{"id":163269,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-21T07:24:11","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T01:54:11","slug":"maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/25888\/2007\t 12\/ 12\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. 25888 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nMANIBEN\nGAGAJI THAKORE - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nTHE\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPRAKASH K JANI for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR JK\nSHAH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/07\/2008 \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Learned AGP, Shri J.K.Shah, waives service  of rule on behalf of
\nrespondent No.1. Learned advocate Shri H.S.Munshaw waives service of
\nrule on behalf of respondent No.2. With the consent of the parties,
\nthis petition was taken up for final disposal today.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\npetitioner has challenged an order dated 30th July, 2007
\npassed by District Development Officer (D.D.O. for short) as upheld
\nby an order dated 27th September, 2007 passed by
\nAdditional Development Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\npetitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Village, Charadu, Tal. Mehsana.
\nA show cause notice dated 10th April, 2007 came to be
\nissued making allegations with respect to alleged irregularities
\ncommitted by the petitioner regarding motor pump and iron pipes of
\nthe Panchayat’s Tube Well. The petitioner was called upon to show
\ncause why she should not be removed as Sarpanch. By her reply dated
\n27th April, 2007, the petitioner denied the charges.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tOn
\n3.7.2007, D.D.O. though found that the charges were proved, observing
\nthat the term of the petitioner as a Sarpanch was over on 14.1.2007
\nand therefore, no further proceedings under Sub-Section (1) of
\nSection 57 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act (?Sthe Act?? for short)
\n(for removal as Sarpanch) were possible, he directed that notice
\nunder Sub-section (2) of Section 57 (for disqualification) be issued
\nagainst her.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tSuch
\na notice was issued on 5.7.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show
\ncause why action under Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Act not
\nbe taken against her. To this show cause notice, petitioner replied
\nunder her letter dated 13.07.2007. Further detailed reply was sent;
\nalso in July, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
3.3\t\tD.D.O.,
\nhowever, by his impugned order dated 30th July, 2007,
\nordered that in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 of the Act,
\npetitioner be disqualified for a period of five years.\n<\/p>\n
3.4\t\tPetitioner
\nunsuccessfully appealed against the order of the D.D.O. and the
\nAdditional Development Commissioner by his order dated 27th
\nSeptember, 2007  rejected the appeal. Petitioner is, therefore,
\nbefore this  Court in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tAppearing
\nfor the petitioner learned advocate, Shri P.K.Jani, pressed the
\npetition mainly on two grounds.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\t\tFirstly,
\nit was contended that the petitioner cannot be disqualified under
\nSub-Section (2) of Section 57 of the Act without first passing an
\norder of her removal. It was contended that only after removing the
\npetitioner as a Sarpanch, the authorities can undertake further steps
\nfor disqualifying her.\n<\/p>\n
4.2\t\tSecond
\ncontention though not specifically taken in the petition, was that
\nany such action under Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 of the Act cannot
\nbe beyond the period of six months after the petitioner having ceased
\nto hold such office. From the material on record, it was pointed out
\nthat the term of the petitioner as a Sarpanch was over on 14th
\nJanuary, 2007, the show-cause notice was issued on 5th
\nJuly, 2007 and final order under Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 was
\npassed on 30th July, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tOn
\nthe other hand learned AGP, Shri J.K.Shah as well as learned
\nadvocate, Shri H.S.Munshaw, submitted that  Sub-Section (2) of
\nSection 57 of the Act empowers the authority to disqualify a
\nSarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch, or a member, even after he ceases to hold
\nsuch office and his removal is not a precondition to exercise of such
\npowers.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\t\tIt
\nwas also contended that period of limitation of six months prescribed
\nin proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 of the Act is for
\ninitiation of the action and not for passing final order of
\ndisqualification.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tHaving
\nthus heard learned advocates appearing for the parties, I find that
\nthe first contention of learned advocate, Shri P.K.Jani, cannot be
\naccepted. Section 57 of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 Section : 57<\/p>\n
(1)\tThe competent
\nauthority may remove from office any member of the panchayat, the
\nSarpanch or, as the case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch thereof, after
\ngiving him an opportunity of being heard and giving due notice in
\nthat behalf to the panchayat and after such inquiry as it deems
\nnecessary, if such member, Sarpanch or, as the case may be.
