{"id":177770,"date":"2009-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-07-12T07:08:19","modified_gmt":"2018-07-12T01:38:19","slug":"age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: S. S. Shinde<\/div>\n
                                         1\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY   \n                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n     WRIT PETITION NO. 6247 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                \n     Shri.   Ajitsingh  Bhimsingh Deore                          }\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n     Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Agriculture,                         }\n     R\/o :     Wadgaon   Mulane,                                 }\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     Tq. Pachora, Dist. : Jalgaon.                               }      ....  PETITIONER\n\n\n\n                                    V E R S U S \n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     1.\n                           \n           Sahebrao     Bhata    Wagh                            }\n           Age : Major, Occ.: Agriculture,                       }\n                          \n           R\/o :    Wadgaon  Mulane,                             }\n           Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon.                           }\n     2.    Chief   Executive   Officer,                          }\n      \n\n\n           Zilla   Parishad,   Jalgaon.                          }\n   \n\n\n\n           Dist. : Jalgaon.                                      }\n     3.    Gramsevak                                             }\n           Gram Panchayat, Wadgaon Mulane,                       }\n\n\n\n\n\n           Tq.   :  Pachora,   Dist.    :   Jalgaon.             } ....  RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n\n\n                    Mr. G.V.Wani, Advocate for Petitioner.\n                    Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent no. 1.\n                    Mr.K.M.Nagarkar    holding   for   Mr. B.S.Mundhe, \n                    Advocate  for Respondent no. 2 and 3.   \n\n\n                                                          [ CORAM :  S.S.SHINDE, J. ]\n\n                                   JUDGMENT    RESERVED   ON   :   04\/09\/2009\n\n                                  JUDGMENT  PRONOUNCED ON :   11\/09\/2009 \n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::\n                                              2\n\n     JUDGMENT  :\n<\/pre>\n
     1.              Rule.   Rule returnable forthwith.    Heard finally with the <\/p>\n
     consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2.              This  Writ Petition  takes  exception  to   the  Judgment  and <\/p>\n
     Order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik <\/p>\n
     in Gram Panchayat Appeal No. 43 of 2008 dated 6\/9\/2008 confirming <\/p>\n
     the Judgment and Order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in <\/p>\n
     Dispute No. 14 of 2008 dated 13\/5\/2008.\n<\/p>\n
     3.              The back-ground facts of the case are as under :\n<\/p>\n
                     The   petitioner   herein   is   an   elected   Member   of   Gram <\/p>\n
     Panchayat, Wadgaon Mulane, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon and working <\/p>\n
     as Dy. Sarpanch.  A Tax bill as contemplated under section 129 of the <\/p>\n
     Bombay Village Panchayat Act came to be issued to the petitioner for <\/p>\n
     house bearing No. 332 situated at Wadgaon Mulane, Tq. Pachora, Dist.\n<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon.  According to the petitioner, the said bill has been prepared on <\/p>\n
     25\/4\/2007 and same is for the year 2007-2008.   It is the case of the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   that   the   said   house   stands   in   the   name   of   Rajendra <\/p>\n
     Bhimsingh, who is brother of present petitioner.   It is the case of the <\/p>\n
     petitioner that, in fact he  is not the owner of the said house nor there is <\/p>\n
     any joint family.   According  to the petitioner, he resides at different <\/p>\n
     place and he is holding ration card issued in his favour, which shows <\/p>\n
     that   he   is   not   residing   in   the   premises,   for   which   tax   bill   has   been <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
     issued.\n<\/p>\n
     4.              It is further case of the petitioner that on non payment of <\/p>\n
     the   said  bill within  stipulated period,  immediately an  application  for <\/p>\n
     dis-qualification   was   moved   against   him   before   the   Collector   under <\/p>\n
     Section 14-A of     the     Bombay     Village     Panchayat Act, 1958 ( for <\/p>\n
     short ‘ the  Act ‘ ) bearing Dispute  Application  No. 14 of 2008.   The <\/p>\n
     petitioner   appeared   before   the   Collector   and   after   hearing   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner,   the   Collector   allowed   the   application   and   order   of   dis-\n<\/p>\n
     qualification under  section 14-A  of the Act has been passed against the <\/p>\n
     petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     5.              The   petitioner   being   aggrieved   by   the   Order   of   the <\/p>\n
     Collector, preferred Appeal before the Commissioner, Nashik Division, <\/p>\n
     Nashik   bearing   Gram   Panchayat   Appeal   No.   43   of   2008.     The   said <\/p>\n
