{"id":154957,"date":"2010-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2"},"modified":"2017-08-15T06:57:40","modified_gmt":"2017-08-15T01:27:40","slug":"rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\/9287\/2010\t 6\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9287 of\n2010 \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAJARAM\nSONARAM DAVE - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ GOSWAMI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MRJVVAGHELA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMr. AL\nSharma, AGP for State Authority.\n \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\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/08\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate Mr. RJ Goswami for petitioner and Mr. AL Sharma,<br \/>\n\tlearned AGP for respondent State Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Brief<br \/>\n\tfacts of present petition, as per list of events submitted by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, are to the effect that petitioner purchased property on<br \/>\n\t29.6.2005.  On 24.2.2009, petitioner obtained license for starting a<br \/>\n\tbusiness of restaurant namely Mahakali Lodge and Dinning Hall vide<br \/>\n\tcertificate No.2\/2009. Petitioner filed an application for revised<br \/>\n\tpermission before TDO on 16.2.2009. On 25.5.2009,  petitioner prayed<br \/>\n\tfor time to submit revised permission before the Sub Divisional<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Gandhinagar. On 25.6.2009, Sub Divisional Magistrate has<br \/>\n\tcancelled license of restaurant of petitioner. On 1.10.2009, TDO<br \/>\n\tissued notice to concerned authority  for getting no objection. On<br \/>\n\t7.10.2009, health department, District Panchayat Office, Gandhinagar<br \/>\n\thad given no objection certificate. On 14.12.2009, Collector,<br \/>\n\tGandhinagar dismissed appeal of petitioner and, therefore, present<br \/>\n\tpetition is filed by petitioner challenging order dated 25.6.2009<br \/>\n\tpassed by Sub Divisional Magistrate,Gandhinagar and order dated<br \/>\n\t14.12.2009 passed by District Magistrate, Gandhinagar.\n<\/p>\n<p>Question<br \/>\n\tis that the petitioner has obtained license for starting business of<br \/>\n\trestaurant namely Mahakali Lodge and Dinning Hall vide certificate<br \/>\n\tNo.2 of 2009. Application for revised permission was filed by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner before Taluka Development Officer. Sub Divisional<br \/>\n\tMagistrate Gandhinagar has considered case of petitioner on the<br \/>\n\tground that the license was issued in favour of petitioner on<br \/>\n\tcondition that on or before 24.3.2009, petitioner shall have to<br \/>\n\tproduce commercial permission from respective authority before the<br \/>\n\tSub Divisional Magistrate, Gandhinagar. After completion of<br \/>\n\taforesaid period 24.3.2009, again one application was filed by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner for extension of further period by application dated 24th<br \/>\n\tMay, 2009 and yet two months&#8217; time was given by Sub Divisional<br \/>\n\tMagistrate, Gandhinagar and yet, unfortunately petitioner has not<br \/>\n\tproduced any documents or evidence whether such commercial use<br \/>\n\tpermission has been obtained by petitioner or not and, therefore, in<br \/>\n\tabsence of such permission, license cannot remain continue because<br \/>\n\tit was granted subject to that condition. Land on which Mahakali<br \/>\n\tLodge and Dinning Hall are situated was agricultural land and NA<br \/>\n\tPermission was granted in respect of said land for residential<br \/>\n\tpurpose but it requires further revised permission and petitioner is<br \/>\n\tnot able to get such further revised NA Permission from respective<br \/>\n\tauthorities, therefore, only on that ground, license issued by Sub<br \/>\n\tDivisional Magistrate, Gandhinagar has been cancelled by order dated<br \/>\n\t25.6.2009 and thereafter, appeal was preferred by petitioner before<br \/>\n\tDivisional Magistrate, Gandhinagar under Rule 10 of the Rules.<br \/>\n\tBefore District Magistrate also, same request was made by petitioner<br \/>\n\tand according to petitioner, he is resident of village Mandali and<br \/>\n\trunning his hotel in village Mandali itself. In village, this is the<br \/>\n\tonly facility of Dinning Hall and NA permission in respect of said<br \/>\n\tland has been granted for residential purpose and proceedings for<br \/>\n\tchange of user, for the purpose of hotel are going on and it was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that if two months time is granted, then, proceedings can<br \/>\n\tbe completed. After considering such submissions made by petitioner,<br \/>\n\tDistrict Magistrate Gandhinagar considered that after issuance of<br \/>\n\tregistration certificate on 24.2.2009, till this date,<br \/>\n\tevidence\/basis in respect of order of permission for change of user<br \/>\n\thas not been produced and, therefore, District Magistrate rejected<br \/>\n\tappeal by confirming order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gandhinagar<br \/>\n\tdated 25.6.