{"id":150057,"date":"2011-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-30T01:24:22","modified_gmt":"2015-05-29T19:54:22","slug":"vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Anant S. Dave,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/14873\/2011\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14873 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 15746 of 2011\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 15956 of 2011\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\nVINAYAK\nDAMODAR BHALERAO &amp; 211 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVADODARA\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \n\nAppearance\n: \nMR SUDHAKAR B JOSHI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 142,144 - 189,191 - 198,200 - 205,207 -\n212.MR CHAITANYA S JOSHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 198,200 - 205,207 -\n212. \nNone for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/10\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThese<br \/>\npetitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are filed by<br \/>\nthe petitioners, erstwhile employees of the respondent-Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation whose services were put to an end on 9th May,<br \/>\n1988 pursuant to one tripartite agreement between the Union of<br \/>\nemployees of Municipal Corporation, Gujarat Electricity Board and the<br \/>\nauthorized representative of Municipal Corporation of Baroda and<br \/>\npursuant to the said compromise, an amount towards compensation was<br \/>\nto be paid was accepted by the petitioners and for all 22 years the<br \/>\nsaid compromise remained unchallenged.  The petitioners seeks<br \/>\ndirection of invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that when<br \/>\ntheir services came to an end pursuant to above compromise all the<br \/>\npetitioners have rendered not less than 10 years and, therefore, they<br \/>\nwere entitled for pension under Rules framed by the government as<br \/>\napplicable to employees of Municipal Corporation.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat the petitioners have made representation to authorities and some<br \/>\nof the petitioners who filed writ petitions on a wrong premise for<br \/>\nclaiming commuted pension came to be rejected and claim made by the<br \/>\npetitioners herein is based on a different ground and that the<br \/>\npension is not a bounty or charity and to receive pension is<br \/>\nfundamental right and when no pension is paid, delay itself will not<br \/>\ncome in the way of the petitioners to receive pension.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nbrief facts of these petitions are as under:<\/p>\n<pre>\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\tThe\n petitioner  in  each of these petitions is a former  employee  of \nthe  respondent-Vadodara  Municipal Corporation    [hereinafter   \nreferred   to   as,   \"the Corporation\"] in its \nElectricity  Department.    At  the      relevant  time,  the\n<\/pre>\n<p>Corporation was a licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.<br \/>\nBy Government Notification dated 5th March,  1988,  the  said<br \/>\nlicence  came  to  be revoked and the Electricity Undertaking was<br \/>\ntaken over by the Gujarat  Electricity  Board.  With the taking over<br \/>\nof the Electricity Undertaking of  the  Corporation  by  the<br \/>\nGujarat   Electricity   Board,   the   employees  in  the Electricity<br \/>\nDepartment  were  rendered  surplus.      The tripartite agreement<br \/>\ndated 6th May, 1988 was entered into by  and  between  the<br \/>\nCorporation,  the  unions  of  the Electricity  Department  of  the<br \/>\nCorporation,  and   the      Gujarat Electricity Board.  Under the<br \/>\nsaid agreement, the Gujarat  Electricity  Board agreed to absorb<br \/>\nlarge number of  employees  then  employed  in  the  said<br \/>\nElectricity Department,   the   concerned  employees  [including  the<br \/>\npetitioners] agreed to accept a lumpsum payment  in  lieu of loss  of<br \/>\n future pension.  The petitioners were paid a       lumpsum amount in<br \/>\nlieu of future loss of  pension.    The petitioners  did  accept such<br \/>\namount as was payable under the said agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the<br \/>\nApex Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1566\/\">Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar<\/a><br \/>\n[AIR 1971 SC 1409]  that the payment of pension does not<br \/>\ndepend on the discretion of the State but is governed by the Rules<br \/>\nmade in this behalf and the employees entitled to claim such pension.<br \/>\n That, right to receive pension is part of Article 21 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and there cannot be any waiver to fundamental<br \/>\nright as laid down in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/709776\/\">Olga Tellis v.  Bombay<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation<\/a> [AIR 1985 SC 180], the petitioners are<br \/>\nentitled for the prayer made in these petitions and<br \/>\nrespondent-Corporation be directed to pay regular monthly pension to<br \/>\nall the petitioners-employees who were relieved from the service<br \/>\npursuant to the compromise on 9.5.1988 and further<br \/>\nrespondent-Corporation be directed to pay regular family pension to<br \/>\nthe employees and\/or legal heirs or survivors of the deceased<br \/>\nemployee of petitioners No. 171 to 212.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1.\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the case of S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South<br \/>\nCentral Railway and Ans. [(2003) 1 SCC 184] and in the case<br \/>\nof Premilaben Prataprai Joshi v. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>[(2004) 1 GLH 85] reiterating the aspect that delay itself is<br \/>\nnot fatal and there being no waiver of fundamental right the petition<br \/>\ndeserves to be admitted and direction be issued as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tOn<br \/>\nperusal of the record of the case and compromise arrived at between<br \/>\nthe authorized representatives of Municipal Corporation of Baroda,<br \/>\nworkmen employed and the Gujarat Electricity Board, in no uncertain<br \/>\nterm, the compromise reveal that as per the terms and conditions of<br \/>\nthe agreement the Gujarat Electricity Board had agreed to absorb<br \/>\nsubstantially all employees working in department of electricity of<br \/>\nBaroda Municipal Corporation and further a formula was evolved under<br \/>\nthe compromise and accordingly right accrued in favour of employees<br \/>\nto receive certain amount in case if those employees who have<br \/>\ncompleted 10 to 15 years or more service in Baroda Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation and subject to final approval of State Government option<br \/>\nwas given for voluntary retirement and such persons were to be given<br \/>\nbenefits accordingly.  The amount of compensation in terms of<br \/>\nsettlement depended upon length of service and accordingly, it is not<br \/>\nin dispute that all the petitioners who were in service of Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation had accepted the compromise.   Even till today, the above<br \/>\ncompromise after a period of 22 years remained unchallenged but some<br \/>\nof the employees who had invoked jurisdiction of this Court in the<br \/>\nyear 1991 since amount of compensation was not paid in time, upon<br \/>\nconsent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, a<br \/>\ndirection was given that some interest @ 6% was to be given for last<br \/>\npayment of compensation.  