{"id":124294,"date":"2010-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-08-23T17:49:35","modified_gmt":"2018-08-23T12:19:35","slug":"tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\nSCA\/5081\/2008\t 5\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5081 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI\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\nTADVI\nPRATAPKUMAR RAMESHCHAND-RA &amp; 27 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSARDAR\nSAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSHALIN N MEHTA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 28. \nMR KAMAL TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE GENERAL\nassisted by MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners, 28 in number, are before this Court praying that:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 18.\t(A)\tYour<br \/>\nLordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other<br \/>\nappropriate writ, order or direction, to quash and set aside the<br \/>\norder dated 25.2.2008 issued by the present respondent No.1 Sardar<br \/>\nSarovar Narmada Nigam Limited;\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tOrder<br \/>\ndated 25.02.2008 is produced at Annexure-M, page No.82.  The order<br \/>\nsays that,  30 local, educated, unemployed youth were given<br \/>\ntraining and on daily basis, they were asked to perform as Guide in<br \/>\nthe year 2006   Tourism Year .  The term of these persons, who<br \/>\nwere engaged as Guides, was extended from time to time and by order<br \/>\ndated 05.12.2007, the period was extended up to 31.10.2007.  Later on<br \/>\nit was extended up to 31.03.2008 and finally, the order in question<br \/>\ndated 25.02.2008 came to be passed whereby it was decided that no<br \/>\nremuneration will be paid to these Guides after 31.03.2008 and<br \/>\nautomatically this scheme will come to an end.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\t\tIt<br \/>\nwas also provided in the order that since 01.04.2008, these trained<br \/>\nyouth will be able to perform as Guide on they being issued a<br \/>\nnecessary Identity Card by the Chief Engineer (Navagam Dam), Kevadia<br \/>\nColony, by charging fees from the tourists.  It was also provided in<br \/>\nthe order that as mentioned in para-2, the exercise of issuing<br \/>\nIdentity Card to the Guides and the standard on which they will be<br \/>\ncharging fees from the tourists and necessary Rules \/instructions for<br \/>\nimplementing this scheme will be issued by the Chief Engineer<br \/>\n(Navagam Dam) Kevadia Colony in consultation with the acting Manager<br \/>\n(Tourism), Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. ( SSNNL , for<br \/>\nshort).\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners contended in the petition that they are the heirs of the<br \/>\npersons who had lost their lands in the Narmda Dam Project and thus,<br \/>\nthey are the Project Affected Persons (PAPs).  It is also the case of<br \/>\nthe petitioners that the entire scheme was a well-thought and<br \/>\nwell-worked out as is reflected in para-2 of the petition, which is<br \/>\nreproduced for ready perusal:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 2.\tThe<br \/>\npresent petitioners were appointed as Guides with a view to promote<br \/>\ntourism in Kevadia Colony near the dam site.  The overflowing of the<br \/>\nNarmada Dam attracts thousand of tourists all year around.  With a<br \/>\nview to provide information and guidance to such tourists, a need was<br \/>\nfelt by the present respondent No.1 to appoint Guides.  Pursuant to<br \/>\nthe oral interview, the present petitioners were appointed as Guides.<br \/>\n  Their interview was taken by a Selection Committee consisting of<br \/>\n7 persons; 3 officials from Gandhinagar and 4 officials from<br \/>\nKevadia Colony.  Before appointment, the petitioners were given<br \/>\ntraining.  After completing of training, they started work as Guides<br \/>\nwith effect from 19.7.2005.  They were expected to work everyday from<br \/>\n8.00 a.m. To 8.00 p.m.  They were paid Rs.150\/- per<br \/>\nday&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied)<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetition is contested by the respondents and various affidavits in<br \/>\nreply are filed.  To start with, the first affidavit is filed by one<br \/>\nShri Jwalant P.Trivedi, Assistant General Manager (Personnel)\t, SSNNL<br \/>\naffirmed on 02.05.2008.  The contentions of the petition are<br \/>\ncontested by saying in para-2 as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (2)\tAt the<br \/>\noutset, I say and submit that all the petitioners are daily wagers<br \/>\nand they have no right to post.  Now only that, but they cannot<br \/>\ndirectly file petition before the Honourable Court without filing<br \/>\nlabour reference.  All the petitioners are the daily wagers, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has jurisdiction to entertain their grievances.  This<br \/>\nHonourable Court may not exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, in the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\t\tSo<br \/>\nfar as claim about PAPs is concerned, the same is dealt with in<br \/>\npara-(4) of the affidavit, relevant part of which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (4)\t&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>The Honourable Court may peruse the certificates in which it is<br \/>\nmentioned that the land of the forefathers of the petitioner has been<br \/>\nacquired.  When the land is acquired the land holder has obtained<br \/>\ncompensation.  Therefore, they cannot be said that they are land<br \/>\nlosers or PAPs.   The PAPs are the persons who have lost their<br \/>\nhouses and land in submergence of Reservoir periphery and they are<br \/>\nrequired to be settled elsewhere.  As the land of the petitioners<br \/>\nare outside the reservoir periphery not in submergence, situated in<br \/>\ndown stream of dam.  They are at par with the other persons whose<br \/>\nlands are required for project purposes i.e. colony, canal etc.  