{"id":14506,"date":"2008-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-27T01:49:02","modified_gmt":"2016-06-26T20:19:02","slug":"p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Anant S. Dave<\/div>\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\/8398\/2008\t 11\/ 11\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. 8398 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nP.L.\nMAHIDA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAS SUPEHIA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\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 ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/06\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\t\tThis
\npetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by
\nthe petitioner seeking regularisation of his services with continuity
\nfrom 01st July, 1989 in a Class-IV post in the pay scale
\nfrom 10th February, 2006 and to pay the arrears with 10%
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tIt
\nis the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a
\npart-time Class-IV employee from 01st July, 1989 and
\nserved as such till 10th February, 2006 when his services
\ncame to be terminated orally.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\nclaim of the petitioner for regularisation is based on Government
\nResolution dated 01st May, 2007 issued by Department of
\nFinance, State of Gujarat as \u00fdSone-time measure\u00fd\u00fd.  To regularise
\nservices of Class-IV employees, certain parameters have been laid
\ndown.  The petitioner further claims regularisation of his service on
\nthe basis of certain directions contained in the judgment dated 18th
\nSeptember, 2006 delivered in a group of petitions alongwith Special
\nCivil Application No.4355 of 2006, where the petitioner and other
\nsimilarly situated part-timers filed writ petitions pursuant to their
\noral termination in the year 2006.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tAccording
\nto Shri A.S. Supehia, learned counsel for the petitioner, when the
\nscheme is framed by the respondent Government as \u00fdSone-time measure\u00fd\u00fd
\nby Government Resolution dated 01st May, 2007 and pursuant
\nto certain directions issued by this court, the petitioner fulfilled
\nall relevant criteria mentioned in the above Government Resolution
\nfor regularisation and a certificate dated 10th May, 2007
\nis issued by the District Planning Officer, District Kheda that since
\n01st July, 1989, the petitioner has rendered part-time
\nservice and at the time of recruitment as a Sweeper, the petitioner
\nhad passed Standard VIII examination and the above part-time
\nappointment was made by competent authority on a sanctioned post.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tOn
\nthe above basis, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
\npetitioner that necessary directions be issued to the respondent
\nauthorities to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation
\nin a permanent establishment of the respondent authority.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tShri
\nSupehia, learned counsel has further relied on a decision of this
\ncourt produced alongwith the petition and reported in 2007 (1) G.L.H.
\nPage 88 and another decision of the Apex Court decided on 09th
\nOctober, 2007 in the case of U.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs. POORAN
\nCHANDRA PANDEY AND OTHERS<\/a> in Civil Appeal No.3765 of 2001 and
\nsubmitted that even as per para 53 of the decision of the
\nConstitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi etc.,
\nthe case of the petitioner deserves consideration.  Learned counsel
\nfurther submitted that reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in
\nexercise of power by the authority are the hallmark of a fair
\ndecision and as held by their Lordships in the case of U.P. State
\nElectricity Board, the decision of Uma Devi cannot be read like a
\nEuclid’s theorem and, therefore, this is a fit case to issue
\nappropriate directions for regularisation to the respondent
\nauthorities.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tShri
\nSatyam Chhaya, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State has
\ndrawn my attention to the certificate issued by the District Planning
\nOfficer, District Kheda dated 10th May, 2007 and submitted
\nthat nowhere such certificate prescribed that the initial recruitment
\nof the petitioner was in accordance with Recruitment Rules or even by
\nway of public advertisement or by summoning his name from the
\nEmployment Exchange.  Learned AGP has next submitted that the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 01st May, 2007 is a scheme
\nwhich lays down certain criteria for regularising services of
\nClass-IV employees and as per Criteria 1(2), the case of a part-timer
\ncan be considered only if such part-timer was appointed after
\nfollowing the procedure laid down under Recruitment Rules or at least
\nby sponsoring names from the Employment Exchange or by an agency
\nwhich is recognised by the Government.  In the case of the
\npetitioner, no such procedure was followed when the petitioner was
\nappointed as a part-timer in the year 1989 and, therefore, neither
\nthe petitioner deserves any consideration in accordance with the
\nabove-mentioned Government Resolution nor any direction whatsoever,
\nin exercise of power under Article 226, can be issued by this court.
