{"id":148585,"date":"2011-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-01T21:41:19","modified_gmt":"2017-09-01T16:11:19","slug":"act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                                                    17-wp-904-10.doc\n\n\njdk     \n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                      WRIT PETITION NO. 904 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n           The City & Industrial Development      ]\n           Corporation Ltd., a body established   ]\n           under the provisions of the City and   ]\n           Industrial Development Corporation     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n           Act, having office at CIDCO Bhavan,    ]\n           CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 0614\n                              ig                  ]..Petitioner\n\n                Vs.\n                            \n             1. The Sate of Maharashtra           ]\n                through the Ministry of Revenue   ]\n                and Forest, Mantralaya,           ]\n                Mumbai-400 032                    ]\n             \n\n\n             2. The Hon'ble Minister for          ]\n                Revenue, State of Maharashtra     ]\n          \n\n\n\n                Mantralaya, Mumbai-32             ]\n\n             3. The Collector, Raigad             ]\n\n\n\n\n\n             4. Vinayak Pundlik Aaklekar          ]\n                Age Adult, Occ: Retired           ]\n\n             5. Smt.Sanjivani Bhalchandra         ]\n                Aaklekar, Aged adult,             ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                Occ: Household                    ]\n\n             6. Rajendra Bhalchandra Aaklekar ]\n                Age adult, Occ: Service       ]\n\n             7. Ms. Pradnya Bhalchandra          ]\n                Aaklekar, Age adult, Occ: Service]\n\n                Nos. 4 to 7 residing at 140\/4752 ]\n                Pritisagar Society, Kurla (East) ]\n\n\n                                           1\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::\n                                                             17-wp-904-10.doc\n\n\n         Through their Power of Attorney   ]\n         Shri. Indrajeet V.Bhadra,         ]\n         Age Adult, Occ: Business,         ]\n         Residing at 9\/D, Devkinandan      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n         Sector 3E, Navi Mumbai            ]..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n    Shri. Y.S.Jahagirdar Senior Advocate with Shri. S.S.Kanetkar for\n    petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n    Shri. N.V.Walawalkar Senior Advocate with               Shri.Umesh\n    Mankapure advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 7\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n    Shri. R.M.Patne AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3\n                       \n                    CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                    DATE       : 20th JULY, 2011.\n\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT:\n      \n   \n\n\n\n    1. Rule.    Respondents waive service.          Rule returnable\n\n      forthwith.\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    2. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the<\/p>\n
      Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by<\/p>\n
      the Minister for Revenue, Government of Maharashtra<\/p>\n
      dated 5th June, 2009, a copy of which is annexed at<\/p>\n
      Annexure-D to the petition.\n<\/p>\n
    3. That order came to be passed on a Revision Application<\/p>\n
      which was filed by the contesting respondents nos. 4 to 7 to<\/p>\n
                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                 17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The   application alleged that certain lands at Mouje<\/p>\n
      Kharghar, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad were belonging to<\/p>\n
      one Kurvanali Nagarali Khoja. The name of said person is<\/p>\n
      entered in the revenue records as owner. The said lands<\/p>\n
      have been disposed of by the said Kurvanali Khoja to<\/p>\n
      predecessor-in-title of the respondent nos. 4 to 7, namely<\/p>\n
      Smt. Chandrabhagabai Pandurang Aaklekar i.e. by a<\/p>\n
      document\/deed dated 27th May, 1940. Thereafter, the said<\/p>\n
      Smt.   Chandrabhagabai        Pundlik    Aaklekar      was       put     in<\/p>\n
      possession and she has got absolute title and right in the<\/p>\n
      said property. Her name has been entered in the revenue<\/p>\n
      record as owner qua Entry No.619.\n<\/p>\n
    5. This land, according to the respondent nos.4 to 7, always<\/p>\n
      remained with Smt. Chandrabhagabai and she never parted<\/p>\n
