{"id":13646,"date":"2010-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-14T19:20:46","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T13:50:46","slug":"present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: G.S.Singhvi,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice P.B.Majmudar,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/20076\/2005\t 5\/ 7\tORDER \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. 20076 of 2005\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 20077 of 2005\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 20084 of 2005\n \n \n====================================== \n<\/pre>\n
MOHNI
\nPIYAT VISTARMA PANINI VAHECHANI MATENI SAHKARI MANDALI AND OTHERS <\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
AUTHORISED
\nOFFICER AND COOPERATIVE OFFICER, MARKETING CONCERNED DISTRICT
\nREGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, SURAT AND OTHERS <\/p>\n
======================================<\/p>\n
Present
\n:\n<\/p>\n
Shri Dilip B
\nRana for the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
Shri S.P.Hasurkar, Assistant Government
\nPleader for respondent No.1. Shri BS Patel for respondent No.2
\nNone
\nfor respondent No.3.\n<\/p>\n
====================================== <\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.S.SINGHVI<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR<\/p>\n
Date
\n: 25\/10\/2005 <\/p>\n
\tThis
\nis a petition for quashing orders dated 2.9.2005 and 9.9.2005 passed
\nby respondent No.1 under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets
\nAct, 1963 (for short, ?Sthe Act??) read with Gujarat Agricultural
\nProduce Market Rules, 1965 (for short, ?Sthe Rules??).\n<\/p>\n
\tPetitioner
\nNo.1 is a co-operative society registered under the Gujarat
\nCooperative Societies Act, 1961. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 9 are members
\nof the managing committee of petitioner No.1. Upto 2001, their names
\nwere included in the voters list prepared for election to
\nAgricultural Produce Market Committee, Surat (respondent No.2) but by
\nvirtue of order dated 2.9.2005 passed by respondent No.1 their names
\nhave been deleted from the voters list and this is the reasons why
\nthey have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nfactual matrix of the case lie in a narrow compass.\n<\/p>\n
\tDirector,
\nAgricultural Markets and Rural Finance, Gujarat vide his letter dated
\n28.7.2005 issued notice for general election of respondent No.2. In
\nfurtherance of that notice, respondent No.1 sent letter dated
\n29.7.2005 to petitioner No.1 to forward the names of the committee
\nmembers for preparation of the voters list. Accordingly, the names of
\n petitioner Nos.2 to 9 were sent  for inclusion in the voters list of
\nagriculturist constituency. On 16.8.2005, a preliminary voters list
\nwas published by respondent No.1. The names of petitioner Nos.2 to 9
\nwere shown in that list at serial No.431 to 439. After eight days,
\nrespondent No.1 issued notice dated 24.8.2005 to petitioner No.1
\nproposing to decide the objections filed by Shri Ranjitbhai Nathubhai
\nPatel (respondent No.3) against inclusion of the names of petitioner
\nNos.2 to 9 in the voters list. The representative of the petitioners
\nappeared before respondent No.1 on 28.8.2005 and produced documents
\nshowing that petitioner No.1 is dispensing agricultural credit to its
\nmembers. However, without considering those documents, respondent
\nNo.1 passed order dated 2.9.2005 whereby he deleted the names of
\npetitioner Nos.2 to 9 from the voters list on the premise that in the
\nbye-laws of petitioner No.1, there is no provision for agricultural
\ncredit. The petitioners represented against exclusion of the names of
\npetitioner Nos.2 to 9 from the voters list but the same was turned
\ndown by respondent No.1 vide order dated 2.9.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npetitioners have challenged the impugned orders on various grounds
\nincluding the one that order dated 2.9.2005 is vitiated due to
\nviolation of the rules of natural justice. They have also pleaded
\nthat the decision to exclude the names of petitioner Nos.2 to 9 from
\nthe voters list  is actuated by malice and that the impugned orders
\nare violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the
\nnames of the committee members of other similarly situated
\ncooperative societies have been included in the voters list. In
\nparagraph 3.7 [A], the petitioners have averred that order dated
\n2.9.2005 was passed without supplying copy of the objections filed by
\nrespondent No.3. That paragraph reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
?SThe
\npetitioners submit that pursuant to the notice given by the
\nAuthorised Officer to the petitioner society for hearing the
\nobjections with regard to inclusion of their names in the preliminary
\nvoters list published on 28.8.2005, the petitioner society produced
\nthe relevant documents showing that the society is dispensing
\nagricultural credit to its members.  It is pertinent to that the
\nAuthorised Officer had not supplied the copy of the objection raised
\nby the objector whose name is referred in the order dated 02.09.2005
