{"id":146200,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5"},"modified":"2019-03-17T06:17:39","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T00:47:39","slug":"special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","title":{"rendered":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5832 of 2003\n\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     STATE OF GUJARAT\nVersus\n     BHARAT RAMJI PARMAR\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n     Appearance:\n     1. Special Civil Application No. 5832 of 2003\n          MR HD DAVE, AGP for Petitioner No. 1\n          .......... for Respondent No. 1-2\n\n\n     --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\n\n              Date of Order: 02\/05\/2003\n\n\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>     Heard learned AGP Mr.     H.D. Dave on behalf of<br \/>\n     the petitioner. The State of Gujarat has challenged the<br \/>\n     award passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference<br \/>\n     (LCD) No. 09\/1997 dtd. 20.01.2003 wherein Labour Court<br \/>\n     has granted the benefit to the respondents workmen to be<br \/>\n     regularised or made permanent in the Class IV with effect<br \/>\n     from 07.07.1997 and whatever the arrears available, due<br \/>\n     to that same will be required to be paid by the<br \/>\n     petitioner with effect from 01.01.2000. Learned AGP Mr.<br \/>\n     H.D.   Dave has submitted that specific contention was<br \/>\n     raised before the Labour Court,       Rajkot   that   for<br \/>\n     appointment in the Class IV, some detailed procedure is<br \/>\n     required by the department and his name is required to be<br \/>\n     called for from the employment exchange and without<br \/>\n     selection, he should not have to be regularised in the<br \/>\n     Class IV post. He also submitted that Labour Court has<br \/>\n     committed gross error in granting such benefit which is<br \/>\n     contrary to the service rules of the department.      The<br \/>\n     specific objection has been taken that there is no set up<br \/>\n     in respect to Class IV in the department. He was not<br \/>\n     appointed through employment exchange and no appointment<br \/>\n     letter was given to him and according to the department<br \/>\n     rules, the post of Class IV is to be filled up through<br \/>\n     employment exchange and 10 candidates are required to be<br \/>\n     taken into account and all the candidates are required to<br \/>\n     be given equal opportunity for the post of Class IV and<br \/>\n whenever the regular appointment is made, accordingly the<br \/>\norder has been passed by the department. None of the<br \/>\nprocedure has been followed in case of respondent and,<br \/>\ntherefore, Labour Court has committed gross error in<br \/>\ndirecting to the petitioner to       confirm   both   the<br \/>\nrespondent workmen in Class IV and directed to be paid<br \/>\narrears with effect from 01.01.2000.    Learned AGP Mr.<br \/>\nH.D.   Dave has pointed out that the respondents workmen<br \/>\nremained in service because of the interim order passed<br \/>\nby the District Court, Rajkot. Therefore, they are not<br \/>\nentitled for the said benefits.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the submissions made by learned<br \/>\nAGP Mr. H.D.    Dave. I have perused the award passed by<br \/>\nthe Labour Court, Rajkot.     Before the Labour Court,<br \/>\nstatement of claim has been filed by the workmen vide<br \/>\nExh.5 wherein it is pointed out that they are working in<br \/>\nthe post of &#8220;Khalasi-Cum-Peon&#8221; in the Class IV since many<br \/>\nyears and during their service, new recruitment has been<br \/>\nmade by the petitioner. Even though, they were not given<br \/>\nbenefit of permanency and, therefore, the demand has been<br \/>\nraised to be made permanent with effect from the date of<br \/>\njoining.   No reply has been filed by the petitioner<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court.     However, vide Exh.31, one<br \/>\nwitness Shri Kishorbhai Ghanabhai Sagathiya was examined<br \/>\non behalf of the petitioner.   Thereafter, Labour Court<br \/>\nhas considered the evidence on record. Each workman has<br \/>\ncompleted more than 15 years service continuously with<br \/>\nthe petitioner and this is not in dispute by the<br \/>\npetitioner. The Labour Court has considered that one<br \/>\nBharatbhai Ramji Parmar was appointed on 07.11.1979 and<br \/>\none Shri Bhupatbhai Chauhan was appointed on 01.10.1981<br \/>\nin the post of &#8220;Khalasi-Cum-Peon&#8221; in Class IV and they<br \/>\nwere remained continuous in service till the dispute has<br \/>\nbeen raised and even subsequent to that also, they are in<br \/>\nservice. The Labour Court has also considered that total<br \/>\nlength of service is not challenged by the petitioner<br \/>\nbefore the Labour Court. The