\nUpa-Sarpanch has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his
\nduties or of any disgraceful conduct or abuses his powers or makes
\npersistent default in the performance of his duties and functions
\nunder this Act, or has become incapable of performing his duties and
\nfunctions under this Act. The Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the
\nUpa-Sarpanch, so removed may at the discretion of the competent
\nauthority also be removed from the membership of the panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\t\tThe competent
\nauthority may, after following the procedure laid down in sub-section
\n(1) disqualify for a period not exceeding five years any person who
\nhas resigned his office as a member. Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch, or
\notherwise ceased to hold any such office and has been guilty of
\nmisconduct specified in sub-section (1) or has been incapable of
\nperforming his duties and functions:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided that an
\naction under this sub-section shall be taken within six months from
\nthe date on which the person resigns or ceases to hold any such
\noffice.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t\tAny person
\naggrieved by an order of the competent authority under Sub-section on
\n(1) or (2) may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the
\ncommunication of such order, appeal to the Stat Government.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tFrom
\nthe above provision, it can be seen that  under Sub-Section (1) of
\nSection 57 of the Act, competent authority has power to remove from
\noffice any member of the Panchayat, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch after
\nfollowing the procedure laid down therein, if such member, Sarpanch
\nor Upa-Sarpanch has been guilty of mis-conduct in discharge of his
\nduties or of any disgraceful conduct or abuses his powers or makes
\npersistent default in the performance of his duties and functions
\nunder the Act or has become incapable of performing his duties and
\nfunctions. Thus powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 are for
\nremoval of a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of Panchayat under
\ncertain circumstances noted above.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tOn
\nthe other hand,  Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 of the Act empowers
\nthe competent authority to disqualify for a period not exceeding five
\nyears any person who has resigned from his office as a member,
\nSarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch or otherwise ceased to hold any such office
\nand has been guilty of misconduct specified in Sub-Section (1) or has
\nbeen incapable of performing his duties and functions.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThus,
\n Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 pertains to removal of member,
\nSarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a Panchayat whereas Sub-Section (2) of
\nSection 57 refers to disqualification of any such person. Removal
\nnecessarily would relate to current term of a member, Sarpanch or
\nUpa-Sarpanch whereas disqualification would affect in future for the
\nperiod that may be prescribed in the order passed by the competent
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tRequirement
\nof  Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 is that the authority has to follow
\nthe procedure laid down in  Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 and
\nthereafter only, such order of disqualification can be passed against
\nthe person who has resigned from his office as a member, Sarpanch or
\nUpa-Sarpanch or who otherwise has ceased to hold any such office.
\nSuch disqualification can be ordered, if such member is found guilty
\nof misconduct as specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 or if is
\nfound to be incapable of performing his duties and functions.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tNothing
\nstated in Sub-Section (1) of Section 57 indicates that such
\ndisqualification cannot be ordered without first ordering removal of
\na member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch. In-fact it is specifically
\nprovided that disqualification can be passed with respect to a person
\nwho has resigned from his office or ceased to hold the office.
\nObviously, resignation presupposes that there was no removal of such
\na member. Even otherwise,
\ncessation of his term can be through his removal or for  any
\nother reason including upon completion of the term of the office for
\nwhich the member may have been elected. It is, therefore, not
\npossible to hold that action of disqualification under Sub-Section
\n(2) of Section 57 must in all cases be preceded by an order of
\nremoval under  Sub-Section (1) of
\nSection 57 of the Act. A case of a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch
\nremoved by the competent authority would be governed by Section
\n30(1)(d) of the Act which provides that no person shall be a member
\nof a Panchayat or continue as such who has been removed from any
\noffice held by him under any Panchayat under any provision of the Act
\nand a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of such
\nremoval, unless he has been by an order of the State Government
\nrelieved from the disqualification arising out of such removal.