\nand therefore, this is a clear case of violation of principles of
\nnatural justice by not supplying the relevant documents which is
\nrelied upon by the Authorised Officer. It is submitted that
\nwithout considering those documentary evidence and more particularly,
\nthe societies similarly situated to the petitioner society as
\nreferred in para 3.11 of the petition are included in the voters list
\npublished by the same respondent Authorised Officer of APMC, Valod
\nand APMC, Vyara. It is submitted that those similarly situated
\nsocieties are having same Bye-laws as compared to the petitioner
\nsociety and the objects are also same with compared to the petitioner
\nsociety and therefore, this is a clear case of violation of Article
\n14 of the Constitution of India.??\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(underlining
\nis ours)<\/p>\n
\tRule
\nof the writ petition has been served on the non-petitioners No.1 and\n<\/p>\n
2. Respondent No.3 refused to accept notice. To this effect Shri
\nRajendrakumar Patel, son of Shri Thakorbhai Patel, Chairman of
\npetitioner No.1 has filed affidavit dated 19.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe reply affidavit filed by him, respondent No.1 has averred that
\norder dated 2.9.2005 was passed after giving opportunity of hearing
\nto the petitioners. According to him, the names of petitioner Nos.2
\nto 9 were excluded from the voters’ list because they do not satisfy
\nthe requirement of Section 11 (1) of the Act read with Rule 5 of the
\nRules. In paragraph 5 of his counter affidavit, respondent No.1
\naverred as under :\n<\/p>\n
?SI
\nstate that an ample opportunity was granted to petitioners for
\nhearing before passing both the impugned orders. The petitioners were
\ncalled for hearing vide letter dated 26.9.05 for hearing scheduled on
\n31.8.05. On the same day, the petitioners were heard and their
\nrecords were perused by me as well as other Officers. Annexed
\nherewith and marked as Annexure-I to this reply is a copy of the
\nletter dated 26.8.05. The said letter was delivered to the
\npetitioners in person and they remained present before the
\nauthorities as per opportunity given in the letter. On 31.8.05, their
\nrecords were checked so as to ascertain whether in fact, petitioners
\nSociety is disbursing Agricultural Credit. Perusing the record, it
\nwas found that the petitioners Society is not disbursing agricultural
\ncredit and therefore, the order under challenge was passed. Auditors
\nReport dated 9.6.05 clearly state that the petitioners Society is not
\ndisbursing any agricultural credit.??\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel for the parties. Shri D.B.Rana, learned
\ncounsel for the petitioners gave out that his clients will not
\nchallenge the election held on the basis of the electoral rolls
\nprepared after passing of orders dated 2.9.2005 and 9.9.2005 but
\nsubmitted that those orders may be quashed on the grounds of
\nviolation of rules of natural justice, mala fide exercise of powers
\nand non-application of mind by respondent No.1, else petitioner Nos.2
\nto 9 and other members of the managing committee of petitioner No.1
\nwill be deprived of opportunity to cast vote in future elections as
\nwell. He submitted that the opportunity of hearing given by
\nrespondent No.1 was a farce because copy of the objections filed by
\nrespondent No.3, which constituted the foundation of notice dated
\n24.8.2005 was not supplied to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri
\nS.P.Hasurkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Shri
\nB.S.Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly stated that
\nthey are not in a position to show that copy of the objections filed
\nby respondent No.3 had been supplied to the petitioners and they were
\ngiven opportunity to controvert the allegations contained therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nour opinion, the opportunity of hearing given by respondent No.1 in
\nthe context of show cause notice dated 24.8.2005 cannot be treated as
\nan effective opportunity of hearing because the copy of the
\nobjections filed by respondent No.3 was not supplied to the
\npetitioners and they they were not given chance to rebut the
\nallegations contained therein. It is settled law that every
\nadministrative or quasi-judicial authority entrusted with the task of
\ndeciding lis between the parties or passing an order, which may
\nadversely affect some person must act in consonance with the basics
\nof natural justice. Such an authority is duty bound to comply with
\nthe rule of audi altrem partem. This
\nnecessarily means that the affected person must be given action
\noriented show cause notice and must be supplied with material sought
\nto be relied against him or which constitutes the basis of the
\nproposed adverse action. If such material is not disclosed or
\nsupplied to the noticee then the opportunity of hearing cannot be
\ntreated as effective opportunity and action taken or order passed by
\nthe concerned authority is liable to be nullified on the ground of
\nviolation of rules of natural justice. In  State of Orissa v. Dr.