      with possession thereof nor her title and\/or interest therein<\/p>\n
      was transferred in any manner.             This land has been<\/p>\n
      erroneously      mentioned    in   the    revenue        records         as<\/p>\n
      “Akaripad”.      It has not been notified as land belonging to a<\/p>\n
      private party.     In these circumstances, the land came to<\/p>\n
      Kharghar Gram Panchayat on certain terms and conditions.\n<\/p>\n
      The statement made in the application to the State<\/p>\n
      Government invoking its revisional powers, clearly states<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                  17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      that the Collector had passed orders on 13th March, 1941<\/p>\n
      and 19th March, 1941.        It is aggrieved by this that the<\/p>\n
      revisional jurisdiction has been invoked purportedly to seek<\/p>\n
      correction and modification in the revenue records so as to<\/p>\n
      show that the said Chandrabhagabai never lost her title and<\/p>\n
      interest in the said properties.\n<\/p>\n
    6. Upon this application, the contesting respondent viz.\n<\/p>\n
      petitioner   which    is    City   &     Industrial     Development<\/p>\n
      Corporation Ltd., (for short “CIDCO”)                   the Planning<\/p>\n
      Authority<\/p>\n
                   raised   a    preliminary     objection        that      such<\/p>\n
      application at the instance of the respondent nos. 4 to 7<\/p>\n
      cannot be entertained at this belated stage.                           This<\/p>\n
      application cannot be accepted in any event because the<\/p>\n
      land was a Government land and stood vested in the CIDCO<\/p>\n
      free from all encumbrances. It was pointed out that after a<\/p>\n
      lapse of 70 years, the entries are being questioned and<\/p>\n
      without pointing out that during the intervening period the<\/p>\n
      claim was relinquished by Smt. Chandrabhagabai Aaklekar.\n<\/p>\n
      The Government took possession and thereafter the land<\/p>\n
      was declared as        `Akaripad” and declared as Gram<\/p>\n
      Panchayat land. It vested in the Group Gram Panchayat in<\/p>\n
      the year 1952. In the year 1971, the land was notified for<\/p>\n
      Panvel town and Navi Mumbai and the State Government<\/p>\n
      after following the necessary proceedings directed that the<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                 17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      said land vests in CIDCO free from all encumbrances. This<\/p>\n
      was a development of 1972 and thereafter the possession<\/p>\n
      was handed over to the CIDCO in the year 1985. Once the<\/p>\n
      land vested in this manner, then, there is no question of the<\/p>\n
      revision being entertained or any orders being passed<\/p>\n
      thereon.\n<\/p>\n
    7. By overruling this objection, according to the petitioners,<\/p>\n
      the matter was decided by the then Revenue Minister and<\/p>\n
      while directing that the revenue entries be corrected, he<\/p>\n
      further directed that the question of physical possession<\/p>\n
      being handed over to the respondent nos. 4 to 7, does not<\/p>\n
      arise   on   account    of    supervening     development             and<\/p>\n
      circumstances.   However, it       should be held and             all the<\/p>\n
      concerned should proceed on the basis of the land having<\/p>\n
      been acquired from the private parties. The land should be<\/p>\n
      treated as private land and therefore, the benefits that are<\/p>\n
      available post acquisition for such lands, be made available<\/p>\n
      to the respondent nos. 4 to 7.\n<\/p>\n
    8. Apprehending    that   the    entire   matter       which        stands<\/p>\n
      concluded    by the directions of the State Government<\/p>\n
      issued way back in the year 1972, and the land vesting in<\/p>\n
      CIDCO free from all encumbrances is reopened in this<\/p>\n
      manner and CIDCO may have to face further proceedings<\/p>\n
      so also part with either its immovable property or valuable<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                              17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      public funds, that the instant writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
    9. Mr. Jahagirdar. learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf<\/p>\n
      of the petitioner submitted that ordinarily the petitioner<\/p>\n
      which is a public authority, would not approach this Court<\/p>\n
      in writ jurisdiction challenging the said orders of the State<\/p>\n
      Government.     However, in the garb of issuing innocuous<\/p>\n
      directions to correct the revenue entries what the State<\/p>\n
