{"id":149432,"date":"2004-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004"},"modified":"2019-03-15T22:35:26","modified_gmt":"2019-03-15T17:05:26","slug":"deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: R Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2084 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nDeoraj\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Maharashtra & Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/04\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO. 2617 OF 2004)<\/p>\n
R.C. Lahoti, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
Tuljabhavani Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Va Prakriya Sangh
\nMaryadit, Osmanabad (hereinafter ‘the Sangh’, for short) is a
\ncooperative society falling in one of the categories included in Section
\n73G of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 (hereinafter,
\n‘the Act’ for short).  Section 144Y of the Act makes special provision
\nfor election of officers of such societies.  It reads as under:-
\n“144Y.  Special provision for election of
\nofficers of specified societies<\/p>\n
 \t(1)\tThis section shall apply only to
\nelection of officers by members of committees of
\nsocieties belonging to the categories specified in
\nsection 73-G.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2)\tAfter the election of the members of
\nthe committee and, where necessary, co-option  or
\nappointment, as the case may be, of members to
\nthe reserved seats under section 73-B or whenever
\nsuch election is due, the election of the officer or
\nofficers of any such society shall be held as
\nprovided in its bye-laws but any meeting of the
\ncommittee for this purpose shall be presided over
\nby the Collector or an officer nominated by him in
\nthis behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
Here itself it would be relevant to reproduce the relevant bye-
\nlaws of the society as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Bye-law No.18.3:\tEvery year after annual General
\nBody Meeting, in first meeting
\nof Board of Directors, as per
\nprovisions of law, Chairman
\nshall be elected for a period of
\none year.  Till the new
\nChairman is elected, previous
\nChairman should continue to
\nhold the post.\n<\/p>\n
Bye-law No.18.11: Out of total number of elected
\nDirectors, if 50 percent plus one
\nDirectors (including nominated
\ndirectors) are present for
\nmeeting then, corum (sic.,
\nquorum) for the meeting shall
\nbe complete.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Sangh has a Board of Directors consisting of eight Directors
\nto look after the management and working of the Sangh.  The present
\nBoard of Directors which includes the appellant also as a Director was
\nelected on 27.3.2000.  The term of the Board is five years but the
\nChairman is elected every year for a term of one year each.  The
\nprevious three Chairmen were elected respectively in the meetings
\nheld on 12.10.2000, 12.11.2001, 9.12.2002.  As the term of the
\nChairman previously elected on 9.12.2002 was coming to an end, the
\nelection of new Chairman, was notified to be held on 14.11.2003 so as
\nto elect the Chairman for the next term of one year.  The Collector,
\nOsmanabad was to preside over the meeting called for the purpose.
\nCollector, Osmanabad by his order dated 29.11.2003 appointed
\nTehsildar, Osmanabad as the Returning Officer.  The election
\nprogramme was notified by Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer on
\n3.12.2003 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Election Programme for the post of Chairman schedule
\non 11.12.2003
\nDate
\nTime
\nStages of Election<\/p>\n
11.12.2003
\n11.00 to
\n12.00 a.m.
\nDistribution of nomination papers
\n& acceptance of nomination
\npapers<\/p>\n
11.12.2003
\n12.00 noon
\nto 12.15 p.m.
\nScrutiny of nomination papers<\/p>\n
11.12.2003
\n12.30 p.m. to
\n13.00 p.m.
