{"id":108732,"date":"2011-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2"},"modified":"2017-11-18T19:05:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-18T13:35:19","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
       wp222.11.odt                         1\n\n\n                   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                              WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n       PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n                                         Department of Higher and Technical\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                                         Education, through its Secretary,\n                                         Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n                                    2. The Director,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n                                        Directorate of Technical Education\n                                        Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                         \n                                        Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n                                        Mumbai - 400001.\n                        \n                                    3. The Joint Director,\n                                        Technical Eduction Directorate,\n                                        Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n      \n\n\n                                    4. The Principal,\n                                        Government Polytechnic,\n   \n\n\n\n                                        Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n                                       Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       ..VERSUS..\n\n       RESPONDENT:       Kishor s\/o Devidas Jambhulkar,\n                                  Aged about 29 yeas, Occu: Service,\n                                  R\/o Govt.Polytechnic Complex,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                  Quarter No.Prajakta-4, Gadchiroli,\n                                  Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n                             WRIT PETITION NO.223 OF 2011.\n\n\n       PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n                                         Department of Higher and Technical\n                                         Education, through its Secretary,\n                                         Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::\n            wp222.11.odt                         2\n\n\n                                        2. The Director,\n                                            Directorate of Technical Education\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n                                            Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                                            Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n                                            Mumbai - 400001.\n\n                                        3. The Joint Director,\n                                            Technical Eduction Directorate,\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n                                            Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n\n                                        4. The Principal,\n                                            Government Polytechnic,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                                            Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n                                           Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n                              ig           ..VERSUS..\n                            \n           RESPONDENT:        Moreshwar s\/o Ghatu Yerewar,\n                              Aged about 24 years, Occu: Service,\n                              R\/o M.I.D.C.Kodgal, Po.Pardi,Tq.\n                              and Distt.Gadchiroli.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                       WRIT PETITION NO.224 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n           PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n                                             Department of Higher and Technical\n                                             Education, through its Secretary,\n                                             Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        2. The Director,\n                                            Directorate of Technical Education\n                                            Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                                            Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n                                            Mumbai - 400001.\n\n                                        3. The Joint Director,\n                                            Technical Eduction Directorate,\n                                            Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n                                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::\n      wp222.11.odt                         3\n\n                                  4. The Principal,\n                                      Government Polytechnic,\n                                      Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                                     Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                                     ..VERSUS..\n\n     RESPONDENT:       Devidas s\/o Keshao Sonule,\n                                Aged about 32 years, Occu: Service,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                                R\/o Ranmudza, Gadchiroli, Tq. and\n                                Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n                      WRIT PETITION NO.225 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                   \n                       \n     PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n                                       Department of Higher and Technical\n                                       Education, through its Secretary,\n                      \n                                       Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n                                  2. The Director,\n                                      Directorate of Technical Education\n      \n\n\n                                      Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                                      Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n   \n\n\n\n                                      Mumbai - 400001.\n\n                                  3. The Joint Director,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                      Technical Eduction Directorate,\n                                      Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n\n                                  4. The Principal,\n                                      Government Polytechnic,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                      Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n                                     Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n                                     ..VERSUS..\n\n     RESPONDENT:        Suresh s\/o Ganpat Sahare,\n                                 Aged about 37 years, Occu: Service,\n                                 R\/o Govt.Polytechnic Complex,\n                                \"Prajakta-I,Gadchiroli, Tq. and Distt.\n                                 Gadchiroli.