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAdvocate Mr. Goswami for petitioner has relied upon decision of this<br \/>\n\tCourt in case of Yusufbhai Noormohmad Mukhi Vs. District<br \/>\n\tMagistrate and Ors., reported in 2003(1) GLH 52.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered submissions made<br \/>\n\tby both learned advocate. I have also considered decision of this<br \/>\n\tcourt which has been relied upon. According to my opinion, once when<br \/>\n\tlicense has been issued on such condition, then, such condition must<br \/>\n\thave to be fulfilled, otherwise, conditional license cannot be<br \/>\n\tfurther extended and same is required to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>In similar circumstances, this<br \/>\n\tcourt has considered very decision as referred above in Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No. 8727 of 2010 on 30th July, 2010.<br \/>\n\tRelevant discussion made by this court from para 4 to 7 is quoted as<br \/>\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n<p> 4.Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Thakkar raised contention that authority has committed<br \/>\n\tgross error in demanding Commercial N. A. from petitioner, which is<br \/>\n\tnot required under provision of Bombay Police Act under section 33<br \/>\n\tof Bombay Police Act, 1951 Sub-clause W (i)(ii)(iii). He also relied<br \/>\n\tupon one decision of this Court in case of Yusufbhai<br \/>\n\tNoormohmad Mukhi Vs. District Magistrate and Ors reported in 2003<br \/>\n\t(1) GLH 52.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tI<br \/>\n\thave considered submission made by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar and<br \/>\n\talso considered order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as<br \/>\n\tAdditional District Magistrate. Apparently, undisputedly such<br \/>\n\tcontentions are not raised by petitioner before Sub Divisional<br \/>\n\tMagistrate and Additional District Magistrate.  This contention has<br \/>\n\tbeen raised before this Court first time for challenging aforesaid<br \/>\n\ttwo order by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\n\tdecision of this Court as referred above relied by learned advocate<br \/>\n\tMr. Thakkar, against which, decision of Division Bench of this Court<br \/>\n\tin case of Jamnadas Jethanand Vs. Ram Aiyar reported in 1963 GLR<br \/>\n\t897, where certain observation has been made by Division Bench of<br \/>\n\tthis Court in respect to power under section 33 of Commissioner to<br \/>\n\trefuse renewal of license under Rules of section 33 of Bombay Police<br \/>\n\tAct, 1951. The following observations are relevant, therefore,<br \/>\n\tquoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t We have therefore,<br \/>\n\tto consider the question in the light of these principles whether<br \/>\n\tthe act of the Commissioner in resulting the renewal of the license<br \/>\n\tis an administrative or a quasi judicial act. As we have said, the<br \/>\n\tvalidity of these rules has not been challenged in this petition.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the competence of the licensing authority in passing the<br \/>\n\timpugned order on the ground of want of jurisdiction, can not<br \/>\n\tbe disputed. It is also clear that there is no lis inter<br \/>\n\tpartes in this case and therefore, the test that has to be applied<br \/>\n\tis whether there is anything in the statute or the rules which<br \/>\n\trequires the licensing authority to act judicially.  It is admitted<br \/>\n\tby Mr. Shah that neither the Act nor the rules expressly law down<br \/>\n\tthat the authority has to act judicially and that the rules<br \/>\n\tdo not provide for a hearing. It is also not as if the competent<br \/>\n\tauthority has to have two parties before him or that it is as a<br \/>\n\tthird party that he has to act on the evidence and materials placed<br \/>\n\tbefore him upon which he has to arrive at his determination.  The<br \/>\n\trules are made by the Commissioner of Police under the powers<br \/>\n\treserved to him by sec. 33 of the Act.  As we have already pointed<br \/>\n\tout, rule No.1 provides in clear terms that a license is to be given<br \/>\n\tto a person who, on the subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner,<br \/>\n\tis a suitable person to hold the license.  