{"id":150782,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-05T23:16:47","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T17:46:47","slug":"bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2591\/2009\t 6\/ 9\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. 2591 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8831 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nBHAUTIK\nVIJAYBHAI BHATT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \n\n \n\nIn\nSCA No.2591 of 2009 \nMR\nSI NANAVATI, SR. ADV. WITH VD PARGHI\nfor Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR\nDEVANG VYAS, AGP  for Respondent(s) : 1                              \n                                         MR AJ SHASTRI for respondent\nNo.2 \nMR YN OZA WITH MR. RAJESH K SAVJANI for Respondent(s) : 3  \n5.\n \n\nIn\nSCA No.8831 of 2009.                                                 \n                                                                   \nMR YN OZA WITH MR. RAJESH K SAVJANI for the petitioner.              \n                                 MR\nAJ SHASTRI for the\nrespondents. \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:    18\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nORDER \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE  MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
\tIssues
\nin these petitions overlap.  They are, therefore,  being disposed of
\nby this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpecial
\nCivil Application No.8831 of 2009 has been filed by Shreemati
\nNathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University (herein after to be
\nreferred to as  SNDT University ) challenging the order dated 6th
\nMarch 2009 passed by the Regional Director of National Council for
\nTeacher Education (NCTE for short) as upheld by the order dated 13th
\nJuly 2009 by the Appellate Authority.  By the said orders,  the
\nauthorities of NCTE have been pleased to hold and declare that the
\nNCTE has not granted  recognition to SNDT University to start an
\nextension center at Maninagar, Ahmedabad  to conduct M.Ed. Course and
\ntherefore the University  should discontinue such a course with
\nimmediate effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpecial
\nCivil Application No.2591 of 2009 has been styled as public interest
\nlitigation.  The petitioner therein has sought for a direction to the
\nSNDT University to forthwith  stop M.Ed. College running at
\nManinagar.  He also prayed for certain consequential  directions.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\nadverting to the submissions of the advocates for the parties, brief
\nfacts need to be noted.\n<\/p>\n
\tSNDT
\nUniversity is situated in the State of Maharashtra  at Mumbai.  It is
\na University recognized  under the University Grant Commission Act,
\n1956. SNDT University  desired to start  M.Ed. Course in the State of
\nGujarat.  The University had initially envisaged granting
\naffiliation  to one Satyam College at Bharuch for running M.Ed.
\nCourse.  SNDT University had approached the NCTE with a letter of
\nintent  in this regard. However,  before NCTE granted recognition to
\nthe said Satyam College for running a college at Bharuch, it appears
\nthat  the SNDT University permitted the said college to start
\nM.Ed.Course claiming that the said college  was affiliated with SNDT
\nUniversity.\n<\/p>\n
\tSometime
\nthereafter,  in the year 2007-08, SNDT University shifted its
\noperation to Ahmedabad.  This time, SNDT University claimed that it
\nhad started its own extension center  at Maninagar, Ahmedabad without
\naffiliating any college for the said purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tNCTE
\nin view of the above background, issued a show cause notice  to SNDT
\nUniversity and  after giving an opportunity of being heard   passed
\nthe impugned order on 6.3.09 holding that NCTE has not granted
\nrecognition to SNDT University to run its extension center  at
\nManinagar for M.Ed. Course. NCTE, therefore, directed  SNDT
\nUniversity to discontinue such course  with immediate effect.   In
\nthe said order, it is recorded that  without any recognition by NCTE,
\n students were admitted in Satyam College, Bharuch as well as at
\nManinagar in Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
\tSNDT
\nUniversity appealed against the said decision. The Appellate
\nAuthority by its order dated 13.7.09 dismissed the appeal observing:-\n<\/p>\n
 And
\nwhereas the Council noted  that the Satyam College of  Education,
\nBharuch applied for grant of recognition in 2007 and without waiting
\nfor NCTE’s recognition, the institution admitted students  for the
\nsession 2006-07; later the University discontinued M.Ed. Course in
\nSatyam  College  on its own and started M.Ed. Course in Maninagar as
\nan extention of M.Ed. Programme and admitted students  for the
\nsession 2007-08. The visiting team  was sent to cause inspection of
\nSatyam College, but the University authority took the team to visit
\nManinagar campus of SNDT, though the University did not apply for
\ngrant of recognition  at all.  Subsequent  to the inspection, WRC
\nissued a letter of intent  to Maningar centre and this letter was
\nwithdrawn by WRC  on the ground that University admitted students
\nfor the session 2007-08 at Satyam College of Education and for the
\nsession 2007-08 at Maninagar centre without  obtaining recognition
\nfrom NCTE in violation of the provisions of the NCTE Act.  The
\nCouncil by considering  all the above facts, came to the conclusion
\nthat there was no justification in accepting the appeal and that it
\nshould be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tAbove
\norders passed by the NCTE are challenged by SNDT University  in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.8831 of 2009.  It is primarily the case
\nof the petitioner SNDT University that since M.Ed.Course at Maninagar
\nis being  run by the University itself as an extension center, no
\nrecognition from NCTE  is required.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe public interest litigation, being Special Civil Application
\nNo.2591 of 2009, the petitioner  has averred, inter alia, that SNDT
\nUniversity   is running a college at Maninagar without any
\nrecognition from  NCTE. They have admitted students in a course which
\nis not recognized.   Even otherwise,  infrastructural facilities are
\ninadequate.  Building area is not as per the required standard. There
\nare no class rooms, library, laboratory, etc.  The said petitioner
\nhas, therefore, prayed  for direction to discontinue the said M.Ed.