     Appeal came to be dismissed on 6\/9\/2008.  Hence, this Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
     6.              The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the <\/p>\n
     specific ground was raised before the Additional Commissioner that the <\/p>\n
     bill   that   had   been   issued,   is   not   due   on   the   date   when   it   has   been <\/p>\n
     issued.   Learned counsel further submits that said bill pertains to the <\/p>\n
     current year and it does not amount to be a bill due as contemplated <\/p>\n
     under   the   law.     Learned   counsel   further   submitted   that   the   house <\/p>\n
     belongs   to   his   brother   and   they   have   joint   family   and   petitioner   is <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
     residing at different place and, therefore, had no knowledge of the said <\/p>\n
     bill.   Learned counsel further submitted that the proper procedure in <\/p>\n
     regard to dis-qualification  proceedings under section  14-A of the Act <\/p>\n
     has not been properly followed.  Learned counsel further submitted that <\/p>\n
     the State of Maharashtra has issued Circular on 6\/4\/2006 prescribing <\/p>\n
     the procedure and said Circular has not been followed by the parties <\/p>\n
     while   dis-qualifying   the   present   petitioner.     Learned   counsel   further <\/p>\n
     submitted that the alleged bill had not been served on the petitioner as <\/p>\n
     required Under Section 129 (2) of the Act.  It is further submitted that <\/p>\n
     the   Order   of   dis-qualification   has   to   be   passed   by   the   Collector   as <\/p>\n
     required under section 16 (2) of the Act and in the instant matter, it has <\/p>\n
     been passed by the Additional Collector.   It is further argued that the <\/p>\n
     Appeal is required to be heard by the learned Commissioner , however, <\/p>\n
     notice   for   hearing   and   actual   hearing   has   taken   place   before   the <\/p>\n
     Additional   Commissioner   and,   therefore,   the   Order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
     Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction.   It is submitted that <\/p>\n
     the Additional Commissioner has not considered these important points <\/p>\n
     and the Appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed.  Learned counsel <\/p>\n
     further   submitted   that   the   alleged   bill   is   not   at   all   the   amount   due <\/p>\n
     towards  village panchayat on the   date of issuance of the bill.   It is <\/p>\n
     further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to <\/p>\n
     the petitioner by the authorities.\n<\/p>\n
                    Learned counsel further submitted that on 6\/9\/2008 when <\/p>\n
     Additional   Commissioner   passed   order,   said   order   was   without <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
     jurisdiction.  Learned counsel further invited my attention to Rule 8 of <\/p>\n
     the   Maharashtra   Village   Panchayat   Tax   and   Fees   Rules,   1960   and <\/p>\n
     submitted that the tax shall be leviable for the year beginning on 1st <\/p>\n
     April and ending on 31st March and  shall not come into force except on <\/p>\n
     the following dates, viz. 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January, in <\/p>\n
     any year and if it comes into force on any day other than the 1st April, it <\/p>\n
     shall be leviable by the quarter till the 1st April next following.   Learned <\/p>\n
     counsel further submitted that the composite bill of one year can not be <\/p>\n
     issued.   Learned counsel placed reliance on the reported Judgment of <\/p>\n
     this Court reported in 2006 (6) Mh. L.J. 13  Angha Ajit Bhatkar  V\/s  <\/p>\n
     State of Maharashtra and others.\n<\/p>\n
                    Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the Writ Petition <\/p>\n
     deserves   to   be   allowed.     Learned   counsel   relief   on   pleadings   in   the <\/p>\n
     petition and grounds therein in support of his contention.\n<\/p>\n
     7.             Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent   submitted <\/p>\n
     that this Court in L.P.A. No. 154 of 2008 in case of Namdeo Pandhare <\/p>\n
     V\/s  state of Maharashtra, in paragraph 5 it has held that in the light of <\/p>\n
     Section 182 (1)  of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, the delegation of <\/p>\n
     power by the State Govt.   either to the Commissioner or to any other <\/p>\n
     Officer to exercise any of the powers which may be exercised by the <\/p>\n
     State   Government   under   the   Bombay   Village   Panchayat   Act   can   be <\/p>\n
     conferred.   The Division Bench while hearing said L.P.A., has noticed <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
     the Judgment of this Court in case of  Atmaram Chapa Sandanshiv and <\/p>\n
     anr.  V\/s  Shamshadbi Bashir Shah Fakir and Ors. Reported in 2008 (3) <\/p>\n
     Mah.L.J. 906 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court  in case of Vijay <\/p>\n
     V\/s   State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 782 and after <\/p>\n
     hearing   the   parties,   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the   Additional <\/p>\n
     Commissioner is competent to decide the case.  Therefore, the learned <\/p>\n