\nWithdrawal of nomination papers<\/p>\n
11.12.2003
\n14.00 noon
\nIf felt necessary, then voting,
\ncounting & declaration of result
\nof election.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(underlining by us)<\/p>\n
\tSimultaneously with the notification of the election programme,
\nthe Managing Director of the Sangh issued notices to all the Directors
\ninforming them of the meeting scheduled to be held at 2 p.m. on
\n11.12.2003.  The election programme was also communicated to all
\nthe Directors.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 11.12.2003, at 11.48 a.m. the appellant filed his nomination
\npaper the receipt whereof was issued by the Returning Officer.  There
\nwas no other nomination filed.  On scrutiny the nomination filed by the
\nappellant was found to be in order.  There was no withdrawal.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt 2 p.m. only four Directors, including the appellant, out of the
\ntotal eight Directors of the Sangh were present.  The Returning Officer
\nawaited for the arrival of other Directors for ten minutes.  At 10
\nminutes past 2 p.m., the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer drew up the
\nproceedings of special meeting recording all the facts relating to the
\nnotification of election, the filing of single nomination paper, its
\nscrutiny and no withdrawal and the fact that only four Directors had
\nturned up for the meeting.  In the concluding paragraphs the
\nTehsildar-cum-Returning Officer recorded as under:-
\n\t“The Board of Directors of the said society
\nconsist of total 8 directors.   The coram for special
\nmeeting is half + 1 Director. But 4 directors are
\npresent for the meeting, the coram for the meeting
\nis not completed.  Therefore, the said special
\nmeeting is stayed.  It is declared so.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Returning Officer has declared that the
\nsaid special meeting is being stayed, will be
\ncommunicated to the Collector, Osmanabad,
\nthereafter, further proceedings will be done as per
\nhis orders.  After giving vote of thank to the
\npresent Directors, the meeting is declared to be
\nover.\n<\/p>\n
Date : 11.12.2003″\n<\/p>\n
\tIt appears that the appellant insisted on his being declared as
\nthe duly elected Chairman in view of he only being the duly nominated
\ncandidate for the office of Chairman.  But he received no response.
\nOn 17.12.2003, he filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay,
\nBench at Aurangabad seeking quashing of the order dated 11.12.2003
\npassed by the Tehsildar-cum-Returning Officer and a command to
\ncomplete the election programme as scheduled by resuming the same
\nfrom the stage at which it had stopped.  In substance the appellant
\nsought for his being declared the duly elected Chairman of the Sangh.
\nThe appellant also sought for an ad-interim writ to the same effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe petition remained pending alongwith the prayer for interim
\nrelief. In the meantime, on 26.12.2003, the Collector announced fresh
\nelection programme convening a meeting to be held on 5.1.2004.  The
\nwhole process of election was directed to be commenced from the
\nbeginning.  The appellant moved an application for amendment in the
\nwrit petition seeking setting aside of the election programme declared
\non 26.12.2003 and an ad-interim writ seeking suspension of the
\nelection proposed to be held afresh.  By the impugned order dated
\n5.1.2004, the Division Bench of the High Court directed rule to issue in
\nthe presence of the Government pleader for the State and its officials
\nand the counsel for the Society but at the same time directed the
\nprayer for interim relief to be rejected.  Feeling aggrieved therewith
\nthis appeal by special leave has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\tOrdinarily, this Court in its exercise of jurisdiction  under Article
\n136 of the Constitution does not interfere with the orders of interim
\nnature passed by the High Court or Tribunals.  This is a rule of
\ndiscretion developed by experience, inasmuch as indulgence being
\nshown by this Court at an interim stage of the proceedings pending
\nbefore a competent Court or Tribunal results in duplication of
\nproceedings; while the main matter is yet to be heard by the Court or
\nTribunal seized of the hearing and competent to do so, valuable time
\nand energy of this Court are consumed in adjudicating upon a
\ncontroversy the life of which will be co-terminus with the life of the
\nmain matter itself which is not before it and there is duplication of
\npleadings and documents which of necessity shall have to be placed on
\nthe record of this Court as well.  However, this rule of discretion
\nfollowed in practice is by way of just self-imposed discipline.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Courts and Tribunals seized of the proceedings within their
\njurisdiction take a reasonable time in disposing of the same.  This is on
\naccount of fair procedure requirement which involves delay intervening
\nbetween the previous and the next procedural steps leading towards
\npreparation of case for hearing.  Then, the Courts are also over
\nburdened and their hands are full.  As the conclusion of hearing on
\nmerits is likely to take some time, the parties press for interim relief
\nbeing granted in the interregnum. An order of interim relief may or
\nmay not be a reasoned one but the factors of prima facie case,
\nirreparable injury and balance of convenience do work at the back of
\nthe mind of the one who passes an order of interim nature.  Ordinarily,
\nthe Court is inclined to maintain status quo as obtaining on the date of
\nthe commencement of the proceedings.  However, there are a few
\ncases which call for the Court’s leaning not in favour of maintaining the
\nstatus quo and still lesser in percentage are the cases when an order
\ntantamounting to a mandamus is required to be issued even at an
\ninterim stage.  There are matters of significance and of moment posing
\nthemselves as moment of truth.  Such cases do cause dilemma and
\nput the wits of any Judge to test.\n<\/p>\n
\tSituations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would
