{"id":158223,"date":"2011-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-28T07:16:51","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T01:46:51","slug":"karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,<\/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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8343\/2011\t 8\/ 8\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. 8343 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKARANSINH\nVAJESINH PARMAR - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAG JOSHI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MR DIPAK H SINDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR\nMAULIK NANAVATI AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s)\n: 2 - 3. \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: 07\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned advocate Mr. DH Sindhi on behalf of petitioner, learned AGP
\n\tMr. Maulik Nanavati appearing for respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfather of petitioner Mr. Vajesinh Parmar was working as Dy.
\n\tMamlatdar at Modasa under Collector, expired on 24\/8\/2000 while in
\n\tservice.  Thereafter, an application was made by petitioner for
\n\tcompassionate appointment which was rejected only on ground that
\n\tapplication submitted by petitioner is not in time means beyond
\n\tperiod of three months prescribed under Government Resolution.
\n\tTherefore, same was not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tagain request was made by petitioner to reconsider his case for
\n\tcompassionate appointment to respondent, but no response is given by
\n\trespondent.  Therefore, petition being SCA no. 6434\/2007 preferred
\n\tbefore this Court by petitioner wherein this Court has passed an
\n\torder on 12\/3\/2007 which is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
”\tHeard
\nthe learned advocate Mr. AL Sharma on behalf of the petitioner,
\nlearned AGP Mr. Apurva Dave appearing for respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\ngrievance of the present petitioner is that, application for
\ncompassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground of
\nlimitation without  considering the Government Policy dated 10\/3\/2000
\nand 7\/9\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
The father of the petitioner Shri Vajeshinh M. Parmar was working as
\nDeputy Mamlatdar at Modasa, under Collector, Sabarkantha expired on
\n24\/8\/2000, while in service.  At the time of death of his father the
\nage of petitioner was 16 years and 8 months.  Therefore, application
\nwas filed on 30\/11\/2000.  Thereafter, Deputy Collector by his letter
\ndated 28\/11\/2001 moved the proposal for consideration of petitioner’s
\ncase for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.  On 12\/4\/2002,
\nit was informed to the petitioner that his application is beyond the
\nperiod of three months prescribed under the Government Resolution
\nand therefore, not accepted.    Thereafter, request was made by the
\npetitioner to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment to
\nthe respondent but no response has been given by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid fact and considering the submissions made by
\nboth the learned advocates, and considering the object of the scheme,
\nwhich is to offer appointment on compassionate ground to the
\ndependent of deceased employee, what is the object to put such
\nconditions while framing the policy for compassionate appointment
\nthat the dependent should have to become major within six months from
\nthe death of the deceased employee.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording
\nto my opinion, there is no rational behind it.  However, on technical
\nground, the application of petitioner has been rejected which is
\ncontrary to the main object of the policy which was to provide
\nsupport of the petitioner of deceased employee who has died while in
\nservice.  Therefore, keeping in mind the object of scheme and policy
\nof such appointment on compassionate ground, respondents are required
\nto reconsider the matter on merits rather than by rejecting it on
\ntechnical ground.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid fact, it is directed to the respondents to
\nreconsider the case of the petitioner on merits without raising
\nobjection of the limitation within a period of two months from the
\ndate of receiving the copy of this order and communicate the decision
\nimmediately to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the above observations and directions, present petition is
\ndisposed of without expressing any opinion on merits.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\nin case if ultimate decision is adverse to the petitioner, it is open
\nfor the petitioner, to challenge the same before appropriate forum in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
Direct
\nservice is permitted.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tpursuance to order passed by this Court, decision has been taken by
\n\trespondent on 7\/6\/2007 Annexure A page 18 where according to
\n\tGovernment policy dated 10\/3\/2000 as per Schedule I application
\n\twhich was made by petitioner was in time but at that occasion,
\n\tpetitioner was minor.  Therefore, his request was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of this back ground again petition is filed by petitioner
\n\tchallenging order passed by State of Gujarat on 7\/6\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. Sindhi submitted that in case if at the time when
\n\tapplication was made by petitioner, he was found to be minor then at
\n\tleast respondent should have to wait as per Government policy dated
\n\t10\/3\/2000 Clause 8(B).  However, from perusal of record annexed to
\n\tpetitioner, there is no subsequent application preferred by
\n\tpetitioner after he become major for claiming compassionate
\n\tappointment according to Government policy dated 10\/3\/2000. In such
\n\tcases, when dependent is minor then at least respondent authority
\n\tmust have to wait till he become major.  Thereafter, his application
\n\tis to be considered according to policy.\n<\/p>\n
Similar
\n\tview has been taken by Madras High Court in case of  Mohanambal
\n\tVs. Director, Land and Survey Department, Kancheepuram District and
\n\tOthers reported in 2011 (2) MLJ 47. The relevant para
\n\t8 to 12 are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“8.\tThe
\n\tpetitioner’s mother immediately applied for compassionate
\n\tappointment after the death of petitioner’s father.  The second
\n\trespondent having not taken the ground, which is now taken in the
\n\timpugned order, for rejecting the earlier claim made by the
\n\tpetitioner, I am of the view that the reason stated in the impugned
\n\torder viz. petitioner has not submitted the application within three
\n\tyears from the date of death of her father, can not be sustained.
