{"id":133620,"date":"2008-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-02T16:07:55","modified_gmt":"2015-05-02T10:37:55","slug":"gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                  CIVIL APPEAL NO.5688 OF 2008\n           (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16922 of 2006)\n\n\n\n\nGwalior Mahila Mandal                               ... Appellant (s)\n\n\n                                 Versus\n\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.                      ... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
2.   The appellant is a society running several educational<\/p>\n
institutions,      one    of   which    is     a   Mahila    Mandal   Higher<\/p>\n
Secondary School at Danaoli. The third respondent claims to<\/p>\n
be the only recognized Upper Division Teacher in the said<\/p>\n
school.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.   On   the     retirement    of     an    earlier    Principal     of   the<\/p>\n
School    (Uma    Gadvekar),     the        appellant   by   letter    dated<\/p>\n
29.6.2004,       sought   a    clarification        from     the    District<\/p>\n
Education Officer, as to whether the third respondent being
\n                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
the senior most teacher amongst the recognized staff should<\/p>\n
be    appointed       to   the     post       of    Principal.        The    District<\/p>\n
Education Officer sent a reply on 20.7.2004 stating that<\/p>\n
after 4.1.2000 the State Government was neither filling up<\/p>\n
the     vacant    posts      in    non-governmental            institutions       nor<\/p>\n
providing grant for the posts that were filled up and the<\/p>\n
institution may do so and bear the cost of running the<\/p>\n
institution.       The     District           Education       Officer,       however,<\/p>\n
suggested that the third respondent may be permitted to<\/p>\n
work as In-charge Principal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The appellant accordingly posted the third respondent<\/p>\n
as    In-charge       Principal          on    21.7.2004.         Thereafter      the<\/p>\n
appellant transferred and posted the fourth respondent as<\/p>\n
regular Principal of Higher Secondary School, Danaoli, vide<\/p>\n
order    dated    3.8.2004.        The    fourth         respondent    was    earlier<\/p>\n
working as Principal of the Higher Secondary School run by<\/p>\n
the appellant at Kherapati.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.    The third respondent being aggrieved by the posting of<\/p>\n
fourth respondent as the Principal by order dated 3.8.2004<\/p>\n
filed Writ Petition No.291 of 2005 seeking the following<\/p>\n
two   reliefs     :    (a)    to    quash          the    order   dated      3.8.2004<\/p>\n
appointing the fourth respondent as the Principal; and (b)<\/p>\n
to direct the appellant to appoint her as the In-charge
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Principal of the School. There was no other prayer in the<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    A learned Single Judge of the MP High Court allowed<\/p>\n
the petition by order dated 10.2.2006 and quashed the order<\/p>\n
dated     3.8.2004     appointing       the     fourth       respondent       as<\/p>\n
Principal of the Danaoli School. He also directed that till<\/p>\n
a regular appointment was made to the post of Principal,<\/p>\n
the third respondent may be permitted to serve as In-charge<\/p>\n
Principal. The appeal filed by the appellant against the<\/p>\n
said order was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated<\/p>\n
30.8.2006. The present appeal is filed challenging the said<\/p>\n
order of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    Two subsequent developments have made it unnecessary<\/p>\n
to consider this appeal on merits. The first is that the<\/p>\n
fourth respondent who was appointed as Principal by the<\/p>\n
appellant and whose appointment was quashed by the High<\/p>\n
Court   has   left    the   service     of    the   appellant      and   is   no<\/p>\n
longer the Principal. It is stated that thereafter one Ajay<\/p>\n
Upadhya, a Lecturer working in an other institution run by<\/p>\n
the appellant, was transferred and posted as the Principal<\/p>\n
of the Danaoli School and he has also left the service of<\/p>\n
the   appellant.      According   to     the     third      respondent,       one<\/p>\n
Radhika    Neema     another   Lecturer        from   one     of   the    other
\n                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
institutions of the appellant is presently the In-charge<\/p>\n
Principal of the Danaoli School.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.     The second development is in regard to the grant in<\/p>\n
aid.    Earlier,         out    of     the      55    teaching         staff      of     the<\/p>\n
Appellant, grant was being extended only in respect of two<\/p>\n
posts, that is the post of Principal and one post of Upper<\/p>\n
Division Teacher occupied by the third respondent. We are<\/p>\n
informed that on the retirement of Uma Gadvekar, the post<\/p>\n
of Principal also became a non-grant post. At present only<\/p>\n
the    post    occupied        by     third     respondent        as    a    recognized<\/p>\n
teacher is a post covered by the block grant. The fact that<\/p>\n
other teachers are not recognized does not mean that their<\/p>\n
appointments are illegal or irregular. It is stated that<\/p>\n
recognition and grant was linked and there is no need for<\/p>\n
recognition        in    regard       to       teachers     appointed          non-grant<\/p>\n
