{"id":153681,"date":"2011-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011"},"modified":"2019-03-14T02:55:43","modified_gmt":"2019-03-13T21:25:43","slug":"pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala,<\/div>\n
  \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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2565\/2011\t 18\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \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. 2565 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4365 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4369 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nTHE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA  \n \n\n\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\nPATELIYA\nSONALBEN KALUBHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIRECTOR\nOF PRIMARY EDUCATION & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nMAMTA R VYAS for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS KRINA CALLA, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nfor Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) :\n1, 3, \nDS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) :\n4, \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 J.B.PARDIWALA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n:  25\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA)<\/p>\n
As
\n\tcommon questions of fact and law are involved in all the three above
\n\treferred petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed
\n\tof by this common judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tall the three captioned petitions, the controversy relates to the
\n\tgenuineness of the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the
\n\trespective petitioners.  It appears that the Vigilance Officer
\n\tworking in the office of Scheduled Tribe Department, Panchmahals,
\n\tGodhra, has come to the conclusion that the respective petitioners
\n\thave obtained the Caste
\n\tCertificate fraudulently.  The Vigilance Officer also came to
\n\tthe conclusion that the Caste
\n\tCertificate is a forged and bogus certificate. Accordingly
\n\tthe Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, passed orders in
\n\texercise of powers under the Gujarat Educational Institutions
\n\t(Pre-primary and Primary Education Training Colleges) Rules, 1984
\n\tand cancelled the admission obtained by the petitioners in the
\n\trespective colleges on the strength of the Caste
\n\tCertificate.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthis stage it would be expedient to state the facts of each of the
\n\tthree petitions in nutshell.\n<\/p>\n
 Special
\n\tCivil Application No.2565 of 2011<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitioner requested for Caste
\n\tCertificate, which was issued by respondent
\n\tNo.2 after verifying the necessary record on 23rd July,
\n\t2007. The petitioner passed her examination of standard 12, which
\n\twas held in the month of March, 2010 securing 77.29%. She wanted to
\n\ttake admission in P.T.C. course and therefore, applied for admission
\n\tthrough Centralised Admission Process. The petitioner was admitted
\n\tin respondent
\n\tNo.4 College, which is a self-finance college.  The petitioner
\n\tstudied for whole year in respondent
\n\tNo.4 College. The respondent
\n\tNo.4 College vide letter dated 19th February, 2011
\n\tinformed the petitioner that respondent
\n\tNo.1-Director of Primary Education, vide order dated 17th
\n\tJanuary, 2011 has cancelled her admission in P.T.C. on the ground
\n\tthat the Caste
\n\tCertificate, which was produced, has been found to be forged
\n\tand fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
 Special
\n\tCivil Application No.4369 of 2011<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitioner belongs to “Raval Bhil” community, which is
\n\tnotified as Scheduled Tribe. The father and forefathers of the
\n\tpetitioner belongs to “Raval Bhil”, which is included in
\n\tthe list of Scheduled Tribe community.  It is a case of the
\n\tpetitioner that her father is having land falling within the ambit
\n\tof Section 73AA of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It is also the case
\n\tof the petitioner that father and other family members have been
\n\tissued Caste
\n\tCertificate by the Competent Authority and after verifying
\n\tthe necessary records, Caste
\n\tCertificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by the
\n\tCompetent Authority on 07th June, 2007. The petitioner
\n\tgot admitted in the P.T.C. course in open category on merits and
\n\tstudied for two years in the P.T.C. course and in second year, the
\n\tpetitioner applied for scholarship. It is her case that neither the
\n\tscholarship is given to the petitioner nor any other benefit of
\n\tbeing candidate of Scheduled Tribe has been extended in her favour.