\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::\n         wp222.11.odt                         4\n\n\n                               WRIT PETITION NO.226 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n        PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                          Department of Higher and Technical\n                                          Education, through its Secretary,\n                                          Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                                     2. The Director,\n                                         Directorate of Technical Education\n                                         Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                                         Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                                         Mumbai - 400001.\n                           \n                                     3. The Joint Director,\n                                         Technical Eduction Directorate,\n                                         Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n                          \n                                     4. The Principal,\n                                         Government Polytechnic,\n                                         Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n      \n\n\n                                        Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n   \n\n\n\n                                        ..VERSUS..\n\n        RESPONDENT:       Rajesh s\/o Devaji Govardhan,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                   Aged about 26 years, Occu: Service,\n                                   R\/o Govt.Polytechnic College,\n                                   Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli, Tq. and\n                                   Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n\n\n\n\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2011.\n\n\n        PETITIONERS:      1.  The State of Maharashtra,\n                                          Department of Higher and Technical\n                                          Education, through its Secretary,\n                                          Mantralaya Mumbai.\n\n                                     2. The Director,\n                                         Directorate of Technical Education\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::\n         wp222.11.odt                                                 5\n\n                                               Maharashtra State, 3,  Mahapalika \n                                               Marg,P.Box No.1967,\n                                               Mumbai - 400001.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                           \n                                     3. The Joint Director,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                                         Technical Eduction Directorate,\n                                         Regional Office, Sadar, Nagpur.\n\n                                     4. The Principal,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n                                         Government Polytechnic,\n                                         Indala Parisar, Gadchiroli,\n                                        Tq. And Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                                                          ..VERSUS..\n                                     \n        RESPONDENT:       Wasudeo s\/o Ganpat Gedam,\n                                   Aged about 37 yeas, Occu: Service,\n                                   R\/o C\/o Bhagwan Gedam, Govt.\n                                    \n                                   Polytechnic College, Indala Parisar,\n                                   Gadchiroli, Tq. and Distt.Gadchiroli.\n\n        ....................................................................................................................................\n      \n\n\n         Mr.A.D.Sonak, Addl.Govt.Pleader for the petitioners.\n         Mr.F.G.Isaac, Advocate for the respondents.\n   \n\n\n\n        ....................................................................................................................................\n          \n                                                                          CORAM :  R.M.SAVANT, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                          DATED  :  22nd   July,  2011.\n<\/p>\n
             ORAL JUDGMENT.\n<\/p>\n
        1.                   Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard, with   the <\/p>\n
        consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
         2.                   The   above   petitions   involve   identical   facts   and <\/p>\n
         common   issues   and   are,   therefore,   heard   and   disposed   of <\/p>\n
         together.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
     3              The   above   petition   and   the   accompanying   Writ <\/p>\n
     Petitions take exception to the Judgment and Orders passed by <\/p>\n
     the   Industrial   Court   in   the   complaint   filed   by   each   of   the <\/p>\n
     respondents   in   the   above   petitions,   who   are   working   with   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners.  Though separate judgment is delivered in each of the <\/p>\n
     complaints filed by the respondent, all the judgment and orders <\/p>\n
     are dated 16th July, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
     4.<\/p>\n
                    Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated <\/p>\n
     thus –\n<\/p>\n
                          The respondent in each of the above petitions is the <\/p>\n
     workman   working   with   the   petitioners.     It   is   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
     respondents   that   they   have   been   working   with   the   petitioners <\/p>\n
     since the year 1999 on daily wages.   It is further their case that <\/p>\n
     they have been paid daily wages less than their entitlement.\n<\/p>\n
     5.               The respondent in Writ Petition No.222 of 2011 was <\/p>\n
     working   as   a   Filter   Operator   and   he   has   been   working <\/p>\n
     continuously as such till 16\/12\/1996.  It is his case that though he <\/p>\n
     has   been  working  for  whole   of   the  month,  he   has   been  shown <\/p>\n
     working only for 20 days.  The payment was also made to him on <\/p>\n
     such basis and it was seen to it that the monthly wages do not <\/p>\n
     exceed   Rs.1760\/-.     It   was   the   case   of   the   respondent   that   the <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
     petitioners were showing artificial break in every month with an <\/p>\n
     ulterior motive so as not to give continuity.  It was further the case <\/p>\n
     of the respondent that the work done by him was of a permanent <\/p>\n
     nature and the practice of giving a break and also continuing him <\/p>\n
     on daily wages was adopted so as not to go give him the benefits <\/p>\n
     of permanency and regularization.  The respondent along with the <\/p>\n
     respondents   in   companion   petitions,   filed   complaints   invoking <\/p>\n
     Item No.6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of <\/p>\n
     Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     6.             The   said   complaints   were   resisted   by   the   petitioners <\/p>\n
     and preliminary objections of the petitioners, who are respondents <\/p>\n
     in   the   said   complaints,   were   that   the   respondent   no.4   –\n<\/p>\n
     Polytechnic   in question run by the respondent no.1 was not an <\/p>\n
     Industry and the complainants i.e. the respondents in the above <\/p>\n
     petitions were not workmen.  It was denied that the respondents <\/p>\n
     were appointed as a Water Filter Operator. It was further denied <\/p>\n
     that the respondents were appointed on daily wages.  According to <\/p>\n
     the petitioners, the respondents were appointed as and when work <\/p>\n
     was available.   It was further denied that the respondents have <\/p>\n
     worked for 240 days in a calendar year.  It was lastly denied that <\/p>\n
     work was of a permanent nature and yet the respondents were <\/p>\n