\nHowever, where the member ceases to hold office on account of
\nresignation or for reasons other than his removal, if other
\ningredients are satisfied, after following due procedure, it is
\nalways open for competent authority to order his disqualification.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\nSecond contention of learned advocate, Shri P.K.Jani, requires closer
\nscrutiny. As noted, though this contention has not been taken in the
\npetition or even before the authorities, the same is based on
\nadmitted facts. Being purely a legal contention, I have examined the
\nsame on the basis of undisputed facts.\n<\/p>\n
12.1\t\tSub-Section
\n(2) of Section 57 provides that an action under this Sub-Section
\nshall be taken within a period of six months from the date on which
\nthe person resigns or ceases to hold such office. Action referred to
\nherein has to be one of disqualifying the member, Sarpanch or
\nUpa-Sarpanch as the case may be. Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 refers
\nto only one action, that of disqualifying the member, Sarpanch or
\nUpa-Sarpanch. The proviso specifically provides that such action
\nshall be taken within six months from the date on which such person
\nresigns or ceases to hold his office. Therefore, in my view no order
\nunder Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 of disqualifying a  member,
\nSarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch can be passed after six months of such
\nmember resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold his office.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tAs
\nnoted, learned advocates for respondents strenuously urged that it
\nwould be sufficient compliance to the proviso of Sub-Section (2) of
\nSection 57, if action is initiated by issuance of show cause notice
\nwithin the period of six months of time frame provided. Such a
\ncontention cannot be accepted. Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section
\n57, as noted, speaks of action under that sub-section and the
\nsub-section speaks of only one action i.e. of disqualification of a
\nmember, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a Panchayat. Such action is to be
\ntaken within six months of the person resigning or ceasing to hold
\noffice. Initiation of the proceedings of issuance of show cause
\nnotice cannot be equated with the action taken. It is well settled
\nthat penal provisions must be interpreted strictly.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIn
\ncase of Dilip N.Shroff V\/s. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,
\nMumbai and another reported in 2007 (6) SCC 329, the Apex Court
\nwhile dealing with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining
\nto penalty to be imposed on an assessee upon concealment of income,
\nobserved that being a penal provision it must be construed strictly.
\nIn case of Virtual Soft Systems
\nLtd. V\/s. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi I reported in
\n(2007) 9 SCC 665, also same view was taken. In a case of State of
\nKerala and others V\/s. Unni and another reported in (2007) 2 SCC
\n365, the Apex Court stated that ?S A penal statute must receive
\nstrict construction. Only in exceptional cases the principles of
\npurposive construction shall apply to a penal statute??.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tThe
\nvery purpose of the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 57 is that
\nan elected member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a Panchayat may not be
\nheld liable for his past action, for his future candidature or that
\nhis subsequent election may not be rendered void, inconsequential and
\nineffective, upon an action taken by the authorities after indefinite
\nperiod of time. Such provision must be construed strictly. Permitting
\nthe authorities to pass order of disqualification after indefinite
\nperiod of time of the member having ceased to hold the office only
\nupon initiation of the proceedings within six months thereof would
\ndestroy the very purpose for which the proviso is enacted.\n<\/p>\n
16.
\n While maintaining the powers of the competent authority to remove or
\ndisqualify a member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a Panchayat for
\nproved misconduct in discharge of his duties or for any disgraceful
\nconduct, or for abusing his powers etc.,  sacrosanctity of the
\nprocess of election of a  member, Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch who  may
\nhave been elected and re-elected through a democratic process, must
\nalso be preserved. Thus, in my view, proviso to sub-section (2) of
\nSection 57 cannot be extended through liberal interpretation so as to
\npermit the authority to pass order of disqualification at any point
\nof time only upon initiation of the proceedings within six months
\nfrom resignation or cessation of office.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tIn
\nthe result, since disqualification of petitioner was passed after
\nmore than six months of her term being over, on this ground, this
\npetition is required to be allowed.  Impugned order dated 30.07.2007
\npassed by D.D.O. as well as Additional Development Commissioner dated
\n27.9.2007 are quashed. Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
(AKIL
\nKURESHI, J.)<\/p>\n
ashish\/\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 Author: Akil Kureshi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/25888\/2007 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25888 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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-163269","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManiben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2164,\"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\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":2164,"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\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008","name":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T01:54:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-the-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maniben vs The on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/163269","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=163269"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163269\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163269"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163269"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163269"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}