\n\tThis Court directed the petitioner to produce an income certificate
\n\tof the petitioner’s family recently obtained, to verify the
\n\tfinancial status of the family as on today.  The learned counsel for
\n\tthe petitioner produced an income certificate dated 23\/11\/2010
\n\tissued by the Tahsildar, Ambattur, wherein it is stated that the
\n\tpetitioner’s husband is doing cooli work and earning Rs. 2000\/- per
\n\tmonth.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSimilar
\n\tissue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision in Syed
\n\tKhadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 9 SCC 195 wherein also the
\n\tSupreme Court considered the fact that the wife of the deceased
\n\thaving applied for compassionate appointment in time and as she was
\n\tfound not eligible, the application submitted by the other legal
\n\their was directed to be considered even after the lapse of eleven
\n\tyears.  In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision the Supreme Court
\n\theld thus,<\/p>\n
“5.\tWe
\n\tare unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the State, in
\n\tthe instant case, the widow had applied for appointment within the
\n\tprescribed period and without assigning any reasons the same was
\n\trejected. When the appellant submitted the application he was 13
\n\tyears’ old and the application was rejected after a period of six
\n\tyears and that too without giving any reason and the reason given by
\n\tthe authorities was incorrect as at the time of rejection, of the
\n\tapplication he must have crossed 18 years and he could have been
\n\tvery well considered for appointment. Of course, in the rules framed
\n\tby the State there is no specific provision as to what should be
\n\tdone in case the departments are minors and there would be any
\n\trelaxation of age in case they did not attain majority within the
\n\tprescribed period for submitting application.\n<\/p>\n
6.As
\n\tthe widow had submitted the application in time, the authorities
\n\tshould have considered her application.  As eleven years have passed
\n\tshe would have not be in a position to join the government service.
\n\tIn our opinion, this is a fit case where the appellant should have
\n\tbeen considered in her place for appointment. Counsel for the State
\n\tcould not point out any other circumstances of this case, we direct
\n\tthe respondent authorities to consider the application of the
\n\tappellant and give him appropriate appointment within reasonable
\n\ttime at least within a period of three months.  The appeal is
\n\tdisposed of in the above terms.  No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe
\n\tGovernment advocate cited the decision in Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of
\n\tBihar AIR 2000 SC 2782: (2000) 7 SCC 192: (2000) 1 MLJ 44: 2000 –
\n\tIII – LLJ – 1004, which has no application to the facts
\n\tin this case as the claimant in the cited case applied for
\n\tcompassionate appointment for the first time after eight years.