respondents workmen has<br \/>\nproduced the Govt. Resolution dtd. 17.10.1988 vide Exh.9<br \/>\nand even Labour Court has considered that Resolution and<br \/>\nafter a period of 10 years service, even according to<br \/>\nthat Govt. Resolution, the workman is entitled the<br \/>\nbenefit of permanency and regular salary. Ultimately, the<br \/>\nLabour Court has considered that whether in the set up<br \/>\nthe post is available or not. But once the workmen<br \/>\nremained continue in service for more than 10 years, then<br \/>\nhe entitled the regular salary and entitled the benefit<br \/>\nof permanency. The Labour Court has given reasons and<br \/>\nrelied upon certain decisions of the Apex Court while<br \/>\ngranting the relief in favour of the respondents workmen.<br \/>\nAccording to my opinion, while passing such award, Labour<br \/>\n Court has not committed any error.\n<\/p>\n<p>Recently, the Apex Court has also considered this<br \/>\naspect of regularisation in service and also as regular<br \/>\npay scale to such daily wager employees in case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/828091\/\">GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY V. RATHOD LABHU BECHAR<\/a><br \/>\nreported in AIR 2001 SC 706. Relevant observations made<br \/>\nin para-19, 20 and 21 are quoted as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;19.One of the questions which is also up for<br \/>\n        our consideration is, apart from the fact who are<br \/>\n        to be regularise, what would be payable to these<br \/>\n        daily wage workers who have completed more than<br \/>\n        10 years of continuous service. Submissions for<br \/>\n        the respondents is, that such daily wage workers<br \/>\n        should be paid the same minimum scale of pay as<br \/>\n        admissible to the regularised incumbent based on<br \/>\n        the principle of `equal pay for equal work&#8217; Daily<br \/>\n        rated   casual   labour employed under P &amp; T<br \/>\n        Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch<br \/>\n        V. Union of India [ AIR 1987 SC 2342 : 1988 Lab<br \/>\n        IC 37 ] [ Supra] was a case of daily rated casual<br \/>\n        labourers of the P &amp; T department doing work<br \/>\n        similar to that of the regular workers of the<br \/>\n        department. This Court held :\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8221; &#8230;..   Even though the Directive Principle<br \/>\n        contained in Articles 38 and 39 [d] may not be<br \/>\n        enforceable as such be virtue of Article 37 but<br \/>\n        it may be relied upon by the petitioners to show<br \/>\n        that in the instant case they have been subjected<br \/>\n        to hostile discrimination. The State cannot deny<br \/>\n        at least the minimum pay in the pay scales of<br \/>\n        regularly   employed    workmen even though the<br \/>\n        Government may not be compelled to extend all the<br \/>\n        benefits   enjoyed   by     regularly   recruited<br \/>\n        employees.   Such denial amounts to exploitation<br \/>\n        of labour.    The Government cannot     be   take<br \/>\n        advantage of its dominant position and compel any<br \/>\n        worker to work even as a casual laborer on<br \/>\n        starvation wages. It may be that the casual<br \/>\n        laborer has agreed to work on such low wages<br \/>\n        &#8230;.. &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 20.State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (4) SCC<br \/>\n        118 : (1992 AIR SCW 2315 : AIR 1992 SC 2130<br \/>\n: 1992 Lab IC 2168). This was a case of ad<br \/>\nhoc\/temporary Government employees. This Court<br \/>\nheld, those eligible and qualified and continuing<br \/>\nin service satisfactorily for a long period have<br \/>\n right to be considered for regularisation. Long<br \/>\ncontinuing in service gives rise to a presumption<br \/>\nabout the need for a regular post. In such cases<br \/>\nGovernment should consider feasibility of<br \/>\nregularisation having regard to the particular<br \/>\ncircumstances with a positive approach and<br \/>\nempathy for the concerned person.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.<a href=\"\/doc\/810158\/\">In Surinder Singh V.   Engineer-in-Chief,<br \/>\n       C.P.W.D.,<\/a> 1986 (1) SCC 639 : (AIR 1986 SC 584 :<br \/>\n       1996 Lab IC 551), this Court holds entitlement of<br \/>\n       &#8216;equal pay for equal work&#8217; for the daily wage<br \/>\n       workers of C.P.W.D.     to the wages equal to the<br \/>\n       regular and permanent employees employed to do<br \/>\n       identical work, <a href=\"\/doc\/1672467\/\">Mool Raj Upadhavava v. State of<br \/>\n       H.P.,<\/a> 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316, was a case of<br \/>\n       regularisation based on the claim for &#8216;equal pay<br \/>\n       for equal work&#8217; of daily wages of Class III and<br \/>\n       Class IV employees in the irrigation and Public<br \/>\n       Health Wings of H.P. Some of them worked for<br \/>\n       more than 10 years. They were being paid minimum<br \/>\n       wages prescribed by the State Government but were<br \/>\n       seeking regularisation and parity of pay with<br \/>\n       regular employees. The State Government came out<br \/>\n       with a scheme which was modified by the Court to<br \/>\n       the following effect.     