Even, a challenge was made by similarly<br \/>\nsituated employees like the petitioners, who had accepted the<br \/>\ncompromise by filing Special Civil Application No.12626 of 2002 also<br \/>\ncame to be rejected by learned Single Judge on 3.8.2004.  While<br \/>\nrejecting the aforesaid petition and awarding cost of Rs.1,000\/- in<br \/>\nlast paragraph learned Single Judge observed as under:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I<br \/>\n am  of  the  view  that the demand made by the petitioners is too<br \/>\ntall.    What  was  agreed  under  the aforesaid  agreement  dated<br \/>\n6th May, 1988 was a lump-sum payment in lieu of  future<br \/>\nloss  of  pension.    Whether called  as  &#8220;lump-sum  payment&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> or  &#8220;lump-sum  pension&#8221; or        &#8220;commutation of<br \/>\npension&#8221;, it was intended to be the  full and  final  settlement<br \/>\n of  the  claim  of  the employees governed by the said agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having once received the lump-sum amount under the said agreement,<br \/>\nthe  petitioners could not   have  raised  further  demand.    It<br \/>\nfurther transpires that the phrase &#8220;commutation of  pension&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> was       used  by  the  Resolution  passed in the year 1994 at the<br \/>\nrequest made by one of the petitioners who  also  happens to  be  the<br \/>\n constituted  attorney  of  the  rest  of the petitioners.  The<br \/>\nintention was to  claim  benefit  under the Income  tax  Act.  The<br \/>\npetitioners now intend to take       undue advantage of the use of<br \/>\nthe words  &#8220;commutation  of pension&#8221;.    If   the<br \/>\npetitioners  were  facilitated  by renaming the  lump-sum<br \/>\ncompensation  as  &#8220;commutation  of pension&#8221;,  use  of  such<br \/>\nphrase would not confer upon the petitioners a right to receive<br \/>\npension.  The  petitioners having  agreed  to  receive  the lump-sum<br \/>\ncompensation and       having received the same cannot be permitted<br \/>\nto  raise  a fresh demand  after  lapse  of fourteen years.  The<br \/>\nclaim made in the present petitions is  not  only  misconceived but<br \/>\nis also dishonest.\n<\/p>\n<p>      \tThe petitions  are  devoid  of  any  merit.   The petitions are dismissed with costs.    Notice  issued  in each petition  is  discharged.   Each petitioner will pay cost of Rs.  1,000\/= to the respondent-Vadodara Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      \tRegistry will maintain copy of this order in each petition.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tWhile passing the order on 3rd August, 2004 in the above writ petition it is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge while dealing with the almost similar contentions noted that the petitioner having agreed to receive the lump-sum compensation and having received the same cannot be permitted to raise a fresh demand after lapse of 14 years, the claim made in the petitions according to learned Single Judge was also not misconceived but also dishonest.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe above observations and findings are applicable in this case also since Letters Patent Appeal filed against the above order being Letters Patent Appeal No.1284 of 2005 dated 14.10.2005 came to be rejected but the part of awarding cost of Rs. 1,000\/- was quashed and set aside.   The interference of the Division Bench was to the aforesaid extent only and even review petition being Misc. Civil Application No.1086 of 2006 filed by applicants similarly situated employees also came to be dismissed on 6.2.2008 by Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn the above circumstances, if contentions raised by learned advocate for the petitioners are considered they have  raised the very claim again in this second round of litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the contention that grounds of challenge to the compromise and right to receive the pension are different then the said writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal have no substance inasmuch as the respondent-Municipal Corporation had entered into compromise and employees represented by the Union like the petitioner were to receive compensation and other benefits in terms of the settlement.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThese petitions are not only misconceived but barred by delay and latches.  Even if the aspect of delay is looked from the angle that a claim is made by the petitioners for receiving the pension in absence of any legal right accruing to the petitioners who had already accepted the amount of compensation and waived their right before 22 years cannot be permitted to resurrect and re agitate either by survivor or legal heirs and it would amount travesty of justice.  The decision relied on by learned advocate for the petitioners have no applicability on the facts of this case, since in those petitions, delay had occurred in a case where the employees had right to receive the pension which not only accrued but  was crystallized in their favour and thereafter the delay was condoned so is not the case in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIn view of the above, reliance is placed in Section 12 of Pension Act have also no applicability and petitions being devoid of any merit deserves to be rejected.  Hence, the petitioners are rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tHowever, these petitions are filed by ex-employees and survivors of such employees of the respondent, I refrain from awarding cost.\n<\/p>\n<p>[ANANT S. DAVE, J.]<\/p>\n<p>\/\/smita\/\/  <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011 Author: Anant S. Dave, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/14873\/2011 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14873 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15746 of 2011 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15956 of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150057","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>Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 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\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-29T19:54:22+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T19:54:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1643,\"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\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-29T19:54:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 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":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 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\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-29T19:54:22+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T19:54:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011"},"wordCount":1643,"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\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011","name":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-29T19:54:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayak-vs-vadodara-on-19-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinayak vs Vadodara on 19 October, 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\/150057","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=150057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}