     counsel would submit that the contention raised by the counsel for the <\/p>\n
     petitioner that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear <\/p>\n
     the Appeal filed by the petitioner, has no force.\n<\/p>\n
     8.             Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondent   no.   1   further <\/p>\n
     invited   my   attention   to   the   findings   recorded   by   the   Additional <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   and   submitted   that   the   Additional   Commissioner   has <\/p>\n
     recorded the finding that the house No. 332 is joint family property and <\/p>\n
     the petitioner’s   residence in voter’s list is shown as   House No. 332.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, learned counsel would submit that once both the authorities <\/p>\n
     have     come   to   the   conclusion   that   House   No.   332   is   joint   family <\/p>\n
     property, of which petitioner is a member and his address in the voter’s <\/p>\n
     list   is   shown   as   House   No.   332,   in   that   case,   this   Court   may   not <\/p>\n
     interfere   in   writ   jurisdiction   to   up   set   the   findings   recorded   by   the <\/p>\n
     authorities   below.     Learned   counsel   further   invited   my   attention   to <\/p>\n
     Section 14 (1) (h) explanation of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, <\/p>\n
     1958 and more particularly  (ii), which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
                    ” (ii) Failure  to  pay   any   tax   or  fee  due  to  the  <\/p>\n
                    panchayat by a member of an undivided Hindu  <\/p>\n
                    family, or by a person belonging  to a group of  <\/p>\n
                    unit, the members of which are by custom joint in  <\/p>\n
                    estate or residence, shall be deemed to disqualify  <\/p>\n
                    all members of such undivided Hindu family or as  <\/p>\n
                    the case may be all the members of such group or  <\/p>\n
                    unit “.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     9.<\/p>\n
                    Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 further submitted <\/p>\n
     that   Rule   8   of   the   Bombay   Village   Panchayat   Tax   and   Fees   Rules <\/p>\n
     provide that tax shall be leviable for the year beginning on 1st April and <\/p>\n
     ending on 31st March.  Therefore, learned counsel invited my attention <\/p>\n
     to page 11, which is demand notice for tax, which in foot note at Sr. <\/p>\n
     No. 1 shows that the Gram panchayat has demanded the outstanding <\/p>\n
     bills for 2005-2006 and further for the year 2006-2007.  Therefore, the <\/p>\n
     learned   counsel   for   respondent   no.   1   submitted   that   in   the   light   of <\/p>\n
     provisions   of   Rule   8   of   said   Rules,   said   demand   notice   for   bill,   is <\/p>\n
     perfectly sustainable.   Learned counsel further invited my attention to <\/p>\n
     the   reported   Judgment   of   this   Court   in   case   of  Gangubai   Laxman  <\/p>\n
     Bansode and others   V\/s State of Maharashtra and others reported  <\/p>\n
     in 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 619  and more particularly paragraph 11 of the <\/p>\n
     said Judgment and submitted that this Court has interpreted provisions <\/p>\n
     of Section 14 (1) (h) explanation (ii) and confirmed the view of the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
     Additional Collector in that case and, therefore, in this  case also the <\/p>\n
     authorities below have correctly interpreted   said Sections and under <\/p>\n
     Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interference by this Court is not <\/p>\n
     warranted.\n<\/p>\n
     10.            I have heard learned counsels appearing for the respective <\/p>\n
     parties,   also   perused   the   petition,   annexures   thereto   and   impugned <\/p>\n
     Judgment and Order of the Additional Commissioner.  The Collector as <\/p>\n
     well as the Additional Commissioner have recorded the findings of facts <\/p>\n
     that the house no. 332 situated within the limits of Gram Panchayat <\/p>\n
     Wadgaon   Mulane,   was   owned   by   father   of   the   petitioner\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     After the death of the father of petitioner, only name of the brother of <\/p>\n
     the petitioner was recorded as owner of the said house.   The present <\/p>\n
     petitioner filed complaint stating therein that since the house No. 332 is <\/p>\n
     joint family property and the petitioner has share in the said house and <\/p>\n
     his name should be entered in record.   On an application filed by the <\/p>\n
     petitioner and since the names of all legal heirs of the father of the <\/p>\n
     petitioner were not entered in the record, house no. 332 again came to <\/p>\n
     be recorded in the name of father of the petitioner.   It is also further <\/p>\n
     observed that the residential address of the petitioner in the voter’s list <\/p>\n
     is  shown   House   No.  332  and  in   view  of   the   fact  that  the   petitioner <\/p>\n
     being member of joint family, though notice was issued to the members <\/p>\n
     of the family, no tax bill has been deposited within prescribed time limit <\/p>\n