\ntantamount to granting the final relief itself.  And then there may be
\nconverse cases where withholding of an interim relief would
\ntantamount to dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the
\nmain matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be
\nallowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his
\nfavour.  In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case
\n___ of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the
\nconsiderations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury
\nforcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant
\nmay persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to
\ngranting the final relief itself.  Of course, such would be rare and
\nexceptional cases.  The Court would grant such an interim relief only if
\nsatisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court
\nand do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being
\nperpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would
\nnot be able to vindicate the cause of justice.  Obviously such would be
\nrare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury
\ncomplained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme
\nhardship.  The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and
\nthe Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present one is a case where we are fully satisfied that a
\nfoolproof case for the grant of interim relief was made out in favour of
\nthe petitioner in the High Court on the basis of the material available
\nbefore the Court.  There was only one nomination filed which was
\nfound to be in order and was not withdrawn.  The time appointed for
\nfiling nominations, scrutiny and withdrawal was over.  There was no
\ncontest.  Nothing had remained to be done at the meeting of the
\nCommittee which was to be convened only for the purpose of declaring
\nthe result.  Nothing was to be put to vote.  Holding of a meeting was
\nonly for the purpose of performing the formality of declaring the
\nappellant as elected.  In fact the election programme, as notified, itself
\ncontemplated the meeting at 1400 hours for voting and counting ‘if felt
\nnecessary’.  The provision as to quorum lost all its significance. It did
\nnot make any difference whether there were eight directors to hear
\nthe declaration of result or just four or even none.  May be the
\ndirectors having learnt of there being a single valid nomination and
\nthat too not withdrawn, also knew that the result of the election was a
\nfait accompli, and therefore, did not want to take the trouble of even
\ncoming to the venue of the meeting.  Unless something was brought to
\nthe notice of the Court either by way of material in the shape of
\ndocuments or affidavits or even by way of a plea raised before the
\nCourt which could come in the way of the relief being granted to the
\nwrit petitioner, in the case of such a nature, the interim relief ought to
\nhave been granted.  The writ petitioner-appellant is right in submitting
\nthat the election was for a period of one year out of which a little less
\nthan half of the time has already elapsed and in the absence of interim
\nrelief being granted to him there is nothing which would survive for
\nbeing given to him by way of relief at the end of the final hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is pertinent to note that in spite of the respondents having
\nbeen noticed by this Court none has made appearance excepting the
\nState of Maharashtra and the State too has not chosen to file any
\ncounter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 5.1.2004, in
\nso far as it rejects the prayer for the grant of interim relief, is set
\naside.  The prayer for the grant of interim relief as made by the writ
\npetitioner\/appellant is allowed.  The respondents are directed to
\nannounce the result of election in accordance with the election
\nprogramme dated 11.12.2003 post haste and act accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore parting we make it clear that whatever has been stated
\nhereinabove is for the purpose of disposing of the prayer for the grant
\nof ad-interim relief and that has been done on the basis of material
\navailable on record at this stage.  As a very short question of law
\narises for decision in the case, the High Court would do well to take up
\nthe main matter itself for hearing at an early date and decide the same
\nfinally.  The High Court while deciding the writ petition on merits would
\nobviously do so on the basis of pleadings and documents produced and
\nsubmissions made before it; the High Court need not feel inhibited by
\nanything said in this order.  No order as to the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 Author: R Lahoti Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2084 of 2004 PETITIONER: Deoraj RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/04\/2004 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-149432","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDeoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - 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\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-15T17:05:26+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T17:05:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2250,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T17:05:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - 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\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-15T17:05:26+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T17:05:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004"},"wordCount":2250,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004","name":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T17:05:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/deoraj-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-6-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Deoraj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/149432","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=149432"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149432\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}