{"id":128015,"date":"2010-05-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-20T14:49:28","modified_gmt":"2019-02-20T09:19:28","slug":"vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ks Jhaveri,&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\/6077\/1998\t 1\/ 5\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. 6077 of 1998\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\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\nVAIDYA\nM H BAROT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nBS SUPEHIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR. J.K.SHAH AGP 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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 05\/05\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tBy way of this petition the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has prayed for directions declaring   that the<br \/>\n\trespondents authorities are not entitled to recover from the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner the market rent for the period  from 21.5.1991 to<br \/>\n\t30.4.1993  being an amount of Rs. 41,650\/- in view of rule 849(e) of<br \/>\n\tB.C.S. Rules and to restrain the respondent authorities from in any<br \/>\n\tmanner recovering the said amount from the petitioner and also to<br \/>\n\tdirect the respondent authorities to release the amount of Rs.<br \/>\n\t41,650\/- withheld from the retiral benefits  along with interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tbrief facts of the case are as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1<br \/>\n\t\tAs per the say of the petitioner, he has retired on superannuation<br \/>\n\ton 28.2.1998.  The petitioner was not given retiral benefits and he<br \/>\n\twas informed by the respondent authority on 10.6.1998 that he had to<br \/>\n\tpay Rs. 41,650\/- being the amount of market rent for the<br \/>\n\tunauthorized occupation of government quarter for the period from<br \/>\n\t21.5.1991 to 30.4.1993.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2<br \/>\n\t\tThe petitioner therefore filed Special Civil Application bearing<br \/>\n\tno.  5664 of 1998 and authrised the government to withhold the<br \/>\n\tamount of Rs. 41,650\/- from retrial benefits without prejudice to<br \/>\n\this rights and contentions to challenge the power of the government<br \/>\n\tto recover the said  amount after more than five years. As per the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner , many officers of the government who had continued to<br \/>\n\toccupy unauthorizedly the government accommodation, was charged<br \/>\n\tmarket rent, but such amount was  not recovered from them. On the<br \/>\n\tother hand the  petitioner  was charged  market rent and sought<br \/>\n\trecovery thereof. Hence this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t Heard learned advocates<br \/>\n\tfor the respective parties and perused the documents on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tFrom the record it revealed<br \/>\n\tthat   the Petitioner has filed Special Civil Application bearing<br \/>\n\tno. 5664 of 1998. This Court on 22.9.1998, has passed following<br \/>\n\torder.:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        \t\tThe petitioner has retired  on  28.2.1998<br \/>\n      as  Superintendent  and  Principal of Akhandanand Ayurved<br \/>\n      Hospital\/College, Ahmedabad.  It is the grievance of  the<br \/>\n      petitioner  that he has not been paid his post retirement<br \/>\n      benefits even though no inquiry is initiated against  him<br \/>\n      or   is  contemplated  under  section  189-A  the  BCSRs.<br \/>\n      Further, the provisional pension of the petitioner is not<br \/>\n      fixed by the authorities on the  basis  of  the  new  pay<br \/>\n      scale,  but the same is fixed on the basis of the old pay<br \/>\n      scale at the time of his retirement and this has put  the<br \/>\n      petitioner  into untold hardship and uncertainty and even<br \/>\n      gratuity amount is also paid on  the  basis  of  old  pay<br \/>\n      scale  though  his  pay  has  been revised in the new pay<br \/>\n      scale by order dated 2.6.98.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      2.\tIt appears that the petitioner has  retained  the<br \/>\n      Government  quarters  which he was occupying prior to his<br \/>\n      retirement and therefore, recovery of an  amount  of  Rs.<br \/>\n      41,650\/- is required to be made from the petitioner.  The<br \/>\n      petitioner,  has  in  fact by his letter dated 29.6.98 at<br \/>\n      Annexure.G  informed  the  authorities  that  he  has  no<br \/>\n      objection if the said amount is withheld without prejudice<br \/>\n      tohisright   and  contention  from  the  gratuity  to  be<br \/>\n      received by  the  petitioner.    However,  there  is   no<br \/>\n      justification  to  withhold  the entire amount of retiral<br \/>\n      benefits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      3.\tEven though this Court has issued notice  to  the<br \/>\n      respondents  on  28.7.98,  the respondents have not filed<br \/>\n      any reply.  Considering the fact and circumstances of the<br \/>\n      case, the following directions are given, the same  would<br \/>\n      serve the ends of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       A)\tThe  respondents  are  directed  to  take<br \/>\n              appropriate decision as regards  the  payment  of<br \/>\n              retiral  benefits  of the petitioner according to<br \/>\n              new pay scale within two weeks from  today.    If<br \/>\n              any  adverse decision is taken in the matter, the<br \/>\n              same shall be communicated to the petitioner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       B)\tIn pursuance to any adverse decision that<br \/>\n              may  be  taken  against  him,  if  any inquiry is<br \/>\n              initiated,  then  in   that   event,   till   the<br \/>\n              completion  of  the inquiry, the petitioner shall<br \/>\n              be paid provisional pension according to new  pay<br \/>\n              scale ,  if  applicable  to  the petitioner.  The<br \/>\n              provisional pension and other retiral benefits of<br \/>\n              the petitioner will be fixed on the basis of  the<br \/>\n              new pay scale, if applicable and subject to audit<br \/>\n              objections.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>       C)\tIn  case  a  decision  is  taken that the<br \/>\n              petitioner is entitled to  have  full  retirement<br \/>\n              benefits,  then  in that case it will be open for<br \/>\n              the respondents to withhold such amount which  is<br \/>\n              permissible  to  be  deducted  from  the gratuity<br \/>\n              amount being the amount of rent for the  use  and<br \/>\n              occupation  of  the  residential  quarter  by the<br \/>\n              petitioner.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      In view of these directions, the petition stands disposed <\/p>\n<p>\tof.  Notice<br \/>\ndischarged.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe aforesaid order has not<br \/>\n\tbeen challenged and  therefore, it achieved finality.  In the said<br \/>\n\torder, there was a direction that if the petitioner is entitled to<br \/>\n\thave full retirement benefits, then in that case it will be open for<br \/>\n\tthe respondents to withhold such amount which is permissible to be<br \/>\n\tdeducted from the gratuity amount being the amount of rent for the<br \/>\n\tuse and occupation of the residential quarter by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn my view, since the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has already given his consent for allowing the amount to<br \/>\n\tbe deducted, the said amount is deducted and order is passed fixing<br \/>\n\this new pay scale.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn any case, as per<br \/>\n\tGovernment Resolution No. SED\/1076\/1960-II (I) dated  22.10.1982,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner ought to have vacated the quarters within two months,<br \/>\n\tfrom the date of his transfer, on 20.3.1991. Thereafter the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner continued in the quarter and he is liable to make the<br \/>\n\tmarket rent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t Even otherwise, since the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner himself has given consent for deducting the amount, no<br \/>\n\tcase is made out for interference. The petition is disposed of<br \/>\n\taccordingly . Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>[K.S.Jhaveri,J.]<\/p>\n<p>*Himansu<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/6077\/1998 1\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6077 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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-128015","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 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\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-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=\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-20T09:19:28+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-20T09:19:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":941,\"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\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-20T09:19:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 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\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-20T09:19:28+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-20T09:19:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010"},"wordCount":941,"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\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010","name":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-20T09:19:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vaidya-vs-state-on-5-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vaidya vs State on 5 May, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128015","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=128015"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128015\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128015"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128015"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128015"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}