\nShri Satyam Chhaya, learned AGP appearing for the State Government
\nhas drawn attention of this court to various other decisions of the
\nApex Court in the case of Indian Drug Pharmaceutical, Niraj Awasthi
\nand other such cases where the Apex Court has held that dehors
\nthe Rules, no direction can be given by the High Court in exercise of
\npower under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tHaving
\nheard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am unable to
\naccept the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
\ncase of the petitioner deserves to be considered for issuance of
\nappropriate direction to the respondent authorities for
\nregularisation of his part-time services.  That a bare perusal of the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 01st May, 2007 reveals that
\nafter taking into consideration various decisions of this court and
\nApex Court, as \u00fdSone-time measure\u00fd\u00fd, it was resolved by the
\nDepartment of Finance, State of Gujarat to consider case of Class-IV
\nemployees for regularisation provided such Class-IV employees fulfill
\nthe criteria mentioned therein.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThat
\ncriteria clause 1(2) are completion of 10 years of service as on 10th
\nFebruary, 2006 after performing duties for six hours on a day and
\ncompletion of 10 years should not be by virtue of grant of any stay
\nor order of injunction by court of tribunal.  Recruitment of such
\npart-timer and Class-IV employees ought to have been made at the time
\nof recruitment after following legal and valid selection procedure
\nand possessing requisite qualification as per the Recruitment Rules
\nat the time of appointment and such appointment is on the established
\nand vacant post.\n<\/p>\n
7.1\t\tThe
\nreliance placed on the certificate dated 10th May, 2007
\ndoes not reveal anywhere that the appointment of the petitioner was
\nmade by the competent authority after following the procedure laid
\ndown under Recruitment Rules for filling up of the post of Class-IV
\nemployees.  Nowhere it is made out by the petitioner that the name of
\nthe petitioner was  sponsored from the Employment Exchange or the
\nrecruitment was made after issuing public advertisement.  Therefore,
\nthe case of the petitioner is not covered by Clause 1(2) of the
\nGovernment Resolution dated 01st May, 2007 and, therefore,
\nit cannot be said that the petitioner fulfills all relevant criteria
\nfor issuance of appropriate direction to the respondent for
\nconsidering his case for regularisation of service in accordance with
\nprovisions of the above Government Resolution.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIt
\nis true that in a matter of public employment, the authority has to
\nrecruit an employee as per the Recruitment Rules framed by such
\nauthority in consonance with the requirement of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of India and any appointment of an employee in the
\nDepartment  of the Government dehors
\nthe Recruitment Rules and without even issuing public advertisement
\nwill be per se illegal and violative of equity clause in the
\nmatter of public employment, depriving other meritorious and equally
\nqualified candidates from seeking the employment.  By keeping the
\nabove concept, the Constitution Bench in the case of SECRETARY,
\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI [(2006) 4 SCC Page 1] deprecated
\nthe tendency of the Government authority to by-pass the Recruitment
\nRules and employ the employees in various Departments  of the
\nGovernment which result into litigious perseverance on the part of
\nthe employees.  This court has also taken a view in Special Civil
\nApplication No.9262 of 1994 that in exercise of powers under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India, no directions can be issued for
\nregularisation of service of an employee recruited dehors
\nthe Rules and by way of a back-door entry.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\t\tAs
\nregards the law in the matter of public employment in consonance with
\nArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and absorption,
\nregularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual,
\ncasual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees appointed\/recruited and
\ncontinued for long time in public employment by not following regular
\nrecruitment rules, the Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE
\nOF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI (supra)  cautioned the High Court in
\nexercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
\nissuing any direction or conferring permanent benefits of continuity
\nand granting permanent status.\n<\/p>\n
8.1.1\tThe
\nApex Court further took note that even the phenomenon of ‘litigious
\nemployment’ had arisen due to issuance of such directions by the High
\nCourt and only because an employee had continued under cover of an
\norder of the High Court, even for a long period of time, no such
\ndirections of conferring permanency can be issued and, ultimately,
\nthe Apex Court held that wide powers under Article 226 are not
\nintended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities,
\nirregularities or improprieties.\n<\/p>\n
8.2\t\tIn
\nSURINDER PRASAD TIWARI VS. U.P. RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI
\nPARISHAD  AND OTHERS, reported in [2006] 7 SCC 684, the Apex
\nCourt held that the contractual employee, who was appointed dehors
\nthe constitutional scheme of public employment but continued in
\nservice for 14  years because of interim order granted by High Court,
\nwas not entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in the
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
8.3\t\tIn
\nSTATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS VS. PROJECT UCHCHA VIDYA, SIKSHAK SANGH
\nAND OTHERS, reported in [2006] 2 SCC 545, it was held by the Apex
\nCourt that the regularization must be preceded by a legislative act
\nor in absence of legislation, by rules framed under Article 309
\nproviso and the decision of the Bihar State to establish large number
\nof High Schools in the State by ‘Project Schools’ Scheme by a
\nCircular and the employees of existing and new private schools
\nbrought within ambit of such scheme, if regularized, was held to be
\nneither any legislation nor policy decision had been passed to that
\neffect and the directions were given to follow relevant rules.