\n(Miss) Binapani Dei and others<\/a>, AIR 1967 SC 1269, the Supreme
\nCourt considered the question relating to applicability of the rules
\nof natural justice to administrative actions and held as under :\n<\/p>\n
?SAn
\norder by the State to the prejudice of a person in derogation of his
\nvested rights may be made only in accordance with the basic rules of
\njustice and fairplay. The deciding authority, it is true, is not in
\nthe position of a Judge called upon to decide an action between
\ncontesting parties, and strict compliance with the forms of judicial
\nprocedure may not be insisted upon. He is, however, under a duty to
\ngive the person against whom an enquiry is held an opportunity to set
\nup his version or defence and an opportunity to correct or to
\ncontrovert any evidence in the possession of the authority which is
\nsought to be relied upon to his prejudice. For that purpose the
\nperson against whom an enquiry is held must be informed of the case
\nhe is called upon to meet, and the evidence in support thereof. The
\nrule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be
\npassed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals
\nand bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon
\nmatters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental
\nrules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected
\nagainst exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.
\nDuty to act judicially would, therefore, arise from the very nature
\nof the function intended to be performed: it need not be shown to be
\nsuper-added. If there is power to decide and determine to the
\nprejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the
\nexercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and
\nan order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a
\nnullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance
\nthereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular
\ncase.??\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe present case, it is an undisputed position that copy of the
\nobjections filed by respondent No.3, which led to the issuance of
\nnotice dated 24.8.2005 and resulted in passing of order dated
\n2.9.2005 was not supplied to the petitioners and they were not given
\nopportunity to controvert the allegations contained therein.
\nTherefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that they were
\ncondemned unheard and  the orders passed by respondent No.1 are
\nliable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the rules of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the above conclusion, we do not consider it necessary to deal
\nwith other questions raised in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe result, the Special Civil Application is allowed. Orders dated
\n2.9.2005 and 9.9.2005 passed by respondent No.1 are quashed with a
\ndirection that the said respondent shall decide the issue of
\nexclusion of the names of petitioner Nos.2 to 9 from the voters list
\nof respondent No.2 afresh after supplying a copy of the objections
\nfiled by respondent No.3 and giving opportunity of personal hearing
\nto the parties. The officer concerned should supply a copy of the
\nobjections of respondent No.3 to the petitioners within 10 days from
\nthe date of submission of the certified copy of this order. The
\npetitioner shall be at liberty to reply to the objections within next
\ntwo weeks. It is expected that the officer concerned will decide the
\nmatter and pass appropriate order within a maximum period of three
\nmonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\tCopies
\nof this order be placed on the record of Special Civil Application
\nNos.20077 to 20084 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(G.S.SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
(P.B.MAJMUDAR)<\/p>\n
  JUDGE<\/p>\n
\/malek<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 Author: G.S.Singhvi,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice P.B.Majmudar,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/20076\/2005 5\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20076 of 2005 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20077 of 2005 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20084 […]<\/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-13646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPresent vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-14T13:50:46+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T13:50:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2028,\"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\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-14T13:50:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 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":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-14T13:50:46+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T13:50:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010"},"wordCount":2028,"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\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010","name":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-14T13:50:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/present-vs-shri-s-p-hasurkar-on-18-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Present vs Shri S.P.Hasurkar on 18 August, 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\/13646","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=13646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}