posts. The appellant claims that it has already written to<\/p>\n
the    Department        to    stop    the      block     grant    which       is      being<\/p>\n
extended with reference to only one teaching post, so that<\/p>\n
it can become an unaided institution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     As     noticed     above,       the     High     Court     has    granted         two<\/p>\n
reliefs. As far as the first relief, which was the main<\/p>\n
relief,       it   has    now       become      infructuous        as       the     fourth<\/p>\n
respondent is no longer in service. In so far as the second
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
relief, what is prayed and what is granted is that the<\/p>\n
third respondent          should    be       permitted       to       work    as    an   In-<\/p>\n
charge Principal until a regular Principal was appointed.<\/p>\n
As noticed above, there was no prayer in the writ petition<\/p>\n
that the third respondent should be appointed                            as a regular<\/p>\n
Principal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.   In   regard    to     the    second       relief,          on    the     facts     and<\/p>\n
circumstances,       we    find     no       need     to    interfere          with      the<\/p>\n
direction     of    the    High     Court      that        the    third        respondent<\/p>\n
should be permitted to serve as In-charge Principal as she<\/p>\n
is the seniormost and only recognized teacher until the<\/p>\n
appellant appointed a regular Principal in accordance with<\/p>\n
the Rules. We are informed that in pursuance of the order<\/p>\n
of the learned Single Judge, the third respondent was in<\/p>\n
fact appointed as In-charge Principal on 12.9.2006. When<\/p>\n
the   order   of    the    High     Court       was    stayed,          the    appellant<\/p>\n
posted someone else to work as Principal. As the present<\/p>\n
incumbent Radhika Neema is said to be only an In-charge<\/p>\n
Principal,     as    per    the     direction          of    High        Court,       third<\/p>\n
Respondent     should      be      permitted        to      serve       as     In-charge<\/p>\n
Principal till a regular Principal is appointed.<\/p>\n
11.   But the applicability of the provisions of the Madhya<\/p>\n
Pradesh     Ashaskiya      Shikshan          Sanstha       (Anudan        Ka       Pradaya)
\n                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
Adhiniyam, 1978 and the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shikshan<\/p>\n
Sanstha    (Adhyapakon       Tatha    Anya       Karmachariyon          Ki    Bharti)<\/p>\n
Niyam, 1979 would depend upon the fact whether it continues<\/p>\n
as    an   aided     institution      or        unaided       institution.          The<\/p>\n
appellant may decide whether it wants to continue as an<\/p>\n
aided institution       or     whether      it    wants      to    be   an     unaided<\/p>\n
institution and take consequential action for appointment<\/p>\n
of    a    regular    Principal.          If     it     becomes         an     unaided<\/p>\n
institution,       obviously    the       Act    or    the    Rules      regulating<\/p>\n
appointment will not apply, subject to fulfilment of the<\/p>\n
prescribed      minimum        qualifications.               The        appeal       is<\/p>\n
accordingly disposed of, without expressing any opinion on<\/p>\n
merits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Learned      counsel    for    the       third    respondent           submitted<\/p>\n
that even though the third respondent has been working in<\/p>\n
the Danaoli School continuously, she has not been paid the<\/p>\n
salary from November, 2004. The appellant may also look<\/p>\n
into this aspect and if she has been working in the School<\/p>\n
and has not been paid salary, take steps to release her<\/p>\n
salary, if there is no legal impediment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      …………………………….J
\n                                                             [R. V. Raveendran]
\n                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
                          ……………………………..J
\n                          [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
September 16, 2008.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5688 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16922 of 2006) Gwalior Mahila Mandal … Appellant (s) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-02T10:37:55+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-02T10:37:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1099,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-02T10:37:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - 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\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-02T10:37:55+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-02T10:37:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008"},"wordCount":1099,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008","name":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-02T10:37:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gwalior-mahila-mandal-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-16-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gwalior Mahila Mandal vs State Of M.P & Ors on 16 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/133620","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=133620"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133620\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}