\n\tSimilar claim of compassionate ground appointment was rejected in
\n\tthe decision in Punjab National Bank Vs. Ashwinikumar Taneja AIR
\n\t2004 SC 4155: (2004) 7 SCC 265: 2004 – III- LLJ – 536 on
\n\tthe ground of non existence of financial hardship.  Relief was
\n\tdenied to person in the decision in Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. State of
\n\tUttar Pradesh (2009) 6 SCC 481: (2009) 5 MLJ 1284 on the ground that
\n\teven though a person was not found traceable for seven years even
\n\tthereafter within five years, no claim for compassionate appointment
\n\twas made by the legal heir.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tSimilar
\n\tclaim of the deceased Tamil Najdu Electricity Board Employee was
\n\tconsidered and relief granted by the Division Bench of this Court in
\n\tIndirani Ammal Vs. Chief Engineer, TNEB W.A. No. 3050\/2003 dated
\n\t8\/3\/2005 (P. Santhasivam, J, (as he then was) and S.K.K, J). The
\n\tsaid decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.
\n\t2039 of 2006 dated 30\/3\/2010. Another Division Bench of this Court
\n\tin W. A. No. 42\/2007 dated 2\/7\/2009 also took same view, which was
\n\talso confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8305\/2010 dated
\n\t6\/7\/2010.  The contra view taken by another Division Bench of this
\n\tCourt was set aside by the Supreme Court in C. Appeal no. 2858-2859
\n\tof 2010 dated 30\/3\/2010.  The said order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Civil
\n\tappeal No. 2858-2859 of 2010 (arising from SLP (C) No. 5068-5069 of
\n\t2009)  <\/p>\n
Leave
\n\tGranted.\n<\/p>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned Counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
These
\n\tappeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the High
\n\tCourt of Madras dated 29\/9\/2006 and subsequent order dated 25\/8\/2008
\n\tpassed in the Review Application.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tDivision Bench of the High Court has reversed the judgment of the
\n\tlearned Single Judge only on the ground of delay who directed
\n\tcompassionate appointment to the appellant.  The appellant was a
\n\tminor at the time of the death of his father and since the mother of
\n\tthe appellant applied within time, we are of the opinion that the
\n\tappellant, after becoming major should have been granted
\n\tcompassionate appointment.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,
\n\twe allow these appeals, set aside impugned judgment of the Division
\n\tBench and restore the judgment of the learned Single Judge.  No
\n\tcosts.”\n<\/p>\n
12.\tHere
\n\tin this case, the petitioner’s mother applied for compassionate
\n\tappointment within one year and she was not given appointment due to
\n\twant of minimum qualification of eight standard and the petitioner
\n\tbeing only other legal heir, pursuing the matter and agitating her
\n\tright for all these years.  In the light of the present financial
\n\tstatus of the petitioner, the decision in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs.
\n\tState of Bihar (Supra) applies to the facts of this case.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of observation made by Madras High Court relying upon decision
\n\tof Apex Court, let petitioner may make detailed application for
\n\tclaiming compassionate appointment on the basis of Government policy
\n\tdated 10\/3\/2000 within a period of one month from date of receiving
\n\tcopy of present order.\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tand when respondent no. 1 receive such application from petitioner
\n\tclaiming compassionate appointment, it is directed to respondent no.
\n\t1 to reconsider application of petitioner on the basis of policy
\n\tdated 10\/3\/2000 and decide it in accordance with law within a period
\n\tof three months from date of receiving copy of representation from
\n\tpetitioner and communicate decision to petitioner immediately.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of above observation and directions, present petition is
\n\tdisposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits.
\n\tHowever, in case if ultimate decision is adverse to petitioner, it
\n\tis open for petitioner to challenge same by filing appropriate
\n\tproceeding before appropriate forum in accordance with law.  Direct
\n\tservice is permitted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
asma<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011 Author: H.K.Rathod, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8343\/2011 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8343 of 2011 ========================================================= KARANSINH VAJESINH PARMAR – Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 2 – Respondent(s) ========================================================= […]<\/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-158223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaransinh vs State on 7 July, 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\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-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=\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-28T01:46:51+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T01:46:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1870,\"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\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T01:46:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 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":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 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\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-28T01:46:51+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T01:46:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011"},"wordCount":1870,"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\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011","name":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T01:46:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karansinh-vs-state-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karansinh vs State on 7 July, 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\/158223","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=158223"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158223\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158223"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158223"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158223"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}