      Government has done is that benefits which flow from the<\/p>\n
      acquisition of private lands, is made available to the<\/p>\n
      respondent nos. 4 to 7. In other words, apart from seeking<\/p>\n
      monetary benefits and reliefs on the basis of the order<\/p>\n
      passed by the State Government, they would also seek<\/p>\n
      allotment of alternate land under some Schemes which<\/p>\n
      have been framed by the CIDCO. All this would be based<\/p>\n
      on the declaration of the State Government. He submits<\/p>\n
      that if there was a dispute as regards the right, title and<\/p>\n
      interest of parties in the subject immovable properties and<\/p>\n
      if it was their claim that private lands are acquired, then,<\/p>\n
      nothing prevented them from approaching the competent<\/p>\n
      Court for all these years seeking appropriate reliefs. That<\/p>\n
      having not been done, in the garb of entertaining a revision<\/p>\n
      application and that too to set at naught something which<\/p>\n
      took place 70 years back, the State Government has<\/p>\n
      passed the instant order. This is contrary to settled legal<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                              17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      principles that the revisional jurisdiction must be exercised<\/p>\n
      within a reasonable time.      That reasonable time in given<\/p>\n
      facts and circumstances, could never exceed the period of<\/p>\n
      three years.    In these circumstances, looked at any way,<\/p>\n
      the impugned order deserves to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    10. The petition has been contested by the respondent nos. 4<\/p>\n
      to 7. Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Senior Counsel on their<\/p>\n
      behalf invited my attention to the affidavit filed in reply and<\/p>\n
      firstly,   submitted
\n                        ig   that   CIDCO   being    an      Agency         or<\/p>\n
      Instrumentality of the State and a Special Town Planning<\/p>\n
      Authority, it has no locus to question the order of the State<\/p>\n
      Government. Secondly, he submits that none of the factual<\/p>\n
      aspects which were placed before the concerned Minister<\/p>\n
      were ever disputed by the petitioner. It was pointed out<\/p>\n
      that during the course of hearing before the Minister that<\/p>\n
      there was no relinquishment.       Apart from that, the said<\/p>\n
      property was sold by Chandrabhagabai to one Zuelekabai<\/p>\n
      Kazi by registered sale deed dated 29th March, 1946. If the<\/p>\n
      lands were allegedly surrendered and the claim was<\/p>\n
      relinquished by the said Chandrabhagabai then this sale<\/p>\n
      deed could never have been executed. There is a specific<\/p>\n
      mention with regard to this sale deed and copy thereof was<\/p>\n
      also produced. After the sale deed, the purchaser was put<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
       in possession and he enjoyed fruits of the deed and when<\/p>\n
       the land was acquired by CIDCO in the year 1972 so also<\/p>\n
       when the actual possession was taken in the year 1985, the<\/p>\n
       purchaser was held entitled to benefits under the award<\/p>\n
       and accordingly, subsequent benefits are granted to him.\n<\/p>\n
       For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference in<\/p>\n
       writ jurisdiction and particularly, when the dispute is with<\/p>\n
       regard to the revenue entries.\n<\/p>\n
    11. With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   Senior        Counsel<\/p>\n
       appearing for the parties, I have perused the petition and<\/p>\n
       annexures thereto so also affidavit on record.             As far as<\/p>\n
       objection raised by Shri. Walawalkar about the locus standi<\/p>\n
       of the petitioner and reliance placed upon the decision of<\/p>\n
       the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n
       Percival Joseph Pareira Vs. Special Land Acquisition<\/p>\n
       Officer and others reported in 2010 (5) B.C.R. 344 is<\/p>\n
       concerned, it must be at once noticed that this was a case<\/p>\n
       of reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,<\/p>\n
       1894. The claimants challenged the order passed by the<\/p>\n
       Reference Court       directing that the CIDCO should be<\/p>\n
       impleaded as opponent. It was his case that the lands were<\/p>\n
       not acquired by CIDCO nor at their instance. The State<\/p>\n
       Government was the acquiring body and therefore, CIDCO<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                             17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      has no locus to appear in the proceedings. It was while<\/p>\n