\n\tHowever, respondent
\n\tNo.4 college informed the petitioner that respondent
\n\tNo.1-Director of Primary Education, has vide order dated 05th
\n\tFebruary, 2011 not only cancelled the admission of the petitioner,
\n\tbut also directed to initiate appropriate criminal action.\n<\/p>\n
 Special
\n\tCivil Application No.4365 of 2011<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetitioner belongs to “Hindu Bhil” community, which is
\n\tnotified as Scheduled Tribe. It is the case of the petitioner that
\n\ther father and forefathers also belong to “Hindu Bhil”
\n\tcommunity. The petitioner passed her standard 12 examination
\n\tsecuring 71.29% of marks and obtained admission in the P.T.C. course
\n\tthrough Centralised Admission Procedure. As the petitioner had
\n\tobtained 71.29% in standard 12, she got admission in open category
\n\ton the basis of merit in respondent
\n\tNo.4 college.  At the time of applying for admission, the petitioner
\n\tattached all the Certificates including the Caste
\n\tCertificate, which was issued in her favour by the Vigilance
\n\tOfficer, Tribal Department, Panchmahals, Godhra dated 28th
\n\tJune, 2000. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that family
\n\tmembers of the petitioner have also been issued the Caste
\n\tCertificate and based on that, Caste
\n\tCertificate was issued in favour of the petitioner certifying
\n\ther to be a member of Scheduled Tribe belonging to the category of
\n\tHindu Bhil. It is her case that she studied for the whole year in
\n\tthe first year of P.T.C. course and at the fag end of the academic
\n\tyear, Caste Certificate was cancelled and consequently admission was
\n\talso ordered to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tall the above three captioned petitions, contention is common. The
\n\tcontention is that while passing the impugned orders cancelling the
\n\tadmission from the college and also at the time of declaring the
\n\tCaste Certificate
\n\tto be bogus and obtained fraudulently, no opportunity of hearing has
\n\tbeen given to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\n\t01st July, 2011 this Court passed the following order:\n<\/p>\n
\t \t“Counsel
\n\tfor the State is allowed a week’s time to get instructions and find
\n\tout as to whether any Scrutinee Committee has been constituted for
\n\tfinding out the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour
\n\tS.C.\/S.T. candidates as prayed for by the petitioners.  If such
\n\tCommittee has been constituted, then, to file a reply as to whether
\n\tor not the certificates issued to the petitioners were considered by
\n\tthe such Committee by giving opportunity of hearing to the
\n\tpetitioners.  Post the matters on 15th July 2011 within ten cases.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tcompliance of the order dated 01st July, 2011, the
\n\tVigilance Officer, Tribal Department, Panchmahals, filed an
\n\taffidavit-in-reply justifying as to how and why the Caste
\n\tCertificate has been cancelled.  In all the three writ
\n\tpetitions the affidavit is practically verbatim the same. In the
\n\taffidavit-in-reply it has been stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tI
\n\thave already filed an affidavit in reply in this\tmatter on merits of
\n\tthe case and therefore this\taffidavit is only filed for the limited
\n\tissue\tobserved by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated\t01.07.2011,
\n\twhereby this Hon’ble Court had\tdirected the state authority to file
\n\tan affidavit on\ttwo counts; Firstly to state that whether
\n\tany\tscrutiny committee has been constituted by the\tState Government
\n\tpursuant to the judgment of\tApex Court in Madhuri Patil’s case and
\n\tsecondly\ton the point that whether the caste certificate of\tthe
\n\tpetitioners were considered by such\tcommittee or not?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tI
\n\tsubmit that there is a scrutiny committee\tconstituted by the State
\n\tGovernment on\t28.05.2010. A copy of the same is annexed \thereto and
\n\tmarked as Annexure R I. Wherein\tthe committee is consisting
\n\tof 5 members i.e. <\/p>\n
(1)\tAdditional
\n\t\t\t\tSecretary \/ Joint Secretary (Caste Certificate Chairman, Schedule
\n\t\t\t\tTribe Department), Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar<\/p>\n
(2)\tCommissioner
\n\t\t\t\t(Tribal Department), Premetive Group, Gandhinagar Members<\/p>\n
(3)\tDirector
\n\t\t\t\tof Tribal Research & Training Centre, Gujarat Vidhyapith,
\n\t\t\t\tAhmedabad, Member<\/p>\n
(4)\tDeputy
\n\t\t\t\tCommissioner (Caste Certificate) Birsa Muda Bhavan, Gandhinagar,
\n\t\t\t\tMember Secretary<\/p>\n
(5)\tSection
\n\t\t\t\tOfficer (Caste Certificate), Tribal Development Department,
\n\t\t\t\tGandhinagar<\/p>\n
3.\tI
\n\tsubmit that so far as the certificates of the\tpetitioner whether the
\n\tsame are considered by\tthe scrutiny committee or not? I humbly
\n\tsubmit\tthat the same were never placed before the\tscrutiny committee
\n\tin as much as that the same\twere never issued by any competent
\n\tauthority;\twhich is precise submission of the respondent\tauthority