     kept on daily wages with a view to deny them the benefits.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.             The Industrial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the <\/p>\n
     parties, inter alia, framed the following issues and has answered <\/p>\n
     them as follows –\n<\/p>\n
                    ISSUES                                       FINDINGS.\n<\/p>\n
     1. Whether the establishment\/department
\n         where the complainants work is an Industry ?…  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Do the complainants prove that they are
\n         working continuously as claimed ?  …. ….        Yes.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Do the complainants prove that the
\n         respondents have engaged in the unfair
\n         labour practice under Item 6 and 9 as alleged?..  Yes.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Whether the complainants are entitled to<\/p>\n
         the reliefs as prayed for ?                ….              .. As
\n                                                                         per final order.\n<\/p>\n
     8.             It is pertinent to note that though the issue as regards;\n<\/p>\n
     whether   the   establishment\/department   wherein   the   respondents <\/p>\n
     were   working   is   an   Industry,   was   framed   and   answered   in   the <\/p>\n
     affirmative.     Significantly,   no   findings   have   been   recorded   in <\/p>\n
     support of the said answer.   The impugned judgment and order <\/p>\n
     discloses that the findings have been recorded only in respect of <\/p>\n
     Issue   Nos.2,   3   and   4.     However,   in   so   far   as   Issue   no.1   is <\/p>\n
     concerned, though the  issue  is answered in the  affirmative, one <\/p>\n
     does not find any findings in support of the said answer.  Since the <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
     said issue goes to the root of the matter and since there have been <\/p>\n
     no findings recorded in respect of the said issue, though the said <\/p>\n
     issue  is  answered  in  the   affirmative,  in  my view,  the  impugned <\/p>\n
     Judgment and Order dated 16\/7\/2010 is required to be set aside <\/p>\n
     and the matter is required to be relegated back to the Industrial <\/p>\n
     Court for a de novo consideration.  The learned counsel appearing <\/p>\n
     for the Respondents in the above petitions does not dispute the <\/p>\n
     aforesaid position.\n<\/p>\n
     9.             In the above petitions the petitioners have also sought <\/p>\n
     to rely upon certain material which was not before the Industrial <\/p>\n
     Court, which documents are inter alia the following –\n<\/p>\n
               i)   A   Chart   showing   the   sanctioned   post   in <\/p>\n
               the Polytechnic,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               ii) The Notification showing the sanctioned <\/p>\n
               Post filled in by the petitioners.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    The   respondents\/workmen   have   also   filed   their <\/p>\n
     affidavit-in-reply.  They also seek to rely upon material which was <\/p>\n
     not produced before the Industrial Court when it decided the said <\/p>\n
     complaint.   The said material is inter alia, the chart showing the <\/p>\n
     vacancy position at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.            Both   the   learned   counsel   i.e.   the   learned   Additional <\/p>\n
     Government   Pleader   appearing   for   the   petitioners   and   Shri <\/p>\n
     F.G.Issac,   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent-\n<\/p>\n
     workman   in   each   of   the   above   petitions   are   ad   idem   that   the <\/p>\n
     parties to be given an opportunity to lead further evidence in court <\/p>\n
     in support of the respective case.  Hence, the following directions.\n<\/p>\n
             (i)   The   impugned   Judgment   and   Order   dated
\n             16\/7\/2010 passed by the Industrial Court, which is the <\/p>\n
             subject-matter   in   each   of   the   above   petitions,   is
\n             quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back <\/p>\n
             to the Industrial Court for a de novo consideration.\n<\/p>\n
             (ii)  The complainant i.e. the respondent in each of the <\/p>\n
             above   petitions   would   be   permitted   to   amend   the
\n             complaint, if he so deems fit so as to incorporate any
\n             additional   contentions,   which   he   seeks   to   place   on <\/p>\n
             record.   If such amendment application is moved and
\n             allowed, the petitioners herein would be entitled to file
\n             their additional written statement dealing with the said <\/p>\n
             case of the complainants.\n<\/p>\n
             (iii)       The   parties   would   be   allowed   to   lead   further
\n             evidence in view of the contentious issue involved in
\n             the   above   complaints   as   regards   the   claim   of
\n             permanency   and   regularization   claimed   by   the
\n             respondents in the above petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>
\n      wp222.11.odt                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
              (iv)           Needless   to   say   that   the   documents,   if   any, <\/p>\n
              which they seek to file, be proved in accordance with
\n              law.\n<\/p>\n
              (v)  On remand, the Industrial Court to hear and decide <\/p>\n
              the respective complaints within six months of the first
\n              appearance of the parties before it.\n<\/p>\n
              (vi)    Parties to appear before the Industrial Court on
\n              17\/8\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
              (vii)     In the interregnum and till the decision of the
\n              complaints, no precipitative action by way of removal <\/p>\n
              should   be   taken   against   the   respondents   unless   for <\/p>\n
              disciplinary reasons.\n<\/p>\n
                    Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
     terms with parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     JUDGE <\/p>\n
      chute<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:32:46 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant wp222.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2011. PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, through its Secretary, Mantralaya Mumbai. 2. The Director, Directorate […]<\/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-108732","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-18T13:35:19+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\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T13:35:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1191,\"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\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-18T13:35:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - 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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-18T13:35:19+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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T13:35:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2"},"wordCount":1191,"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\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-18T13:35:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-kishor-on-22-july-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs Kishor on 22 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/108732","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=108732"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108732\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108732"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108732"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108732"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}