{"id":112154,"date":"2010-11-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-26T14:05:04","modified_gmt":"2015-06-26T08:35:04","slug":"state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/1041\/2003\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 1041 of 2003\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 3202 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n \n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=================================================\n\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Appellants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHENDRASINH\nBALWANTSINH SARVAIYA - Respondent\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR. H.K.\nPATEL, LD. AGP for Appellants : 1 - 3. \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent: \nMR MB PARIKH for Respondent\n: \n================================================= \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/11\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpresent appeal arise against the order passed by learned Single
\n\tJudge of this Court dated 19\/7\/2001 in Special Civil Application No.
\n\t3202 of 2001, as well as the order dated 28\/9\/2001 in Misc. Civil
\n\tApplication No. 1571 of 2001 in Special Civil Application No. 3202
\n\tof 2001, whereby  the showcause notice for cancellation of the
\n\tlicense, as well as the decision of the District Collector for
\n\tfixation of the premium under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy &
\n\tAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the
\n\t‘Act’), are quashed.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trelevant facts are that, the agricultural land bearing Survey No.
\n\t310, admeasuring 4 acres & 15 gunthas at Amreli was held by
\n\tMohanbhai Dharamshibhai Sidhpura (hereinafter referred to as the
\n\t‘original owner of the land’ for the sake of convenience). Out of
\n\tthe said land, original owner wanted to sell one acre to Shri
\n\tMahendrasinh Balwantsinh Sarvaiya, the appellant herein, for
\n\tcommercial purpose. But, as the land was held by original owner with
\n\ta restricted tenure on 6\/2\/1995, he made an application to the
\n\tDistrict Collector, Amreli, for seeking permission and for fixation
\n\tof premium under Section 43 of the Act. It also appears that the
\n\toriginal owner entered into an agreement for sale of the land with
\n\tthe appellant, but the fact remains that the permission of the
\n\tDistrict Collector was not granted, and it is the case of the
\n\tappellant that anticipating permission and\/or subject to the
\n\tpermission, the agreement was entered into. Be as it may; the
\n\trespondent-petitioner on 15\/2\/1995 made an application to Dy.
\n\tCollector, Amreli for grant of permission to purchase the aforesaid
\n\tagricultural land from the original owner for establishing petrol
\n\tpump, and said permission was prayed under Section 63 of the Act. It
\n\tis the case  of the respondent-petitioner that, for extraneous
\n\treasons the office of the Collector did not take any action inspite
\n\tof  persuasion of the matter by original owner as well as by the
\n\trespondent-petitioner. It also appears that, as the petrol pump was
\n\tto be established over said land, license was granted by the
\n\tDistrict Supply Officer, but one of the conditions of the license
\n\twas that the land would be required to be converted for
\n\tnon-agricultural use and requisite premium as may be fixed by the
\n\tGovernment was to be paid. Respondent-petitioner in absence of any
\n\tconversion of the land for non-agricultural use, nor payment of any
\n\tpremium, proceeded to make use of the license. Therefore a showcause
\n\tnotice was issued on 11\/4\/2001 (Annexure-A) by District Supply
\n\tOfficer for cancellation of the license on the ground that he has
\n\tnot complied with the conditions as was imposed at the time when
\n\tlicense for sale of petrol & petroleum products was granted. At
\n\tthat stage the respondent herein-original petitioner  preferred the
\n\tpetition before this Court challenging legality & validity of
\n\tthe showcause notice dated 11\/4\/2001 (Annexure-A), and it was
\n\tfurther prayed to direct the respondents-appellants herein  to
\n\tdecide the application of the petitioner for converting the land for
\n\tnon-agricultural use and decide the premium,  and also to direct the
\n\trespondents-appellants to grant permission to the petitioner under
\n\tSection 43 of the Act by fixing the premium.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tSingle Judge in the Special Civil Application quashed the showcause
\n\tnotice on the premise of deeming fiction of Section 65 of the Bombay
\n\tLand Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’ for the
\n\tsake of convenience) and also observed for directing the Collector
\n\tto fix the premium. It appears that the aforesaid order came to be
\n\tpassed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application on
\n\t19\/7\/2001, whereas on 23\/8\/2001 District Collector  fixed the
\n\tpremium at Rs.21,56,960\/-. As per the respondent-petitioner the
\n\tpremium was arbitrarily fixed and, therefore, Misc. Civil
\n\tApplication No. 1571 of 2001 was preferred in Special Civil
\n\tApplication for further relief. Learned Single Judge after hearing
\n\tboth the sides found that District Collector had fixed the premium
\n\twithout properly considering the judgment in the Special Civil
\n\tApplication, and therefore, quashed fixation of premium of
\n\tRs.21,56,960\/-, and further directed the Collector to decide the
\n\tmatter de-novo under Section 43 of the Act. It is under these
\n\tcircumstances the present appeal before us.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave heard Mr. H.K. Patel, learned AGP for the appellants-original
\n\trespondents and Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the
\n\trespondent-original petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tParikh for the respondent-original petitioner could not show to us
\n\tany record produced in the writ petition for making of any
\n\tapplication under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code made by
\n\teither the original owner or original petitioner, i.e. his client.
