{"id":127371,"date":"2011-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-06T17:43:55","modified_gmt":"2017-12-06T12:13:55","slug":"ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                     1\n                                                                   wp2683.11\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n          Ashok Pundlikrao Patil, Age : 56\n          years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o Jalkot,\n          Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                                                           ..PETITIONER\n                       -VERSUS-\n     1.   Shashikant S\/o Sidram Patil, Age : 56\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n          years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n          Lohgaon,    Tq.     Tuljapur,   Dist.\n\n     2.\n          Osmanabad.\n                    \n          The Returning Officer For the\n          election of   Shri.   Tuljabhavani\n                   \n          Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,\n          Naldurg,  Tq.    Tuljapur,    Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n     3    The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist.\n      \n\n          Osmanabad.\n     4.   Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar\n   \n\n\n\n          Karkhana Ltd., Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,\n          Dist. Osmanabad, Through its\n          Managing Director.\n                                                        RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                               WITH\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2684 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n          Gokul S\/o Vishvanathrao Shinde,\n          Age : 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n          Tuljapur,   Tq.    Tuljapur,      Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n                                                           ..PETITIONER\n                       -VERSUS-\n     1.   Ashok S\/o Trimbak Patil, Age : 51\n          years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n          Khemwadi, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n\n\n                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:12:00 :::\n                                    2\n                                                                 wp2683.11\n\n     2.   The Returning Officer For the\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n          election of   Shri.   Tuljabhavani\n          Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,\n          Naldurg,  Tq.    Tuljapur,    Dist.\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n          Osmanabad.\n     3    The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     4.   Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar\n          Karkhana Ltd., Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,\n          Dist. Osmanabad, Through its\n          Managing Director.\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                                                      RESPONDENTS\n                     ig       WITH\n                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2695 OF 2011\n                   \n          Khandu S\/o Maroti Umbare, Age : 56\n          years, Occ :      Agriculture, R\/o\n          Kalegaon Post Arali, Tq. Tuljapur,\n          Dist. Osmanabad.\n      \n\n                                                         ..PETITIONER\n                       -VERSUS-\n   \n\n\n\n     1.   Anil S\/o Nagnath Giram, Age : 58\n          years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n          Katgaon,   Tq.   Tuljapur,  Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n\n     2.   The Returning Officer For the\n          election of   Shri.   Tuljabhavani\n          Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,\n          Naldurg,  Tq.    Tuljapur,    Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n\n\n\n\n\n     3    The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist.\n          Osmanabad.\n     4.   Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar\n          Karkhana Ltd., Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,\n          Dist. Osmanabad, Through its\n          Managing Director.\n                                                      RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::\n                                           3\n                                                                        wp2683.11\n\n                                    WITH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2680 OF 2011\n\n               Gokul S\/o Vishvanathrao Shinde,\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n               Age : 52 years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n               Tuljapur,   Tq.    Tuljapur,      Dist.\n               Osmanabad.\n                                                                ..PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                            -VERSUS-\n          1.   Prabhu S\/o Narayan Raut, Age : 58\n               years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n               Kakramba, Tq. Tuljapur,      Dist.\n               Osmanabad.\n          2.\n               election of\n                         \n               The Returning Officer For the\n                             Shri.   Tuljabhavani\n               Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,\n                        \n               Naldurg,  Tq.    Tuljapur,    Dist.\n               Osmanabad.\n          3    The Collector, Osmanabad, Dist.\n               Osmanabad.\n      \n\n\n          4.   Shri Tuljabhavani Sahakari Sakhar\n               Karkhana Ltd., Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,\n   \n\n\n\n               Dist. Osmanabad, Through its\n               Managing Director.\n                                                             RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                               .....\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner in all matters.