     and, therefore, the petitioner is disqualified under section 14 (1) (h) to <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
     continue as member of the Panchayat.   Therefore, it appears that this <\/p>\n
     finding is concurrent finding on facts recorded by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
     11.             So   far   first   contention   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner   that   the   Additional   Commissioner   has   no   power   or <\/p>\n
     jurisdiction to decide the Appeal, has no force in view of the Judgment <\/p>\n
     of this Court in L.P.A. No. 154 of 2008 dated 11\/9\/2008.  So far second <\/p>\n
     contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is resident <\/p>\n
     of Pachora and to that extent, ration card is issued in his name and, <\/p>\n
     therefore, he is not residing in house no. 332 and said house   is the <\/p>\n
     property belonging to his brother, can not be accepted in view of the <\/p>\n
     concurrent   findings   on   facts   recorded   by   the   Collector   as   well   as <\/p>\n
     Additional Commissioner as stated herein above.  The third contention <\/p>\n
     of the learned counsel for the petitioner on interpretation of Rule 8, has <\/p>\n
     no   force   since   it   clearly   appears   that   the   demand   notice     is   in <\/p>\n
     consonance with provisions of Rule 8 of the Bombay Village Panchayat <\/p>\n
     Act and Rules.  It clearly appears on perusal of Rule 8 of the said Rules <\/p>\n
     that the bill for whole year can be issued, that too, in advance.  Though <\/p>\n
     the learned counsel has placed reliance on the reported Judgment of <\/p>\n
     this Court in case of Angha Ajit Bhatkar  V\/s  State of Maharashtra and <\/p>\n
     others reported in 2007 (3) Bom. C.R. 865, it clearly appears that the <\/p>\n
     facts   of   that   case   are  different.     In   that   case,  the   tax   bill   served   on <\/p>\n
     petitioner   therein,   were   not   lawfully   due.     In   the   instant   case, <\/p>\n
     authorities   below   have   clearly   held   that   the   tax   amount   was   due <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
     towards the joint family residing in house no. 332 of village Wadgaon <\/p>\n
     Mulane.   I find considerable substance in the arguments advanced by <\/p>\n
     the learned counsel for the respondent that the present case squarely <\/p>\n
     falls under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (h) explanation (ii).   The <\/p>\n
     reliance placed by the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 on reported <\/p>\n
     Judgment of this Court in Gangubai’s case (cited supra), in the facts of <\/p>\n
     this case, is also relevant.\n<\/p>\n
     12.           Therefore, taking over-all view of the matter and in view of <\/p>\n
     the   fact   that   the   authorities   below   have   taken   a   reasonable   and <\/p>\n
     plausible   view   and   have   arrived   at   correct   conclusion.     Therefore, <\/p>\n
     interference under extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article <\/p>\n
     227 of the Constitution of India, is not warranted.   Rule discharged.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed.  Interim relief stands vacated.  Civil <\/p>\n
     Application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of main Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    [  S.S.SHINDE  ]
\n                                                                           JUDGE
\n     knp\/WP6247.08<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:04:07 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 Bench: S. S. Shinde 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6247 OF 2008 Shri. Ajitsingh Bhimsingh Deore } Age : 50 Years, Occ. : Agriculture, } R\/o : Wadgaon […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177770","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAge : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - 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\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-12T01:38:19+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\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T01:38:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2122,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-12T01:38:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - 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\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-12T01:38:19+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\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T01:38:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009"},"wordCount":2122,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009","name":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-12T01:38:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-50-years-vs-state-of-maharashtra-and-others-on-11-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Age : 50 Years vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 September, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/177770","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=177770"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177770\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177770"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177770"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177770"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}