\n\tand therefore the same were taken into\tconsideration by vigilance
\n\tofficer of the Tribal\tDevelopment Department and in the same,
\n\tthe\tvigilance officer has prepared the report that\tcertificate
\n\tproduced by the petitioner is bogus\tand forged one and upon such
\n\treport the\timpugned order is passed.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tI
\n\tmost humbly submit that so far as the\tsecurtinity of the Caste
\n\tCertificate the petitioner\tis concern the same is only for those
\n\tcertificates\twhich are issue by the competent authority and\tsame are
\n\tissued by the competent authority upon \tdocuments produced by the
\n\tcandidates but in\tthis case certificates were never issued by
\n\tthe\tcompetent authority and therefore there is no\tquestion of
\n\tplacing the same before the\tcommittee arises and hence petitioner
\n\thas not\tonly forged the Caste Certificate but also has\ttaken
\n\tundue-advantage of these certificate for\tobtaining admission and
\n\ttherefore petition\tdeserves to be dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta R. Vyas appearing for
\n\trespective petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader
\n\tMs.Krina Calla appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
Taking
\n\tinto consideration the peculiar facts of the case and controversy
\n\tinvolved, we are of the view that the Authorities have committed
\n\terror apparent on the face of the record. Way back in the year 1994
\n\tthe Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs
\n\tAdditional Commissioner, Tribal Department and others reported
\n\tin 1994 (6) SCC 241 settled
\n\tthe entire position of law as regards the admission
\n\tobtained by producing false and fabricated Caste
\n\tCertificate and also
\n\tlaying down the procedure to deal such type of cases. Before we look
\n\tinto the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
\n\tPatil and another (Supra), it is necessary to state that the
\n\trespondents
\n\thave fairly conceded that the Caste
\n\tCertificate of the
\n\trespective petitioners were not placed before the Scrutiny Committee
\n\tconstituted by the State Government in this regard and the final
\n\tdecision was taken by the Vigilance Officer working in the office of
\n\tthe Tribal Department, Panchmahals, Godhra. The respondents
\n\thave tried to justify their stand that it was not incumbent or
\n\tnecessary for the Scrutiny Committee to look into the matter because
\n\tthe Certificates, which were produced by the petitioners, were
\n\tobtained by playing fraud and they were not issued by any of the
\n\tAuthorities empowered under the Rules or Regulations. The
\n\trespondents have
\n\ttaken a stand that since the Certificates were bogus, it was within
\n\tthe powers and competence of Vigilance Officer to declare the same
\n\tas forged Certificates. They have also tried to justify that
\n\tadmissions have been rightly cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tare of the view that firstly cancellation of Caste Certificate and
\n\tbased on such cancellation when the admission of respective
\n\tpetitioners are cancelled, it entails civil consequences. Once any
\n\taction entails civil consequences, then before such action is taken,
\n\tperson who is likely to meet with the civil consequences, may be
\n\theard and should be given an opportunity to defend. This is exactly
\n\twhat the Supreme Court has said in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil
\n\tand another (Supra) while laying down the procedure. We would like
\n\tto quote paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
“13.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t The  admission  wrongly gained or appointment  wrongly
\n\t\tobtained  on  the basis of false social status certificate
\n\t\tnecessarily has the\teffect of depriving the genuine Scheduled
\n\t\tCastes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC  candidates  as enjoined  in the
\n\t\tConstitution of the benefits  conferred  on them  by the
\n\t\tConstitution.  The genuine candidates are also denied admission to
\n\t\teducational institutions or appointments to  office or posts under
\n\t\ta State for want of social  status certificate.  The ineligible or
\n\t\tspurious persons who falsely gained\tentry resort to dilatory
\n\t\ttactics and create  hurdles in  completion of the inquiries by the
\n\t\tScrutiny  Committee. It   is\t true  that  the  applications for
\n\t\tadmission to educational  institutions  are generally made by  a
\n\t\tparent, since  on that date many a time the student may be a
\n\t\tminor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming
\n\t\tfalse status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the
\n\t\tcertificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with
\n\t\tutmost expedition and promptitude.  For that  purpose, it is
\n\t\tnecessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of  social
\n\t\tstatus certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may
\n\t\tbe the following:\n<\/p>\n
 \t1.