\n     Mr. N.B. Khandare, Government Pleader for respondent nos. 2 and
\n     3 in W.P. no. 2680 of 2011 and Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for
\n     respondent nos.2 and 3 in other matters.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. G.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.4 in all matters.\n<\/p>\n
                               …..\n<\/p>\n
                                  (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
\n                                  DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.        Heard Advocate Mr. Salunke for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for<\/p>\n
     respondent nos.2 and 3 and Advocate Mr. G.V. Patil for respondent<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span>
\n                                                                       wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     no.4.\n<\/p>\n
     2.      Acceptance of nomination paper of respondent no.1 in<\/p>\n
     election of respondent no.4-sugar factory by returning officer by<\/p>\n
     one word order thereby overruling the objection of respective<\/p>\n
     petitioner is questioned in present matters.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      By inviting attention to the provisions of bye-laws no. 17-A<\/p>\n
     r\/w 27-A and 29-GH, Advocate Mr. Salunke has contended that<\/p>\n
     supply of sugar cane by aspirant continuously for three years prior<\/p>\n
     to holding of election is must to cloth him with eligibility to contest<\/p>\n
     the election. Here, he points out that respective respondent no.1<\/p>\n
     has not supplied sugar cane to respondent no.4 in the year<\/p>\n
     2007-2008 and he relies upon certificate issued by the Managing<\/p>\n
     Director of respondent no.4 for said purpose. He points out that<\/p>\n
     sugar factory did not function in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 season<\/p>\n
     and hence, even if it is presumed the respondent no.1 did supply<\/p>\n
     sugar cane in those two years, his failure to supply it in the year<\/p>\n
     2007-2008 is itself sufficient and his nomination paper ought to<\/p>\n
     have been rejected. He has invited attention to the fact that the<\/p>\n
     order accepting the nomination paper does not disclose any<\/p>\n
     reasons and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have for the first time in<\/p>\n
     reply affidavit attempted to introduce such reason. He relies upon<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span>
\n                                                                   wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported at “A.I.R. 1978<\/p>\n
     S.C. 851″- Mohinder Singh Gill and another V\/s The Chief<\/p>\n
     Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others” to contend that<\/p>\n
     such affidavit or supplying separate reasons needs to be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
     He further points out that there is absolutely nothing on record to<\/p>\n
     show that alleged reasons recorded separately by the Returning<\/p>\n
     Officer on 23.03.2011 were communicated to any of the petitioner<\/p>\n
     and for that purpose he also invites attention to the alleged<\/p>\n
     reasons which are recorded and its alleged communication issued<\/p>\n
     to Shri. Gokul V. Shinde one of the petitioner. According to him, as<\/p>\n
     there is proper affidavit in this respect, the said contention in<\/p>\n
     defence can not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    Judgment of this Court reported at ” 1989 C.T.J. 325″-\n<\/p>\n
     Yeshwant Khashaba Dubal and others V\/s Krishna Sahakari<\/p>\n
     Kakhar Karkhana Maryadit and others and unreported judgment<\/p>\n
     dated 28th September, 2001 in Writ Petition no. 4948 of 2001<\/p>\n
     delivered at Bombay are relied upon, to urge that this eligibility<\/p>\n
     condition in bye-laws is mandatory and it forms part and parcel of<\/p>\n
     the conditions prescribed in the election and its breach therefore<\/p>\n
     can not be overlooked. He contends that the said condition could<\/p>\n
     have been complied with in the year 2007-2008 and as that has<\/p>\n
     not been done, the nomination paper ought to have been rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                   wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     5.    Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4<\/p>\n
     states that on the request of respective petitioners position of<\/p>\n
     working of sugar factory was communicated to them and in<\/p>\n
     2007-2008 respective respondent no.1 had never supplied sugar<\/p>\n
     cane for crushing to respondent no.4.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    Learned A.G.P. at the outset states that in Writ Petition no.\n<\/p>\n
     2617\/2011 similar question was involved and same is already<\/p>\n
     allowed to be withdrawn on 07.04.2011 as certain disputed<\/p>\n
     questions arose. He contends that even in season 2007-2008 the<\/p>\n
     crushing started in respondent no.4 late i.e. 06.01.2008 and<\/p>\n
     crushing continued only till June, 2008. Normally quantity of sugar<\/p>\n
     cane crushed in current year (still to be completed) is 1,72,000<\/p>\n
     M.T. and as against this in 2007-2008 it was only 1,54,260 M.T. In<\/p>\n
     previous year it was 2,25,816 M.T. He further contends that as<\/p>\n
     season began belatedly and crushing was discontinued on<\/p>\n
     04.06.2008, the said season and supply of sugar cane during it<\/p>\n
     was also not looked into by the Returning Officer and the condition<\/p>\n