The relevant portion of<br \/>\n       which is quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Taking   into   consideration    the    facts   and<br \/>\n        circumstances of the     case,   we modify the said<br \/>\n        scheme :\n<\/p>\n<p>xxxxxxxx<\/p>\n<p>(3)   daily-wage muster-roll    workers,   whether<br \/>\n        skilled or unskilled who have not completed 10<br \/>\n        years of service with a minimum of 240 days in a<br \/>\n        calendar year on 31.12.1993, shall be paid daily<br \/>\n        wages at the rates prescribed by the Government<br \/>\n        of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for daily<br \/>\n        wage employees falling in Class III and Class IV<br \/>\n        till they are appointed as work-charged employees<br \/>\n        in accordance with paragraph 2;\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)    daily-wage\/muster-roll   workers shall be<br \/>\n        regularised in a phased manner on the basis of<br \/>\n        seniority-cum-suitability    including  physical<br \/>\n        fitness. On regularisation they shall be put in<br \/>\n        the minimum of the time-scale payable to the<br \/>\n        corresponding lowest grade applicable to the<br \/>\n         Government and would be entitled to all other<br \/>\n        benefits available to regular Government servants<br \/>\n        of the corresponding grade.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the observations made by the Apex Court and<br \/>\nconsidering the facts of the present case, undisputedly,<br \/>\nboth the respondent workmen were continue in service for<br \/>\nmore than 15 to 16 years as a Casual or daily wager and<br \/>\nthey raised the dispute which resulted in relief in their<br \/>\nfavour.   According to my opinion, Labour Court has<br \/>\nrightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed<br \/>\nappropriate award in favour of the respondents workmen.<br \/>\nThe Labour Court has taken care that no financial burden<br \/>\nwould impose upon the State Government and that is how<br \/>\nwith retrospective effect from 07.07.1997, the benefit<br \/>\nwas not given and no direction has been issued to pay the<br \/>\narrears to the workmen but on the contrary, Labour Court<br \/>\nhas   taken   into   account   that future effect from<br \/>\n01.01.2000. According to my opinion, it is a balanced<br \/>\naward passed by the Labour Court and after considering<br \/>\nthe settled principles laid down by the Apex Court,<br \/>\nLabour Court has not committed any error while passing<br \/>\nsuch award which does not require any interference while<br \/>\nexercising the powers under Article 226\/227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in<br \/>\nthe present petition. Present petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H. K. Rathod, J.)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5832 of 2003 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; STATE OF GUJARAT Versus BHARAT RAMJI PARMAR &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 5832 of 2003 MR HD DAVE, AGP for Petitioner [&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-146200","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>Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T00:47:39+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T00:47:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\"},\"wordCount\":1591,\"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\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\",\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T00:47:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T00:47:39+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T00:47:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5"},"wordCount":1591,"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\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5","name":"Special Civil Application No. ... vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T00:47:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-civil-application-no-vs-unknown-on-25-april-2011-5#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Special Civil Application No. &#8230; vs Unknown on 25 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/146200","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=146200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}