\n\t\tThe application for grant of social status certificate shall be
\n\t\tmade to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or
\n\t\tDeputy Commissioner and the certificate  shall be issued by such
\n\t\tofficer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.\n<\/p>\n
 \t2.
\n\tThe parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall
\n\tfile an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted
\n\tofficer or non-gazetted officer with particulars  of castes and
\n\tsub-castes,  tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or
\n\ttribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from
\n\tand other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate
\n\tconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
 \t3.
\n\tApplication for verification of the caste certificate by the
\n\tScrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in  advance
\n\tbefore  seeking  admission into educational institution or an
\n\tappointment to a post.\n<\/p>\n
 \t4.
\n\tAll the\t State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three
\n\tofficers, namely,  (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any
\n\tofficer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned,
\n\t(II) the Director, Social Welfare \/ Tribal Welfare \/ Backward Class
\n\tWelfare, as the\tcase may be, and (III) in the case of  Scheduled
\n\tCastes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the
\n\tverification and issuance of the social  status certificates. In the
\n\tcase of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate
\n\tknowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or
\n\t groups of\ttribes or tribal communities.\n<\/p>\n
 \t5.
\n\tEach Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of
\n\tSenior  Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such
\n\tnumber of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status
\n\tclaims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and
\n\toriginal place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or
\n\tin case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he
\n\toriginally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally
\n\tverify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the
\n\tcandidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be.  He should
\n\talso examine the\tschool records, birth registration, if any.  He
\n\tshould also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in
\n\trelation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have
\n\tknowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a
\n\treport to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged
\n\tin the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to
\n\ttheir peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
\n\trituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
\n\tburial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal
\n\tcommunities concerned etc.<\/p>\n
 \t6.
\n\tThe Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance
\n\tofficer if he found the claim for social status to be “not
\n\tgenuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or wrongly
\n\tclaimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause-notice
\n\tsupplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the
\n\tcandidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through
\n\tthe head of the educational institution concerned in which the
\n\tcandidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that
\n\tthe representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks
\n\tfrom the date of the receipt of the notice and in  no case on
\n\trequest not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the
\n\tnotice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing
\n\tand claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on
\n\treceipt of such\trepresentation \/ reply shall convene the committee
\n\tand the Joint \/ Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
\n\treasonable opportunity to the candidate \/ parent \/ guardian to
\n\tadduce all evidence in support of their claim.  A  public notice by
\n\tbeat of drum or any other convenient mode  may be published in the
\n\tvillage or locality and if any   person or association opposes such
\n\ta claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him  \/it.
\n\tAfter giving such opportunity either in person or  through counsel,
\n\tthe Committee may make such  inquiry as it deems expedient and
\n\tconsider the  claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the
\n\tcandidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief
\n\treasons in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 \t7.
\n\tIn  case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be
\n\tgenuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the
\n\treport or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or
\n\tfraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as
\n\tis envisaged in para 6 be followed.\n<\/p>\n
 \t8.
\n\tNotice contemplated in para 6 should be issued  to the parents \/
\n\tguardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the
\n\tCommittee\twith all evidence in his or their support of the claim for
\n\tthe social status certificates.\n<\/p>\n
 \t9.
\n\tThe inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible
\n\tpreferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not
\n\texceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee
\n\tfinds the claim to be false  or spurious, they should pass an order
\n\tcancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same.  It
\n\tshould communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion
\n\tof the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent \/ guardian
\n\tand the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
 \t10.
\n\tIn case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the
\n\tmeanwhile the last date for admission into an educational
\n\tinstitution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired,
\n\tthe candidate be admitted by  the Principal or such other authority
\n\tcompetent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social
\n\tstatus certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the
\n\tparent \/ guardian \/ candidate before the competent      officer or
\n\tnon-official and such admission or appointment should be only
\n\tprovisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny
\n\tCommittee.\n<\/p>\n
 \t11.