     in bye-law of supplying sugar cane for three years continuously<\/p>\n
     was therefore relaxed.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    This Court has issued notice for final disposal on 6th April,<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                       7<\/span>
\n                                                                    wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     2011. Respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no. 2684 of 2011 and 2695<\/p>\n
     of 2001 are served and have chosen not to appear. Respondent<\/p>\n
     no.1 in Writ Petition no. 2682 of 2011 has refused to accept the<\/p>\n
     service. The petitioner has accordingly submitted report to the<\/p>\n
     Registry and as there was no appearance for any of the<\/p>\n
     respondents on 18th April, 2011, the matter was adjourned to 19th<\/p>\n
     April, 2011 and on 19th April, 2011 as there was no service report,<\/p>\n
     the matter has been adjourned to today. Today, the Registry has<\/p>\n
     certified service even upon the respondent no.1 in Writ Petition no.\n<\/p>\n
     2683 of 2011.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    Perusal of the reported judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench<\/p>\n
     of this Court in the case of Yeshwant Khashaba Dubal and<\/p>\n
     others V\/s Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Maryadit and<\/p>\n
     others (supra) reveals consideration of similar condition. Bye-law<\/p>\n
     interpreted there required member to supply sugarcane between<\/p>\n
     the period commencing from the last election to Board of Directors<\/p>\n
     till the current elections and the Hon’ble Division Bench has found<\/p>\n
     that it will not cover the period prior to the last election. In this<\/p>\n
     background in paragraph no.2 it is observed that a member is not<\/p>\n
     expected to comply with a conditions which is impossible of<\/p>\n
     compliance and hence, it will not cover a case where member was<\/p>\n
     unable to supply Agricultural Produce for a reason beyond his<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span>
\n                                                                   wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     control and then for good reason. If the sugarcane is grown then it<\/p>\n
     will have to be supplied to the Karkhana and not others nor it could<\/p>\n
     be used for purpose of manufacturing Jaggery. The bye-law there<\/p>\n
     contemplated registration of area in which the sugarcane was to be<\/p>\n
     grown with Karkhana and same was to be supplied to Karkhana<\/p>\n
     itself. Similar view is taken in unreported judgment dated 28th<\/p>\n
     September, 2001 in Writ Petition no. 4948 of 2001, wherein<\/p>\n
     paragraph no.4 it has been found that compliance with such bye-\n<\/p>\n
     law is necessary unless and until the said bye-law is inconsistent<\/p>\n
     with the provisions of the Act. The Division Bench judgment<\/p>\n
     referred supra is also relied upon for the said purpose. In view of<\/p>\n
     this discussion, it is not necessary to consider the judgment<\/p>\n
     reported at “2002(1) Mah. L.R. 377”- Purushottam Yashwant<\/p>\n
     Patil and others V\/s State of Maharashtra and others or then<\/p>\n
     “1996 C.T.J. 226”- Sambha V\/s The State of Maharashtra, cited<\/p>\n
     by the learned counsel for petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Here, the facts clearly show that sugarcane could not be<\/p>\n
     supplied to respondent no.4-Karkhana in the year 2008-2009 and<\/p>\n
     2009-2010 as Karkhana itself was not functioning. The election<\/p>\n
     programme is published on 14.03.2011 and the tenure for which<\/p>\n
     the body is to be elected is 2011-2016. Hence, the period of three<\/p>\n
     years relevant in this respect is from 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span>
\n                                                                     wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     2009-2010.\n<\/p>\n
     10.   As Karkhana itself could not function, no member could<\/p>\n
     supply the sugarcane to Karkhana in later two years. However, it is<\/p>\n
     not in dispute that Karkhana functioned in the year 2007-2008 and<\/p>\n
     hence, as per the provisions of bye-law 17A(2) r\/w Byelaw No.<\/p>\n
     29GH(1), the respondent no.1 ought to have supplied his<\/p>\n
     sugarcane at least in first year i.e. 2007-2008 to Karkhana.\n<\/p>\n
     Respective respondent no.1 could not supply the sugarcane<\/p>\n
     accordingly and certificate issued by Karkhana in this respect is not<\/p>\n
     in dispute. The record shows that in the year 2007-2008, the<\/p>\n
     crushing operation started on 06.01.2008 and continued till June,<\/p>\n
     2008. Moreover, the respondent no.1 has not given any<\/p>\n
     explanation in this respect and has not pointed out any<\/p>\n
     unavoidable circumstance or then just and sufficient reason<\/p>\n
     expressing inability to supply sugar cane to factory.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   Returning Officer has while rejecting some nomination<\/p>\n
     papers filed along with Writ Petition passed the reasoned order.\n<\/p>\n
     Here, he has accepted the nomination paper and therefore, he has<\/p>\n
     not passed the reasoned order but then before this Court it is<\/p>\n
     urged that reason for rejection of objection of the respective<\/p>\n
     petitioners were separately recorded on 23.03.2011. The Returning<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span>
