{"id":106341,"date":"2002-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002"},"modified":"2018-07-26T02:24:13","modified_gmt":"2018-07-25T20:54:13","slug":"union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2727  of  1998\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nUNION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHREE GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nS. Rajendra Babu & Ruma Pal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
[WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5393\/1998 AND WRIT PETITION  (C) NO.632\/2000]<\/p>\n
J  U  D\t G  M  E  N  T<\/p>\n
RAJENDRA BABU,\t J.  :\n<\/p>\n
\tThese are three matters, two of which are appeals arising out of
\norders made by two different High Courts and the third matter is a writ
\npetition filed by the respondent (Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan) in
\nCivil Appeal No. 2727\/1998 in this Court directly under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2727\/1998<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent in this appeal registered as a charitable trust
\nunder the Bombay Public Trust Act filed a writ petition before the
\nBombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, contending that Section 2(j) of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’]
\nprovides for definition of the expression  “industry”;\tthat this Court
\ninterpreted the said expression in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage
\nBoard\tvs.  A. Rajappa & Ors.,<\/a>\t 1978 (2) SCC 213; that separate
\njudgments were rendered by Beg, C.J., Chandrachud, CJ. And Bhagwati,
\nKrishna Iyer and Desai, JJ. together, while Jaswant Singh and
\nTulzapurkar, JJ. partially dissented;  that they explained the definition of
\nthe expression\t“industry”  in the Act;\t  that all of them are of the view
\nthat the matter should be clarified by the Legislature by a suitable
\namendment;  that the said definition of\t “industry”  as interpreted by this
\nCourt would include  ‘charitable trust’\t as well; that under the Industrial
\nDisputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 by clause (c) thereof definition of the
\nterm  “industry”  has been amended and\t‘charitable organisations’  have
\nbeen excluded from the term “industry”;\t that Section 1(2) of the
\nAmending Act provides that the Act shall come into force on such date as
\nthe Central Government may by a notification in the Official Gazette
\nappoint; that although most of the provisions of the Amending Act have
\nbeen brought into effect by a notification dated August 21, 1984, clause\n<\/p>\n
(c), which has amended the definition of the term “industry”,  has not
\nbeen brought into force; that thus,  the definition of the term\t “industry”
\nas it stood prior to the amendment is still applicable to the employees
\nworking in the appellant’s institution;\t that  the Central Government has
\narbitrarily withheld the enforcement of the said provision for a
\nsufficiently long time\tand, therefore, a writ of  mandamus  needs to be
\nissued to the Central Government to notify the date for bringing the
\nprovisions into force.\tThe Central Government took the stand that
\nenforcing the provision under clause (c) without providing for appropriate
\nremedies to the employees working in hospitals, schools and temples
\nthey would, therefore, be rendered without any remedy in the event the
\nsaid clause is put into force without enacting an appropriate law or
\nmaking certain amendments in the existing laws.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court took the view that the Central Government in
\nnotifying the date when the provisions of the Act will come into force will
\nhave to examine the attending circumstances before bringing the same
\ninto force and such a power would not empower the Central Government
\nto decide whether to bring a particular provision into force or not.
\nHowever, the High Court was of the view that when the Amending Act
\nwas adopted by Parliament the difficulties put forth by the appellants
\nwere prevalent and, therefore,\tit authorised the Central Government to
\nnotify the appointed day.  It is in these circumstances\t  the High Court
\nfelt that it is obligatory for the Central Government to examine whether
\ndifficulties as expressed still subsist and what steps the Central
\nGovernment had taken to surmount them and when more than 18 years
\nhad elapsed the appellant ought to examine and decide as to when it
\nwould be feasible to give effect to the provisions of the Amending Act.
\nIn this appeal the order made by the High Court is in challenge.\n<\/p>\n
This Court made an order on 8.2.2001 to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n
“The direction issued by the High Court in respect of which these
\nappeals are filed is that the Union of India should examine and
\ndecide within six months as to when it would be feasible to give
\neffect to Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of the Industrial Disputes
\nAmending Act, 1982 contained in the Amending Act.   Now, it is
\nstated on behalf of the Union of India that the said exercise has
\nbeen done and they do not find it feasible to give effect to the
\nprovisions at this stage. It would be appropriate to file an
\naffidavit in a matter of this nature and thereafter take a decision.