The act or the<br \/>\n\tdetermination of the licensing authority has thus clearly to be<br \/>\n\tfounded  on his satisfaction and is not dependent upon materials or<br \/>\n\tfacts placed before him.  The nature of the function entrusted to<br \/>\n\thim by the Act and the method of its disposal would also<br \/>\n\tappear to be sure guides that the act is administrative<br \/>\n\trather than judicial, or quasi judicial.  The nature of the function<br \/>\n\tentrusted to the licensing authority is to see that a license is<br \/>\n\tgiven to a suitable person and not to an unsuitable person.  The<br \/>\n\tquestion whether a person is suitable or not is left to the<br \/>\n\tsatisfaction of the licensing authority and the method of<br \/>\n\tdisposal of that function is again made dependant on his<br \/>\n\tsatisfaction as contrasted with an objection process of sifting and<br \/>\n\tanalyzing evidence and a conclusion based on findings arrived at as<br \/>\n\ta result of such sifting, analyzing and assessing evidence.  The act<br \/>\n\tor the determination in these circumstances can not be anything else<br \/>\n\tthan an administrative act and therefore, the doctrine of natural<br \/>\n\tjustice can not apply to such a case.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\n\tlight of this back ground, let petitioner may approach to Additional<br \/>\n\tDistrict Magistrate, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar by filing necessary<br \/>\n\tapplication, wherein petitioner can raise such contention which has<br \/>\n\tbeen raised before this Court. After receiving such application from<br \/>\n\tpetitioner, it is directed to Additional District Magistrate,<br \/>\n\tSabarkantha at Himmatnagar to reconsider decision in  light of<br \/>\n\tcontention raised by petitioner in the application and examine it<br \/>\n\tand decide it in accordance<br \/>\n\twith law within a period of two months from date of receiving copy<br \/>\n\tof application from petitioner.  Then communicate decision<br \/>\n\timmediately to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the aforesaid back<br \/>\n\tground, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Goswami for<br \/>\n\tpetitioner cannot be accepted. However, let<br \/>\n\tpetitioner may approach District Magistrate, Gandhinagar by filing<br \/>\n\tnecessary application, wherein petitioner can raise such contention<br \/>\n\twhich has been raised before this Court. After<br \/>\n\treceiving such application from petitioner, it is directed to<br \/>\n\tDistrict Magistrate, Gandhinagar reconsider decision in  light of<br \/>\n\tcontention raised by petitioner in the application and examine it<br \/>\n\tand decide it in accordance with law within a period of two months<br \/>\n\tfrom date of receiving such application from petitioner.  Then<br \/>\n\tcommunicate decision immediately to petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of these<br \/>\n\tobservations and directions, this petition is disposed of by this<br \/>\n\tcourt without expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>(H.K. Rathod,J.)<\/p>\n<p>Vyas<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9287\/2010 6\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9287 of 2010 ========================================================= RAJARAM SONARAM DAVE &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-154957","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>Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - 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\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-15T01:27:40+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T01:27:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1511,\"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\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-15T01:27:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 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":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - 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\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-15T01:27:40+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T01:27:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2"},"wordCount":1511,"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\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2","name":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-15T01:27:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajaram-vs-state-on-12-august-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajaram vs State on 12 August, 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\/154957","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=154957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}