 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  short  question  for determination\t in  the  appeal  is<br \/>\nwhether the appellant was entitled to an opportunity to show<br \/>\ncause  against\tthe  proposed  punishment  as  required\t  by<br \/>\nregulation  No.\t 61  of the  Regulations  which\t govern\t the<br \/>\nservice conditions of the employees of the Corporation.\t  It<br \/>\nis admitted that no charge was framed against him nor was he<br \/>\ngiven an opportunity to show cause.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is contended for the respondent that though the order  of<br \/>\ntermination  referred  to  long\t absence  as  the  cause  of<br \/>\ntermination,  the  termination\titself was  not\t by  way  of<br \/>\npunishment  and the only right of the appellant was  to\t two<br \/>\nmonths&#8217; pay in lieu of notice under regulation No. 61,\tthat<br \/>\nassuming that the termination was by way of punishment,\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  as would be evident from the correspondence\t and<br \/>\nthe circumstances of the case, had been given an opportunity<br \/>\nto  show cause and that there was in fact and  in  substance<br \/>\ncompliance with the rules of natural justice.<br \/>\nWe  may, at this stage, read the relevant regulations  which<br \/>\nadmittedly govern the service conditions of the employees of<br \/>\nthe G Corporation.  Regulation No. 61 provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;The service of an employee, who does not hold<br \/>\n\t      a permanent appointment in State Transport  or<br \/>\n\t      a\t lien  on  a permanent\tappointment  in\t any<br \/>\n\t      Government   Department  from  which   he\t  is<br \/>\n\t      transferred,  are liable to be  terminated  by<br \/>\n\t      the  Competent Authority by giving a  calendar<br \/>\n\t      month&#8217;s  notice or a calendar month&#8217;s  pay  in<br \/>\n\t      lieu :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t\t    43<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided\tthat the services of casual  workers<br \/>\n\t      and  part\t time  workers\tmay  be\t  terminated<br \/>\n\t      without any notice;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      Provided further that a permanent employee  of<br \/>\n\t      State Transport shall be entitled to 60  days&#8217;<br \/>\n\t      notice or 60 days&#8217; pay in lieu.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      Clauses 3 8, 40 and 4 (b) of Schedule A to the<br \/>\n\t      Regulations provide:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;38.   Irregular attendance,  absence  without<br \/>\n\t      leave and without reasonable cause and absence<br \/>\n\t      without permission.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      40.Failure,  without sufficient  cause,  to<br \/>\n\t      report,  when directed, for duty, on the\tpart<br \/>\n\t      of  an  employee\tto whom\t the  leave  he\t has<br \/>\n\t      applied for is refused.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;4(b).   A  person  against  whom\t action\t  is<br \/>\n\t      proposed\t to   be  taken\t for  any   act\t  of<br \/>\n\t      misconduct,  shall be provided with a copy  of<br \/>\n\t      the  charge or charges as well as a  statement<br \/>\n\t      of  allegations  that have been  made  against<br \/>\n\t      him, and over which enquiry is being held.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t      Clause 3 defines two classes of offences named<br \/>\n\t      acts  of\tmisconduct  and\t minor\tlapses\t and<br \/>\n\t      delinquencies,  respectively and sub cl.\t(ii)<br \/>\n\t      of   cl.\t 3  states  inter  alia\t  that\t the<br \/>\n\t      misconducts are those specified in Schedule A.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Regulations  38\t and 40 provide that  irregular\t attendance,<br \/>\nabsence\t without  leave\t and without  reasonable  cause\t and<br \/>\nfailure, without sufficient cause, to report, when directed,<br \/>\nfor  duty  amount  to acts of misconduct.   Clause  4(b)  is<br \/>\nspecific and clear.  Under that clause, it is obligatory  on<br \/>\nthe  part  of  the  respondent,\t to  give  the\tappellant  a<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity to show cause, by providing him\twith<br \/>\na copy of the charge or charges, as well as the statement of<br \/>\nthe   allegations   that  have\tbeen   made   against\thim.<br \/>\nAdmittedly,  the respondent did not frame a  charge  against<br \/>\nthe appellant nor conduct any enquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>It  is true that the respondent may visit the punishment  of<br \/>\ndischarge  or  removal\tfrom service on\t a  person  who\t has<br \/>\nabsented himself without leave and without reasonable cause,<br \/>\nbut  this  cannot  entail  automatic  removal  from  service<br \/>\nwithout\t giving such person reasonable opportunity  to\tshow<br \/>\ncause why he be not removed.  The appellant is entitled to a<br \/>\nreasonable  opportunity\t to  show cause\t which\tincludes  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to deny his guilt and establish  his  innocence<br \/>\nwhich  he  can\tdo,  only when he  knows  what\tthe  charges<br \/>\nlevelled against him are and the allegations on<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">44<\/span><br \/>\nwhich  such charges are based.In our judgment the  appellant<br \/>\nwas  entitled  to an opportunity to show cause\tagainst\t the<br \/>\naction proposed to be taken against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The order of termination passed against the appellant is bad<br \/>\nin  law since it contravenes the provisions of cl.  4(b)  of<br \/>\nthe  Regulation and also the principles of natural  justice.<br \/>\nIn all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied\tthat<br \/>\nthe  impugned order must be quashed.  A writ  of  certiorari<br \/>\nwill accordingly issue quashing the order of dismissal,\t but<br \/>\nthis  will not preclude the respondent from making  a  fresh<br \/>\nenquiry\t against the appellant after giving  him  reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity to show cause as provided under cl. 4(b) of\t the<br \/>\nregulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  appeal  is accordingly allowed, but there\twill  be  no<br \/>\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">45<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1364, 1966 SCR (3) 40 Author: P Satyanarayanaraju Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Ramaswami, V., Satyanarayanaraju, P. PETITIONER: MAFATLAL NARAINDAS BAROT Vs. RESPONDENT: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND DATE OF JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/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-101556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-02T16:14:25+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T16:14:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1279,\"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\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\",\"name\":\"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-02T16:14:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-02T16:14:25+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965","datePublished":"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T16:14:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965"},"wordCount":1279,"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\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965","name":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State ... on 13 December, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-12-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-02T16:14:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mafatlal-naraindas-barot-vs-divisional-controller-state-on-13-december-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mafatlal Naraindas Barot vs Divisional Controller, State &#8230; on 13 December, 1965"}]},{"@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\/101556","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=101556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101556\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}