      dealing with this objection that the locus of CIDCO was<\/p>\n
      decided. This decision can never be of any assistance to<\/p>\n
      question the locus of CIDCO in the instant proceedings. If a<\/p>\n
      Authority like CIDCO are of the opinion that some of the<\/p>\n
      directions in the impugned order exceed the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
      the   State   Government     under   Section      257       of     the<\/p>\n
      Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and may have far<\/p>\n
      reaching consequences, then, nothing prevents the CIDCO<\/p>\n
      from approaching this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction<\/p>\n
      under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
      These powers are plenary in nature. They can be invoked<\/p>\n
      by the authorities to question the act of the State<\/p>\n
      Government and if it affects public interest so also re-opens<\/p>\n
      already concluded matters. Precisely for this reason that<\/p>\n
      the instant petition has been filed. Therefore, there is no<\/p>\n
      substance in the first objection about the locus of the<\/p>\n
      petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12.As far as the second objection is concerned, it is clear that<\/p>\n
      the predecessor-in-title of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 nor<\/p>\n
      the said purchaser has ever approached the petitioner<\/p>\n
      either seeking benefits under the Award or the authorities<\/p>\n
      under the Land Revenue Code have been approached for<\/p>\n
      correction or modification of the revenue entries by them.\n<\/p>\n
                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                       17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
    The present respondent nos. 4 to 7 claim to be entitled to<\/p>\n
    the    lands       through        their     predecessor-in-title               i.e.<\/p>\n
    Chandrabhagabai.             It    was      their      case        that       said<\/p>\n
    Chandrabhagabai never relinquished her right, title and<\/p>\n
    interest in the lands and continued to retain the ownership<\/p>\n
    thereof.    Such a claim and that too for the first time is<\/p>\n
    entertained by the Revenue Minister.                      Considering the<\/p>\n
    limited    scope    of   the       proceedings          namely,         seeking<\/p>\n
    modification and correction in revenue entries, it was not<\/p>\n
    open for him to go into the disputed the question of title. It<\/p>\n
    was his plain duty in law in such cases to direct the parties<\/p>\n
    to    approach     the   competent          Civil     Court       and       claim<\/p>\n
    appropriate declaration in their favour.                  On the basis of<\/p>\n
    such declaration the revenue records could have been<\/p>\n
    corrected. However, instead of issuing such direction and<\/p>\n
    disposing    of    the   revision         application,         the      Minister<\/p>\n
    entertained it and virtually adjudicated on the disputed<\/p>\n
    issues.     The result of the same is that without any<\/p>\n
    declaration in their favour, respondent nos. 4 to 7 by<\/p>\n
    impleading CIDCO as party and approaching the State<\/p>\n
    Government under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land<\/p>\n
    Revenue Code, 1966 obtained certain benefits attached to<\/p>\n
    and arising out of the interest in the land. The question<\/p>\n
    was whether such benefits could have been given by the<\/p>\n
                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                              17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      State Government in the instant proceedings. The Minister<\/p>\n
      clearly went much beyond his power, authority and<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction and issued directions which could be said to be<\/p>\n
      unsustainable in law. There is substance in the contentions<\/p>\n
      of Mr. Jahagirdar that innocuous they may appear at least,<\/p>\n
      direction no. (B) would have the effect of re-opening the<\/p>\n
      concluded acquisition proceedings and directing CIDCO to<\/p>\n
      extend the benefits of certain beneficial schemes to<\/p>\n
      persons who are before the revisional authorities. Whether<\/p>\n
      the issue that the said persons could have claimed the<\/p>\n
      same     through   their   predecessor-in-title      benefits         or<\/p>\n
      otherwise in law, has not been decided.         Indeed, it could<\/p>\n
      not have been decided in the limited authority and power.\n<\/p>\n
      It has not been held that the facts on record are so<\/p>\n