\n\tThe order passed by the Committee  shall be final and conclusive
\n\tonly subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the
\n\tConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
 \t12.
\n\tNo suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.\n<\/p>\n
 \t13.
\n\tThe High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as
\n\tpossible within a period of three months. In case, as per its
\n\tprocedure, the writ petition\/miscellaneous petition \/ matter is
\n\tdisposed of by a Single Judge, then no\tfurther appeal would lie
\n\tagainst that order to the Division Bench\tbut subject to special
\n\tleave under Article 136.\n<\/p>\n
 \t14.
\n\tIn  case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found
\n\tto be  false, the parent \/ guardian \/ the candidate should be
\n\tprosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a
\n\tconviction and sentence of  the accused, it could be regarded as an
\n\toffence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective
\n\tposts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any
\n\tlocal body, legislature or Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
 \t15.
\n\t\tAs soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
\n\t\tholding that the certificate obtained was false, on its
\n\t\tcancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be
\n\t\tcommunicated to the educational institution concerned or the
\n\t\tappointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due
\n\t\twith a request to  cancel the admission or the appointment. The
\n\t\tPrincipal etc. of the educational institution responsible  for
\n\t\tmaking the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the
\n\t\tadmission \/ appointment without any further notice to the candidate
\n\t\tand debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in
\n\t\ta post.\n<\/p>\n
14.
\n\t Since this procedure could be fair and just and shorten the undue
\n\tdelay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the
\n\teducation of the candidate admitted \/ appointed on false social
\n\tstatus or further continuance therein, every State concerned should
\n\tendeavour to give effect to it and  see  that the constitutional
\n\tobjectives intended for the benefit and advancement of\t the genuine
\n\tScheduled  Castes \/ Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the
\n\tcase may be are not defeated by unscrupulous persons.\n<\/p>\n
15.
\n\t The  question then is whether the approach adopted by the High
\n\tCourt in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an
\n\terror of law. High Court is not a  court  of appeal to appreciate
\n\tthe evidence.  The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the
\n\tevidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought
\n\tto prevail unless  found vitiated by  judicial review of any High
\n\tCourt subject to limitations of interference with findings  of
\n\tfact.\t The Committee when considers all the material facts and
\n\trecords a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be
\n\tpossible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has
\n\tto see whether the Committee considered all\tthe relevant material
\n\tplaced before it or has not applied\t its mind to relevant facts
\n\twhich have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each
\n\tcase must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.\n<\/p>\n
16.
\n\t Whether appellants are entitled to their further continuance in the
\n\tstudies is the further question. Often the plea of equities or
\n\tpromissory estoppel would be put forth for continuance and
\n\tcompletion of further course of studies and usually would be found
\n\tfavour with the  courts. The  courts have constitutional duty and
\n\tresponsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to
\n\tsee that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the
\n\tFundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution,
\n\tare achieved.  A party that seeks equity, must come with clean
\n\thands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead
\n\tequity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity
\n\tjurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel  as no promise of
\n\tthe social status is made by the State when a false plea was put
\n\tforth for the social  status recognised and declared by the
\n\tPresidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC &
\n\t ST  (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false.
\n\tTherefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no
\n\tapplication. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the
\n\tconcerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come  to his
\n\trescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial
\n\tconstitutional concessions and   opportunities given to the genuine
\n\ttribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and vary in
\n\tconsidering such cases.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis very clear that the Vigilance Officer has to prepare a report
\n\tafter personally verifying and collecting all the facts of the
\n\tsocial status claimed by the candidate or parent or guardian, as the
\n\tcase may be. The Vigilance Officer is also obliged to examine school
\n\trecord, birth register, if any. He should also examine the parent,
\n\tguardian or the candidate in relation to their castes, etc., or such
\n\tother person, who have knowledge of the social status of the
\n\tcandidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with
\n\tall particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular, of the
\n\tScheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and
\n\tethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, etc.
