{"id":14298,"date":"2008-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-06-10T01:20:01","modified_gmt":"2017-06-09T19:50:01","slug":"appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/14103\/2004\t 6\/ 6\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. 14103 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n \n \n======================================\n \n\nN.B.PARMAR\n\n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; others\n \n\n======================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPINAKIN M RAVAL for Petitioner\n \n\nMr.\nNeeraj Soni, Assistant Government Pleader, for\nrespondents \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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1\tThis<br \/>\npetition under Article 226 is preferred by the petitioner challenging<br \/>\nthe order dated 17th September 2004 passed by the<br \/>\nRevisional Authority confirming the order dated 24th<br \/>\nOctober 2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated<br \/>\n8th August 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer,<br \/>\nGodhra, at Panchmahals, cancelling license of fair-price shop of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>2\tOn<br \/>\n3rd June 2003, the Supply Inspector  from the Office of<br \/>\nthe District Supply Officer, Godhra,  District Panchmahals, visited<br \/>\nthe fair-price of the petitioner and found several irregularities,<br \/>\nnamely:\n<\/p>\n<p>[i]<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner did not follow the terms and conditions of the<br \/>\nlicense;\n<\/p>\n<p>[ii]\tthe<br \/>\npetitioner illegally disposed  of essential commodities to be<br \/>\nsupplied to the ration-card holders of below poverty line [BPL];\n<\/p>\n<p>[iii]<br \/>\n\tdistribution of wheat and rice to the ration-card holders of BPL was<br \/>\nless than the actual shown.\n<\/p>\n<p>[iv]<br \/>\n\tkerosene was  disposed of by preparing duplicate bills,which were<br \/>\nnot part of the original bill book.\n<\/p>\n<p>[v]<br \/>\n \tthe stock was not shown correctly in the  stock and sale register.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1\tThus,<br \/>\nit is found by the Supply Inspector that the petitioner, being a<br \/>\nlicensee of the fair-price shop, had acted contrary to the terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the license <\/p>\n<p>2.2\tBefore<br \/>\nthe license came to  be cancelled, by order dated 10th<br \/>\nJune 2003, the District Supply Officer suspended the license of the<br \/>\npetitioner  for a period of sixty days.\n<\/p>\n<p>3\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner submitted explanation dated 24th July 2003,<br \/>\ninter alia, contending that the irregularities were of minor nature.<br \/>\nIt is further contended that the petitioner  bona-fidely committed<br \/>\ncertain mistakes and inadvertently essential commodities sold were<br \/>\nnot correctly recorded in the sale and stock register. Therefore, a<br \/>\nrequest was made to the District Supply Officer to restore the<br \/>\nlicense by invoking the order of suspension of license. However, the<br \/>\nDistrict Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, after considering<br \/>\nthe charges levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice,<br \/>\nreply and explanation submitted by the petitioner and, after<br \/>\naffording an opportunity of hearing,  found that, on earlier occasion<br \/>\nalso,  the petitioner had committed similar irregularities and he was<br \/>\ndealt with leniently by recovering Rs.500\/- from the deposit and also<br \/>\nthe value of disposed of essential articles, with a warning that, in<br \/>\nfuture, if the petitioner continues to commit irregularities, he<br \/>\nwould be dealt with severely, and cancelled the licence to run the<br \/>\nfair-price shop granted to the petitioner by order dated 8th<br \/>\nAugust 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p>4\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by the order dated 8th August 2003 passed by the<br \/>\nDistrict Supply Officer, Panchmahals, at Godhra, the petitioner<br \/>\npreferred an appeal before the District Collector, Panchamhals, at<br \/>\nGodhra, contending that the order passed by  the District Supply<br \/>\nOfficer impugned in the appeal was very harsh and, therefore, was<br \/>\nrequired to be quashed and set aside. However, considering all the<br \/>\nrelevant aspects and after hearing the petitioner, the District<br \/>\nCollector found that the irregularities committed by the petitioner<br \/>\nwere proved by evidence on record and held that there was no reason<br \/>\nto reverse the order dated 8th August 2003  passed by  the<br \/>\nDistrict Supply Officer. Accordingly, the District Collector passed<br \/>\norder dated 24th October 2003 confirming the order of  the<br \/>\nDistrict Supply Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>5\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved by the order dated 24th October 2003  passed by<br \/>\nthe District Collector, the petitioner filed Revision Application<br \/>\nbefore the Revisional Authority. It was contended by the petitioner<br \/>\nthat the orders passed by both the authorities below are illegal and<br \/>\nviolative of principles of natural justice. On merit, it was<br \/>\ncontended that irregularities were not grave in nature and, due to<br \/>\ninadvertence and negligence on the part of the petitioner, certain<br \/>\nrecord was not maintained by him correctly. It was further contended<br \/>\nthat there was no complaint on behalf of the ration-card holders or<br \/>\nless-supply of essential commodity and the reliance on earlier<br \/>\nirregularities had no relevance and, therefore, a request was made<br \/>\nbefore the Revisional Authority to restore the license of the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>6\tThe<br \/>\nRevisional Authority considered the submissions made and contentions<br \/>\nraised by the petitioner in detail and, after hearing the petitioner,<br \/>\npassed a reasoned order. It was found by the Revisional Authority<br \/>\nthat the irregularities found on the visit of the Supply Inspector<br \/>\nwere based on documentary evidence and wheat, rice and kerosene were<br \/>\nfound to have been disposed of by the petitioner illegally and the<br \/>\ncommodities, which are essential in nature meant for ration-card<br \/>\nholders of BPL, did not reach them. Therefore, after considering the<br \/>\nafore-mentioned facts, the orders passed by the Authorities below<br \/>\nwere confirmed by the Revisional Authority by order dated  17.9.