      undisputed and clear that there was never any doubt about<\/p>\n
      the same on the own showing of the respondent nos. 4 to 7<\/p>\n
      whether Chandrabhagabai retained the title in the lands is a<\/p>\n
      matter which cannot be gone into unless a declaration in<\/p>\n
      their favour is obtained by them from the competent Civil<\/p>\n
      Court.    In these circumstances and without any such<\/p>\n
      declaration, the Minister could not have issued the instant<\/p>\n
      direction.\n<\/p>\n
    13.The Minister has clearly exceeded his authority and could<\/p>\n
      he safely be said in legal parlance has abused the powers<\/p>\n
                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                          17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
    that are conferred under Section 257 of the Maharashtra<\/p>\n
    Land Revenue Code, 1966 in issuing the instant direction.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966<\/p>\n
    confers powers on the State Government and on certain<\/p>\n
    Revenue and Survey Officers to call for and examine<\/p>\n
    records and proceedings of subordinate officers for the<\/p>\n
    purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or<\/p>\n
    propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the<\/p>\n
    regularity of the proceedings before such Officer. It is not<\/p>\n
    as if these powers have to be exercised as a matter of<\/p>\n
    course. The powers are conferred specifically to decide the<\/p>\n
    legality or propriety of the decision or the order or<\/p>\n
    regularity of the proceedings. In such limited power, the<\/p>\n
    State Government could not have as in the instant case,<\/p>\n
    taken upon itself the role of an adjudicator of Right and<\/p>\n
    Title to a immovable property. The role of adjudicator, in<\/p>\n
    the given circumstances, was to be performed by a Civil<\/p>\n
    Court.   In the absence of any of the factors which would<\/p>\n
    enable the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction that the<\/p>\n
    same have been exercised in the instant case. It is well<\/p>\n
    established principle of law that what cannot be achieved<\/p>\n
    directly cannot be achieved indirectly or by oblique way or<\/p>\n
    method.    The Revenue    Minister and the State ought to<\/p>\n
    have been aware that all powers of the aforesaid nature are<\/p>\n
                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                            17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
    in the nature of a Trust.    The same are to be exercised<\/p>\n
    bearing in mind Public good and Public Trust.                 Private<\/p>\n
    Interest and benefit is subservient to larger Public Interest.\n<\/p>\n
    The Revisional Authority ought to have been aware that<\/p>\n
    giving directions to its own Agency or Instrumentality and<\/p>\n
    particularly of the aforementioned nature will land it in<\/p>\n
    serious difficulties as so called landowners will then rush to<\/p>\n
    claim back lands or benefits attached to it or monetary<\/p>\n
    compensation at enhanced rates or such other advantages<\/p>\n
    and privileges which may have been given and offered in<\/p>\n
    the past to induce owners of huge tracts of land to part with<\/p>\n
    them for implementing a New Town Development Project.\n<\/p>\n
    All cases and matters which have been closed decades<\/p>\n
    back will be reopened and an attempt will be made to seek<\/p>\n
    similar reliefs. Floodgates would open and CIDCO may be<\/p>\n
    exposed to unnecessary and futile litigation.                 In this<\/p>\n
    context, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the<\/p>\n
    case of S.C. and S.T. Welfare Council Vs. State of Uttar<\/p>\n
    Pradesh reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 1451 is relevant.                   In<\/p>\n
    paras 21 to 23 of this decision, it is observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
         ” 21. S.A. de Smit in his article “The abuse of<\/p>\n
         statutory powers” published in Public Law Series 1956<\/p>\n
         (page 233) has stated in page 237 under the heading<\/p>\n
         of “Misuse of Powers in Bad Faith and in Good Faith”<\/p>\n
                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
     that a discretionary power may be exercised invalidly<\/p>\n
     if its repository exercises it for an improper purpose<\/p>\n
     or on the basis of irrelevant considerations or in<\/p>\n
     disregard of relevant considerations or with gross<\/p>\n
     unreasonableness… The concept of bad faith eludes<\/p>\n
     precise definition, but in relation to the exercise of<\/p>\n
     statutory    powers   it        may    be    said      to     comprise<\/p>\n