\nCourse with immediate effect.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe said petition, SNDT University has  appeared and filed  a
\ndetailed reply contending primarily   that being a University
\nrecognized under the UGC Act,  it does not require any permission or
\nrecognition from NCTE before starting its own extension center.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppearing
\nfor SNDT University in Special Civil Application No.8831 of 2009,
\nlearned counsel Shri YN Oza submitted that the stand of the NCTE is
\nuntenable.  He submitted that at Maninagar, SNDT University does not
\nimpart M.Ed. Course  through an affiliated college, but is running an
\nextension center.  SNDT University being a recognized University
\nunder the UGC Act, no permission from NCTE is required  to run such
\nan extension center.  Heavy reliance was placed on the decision in
\nthe case of Bharthidasan University v.  All India Council for
\nTechnical Education, (2001) 8
\nSCC 676 wherein the Apex Court  held that All India Council for
\nTechnical Education Act does not require a University to obtain prior
\napproval of AICTE  for starting a department or unit as an adjunct
\nto the university itself to conduct technical education courses.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\nthe other hand, learned  advocate Shri Shastri appearing for the NCTE
\nand learned counsel Shri Nanavati appearing for the petitioner in
\npublic interest litigation contended that SNDT University  cannot
\nstart an education course in the State of Gujarat without recognition
\nfrom NCTE.  Reliance was placed on a decision of the  Kerala High
\nCourt in the case of University of Calicut  v.  National
\nCouncil for Teacher Education,
\nAIR 2004 Kerala 295 wherein after taking into account the decision of
\nthe Apex Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra), a
\nDivision Bench  of the Kerala High Court  came to the conclusion that
\nterm ‘institution’  used in section 2(e) of the National Council  for
\nTeacher Education Act includes ‘universities’ and therefore, centers
\nrun by the University for giving teachers training are bound  by the
\nstandard prescribed by the NCTE.   The Bench refused to direct the
\nNCTE to recognize  such
\ncenters and courses run by the University without fulfilling the
\nstandard prescribed by the NCTE.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave  perused the material on record  as well as the rules and
\nregulations applicable in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nMaharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has been enacted for the purpose
\nof effectively carrying out the objects of the Universities, to
\npromote more equitable distribution  of facilities for higher
\neducation,  etc.  The Maharashtra Universities Act  makes detailed
\nprovisions  with respect to various Universities in  the State of
\nMaharashtra.  Section 105 of the Act makes special provisions for
\nSNDT University.  In so far as the present matters are concerned, the
\nrelevant  portion of section 105 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 105.
