{"id":102020,"date":"2010-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-30T22:25:06","modified_gmt":"2017-10-30T16:55:06","slug":"abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                                         -1-\n\n                                                           \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                      \n                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                                 WRIT PETITION  NO. 5989 OF 2002\n\n     Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim,                                                                 )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                          \n    Age 60 years, Occ. Business, Dry Fish Space No. 5, Chatrapati                                )\n    Shivaji Maharaj market, Mata Ramaba Ambedkar Marg,                                           )\n    Mumbai-400 001                                                                               )..Petitioner\n\n           versus\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    1.       Head Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai,\n                                      ig                                                         )\n             Market Department, Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market,                               )\n             Mumbai-400 001                                                                      )\n                                    \n    2.       Assistant Commissioner's office (Market),                                           )\n             Mahatma Jyoti Phule Market, 1st floor, D.N. Road,                                   )\n             Mumbai-400 001                                                                      ).Respondents\n\n                                                                 WITH\n        \n\n\n                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 5990 OF 2002\n     \n\n\n\n    1.       Mohammed Shafi Machhiwala                                                           )\n             Age 60 years, Occ. Business                                                         )\n\n    2.       Mohammed Irfan Mohammed Shafi Machhiwala                                            )\n\n\n\n\n\n             Occ. Business, both carrying on business at Dry Fish Space                          )\n             No.4, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Market,                                           )\n             Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai-400 001                                          ).Respondents\n\n    Mr. A.N. Mulla for the petitioners.\n    Mr. M.M. Malvankar for the respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                            CORAM:  P.B. MAJMUDAR  &\n                                                                            R.M. SAVANT, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                    DATE:     JUNE 11, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. SAVANT, J.)<\/p>\n
                   These petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India <\/p>\n
    take exception   to the orders dated 22nd  August, 2002 passed by the learned <\/p>\n
    Principal   Judge,   City   Civil   Court,   Mumbai   and   the   orders   of   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   (Markets)   dated   9th  July,   2002   and   1st  August,   2002   (orally <\/p>\n
    conveyed).   By the orders dated 22nd  August, 2009, the   appeals filed by the <\/p>\n
    petitioners abovenamed were held to be not maintainable in view of the fact <\/p>\n
    that the orders against which the appeals were filed were not appealable as they <\/p>\n
    were not passed under Section 105-B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, <\/p>\n
    1888, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “the said Act”.\n<\/p>\n
    2.             The facts in a nutshell  can be stated thus:-\n<\/p>\n
    3.             The petitioner in   Writ Petition No. 5989 of 2002 claims through <\/p>\n
    one Mohammed Afzal, who was allotted dry fish space stall No.5 in Chhatrapati <\/p>\n
    Shivaji   Market,   Mumbai.     It   is   the   case   of   the   said   petitioner   that   the   said <\/p>\n
    Mohammed  Afzal executed  a  naukarnama   in  favour  of  the  petitioner.    It is <\/p>\n
    further the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Corporation has accepted <\/p>\n
    the petitioner as a licensee and started collecting rent from him.  The petitioner <\/p>\n
    in the said petition was issued a show cause notice for arrears of rent.   After <\/p>\n
    issuance of the second show cause notice, rent was collected  from the petitioner <\/p>\n
    for the period April, 1996 to December, 1996.  The petitioner was again issued <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
    show cause notices on 18th  February, 1999 and 6th  March, 1999, pursuant to <\/p>\n
    which the petitioner again paid the rent and Municipal   Corporation accepted <\/p>\n
    the same.  It appears thereafter on 9th July, 2002, the respondents have passed <\/p>\n
    an   ex   parte   order   and   directed   the   petitioner   to   vacate   the   premises.     It   is <\/p>\n
    against the said order dated 9th  July, 2002 that the petitioner filed an Appeal <\/p>\n
    before   the   learned   Principal   Judge,   City   Civil   Court,   Mumbai,   which   appeal <\/p>\n
    came to be disposed of by an order dated 22nd  August, 2002 on the grounds <\/p>\n
    mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             In   so   far   as   petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   No.   5990   of   2002   are <\/p>\n
    concerned,   the   said   petitioners   claim   to   be   licensees   of   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
    Corporation by virtue of an oral agreement in respect of dry fish space stall No.4 <\/p>\n
    in   the   said   Chhatrapati   Shivaji   Market   at   Mumbai.     It   is   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners that the rent receipts were issued in the name of the partners of the <\/p>\n
    petitioners,   who   thereafter   left     Mumbai,   as   a   consequence   of   which   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners took over the business.   It is the case of the petitioners that from <\/p>\n
    1985   to   1996,   respondent   No.1   was   regularly   collecting   rent   and   passing <\/p>\n
    receipts for the same.  On 3rd July, 1996, the respondents stopped collecting rent <\/p>\n
    and a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners.  Pursuant to the <\/p>\n