\nLearned counsel for the Appellant-Union of India seeks six weeks
\ntime to file the affidavit.  Call after six weeks.”\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Central
\nGovernment in this regards which is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
“(2) That this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 18th April 2001
\nwas pleased to grant one week time to the Union of India to file a
\nbetter affidavit regarding the present stage of notifying the
\namendment of Section 2(c) of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)
\nAct, 1982.   Pursuant to the said order,  the present affidavit is
\nbeing filed.\n<\/p>\n
(3) That the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 1982 was
\nintroduced to amend the definition of the term industry.\n<\/p>\n
(4) That the Government also introduced the Hospitals and Other
\nInstitutions (Settlement of Disputes) Bill in the Rajya Sabha.\n<\/p>\n
The former Bill was enacted but the later bill was not pursued
\nbecause of opposition to various provisions.\n<\/p>\n
As a consequence the amended definition of the term  “industry”
\ncould not be brought  into effect in the absence of alternative
\ngrievance machinery for employees in hospitals, educational
\ninstitutions, etc. who would have been denied the protection of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tThat another attempt was made by introducing,  ‘the
\nHospitals and Other Institutions (Redressal of Grievances of
\nEmployees) Bill’,  but\t it lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok
\nSabha in 1989.\n<\/p>\n
(6)  That Bipartite Committee for new Industrial Relations law
\nunder the Chairmanship of Sh. G. Ramanujam was set up by the
\nGovernment for formulation of comprehensive industrial
\nformulations law, but the views of this Committee on the definition
\nof the terms industry were not unanimous.\n<\/p>\n
(7)  That a proposal for modification of the definition of the term
\n‘industry’  was placed in the Standing Labour Committee and
\nthereafter the issue was referred to the new Bipartite Committee to
\nformulate a comprehensive Industrial Relations Bill.   It was
\nwound up as no consensus emerged.\n<\/p>\n
(8)  That the Ministry of Labour prepared a proposal to amend the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 including definition of ‘industry’
\nand the proposal was sent to Committee of Secretaries.\n<\/p>\n
(9)  In the meeting of Committee of Secretaries (COS) on 15.2.1999
\nit was agreed that an Inter-Ministerial Group would be set up by
\nthe Ministry of Labour to finalise the proposals.   Accordingly,  an
\nInter-Ministerial Group was set up with the representatives of 13
\nMinistries\/Departments.\n<\/p>\n
(10)  That Meetings of the Inter-Ministerial Group with the
\nrepresentatives of all the 13 Ministries\/Departments were held on
\n14.5.1999 and 11.1.2001 to consider the amendment proposals.\n<\/p>\n
(11)  That meetings of COS under the chairmanship of the Cabinet
\nSecretary were held on 15.2.1999, 3.11.1999, and 21.1.2000 to
\nconsider the amendment proposals.\n<\/p>\n
(12)  That the proposal was revised\/recast on the basis of
\nrecommendations made by the Group and Inter-Ministerial
\nCommittee of Secretaries.\n<\/p>\n
(13)  That group of Ministers was constituted under the
\nChairmanship of Dy. Chairman, Planning Commission to suggest
\nthe amendment proposals.  The group consisted of Ministers of 9
\nMinistries.\n<\/p>\n
(14)  That group of Ministers has met on 11.4.2000, 12.5.2000
\nand 27.5.2000.\n<\/p>\n
(15)  That the proposal to amend the Industrial Disputes Act were
\nagain revised on the basis of recommendations of Group of
\nMinisters.\n<\/p>\n
(16)  That after finalising the proposals,  it was sent to Ministry of
\nLaw, Justice and Company Affairs for the opinion of Department
\nof Legal Affairs.   Department of Legal Affairs have concurred in
\nthe proposals and a draft bill is being drafted by the Legislative
\nDepartment, Ministry of Law.”\n<\/p>\n
\tA reference has been made to the following decisions and to the
\ncriteria upon which the delegated legislation and conditional legislation
\ncan be distinguished:\n<\/p>\n
In re the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmet-Merwara
\n(Extension of Laws) Act, 1947 and The Part C States
\n(Laws) Act, 1950, 1951 SCR 747, Rajnarain Singh\t  vs.
\nThe Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna
\n& Anr.,<\/a>\t 1955 (1) SCR 290, Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal
\nKuan, Delhi & Anr.   vs.  Union of India & Ors.,<\/a>  1960 (2)
\nSCR 671, Suman Gupta and Ors.\tvs.  State of J & K &
\nOrs.,<\/a> 1983 (4) SCC 339, Consumer Action Group & Anr.