\n(1) In Addition to the other provisions of this Act, and Statutes,
\nthe provisions set out in this section shall apply to the Shreemati
\nNathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe
\nterritorial limits, within which the powers  conferred upon the
\nuniversity by this Act shall be exercised, shall comprise the State
\nof Maharashtra:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat, the university  may, subject to such conditions and restriction
\nas it and the State Government may think fit to impose, admit  any
\nwomen’s educational institution in any other territory to the
\nprivileges of the university, with the approval of the Government
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
\tUpon
\nperusal of sub-section (2) of section 105 of the Maharashtra
\nUniversities Act, it becomes clear that the territorial limits
\nwithin which powers under
\nthe said Act  conferred upon the SNDT University shall be exercised
\ncomprise the State of Maharashtra.  Provision to sub-section (2)
\nof section 105, however permits  SNDT University subject to such
\nconditions as may be imposed
\n by the State Government to admit any women’s educational institution
\n in any other territory to the privileges of
\nthe university.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis thus clear that  the territorial limits within which the SNDT
\nUniversity has to exercise powers under the Maharashtra Universities
\nAct is State of Maharashtra.  Outside the State of Maharashtra, SNDT
\nUniversity  may admit any educational institution to the privilege of
\nthe University under certain circumstances.  Thus proviso to
\nsub-section (2) of section 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act
\nenvisages only affiliation of women’s educational institutions by
\nSNDT University outside the State of Maharashtra subject to such
\nconditions as the State Government may impose and with the approval
\nof the Government concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe present case, it is the case of the SNDT University that though
\ninitially it had started course of M.Ed. at Bharuch through one
\nSatyam College, subsequently, the said M.Ed. Course is being run at
\nManinagar through its own extension center.  We are of the view that
\nin terms of the  provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section
\n105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act,  SNDT University  was not
\nauthorized to start its own extension center  outside the State of
\nMaharashtra.  Only power given to SNDT University under proviso to
\nsub-section (2) of section 105 is to enable the University to
\naffiliate  women’s educational institutions outside the State of
\nMaharashtra subject of course to fulfilling certain conditions.  In
\nthat view of the matter, the whole question whether SNDT University
\nwould require recognition\/permission from
\nNCTE to run its own extension center becomes one of academic
\ninterest.  To put it differently, we are of the opinion that under
\nsub-section (2) of section
\n105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, it is not open
\nfor the SNDT University to start its own extension center outside the
\nState of Maharashtra and that therefore the argument that before
\nstarting any  extension
\ncenter by the University itself, no recognition  from NCTE  is
\nnecessary need not be decided in these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nare not oblivious to the provision made  in sub-section (5) of
\nsection 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
 The university  may, in the interest of women’s education, start or
\nconduct a college or research institution  in any territory outside
\nthe State of Maharashtra, with the approval of the Government
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore,
\nhowever, availing of the said provision, the University must
\nestablish that in the interest of women’s education, it had started a
\ncollege and that the same was done with the approval of the
\nGovernment concerned. No such case has been pleaded in the petition
\nor  during the arguments before us.  We have, therefore, proceeded to
\nexamine the question within the parameters of sub-section (2) of
\nsection 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nconclude, we are of the opinion that SNDT University had no authority
\nto start its extension center at Maninagar, Ahmedabad.  On the other
\nhand, if any course was to be run through affiliated college by SNDT
\nUniversity, recognition thereof by the NCTE in terms of NCTE Act  was
\nconcededly essential.  No illegality, therefore, can be found in the
\norders passed by the NCTE.  The question whether a University
\nstarting a teacher education course as an extension of the University
\nwould require recognition\/permission  of NCTE  therefore need not be
\ngone into.  In view of this conclusion, though we are of the view
\nthat the decision of the Kerala High Court  in the case of University
\nof Calicut (supra)   needs a
\ncloser look in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
\nBharathidasan University (supra), we refrain from expressing any
\nfinal opinion  on this issue
\nin these petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe result, Special Civil Application No.8831 of 2009 filed by SNDT
\nUniversity must fail. In view of this conclusion, no further order is
\nnecessary in public interest petition.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\n for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2591 of 2009,
\nhowever, submitted that the fees collected from students should be
\nrefunded.  Such a prayer is not made in the petition. Further, the
\nstudents have not made any such prayer.  Such a request is therefore
\nturned down.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the above observations and findings, Special Civil
\nApplication No.8831 of 2009 is dismissed.  Special Civil Application
\nNo.2591 of 2009 stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.  Interim
\nreliefs, if any, vacated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
\nC.J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil
\nKureshi, J.)<\/p>\n
(vjn)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2591\/2009 6\/ 9 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2591 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8831 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF […]<\/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-150782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-05T17:46:47+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\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T17:46:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2081,\"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\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-05T17:46:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-05T17:46:47+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\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T17:46:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":2081,"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\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010","name":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-05T17:46:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhautik-vs-state-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhautik vs State on 18 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/150782","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=150782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}