    said show cause notice, the petitioners offered the arrears of rent which was <\/p>\n
    collected by respondent No.1 by waiving the notice. The petitioners were again <\/p>\n
    issued show cause notice on 18th February, 1999 and 6th March, 1999, pursuant <\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
    to   which   again   the   petitioners   paid   the   rent   which   was   collected     by   the <\/p>\n
    respondents.     Again show cause notices came to be issued to the petitioners, <\/p>\n
    pursuant to which the petitioners offered the rent.  However, the same was not <\/p>\n
    accepted   by   the   respondents   and   ultimately   on   1st  August,   2002   the     Rent <\/p>\n
    Collector of respondent No.1 orally ordered the petitioners to vacate the suit <\/p>\n
    premises. By their Advocate’s letter dated 5th  August, 2002, petitioners offered <\/p>\n
    the   rent   which   was   refused.   Ultimately,   since   the   petitioners   were   asked   to <\/p>\n
    vacate the premises, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the City Civil Court, <\/p>\n
    Mumbai, which came to be disposed of by the order dated 22nd August, 2002 on <\/p>\n
    the grounds mentioned earlier.\n<\/p>\n
    5.            In so far as the order of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil <\/p>\n
    Court is concerned, the appeals filed by the two sets of petitioners have been <\/p>\n
    held   to   be   not   maintainable   on   the   ground   that   the   order   impugned   is   an <\/p>\n
    administrative order and not an order passed under Section 105 B of the said <\/p>\n
    Act. The learned Principal Judge has held that the order not being passed by an <\/p>\n
    authority designated under Section 105-B, therefore, cannot be called an order <\/p>\n
    passed under the   said provision. The learned Principal Judge, therefore, held <\/p>\n
    that   the   order   against  which   the   appeal   was  filed   being   passed   by  Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner was only an administrative order against which no appeal could <\/p>\n
    lie before the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court. In our view, considering <\/p>\n
    the   reasons   mentioned     by   the   learned   Principal   Judge,   City   Civil   Court, <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                       -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
    Mumbai,     for   holding   that   the   appeals   filed   by   the   two   sets   of   petitioners <\/p>\n
    abovenamed being not maintainable cannot be faulted with. A perusal of the <\/p>\n
    order impugned before the learned Principal Judge would show that the said <\/p>\n
    order is in the form of an administrative order. The said order does not even <\/p>\n
    refer to any provisions of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner, who passed <\/p>\n
    the said order, is not  the designated authority under Section 105-B of the said <\/p>\n
    Act.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
                   The   gravamen   of   the   allegations   against   the   petitioners   in   both <\/p>\n
    petitions   is   that   they   had   defaulted   in   payment   of   rent   as   also   in   so   far   as <\/p>\n
    petitioner   in Writ Petition No.5989 of 2002 is concerned, it is stated that an <\/p>\n
    unauthorised   person   was   found   to   be   occupying   the   premises   in   question, <\/p>\n
    without there being any naukarnama   in place. Since the reason for eviction of <\/p>\n
    the petitioners was on the aforesaid grounds, in our view, it was necessary for <\/p>\n
    the Corporation to proceed against the petitioners by invoking Section 105-B of <\/p>\n
    the said Act. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners are in occupation  of the <\/p>\n
    premises of the Corporation.  The eviction of the petitioners sought on the said <\/p>\n
    grounds  would, therefore, entail a particular procedure to be followed wherein <\/p>\n
    the petitioners can raise their defences, if any.  In our view, therefore, it would <\/p>\n
    be necessary for the Corporation to have a recourse to Section 105-B of the Act <\/p>\n
    for the eviction of the petitioners from the premises of the Corporation rather <\/p>\n
    than by way of an administrative order.   As indicated above, the said action <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
    would   entail   a   procedure   to   be   followed   wherein   the   petitioners   can   also <\/p>\n
    participate.   We,   therefore,   set   aside   the   orders   passed   by   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner (Markets) and confirm the orders passed by the learned Principal <\/p>\n
    Judge,   City   Civil   Court,   Mumbai,   in   the     Appeals   filed   by   the   petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    However, we grant liberty to the Municipal Corporation to proceed against the <\/p>\n
    petitioners under Section 105-B  of the said Act. We do not express any opinion <\/p>\n
    as regards the merits of the petitioners’ case in the above two petitions and keep <\/p>\n
    the contentions of the parties open in the matter of eviction of both the sets of <\/p>\n
    petitioners. We accordingly partly allow the writ petitions by making the Rule <\/p>\n
    absolute to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            By interim orders passed in both the above petitions the petitioners <\/p>\n
    were directed to pay the applicable rent to the Municipal Corporation. The said <\/p>\n
    direction  would  continue  to operate  during  the  pendency of the  proceedings <\/p>\n
    under Section 105-B of the Act, if such proceedings are initiated   against the <\/p>\n
    Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                R.M. SAVANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:00:10 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. M. Savant -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5989 OF 2002 Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim, ) Age 60 years, Occ. Business, Dry Fish Space No. 5, Chatrapati […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1241,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010"},"wordCount":1241,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010","name":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-30T16:55:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-razzaque-abdul-rahim-vs-head-inspector-on-11-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Razzaque Abdul Rahim vs Head Inspector on 11 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102020","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=102020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}