     dishonestly and malice.                A power is exercised<\/p>\n
     dishonestly if its repository intends to achieve an<\/p>\n
     object other than that for which he believes the power<\/p>\n
     to have been conferred.               His intention may be to<\/p>\n
     promote another public interest or his own private<\/p>\n
     interests.   A power is exercised maliciously if its<\/p>\n
     repository is motivated by personal animosity towards<\/p>\n
     those who are directly affected by its exercise.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     23.   In “Public Administration” by Pfiffner Presthus<\/p>\n
     (4th Edn.) at page 550 it is stated that public<\/p>\n
     administration is responsible to the rule of law<\/p>\n
     doctrine which proves a fairly effective standard for<\/p>\n
     judging administrative decision. Political responsibility<\/p>\n
     is similarly involved with the idea of government’s<\/p>\n
     control by public opinion, political parties, and the<\/p>\n
     community. Responsibility is also commonly used to<\/p>\n
     denote the obligation of an individual to behave<\/p>\n
                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
     according to certain standards of conduct. In public<\/p>\n
     administration, responsibility often has a negative<\/p>\n
     connotation; we are usually satisfied if the official is<\/p>\n
     kept from wrong doing.                On “Responsibility and<\/p>\n
     Accountability”, he states that accountability refers to<\/p>\n
     the   formal      or    legal       locus      of     responsibility.\n<\/p>\n
     Responsibility, on the          other hand, has a highly<\/p>\n
     personal, normal quality and is not necessarily related<\/p>\n
     to formal status or power, although it is probably true<\/p>\n
     that greater power brings greater responsibility. Thus<\/p>\n
     a department head is accountable for the actions of<\/p>\n
     all his subordinates, although in actual fact he is not<\/p>\n
     “responsible” for their use of the power which he must<\/p>\n
     of necessity delegate to them. Similarly, in exercising<\/p>\n
     discretion the official is normally responsible for his<\/p>\n
     decisions,     although        he     is    often       not       legally<\/p>\n
     accountable.      In practice, responsibility must be<\/p>\n
     shared; it percolates down the stream throughout the<\/p>\n
     entire administrative branch.               On the other hand,<\/p>\n
     accountability,        which        concerns           the        formal<\/p>\n
     relationships     between           administration           and       the<\/p>\n
     legislative and judicial branches, can never be<\/p>\n
     shared…… The Council of Ministers is accountable for<\/p>\n
     the entire administrative branch.                The bureaucracy<\/p>\n
                               15<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                             17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
           has a representative function.          In the case of<\/p>\n
           regulatory activity, for example, administrators give<\/p>\n
           meaning to broad legislative declarations of social<\/p>\n
           policy by their decisions in specific cases.                    In<\/p>\n
           advancing the social objective of the community, they<\/p>\n
           sometimes develop the rule of public interest which is<\/p>\n
           applied when decisions are made. The bureaucracy<\/p>\n
           shares with the legislature the task of ensuring that<\/p>\n
           the community receives a reasonable amount of<\/p>\n
           justice in the distribution of public resources……\n<\/p>\n
           Obviously, therefore full faith was given to their acts<\/p>\n
           and actions. In selecting among alternative policies,<\/p>\n
           in extending or narrowing the efficacy of rule or<\/p>\n
           policy, the official necessarily must work in a value<\/p>\n
           context. Various factors impinging upon a particular<\/p>\n
           decision are isolated and require assignment of<\/p>\n
           relative weights nor in accordance with what the<\/p>\n
           official thinks is “right” but in tune with and to<\/p>\n
           effectuate mandates of the Constitution. The “public<\/p>\n
           interest” will be the ultimate element in this process.”\n<\/p>\n
    Again in M.I.Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu, the<\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Supreme Court holds as under:\n<\/p>\n
           “60. In the treatise “Environmental Law and Policy :<\/p>\n
           Nature, Law and Society by Plater Abrams Goldfarb<\/p>\n
                                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                 17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