Such<br \/>\naffected persons are many more in numbers throughout of the command<br \/>\narea of the Command.\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied)   <\/p>\n<p>4.2\t\tThe<br \/>\naffidavit also deals with scope of providing them livelihood in<br \/>\npara-(5), relevant part of which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (5)\t&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>All the petitioners have given opportunity to earn by giving the<br \/>\nservices based on their capacity and activeness for the work<br \/>\nentrusted to them.  It means the office of the Nigam are ready to<br \/>\ntake their services as per the policy and guidelines of SSNNL, then<br \/>\nby giving them approved license as Tourist Guide.  Actually the<br \/>\npetitioners have no right to post and their services can be<br \/>\nterminated at any time looking to the necessity of work.   However,<br \/>\nthis offer is already given to the petitioners&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>(emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied)<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIt<br \/>\nwas contended by the petitioners that SSNNL is earning by collecting<br \/>\nfees from tourists and from that amount, not only the petitioners can<br \/>\nbe kept in employment and can be paid but they will be earning profit<br \/>\nout of that.  This aspect is replied by the respondents in para-(6)<br \/>\nof the affidavit affirmed on 24.08.2008, relevant part of which reads<br \/>\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (6)\tI<br \/>\nfurther say and submit that the petitioners&#8217; averment in the<br \/>\nAffidavit-in-Rejoinder regarding the collection of huge amount by<br \/>\nNigam by way of tourist fees as purportedly declared on Doordarshan,<br \/>\nis erroneous and ill-founded and I do not admit the same.  In this<br \/>\nbehalf, I may state that from 20.7.2005, Nigam has started recovering<br \/>\ntourist fees which has been totaled to the tune of Rs.1,10,99,029\/-<br \/>\nby June 2008, as against which Nigam has incurred expenses to the<br \/>\ntune of Rs.2,93,36,000\/- for development of various amenities and<br \/>\nfacilities like roads, sanitary facilities, gardens, parking areas,<br \/>\ngeneral toilets, sitting platforms for the tourists, etc. around the<br \/>\ndam site.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tBasically,<br \/>\nSSNNL is not a Tourism Corporation and therefore, concept of engaging<br \/>\nTourist Guides is not appealing to this Court as it is rightly<br \/>\nmentioned in the affidavit in reply by the respondents that it was in<br \/>\nthe year 2006 which was declared as Tourism Year and taking into<br \/>\nconsideration the fact that number of people visit dam site as<br \/>\n&#8216;tourist spot&#8217; and as a drive to cultivate awareness about the<br \/>\nproject and public opinion in favour of the project by providing<br \/>\nexact information about the project and its various facets that the<br \/>\naforesaid scheme was thought of and was implemented.  By any means<br \/>\nthis cannot be a perennial feature and therefore, action of the<br \/>\nrespondents of not continuing the petitioners any more cannot be<br \/>\nfound fault with.  The petitioners are otherwise also benefited by<br \/>\ngetting training and by getting experience of work as Tourist Guides.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1\t\tA<br \/>\njudicial notice can be taken of the fact that the dam site is going<br \/>\nto be a point of attraction to the people not only of the State but<br \/>\neven to outside visitors.  Besides, on educational tours being<br \/>\nconducted to the site, the petitioners can avail of the offer made by<br \/>\nthe order impugned.  At the same time, the petitioners can also<br \/>\nappeal to the good-sense of the respondents and can prove their<br \/>\nutility, which may make the respondents to give a second thought to<br \/>\nthe order impugned and can either revive or renew the scheme with<br \/>\nmodified application of the same wherein again the petitioners will<br \/>\nbe having a chance to get the same work.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tWith<br \/>\nthe aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.  Rule is<br \/>\ndischarged.  Interim relief granted earlier is vacated.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\namount deposited by the respondents to be returned to the respondents<br \/>\nby an  Account Payee Cheque .  The said cheque be issued on or<br \/>\nbefore 25.10.2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocate General states that the respondents herein will withdraw the<br \/>\nLPA filed by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Ravi<br \/>\nR.Tripathi, J.)<\/p>\n<p>*Shitole<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/5081\/2008 5\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5081 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-23T12:19:35+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T12:19:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1357,\"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\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-23T12:19:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 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":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-23T12:19:35+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T12:19:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010"},"wordCount":1357,"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\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010","name":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-23T12:19:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tadvi-vs-sardar-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tadvi vs Sardar on 13 October, 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\/124294","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=124294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124294\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}