\n\tThe application (Annexure-F) upon which reliance has been placed
\n\tdated 15\/2\/1995 (it appears to be wrongly typed as  15\/2\/1996 in the
\n\torder of learned Single Judge), copy whereof is produced at
\n\tAnnexure-D on page-38 of the compilation of the Special Civil
\n\tApplication, is not under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, but is under
\n\t Section 63 of the Act. Be it noted that Section 63 of the Act
\n\tprovides for grant of permission for sale of agricultural land for
\n\tnon-agricultural purpose. Hence Section 63 of the Act which was
\n\tpressed into service in the application dated 15\/2\/1995  was
\n\trequired to be considered. Whereas, unfortunately, learned Single
\n\tJudge has treated the said application as that under Section 65 of
\n\tthe Code, which never existed at all. Section 63 of the Act has no
\n\tdeeming fiction of automatic grant of permission. It is only section
\n\t65 of the Code which speaks for deeming fiction of automatic grant,
\n\tif the decision is not taken within the stipulated period provided
\n\tby said section. As observed earlier, there was no application
\n\twhatsoever under section 65 of the Code and  the learned counsel for
\n\tthe respondent-original petitioner also could not show any
\n\tapplication under section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
\n\tConsequently, there is no option but to hold that the consideration
\n\tbefore the learned Single Judge was on a non-existent ground of
\n\tSection 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which could not have
\n\tbeen invoked nor could be relied upon while examining the legality &
\n\t validity of the showcause notice for cancellation of the license.\n<\/p>\n
Apart
\n\tfrom above, it deserves to be recorded that the main petition
\n\tessentially was at the stage of showcause notice and the ground of
\n\tthe showcause notice was that at the time when license for sale of
\n\tpetrol & petroleum products was granted on condition of
\n\tconversion of land for non-agricultural use and payment of premium
\n\twas provided and was to be complied with within the stipulated
\n\tperiod, but the same was not complied with and, therefore, the
\n\tshowcause notice was issued. The exercise of power under Article 226
\n\tof the Constitution is by now well settled. It is by way of
\n\tself-imposed restriction, when the matter is at a stage of showcause
\n\tnotice, this Court  normally would not exercise power under Article
\n\t226 of the Constitution, unless the showcause notice is without
\n\tjurisdiction or per se void.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe license was granted by the District Supply Officer and the very
\n\tauthority for breach of the conditions of the license had issued
\n\tshowcause notice for cancellation of the license. Therefore, it
\n\tcould not be said to be without jurisdiction or could be said as per
\n\tse void.  Further,
\n\tthe nature of showcause notice was such that explanation was  called
\n\tupon and was required to be considered by the authority who had
\n\tissued showcause notice and, thereafter, the order was to be passed.
\n\tAt that stage the power has been exercised by learned Single Judge,
\n\twhich in our view, can be said as against the well settled
\n\tprinciples of law by way of self-imposed restriction while
\n\texercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Even
\n\tif the matter was to be considered as it was before the learned
\n\tSingle Judge on merits, we find that it was not a case where the
\n\tinterference was called for under Article
\n\t226 of the Constitution when the petition was for challenging the
\n\tshowcause notice, and no satisfactory material was produced, nor any
\n\tlaw was shown to us that the showcause notice was without
\n\tjurisdiction. Even if the action was said to be purported exercise
\n\tof the power, then also, it was not a case for interference to the
\n\tshowcause notice while exercising power under Article 226 of the
\n\tConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\taforesaid would lead us to the conclusion that the petition was not
\n\trequired to be entertained in exercise of power under Article 226 of
\n\tthe Constitution. Hence the appeal deserves to be allowed and the
\n\torder of learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside,
\n\tand the main petition deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tappears that the order in Misc. Civil Application  No. 1571 of 2001
\n\tcame to be passed by learned Single Judge based on his order dated
\n\t19\/7\/2001 passed in Special Civil Application. In view of the
\n\treasons recorded herein above, and the order passed by us herein
\n\tabove, the said order dated 19\/7\/2001 passed in Special Civil
\n\tApplication No. 3202 of 2001 is quashed and set aside by us and as
\n\tthe petition has been dismissed, the order dated 28\/9\/2001 passed by
\n\tlearned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No. 1571 of 2001
\n\twould also be required to be quashed, since the basis of the order
\n\twas judgment & order in the Special Civil Application, which is
\n\tquashed and set aside.  Hence, ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t In
\n\tthe result, Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The main petition as
\n\twell as Misc. Civil Application No. 1571 of 2001 shall stand
\n\tdismissed. Considering the facts & circumstances, no order as to
\n\tcost.\n<\/p>\n
\t                                                      [
\n\tJAYANT PATEL, J ]<\/p>\n
\t                                                  [
\n\tS.R. BRAHMBHATT, J ] <\/p>\n
\/vgn<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/1041\/2003 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1041 of 2003 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3202 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 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\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-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=\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-26T08:35:04+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\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T08:35:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1590,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\",\"name\":\"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-26T08:35:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 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\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-26T08:35:04+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\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T08:35:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010"},"wordCount":1590,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010","name":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-26T08:35:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-mahendrasinh-on-23-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Mahendrasinh on 23 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/112154","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=112154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}