     (American Casebook series 1992) under the Chapter<\/p>\n
     on Fundamental Environmental Rights, in Section 1<\/p>\n
     (The Modern Rediscovery of the Public Trust Doctrine)<\/p>\n
     it has been noticed that “long ago there developed in<\/p>\n
     the law of the Roman Empire a legal theory known as<\/p>\n
     the “Doctrine of the public trust”. In America Public<\/p>\n
     Trust doctrine was applied to public properties, such<\/p>\n
     as shore-lands and parks. As to how doctrine works it<\/p>\n
     was stated: “The scattered evidence, taken together,<\/p>\n
     suggests that the idea of a public trusteeship rests<\/p>\n
     upon three related principles.                 First, that certain<\/p>\n
     interests– like the air and the sea — have such<\/p>\n
     importance to the citizenry as a whole that it would be<\/p>\n
     unwise    to      make    them       the     subject        of    private<\/p>\n
     ownership. Second, that they partake so much of the<\/p>\n
     bounty of nature, rather than of individual enterprise,<\/p>\n
     that they should be made freely available to the<\/p>\n
     entire citizenry without regard to economic status.\n<\/p>\n
     And,   finally,    that   it    is   a     principle      purpose of<\/p>\n
     government to promote the interests of the general<\/p>\n
     public rather than to redistribute public goods from<\/p>\n
     broad public uses to restricted private benefit……”\n<\/p>\n
     with reference to a decision in Illinois Central Railroad<\/p>\n
     Company Vs. Illinois, (1892) 146 US 387, it was stated<\/p>\n
                                17<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
     that “the Court articulated in that case the principle<\/p>\n
     that has become the central substantive thought in<\/p>\n
     public trust litigation. When a state holds a resource<\/p>\n
     which is available for the free use of the general<\/p>\n
     public, a Court will look with considerable skepticism<\/p>\n
     upon any governmental conduct which is calculated<\/p>\n
     either to reallocate the resource to more restricted<\/p>\n
     uses or to subject public uses to the self-interest of<\/p>\n
     private parties”.   This public trust doctrine in our<\/p>\n
     country, it would appear, has grown from Article 21 of<\/p>\n
     the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     68.   When we keep in view the principles laid by this<\/p>\n
     Court in its various judgments and which we have<\/p>\n
     noticed above, it has to be held that the agreement<\/p>\n
     dated November 4, 1993 is not a valid one.                  The<\/p>\n
     agreement defies logic. It is outrageous. It crosses all<\/p>\n
     limits of rationality. Mahapalika has certainly acted in<\/p>\n
     fatuous manner in entering into such an agreement. It<\/p>\n
     is a case where the High Court rightly interfered in<\/p>\n
     exercise of its powers of judicial review keeping in<\/p>\n
     view the principles laid by this Court in Tata Cellular<\/p>\n
     Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : (1994 AIR SCW<\/p>\n
     3344 : AIR 1996 SC 11), Every decision of the<\/p>\n
     authority except the judicial decision is amenable to<\/p>\n
                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                  17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
     judicial review and reviewability of such a decision<\/p>\n
     cannot now be questioned. However, a judicial review<\/p>\n
     is permissible if the impugned action is against law or<\/p>\n
     in     violation    of    the        prescribed    procedure         or     is<\/p>\n
     unreasonable, irrational or mala fide. On the principle<\/p>\n
     of good governance reference was made to a decision<\/p>\n
     of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in State of<\/p>\n
     Bombay V. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas AIR<\/a> 1952 Bombay<\/p>\n
     468 at 475 (Para 12).                  It was submitted that bad<\/p>\n
     governance sets a bad example. That is what exactly<\/p>\n
     happened in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
     69 .    In State of Bombay V. Laxmidas Ranchhoddas,<\/p>\n
     AIR<\/a> 1952 Bom 468 a Division Bench of the High Court<\/p>\n
     was considering the argument that the writ of<\/p>\n
     mandamus being discretionary, the Court should<\/p>\n
     consider whether it should not put a limitation upon<\/p>\n
     its own powers and jurisdiction. It was submitted that<\/p>\n
     it was impossible for any State to function if there was<\/p>\n
     a constant interference by the High Court in the<\/p>\n
     executive acts performed by the officers of the State,<\/p>\n
     Chagla, CJ, speaking for the Court, said (Para 12):\n<\/p>\n