\n\tOn the basis of the report of the Vigilance Officer, if it is found
\n\tthat the claim for social status is not genuine, then the Director
\n\tconcern has to issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the
\n\treport of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate.  The Supreme Court
\n\thas also said that in case candidate seeks for opportunity of
\n\thearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the
\n\tDirector on receipt of such\trepresentation \/ reply shall convene the
\n\tcommittee and the Joint \/ Additional Secretary as Chairperson who
\n\tshall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate \/ parent \/
\n\tguardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe present case, as it is evident, no such procedure has been
\n\tfollowed.  Here in the present case, the Vigilance Officer without
\n\tgiving any opportunity of hearing to any of the petitioners, has
\n\tstraightway come to the conclusion based upon some inquiry that the
\n\tCaste Certificates, which were issued in favour of each of the
\n\tpetitioners are false. Since the Vigilance Officer gave the report
\n\tin this behalf, respondent No.1 based on the said report, ordered
\n\tcancellation of the admission from the respective colleges.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tare of the view that serious prejudice is caused to the petitioners
\n\tby adopting such a high-handed procedure.  When the Supreme Court
\n\thas very clearly laid down the entire procedure in this regard, the
\n\tAuthorities concerned were obliged to follow the guidelines given by
\n\tthe Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another
\n\t(Supra). It appears that in flagrant disregard of the judgment of
\n\tthe Supreme Court, a very high-handed action has been taken in the
\n\tpresent case.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tare of the view that the impugned orders challenged in the
\n\trespective petitions deserves to be quashed and set aside and the
\n\tentire matter needs to be ordered to be remitted to the respondents
\n\tfor fresh considerations after giving reasonable opportunity of
\n\thearing to each of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\tdispose of all the three petitions by issuing appropriate directions
\n\tas under:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\tThe
\n\tVigilance Officer shall supply a copy of the\tinquiry report to each
\n\tof the petitioners on the\tbasis of which the Vigilance Officer has
\n\tcome to\tthe conclusion that the Caste Certificates are\tfalse and
\n\tbogus;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)\tThe
\n\tVigilance Officer, Tribal Department, Godhra\tis directed to place
\n\tall the three Caste\tCertificates of the respective petitioners
\n\tbefore\tthe Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State\tGovernment.
\n\tThe Scrutiny Committee shall give\tan opportunity of hearing to the
\n\tpetitioners in\tsupport of their claim. The Committee shall also\tgive
\n\treasonable opportunity to the parents \/\tguardians of the petitioners
\n\therein to adduce all\tthe evidence in support of their claim.
\n\tThe\tCommittee shall inform the petitioners and their\tparents \/
\n\tguardians well in advance about the\tdate and time of hearing to
\n\tenable the petitioners\tand the parents \/ guardians of the
\n\tpetitioners to\tremain present with the necessary evidence to\tput
\n\tforward their claims as regards their\trespective caste;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)\tThe
\n\tScrutiny Committee shall independently \tinquire as regards the
\n\tgenuineness of the Caste \tCertificates without being influenced in
\n\tany\tmanner by any report prepared by the Vigilance\tOfficer;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\tThe
\n\t Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State\tGovernment shall
\n\texpeditiously complete the\tinquiry within a period of two months and
\n\tinform\tthe petitioners and parents \/ guardians about the\tconclusion
\n\tof the proceedings;\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tabove view of the matter, each of the petitions succeed. The
\n\timpugned orders passed by respondent No.1 cancelling the admission
\n\tfrom the respective colleges is hereby quashed and set aside. The
\n\tpetitioners shall be permitted to continue with their studies in the
\n\trespective colleges till the final conclusion of the proceedings,
\n\twhich the Scrutiny Committee shall undertake for the purpose of
\n\tascertaining the genuineness of the Caste Certificates. All the
\n\tthree writ petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.\n<\/p>\n
Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)<\/p>\n
(J.B.\n<\/p>\n
Pardiwala, J)<\/p>\n
Anup<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya, Mr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2565\/2011 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2565 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4365 of 2011 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4369 of […]<\/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-153681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-13T21:25:43+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T21:25:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4357,\"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\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T21:25:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 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":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-13T21:25:43+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T21:25:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011"},"wordCount":4357,"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\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011","name":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T21:25:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pateliya-vs-director-on-25-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pateliya vs Director on 25 August, 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\/153681","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=153681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153681\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}