\nTherefore, the case of the petitioners if examined with the purpose
\nof the scheme of providing non-formal elementary primary education to
\nthe children of a particular strata of a society not from regular
\nteaching class of the primary school and serving on honorarium basis
\nfor a few years, do not confer any legal right making it necessary
\nfor this Court to issue a writ of mandamus for regularization and\/or
\nabsorption with the service of Education Department of the State.\n<\/p>\n
8.4\t\tThe
\nequality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
\nmust be given primacy.  No policy decision can be taken in terms of
\nArticle 77 or Article 162 of the Constitution which would run
\ncontrary to the constitutional or statutory scheme.  No
\nregularization is, thus, permissible in exercise of power conferred
\nunder Article 162 of the Constitution if the appointments have been
\nmade in contravention  of the statutory rules.  [See Post Master
\nGeneral, Kolkata vs. Tutu Das [2007] 5 SCC 317].\n<\/p>\n
8.5\t\tIn
\nPUNJAB WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD VS. RANJODH SINGH,
\n[2007] 2 SCC 491, the Apex Court held that long continuance does not
\ncreate an entitlement to regularization.  It is further observed:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdSRegularisation
\ncannot be a mode of appointment.  A post must be created and\/or
\nsanctioned before filling it up.  The employees in question had not
\nbeen appointed by following the regular procedure, and instead they
\nhad been appointed only due to the pressure and agitation of the
\nunion and on compassionate grounds.  There were not even vacancies on
\nwhich they could be appointed.  Such employees cannot be regularized
\nas regularisation is not a mode of recruitment.  If the
\ncourt\/tribunal directs that a daily-rated or ad hoc or casual
\nemployee should be continued in service till the date of
\nsuperannuation, it is impliedly regularising such an employee, which
\ncannot be done.  Regularization can only be done in accordance with
\nthe rules and not dehors the rules.  The rules of recruitment cannot
\nbe relaxed and the court\/tribunal cannot direct regularization of
\ntemporary appointees dehors the rules, nor can it direct continuation
\nof service of a temporary employee [whether called a casual, ad hoc
\nor daily-rated employee] or payment of regular salary to them.
\nOrders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts,
\nregularization, fixing pay scale, continuation in service,
\npromotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it
\nis highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a
\nrare and exceptional case.  The courts must exercise judicial
\nrestrain in this connection, and not encroach into the executive or
\nlegislative domain.  The tendency in some courts\/tribunal to
\nlegislate or perform executive functions cannot be appreciated.
\nJudicial activism in some extreme and exceptional situations can be
\njustified, but, resorting to it readily and frequently, as has lately
\nbeen happening, is not only unconstitutional, it is also fraught with
\ngrave peril for the judiciary.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThus,
\nthe petitioner fails to fulfill even the requirement of ‘one-time
\nmeasure’ Government Resolution and initial recruitment of the
\npetitioner was not either through Employment Exchange or under any
\nprevalent recruitment rules and, therefore, no directions can be
\nissued in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe
\nreliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal
\nNo.3765 of 2001 was a case where the employees of the Society which
\ncame to be absorbed in the U.P. State Electricity Board were treated
\ndifferently even after the absorption and in the backdrop of the
\nabove facts, their Lordships have held that decision of Uma Devi
\n(supra) cannot be treated or to be read like Euclid’s theorem.  Even
\nthe latest decision of the Apex Court clearly reiterates what is laid
\ndown in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and in the present case, when
\nthe petitioner was not recruited after following relevant Recruitment
\nRules prevalent at the time of his appointment in the year 1989, the
\nappointment of the petitioner is contrary to rules and against the
\nmandate of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  To
\ncontinue such petitioner in service will be contrary to the
\ndirections of the Apex Court and it will be open for the respondent
\nauthority to take appropriate action in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tNo
\ndirection, as sought for, can be given to the petitioner in exercise
\nof power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The
\npetition, therefore, fails and is summarily rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(
\nAnant S. Dave, J. )<\/p>\n
hki<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008 Bench: Anant S. Dave SCA\/8398\/2008 11\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8398 of 2008 ========================================================= P.L. MAHIDA – Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AS SUPEHIA for Petitioner(s) : […]<\/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-14506","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.L vs State on 23 June, 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\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-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=\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-26T20:19:02+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T20:19:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2335,\"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\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\",\"name\":\"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-26T20:19:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.L vs State on 23 June, 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":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 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\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-26T20:19:02+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T20:19:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008"},"wordCount":2335,"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\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008","name":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-26T20:19:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-l-vs-state-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.L vs State on 23 June, 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\/14506","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=14506"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14506\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}