          “It may be that interference by the High Court may<\/p>\n
          result    in        inconvenience            or    difficulty         in<\/p>\n
          administration. But what we have to guard against<\/p>\n
                                     19<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                             17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
      is a much greater evil.              When we find in the<\/p>\n
      modern     State      wide      powers          entrusted           to<\/p>\n
      Government, powers which affect the property and<\/p>\n
      person of the citizen, it is the duty of the Courts to<\/p>\n
      see that those wide powers are exercised in<\/p>\n
      conformity     with      what    the        Legislature           has<\/p>\n
      prescribed. We are not oblivious of the fact that in<\/p>\n
      order that the modern State should function the<\/p>\n
      Government must be armed with very large<\/p>\n
      powers. But the High Court does not interfere with<\/p>\n
      the exercise of those powers. The High Court only<\/p>\n
      interferes when it finds that those powers are not<\/p>\n
      exercised in accordance with the mandate of the<\/p>\n
      Legislature. Therefore, far from interfering with the<\/p>\n
      good governance of the State, the Court helps the<\/p>\n
      good     governance        by    constantly            reminding<\/p>\n
      Government and its officers that they should act<\/p>\n
      within the four corners of the statute and not<\/p>\n
      contravene any of the conditions laid down as a<\/p>\n
      limitation upon their undoubtedly wide powers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      Therefore, even from a practical point of view,<\/p>\n
      even    from   the    point     of    view      of     the     good<\/p>\n
      governance of the State, we think that the High<\/p>\n
      Court   should     not     be   reluctant        to     issue      its<\/p>\n
                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                 17-wp-904-10.doc<\/p>\n
               prerogative    writ   whenever     it    finds     that     the<\/p>\n
               sovereign Legislature has not been obeyed and<\/p>\n
               powers have been assumed which the Legislature<\/p>\n
               never conferred upon the executive.”\n<\/p>\n
    14.It is for this reason, that this Court is required to interfere<\/p>\n
      in writ jurisdiction. As a result of the same, the impugned<\/p>\n
      order cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed and<\/p>\n
      set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause<\/p>\n
      (a). However, it is directed that it would be open for the<\/p>\n
      respondent nos. 4 to 7 to institute such proceedings as are<\/p>\n
      permissible in law, if they are claiming their right, title or<\/p>\n
      interest in the immovable properties.            All contentions in<\/p>\n
      that behalf of the parties are kept open.\n<\/p>\n
                                     [ S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ]<\/p>\n
                                     21<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:37 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari 17-wp-904-10.doc jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 904 OF 2010 The City & Industrial Development ] Corporation Ltd., a body established ] under the provisions of the City and ] […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-148585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAct vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - 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\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-01T16:11:19+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T16:11:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4042,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-01T16:11:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 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":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - 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\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-01T16:11:19+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T16:11:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011"},"wordCount":4042,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011","name":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-01T16:11:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/act-vs-the-sate-of-maharashtra-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Act vs The Sate Of Maharashtra on 20 July, 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\/148585","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=148585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}