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>7\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner has contended that all the three<br \/>\nauthorities below committed illegality in as much as the impugned<br \/>\norders were in violation of provisions of the Act and the Rules and<br \/>\nalso against the principles of natural justice. According to the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner, when the license was suspended<br \/>\nfor a period of  60 days and the petitioner was kept out of business,<br \/>\nthat itself was sufficient punishment for the irregularities of minor<br \/>\nnature. It was further submitted that, since the object of the scheme<br \/>\nis to provide employment to the uneducated youth, the petitioner may<br \/>\nbe given one more opportunity to run fair-price shop, so that he can<br \/>\neke out his livelihood. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner<br \/>\ncan be imposed with a minor punishment of a fine and the respondents<br \/>\nmay be directed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>8\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and<br \/>\nperused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>9\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, this petition  is preferred<br \/>\nby the petitioner against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by<br \/>\nthe three authorities below, namely, the District Supply Officer, the<br \/>\nDistrict Collector in appeal and the Deputy Secretary of State of<br \/>\nGujarat  in revision and there is no illegality committed by them<br \/>\napparent on the face of it in passing the impugned orders. Therefore,<br \/>\nit is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioner that the irregularities committed<br \/>\nby the petitioner were of minor nature and, therefore, a lesser<br \/>\npunishment can be imposed in  exercise power under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India<\/p>\n<p>10\tIt<br \/>\nis trite that power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\ncan be exercised when there is illegality in decision making process<br \/>\nby the authorities below and when the order is arbitrary,<br \/>\nunreasonable or violative of principles of natural justice in the<br \/>\nback-drop of the facts and circumstances of each case. A bare perusal<br \/>\nof the record clearly indicates that, upon visit by the competent<br \/>\nauthority on 3rd June 2003, 14 irregularities were<br \/>\nnoticed, out of which, seven irregularities were  grave in nature<br \/>\npertaining to illegal means of disposal of essential commodities<br \/>\ndepriving BPL ration-card holders of their quota. Not only that, but<br \/>\nthe correct record in the form of stock and sale registers was not<br \/>\nmaintained and duplicate bills were prepared by the petitioner. The<br \/>\nabove irregularities were found to be proved on the basis of the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence produced before the authorities below and no<br \/>\njustifiable reasons were advanced by the petitioner and the<br \/>\nexplanation rendered by him was found to be unacceptable. The above<br \/>\nconcurrent finding of facts, according to this Court, appear to be<br \/>\ncorrect and are based on true appreciation of evidence produced<br \/>\nbefore the Authorities below.  Not only that, on earlier occasion<br \/>\nalso, when the petitioner was found committing irregularities, a<br \/>\nminor penalty of recovery of value of essential commodities disposed<br \/>\nof by the petitioner was imposed with a warning that, in future, if<br \/>\nhe commits similar irregularities, he would be dealt with severely.\n<\/p>\n<p>11\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the<br \/>\norders impugned in this petition are, in any manner, unreasonable,<br \/>\narbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice or violative<br \/>\nof Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. No<br \/>\nprocedural irregularity is found to have been committed by the<br \/>\nAuthorities below and the impugned orders have been passed by the<br \/>\nAuthorities below after issuing show cause notice, considering the<br \/>\nexplanation submitted by the petitioner and after affording an<br \/>\nopportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Considering the above,<br \/>\nthere is no substance in any of the submissions made by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>12\tNo<br \/>\nother contention is raised.\n<\/p>\n<p>13\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, this petition fails and is rejected. Rule is discharged<br \/>\nwith no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ANANT<br \/>\nS. DAVE, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(swamy)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 Author: Anant S. Dave,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/14103\/2004 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14103 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE ====================================== N.B.PARMAR Versus STATE OF [&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-14298","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>Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - 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\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-09T19:50:01+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T19:50:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1404,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-09T19:50:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 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":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - 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\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-09T19:50:01+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T19:50:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008"},"wordCount":1404,"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\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008","name":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-09T19:50:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-mr-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appearance : vs Mr on 18 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\/14298","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=14298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}