\n                                                                     wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     Officer has on 23.03.2011 passed the order (alleged to be<\/p>\n
     separately recorded) mentioning that as Karkhana was closed in<\/p>\n
     the year 2008-2009, 2009-2010, the condition of supply of<\/p>\n
     sugarcane for three years contemplated by bye-laws can not be<\/p>\n
     looked into. The communication of rejection of his objection filed at<\/p>\n
     Exhibit-R-4 is also dated 23.03.2011 but then it does not<\/p>\n
     communicate these reasons to the addressee namely Gokul V.\n<\/p>\n
     Shinde. That communication only mentions letter dated 23.03.2011<\/p>\n
     by Regional Joint Director (Sugar) Nanded and communication<\/p>\n
     dated 22.03.2011 by Chief Managing Director of Respondent no.4.\n<\/p>\n
     12.   The communication dated 23rd March, 2011 by Regional<\/p>\n
     Joint Director (Sugar) Nanded is produced at Exhibit-R-3 to reply.\n<\/p>\n
     Perusal thereof again shows exercise of jurisdiction not vested in<\/p>\n
     him by the said authority. That authority is not returning officer and<\/p>\n
     could not have asked Returning Officer to ignore the provisions of<\/p>\n
     bye-laws.\n<\/p>\n
     13.   It is apparent that being Returning Officer, the respondent<\/p>\n
     no.2 was duty bound to implement the provisions of bye-laws and<\/p>\n
     had no jurisdiction to hold that the provisions of bye-laws need to<\/p>\n
     be ignored. The reason recorded by him as alleged on 23.03.2011<\/p>\n
     is therefore beyond his jurisdiction and unsustainable. It was<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span>
\n                                                                    wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     obligatory for respective respondent no.1 to show that supply of<\/p>\n
     sugarcane in the year 2007-2008 to respondent no.4 or then to<\/p>\n
     point out reasons beyond their control as envisaged by Division<\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court. The respondent no.1 has neither supplied the<\/p>\n
     sugarcane nor come up with any justification for not supplying it. In<\/p>\n
     view of these findings, I am not considering the question of<\/p>\n
     necessity of recording of reasons by returning officer while<\/p>\n
     accepting nomination paper by rejecting objection to it or the<\/p>\n
     requirement of its communication. Returning officer ought to have<\/p>\n
     recorded reason of impossibility of compliance with bye-law no.\n<\/p>\n
     29(gh)(1) or then attempted to find out compliance therewith to the<\/p>\n
     extent possible. In any case decision to overlook that eligibility<\/p>\n
     condition ought to have been reached beforehand and should have<\/p>\n
     been published for advantage of all concerned as part of election<\/p>\n
     programme. Such norm can not be changed or deleted at the time<\/p>\n
     of scrutiny thereby acting to the prejudice of others who may not<\/p>\n
     have submitted nomination paper due to that condition. Fair play<\/p>\n
     obliges respondent no.2 and 3 to make such relaxation\/deletion<\/p>\n
     public to enable all members to take its advantage. It would have<\/p>\n
     also oblivated occasion for such objection by petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     14.   I therefore find the impugned orders and action of the<\/p>\n
     respondent no.2 accepting the nomination papers of respective<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span>
\n                                                                  wp2683.11<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 unsustainable. Those orders are accordingly<\/p>\n
     quashed and set aside. The nomination paper of respective<\/p>\n
     respondent no.1 are rejected. Rule made absolute accordingly. No<\/p>\n
     costs.\n<\/p>\n
     15.      The parties to act upon the copy of this order duly<\/p>\n
     authenticated by the Court Shirestedar.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI)
\n                                                 JUDGE
\n     gas\/wp2683.11<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:12:01 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 wp2683.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2683 OF 2011 Ashok Pundlikrao Patil, Age : 56 years, Occ : Agriculture, R\/o Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. Shashikant […]<\/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-127371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 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\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1874,\"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\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 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:\/\/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":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 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\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011"},"wordCount":1874,"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\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011","name":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-06T12:13:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-pundlikrao-patil-vs-shashikant-on-19-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Pundlikrao Patil vs Shashikant on 19 April, 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:\/\/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\/127371","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=127371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}