\nvs.  State of T.N. & Ors.,  2000 (7) SCC 425,  and
\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee\tvs.  Ashok
\nHarikuni & Anr.,<\/a>  2000 (8) SCC 61.\n<\/p>\n
In Aeltemesh Rein  vs.\tUnion of India & Ors.,<\/a>\t1988 (4) SCC 54,
\nwhen Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was not put into operation
\neven after a lapse of 27 years of its enactment,  this Court observed that
\nthe Court on account of long lapse of time though cannot issue writ of
\nmandamus it can ask the Government to consider within a reasonable
\ntime whether time for enforcing the provision has arrived or not and no
\nmore.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn A.K. Roy   vs.  Union of India & Ors.,  1982 (1) SCC 271, a
\ncontention was raised that despite the provisions of Section 1(2) of the
\n44th Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1978, Article 22 of the Constitution
\nstood amended on 30.4.1979 when the Amendment Act received the
\nassent of the President and that there was nothing more that remained
\nto be done by the Executive except fixing a date for the commencement of
\nthe Act as provided under Section 1(2) thereof.\t According to the said
\ncontention,  Section 1(2), which is misconceived and abortive, must be
\nignored and severed from the rest of the Amendment Act.\t  This Court
\nobserved that no mandamus could be issued to the Executive directing it
\nto commence the operation of the enactment; that such a direction
\nshould not be construed as any approval by the Court of the failure on
\nthe part of the Central Government for a long period to bring the
\nprovisions of the enactment into force; that in leaving it to the judgment
\nof the Central Government to decide as to when the various provisions of
\nthe enactment should be brought into force,  the Parliament could not
\nhave intended that the Central Government may exercise a kind of veto
\nover its constituent will by not ever bring the enactment or some of its
\nprovisions into force; that if only the Parliament were to lay down an
\nobjective standard to guide and control the discretion of the Central
\nGovernment in the matter of bringing the various provisions of the Act
\ninto force, it would have been possible to compel the Central Government
\nby an appropriate writ to discharge the function assigned to it by the
\nParliament.   It was further contended that an amendment can be bad
\nbecause it vests an uncontrolled power in the executive in bringing an
\nenactment into operation.   This Court, however, noticed that such power
\ncannot be held to give an uncontrolled power to the executive inasmuch
\nas there are practical difficulties in the enforcement of laws and those
\ndifficulties cannot be foreseen.  It, therefore, became necessary to leave
\nthe judgment to the Executive as to when the law should be brought into
\nforce. When enforcement of a provision in a statute is left to the
\ndiscretion of the Government without laying down any objective
\nstandards no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the
\nGovernment to consider the question whether the provision should be
\nbrought into force and when it can do so.  Delay in implementing the will
\nof the Parliament may draw adverse criticism but on the data placed
\nbefore us, we cannot say that the Government is not alive to the problem
\nor is desirous of ignoring the will of the Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances set out in the affidavit filed on behalf of the
\nGovernment, it would not be feasible for Government to set out any
\ndefinite day as to when they can take action as indicated by the High
\nCourt and, therefore, the order made by the High Court cannot be given
\neffect to at all. Though there has been a sense of urgency on the part of
\nthe Government in this regard, it has not been able to take a decision in
\nthe circumstances set forth in the affidavit.  Hence, while noticing that
\nappropriate action has to be taken by the Government to bring into effect
\nthe Amending Act as indicated by the High Court, we also take note of
\nthe various circumstances which come in the way of the Government to
\ngive effect to the Amending Act immediately.   That part of the order of
\nthe High Court by which writ of mandamus has been issued to the
\nGovernment to take action and to indicate as to when it would be feasible
\nto appoint a date for bringing into force the Amending Act stands deleted.
\nIn other respects, the order made by the High Court is maintained.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppeal is partly allowed accordingly.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5393\/1998<\/p>\n
\tIn this Civil Appeal, which is identical in nature with Civil Appeal
\nNo. 2727\/1998, the view taken by the Karnataka High Court which is
\ncontrary from that of the Bombay High Court is in challenge.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of the order made by us in Civil Appeal No. 2727\/1998,
\nthis appeal stands dismissed.\tNo costs.\n<\/p>\n
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 632\/2000<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the order made in Civil Appeal Nos. 2727\/1998, this writ
\npetition stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t.J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t       [ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t       .J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t    [ RUMA PAL ]
\nAPRIL 29, 2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 Author: R Babu Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2727 of 1998 PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHREE GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/04\/2002 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & Ruma Pal JUDGMENT: [WITH […]<\/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-106341","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-25T20:54:13+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T20:54:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2222,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-25T20:54:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-25T20:54:13+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T20:54:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002"},"wordCount":2222,"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\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002","name":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-25T20:54:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-shree-gajanan-maharaj-sansthan-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Shree Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan on 29 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/106341","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=106341"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106341\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106341"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106341"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106341"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}