{"id":177984,"date":"2008-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-28T03:12:54","modified_gmt":"2016-09-27T21:42:54","slug":"subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                              1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n                NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n             WRIT PETITION NO. 2209 OF 2008\n\n\n\n    1. Subhash s\/o Rambhau Doifode,\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n       Agriculruist, r\/o Anhera,\n       Tah. Deulgaon Raja.\n                    \n    2. Bhanudas Pundlik Sanap,\n                   \n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n\n    3. Prabhakar Punjaji Munde,\n        Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n      \n\n\n    4. Sk. Babbu Sk. Kadar,\n   \n\n\n\n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n\n    5. Sheshrao Sakharam Kayande,\n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n\n\n\n\n\n    6. Sau. Dropadabai Ramesh Sanap,\n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n\n    7. Sau. Kalpana Ravindra Ingle,\n\n\n\n\n\n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n\n    8. Sau. Shantabai Dadarao Doifode,\n       Member, Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n       Tah. Deulgaon Raja,\n       District Buldana.               ... PETITIONERS.\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::\n                                    2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                 VERSUS -\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n              \n\n\n\n\n    1. The Additional Commissioner,\n        Amravati Division, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n    2. The Additional Collector,\n        Buldana.\n\n    3. Tahsildar, Deulgaon Raja.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    4. Secretary,\n                      \n       Gram Panchayat, Andhera,.\n                     \n    5. Santosh Gunaji Nagare,\n       Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Andhera,\n\n    6. Sau. Vandana Gajanan Tejankar.\n      \n\n\n    7. Sau. Ranjana Madhav Sanap\n   \n\n\n\n    8. Ravindra Sukhdeo Sanap\n       All members of Gram Panchayat Andhera,\n       Tah. Deulgaon Raja,\n\n\n\n\n\n       District Buldana.             ... RESPONDENTS.\n\n                       .....\n    Mr.R.N. Ghuge Advocate for the Petitioners.\n    Mrs. S.S. Wandile , A.G.P., for Respondents 1 to 3.\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr. P.B. Patil Advocate for Respondent no.5.\n                       .,...\n\n                      CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.\n                      RESERVED ON : 24.07.2008.\n                      PRONOUNCED ON : 13.08.2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::\n                                      3\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n    JUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
               Rule.      Heard forthwith by consent of learned<\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   parties.       Heard   Mr.Ghuge           for     the<\/p>\n
    petitioners, Mrs.Wandile, A.G.P., for respondents 1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
    Mr.Patil for respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         This writ petition is directed against the order<\/p>\n
    dated 5.2.2008 passed by the Additional Commissioner,<\/p>\n
    Amravati Division, Amravati, dismissing the appeal filed<\/p>\n
    under the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, confirming the<\/p>\n
    order of Additional Collector, Buldana, setting aside the<\/p>\n
    motion of no confidence.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         Petitioners are the elected members of Gram<\/p>\n
    Panchayat Andhera comprising out 12 members. Out of 12<\/p>\n
    members, seven members issued notice dated 11.7.2007 to<\/p>\n
    the Tahsildar Deulgaon Raja for moving a motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence against respondent no.5- Sarpanch.                           The<\/p>\n
    Tahsildar issued a notice of special meeting for considering<\/p>\n
    the motion of no confidence against respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Respondent no.5 avoided to accept the said notice dated<\/p>\n
    11.7.2007 and the meeting was convened on 17.7.2007 at<\/p>\n
    2-00 p.m.   Therefore, the concerned Talathi affixed the<\/p>\n
    notice on the door of the house of respondent no.5 in<\/p>\n
    presence of two witnesses.   On 17.7.2007 nine members<\/p>\n
    out of twelve, attended the meeting and motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence was passed against respondent no.5 by ratio of<\/p>\n
    8 : 1. Respondent no. 5 filed a dispute under Section 35 of<\/p>\n
    the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 before the<\/p>\n
    Collector and challenged the validity of the motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence mainly on the ground that there was no proper<\/p>\n
    service of notice on him. In support of his case, he filed<\/p>\n
    affidavit dated 3.8.2007 of the panch witnesses who stated<\/p>\n
    that the notice was not affixed at the door of the house of<\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 and their signatures were taken by the<\/p>\n
    Talathi near the bus stand.       Subsequently the same<\/p>\n
    witnesses had sworn in affidavit dated 13.8.2007 affirming<\/p>\n
    that the notices were served in their presence by affixing<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the same on the house of respondent no.5. The Additional<\/p>\n
    Collector accepted the      affidavits filed by the panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses first in point of time and held that there was no<\/p>\n
    proper service of notice in accordance with law and<\/p>\n
    therefore the motion of no confidence was vitiated.                The<\/p>\n
    appeal preferred by the petitioners before the Additional<\/p>\n
    Collector came to be dismissed. Hence this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         Mr.Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioners,<\/p>\n
    argued that the courts below erred in merely relying upon<\/p>\n
    the affidavits dated 3.8.2007 filed by the panch witnesses<\/p>\n
    only on the ground that those affidavits being first in point<\/p>\n
    of time were required to be given preference to the<\/p>\n
    subsequent affidavit dated 13.8.2007 in which the version<\/p>\n
    was to the contrary.   He further argued that respondent<\/p>\n
    no.5 who filed the dispute, vaguely stated in the dispute<\/p>\n
    petition about the ground on which ultimately both the<\/p>\n
    impugned decisions have been taken.                The dispute<\/p>\n
    therefore clearly suffered from the vice of inappropriate and<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    inadequate pleadings and therefore filing of affidavits on<\/p>\n
    3.8.2007 and acceptance thereof by the courts below is<\/p>\n
    absurd. He then argued that respondent no.5 having lost<\/p>\n
    the majority had absolutely no cause or reason to cling to<\/p>\n
    the office of Sarpanch when eight members out of 12 voted<\/p>\n
    against him. It cannot be believed that he did not know<\/p>\n
    about the proposed meeting of 17.7.2007 during the six<\/p>\n
    days, i.e. from the date of notice 11.7.2007 to 17.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n
    He, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
    4.         Per contra, Mrs.Wandile, A.G.P., supported the<\/p>\n
    impugned order.       Mr. P.S. Patil, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
    respondent no.5, vehemently opposed the writ petition and<\/p>\n
    invited my attention to Rule 7 of the Bombay Village<\/p>\n
    Panchayats (Meetings) Rules, 1959.       The said Rule is<\/p>\n
    quoted below :\n<\/p>\n
           “Every notice under these rules shall, if
\n           practicable,    be   served   personally         by
\n           delivering or tendering it to the member to
\n           whom it is addressed or such person is not<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
           found, by giving it or tendering it to an adult
\n           male member of his family who is residing<\/p>\n
           with him.    If there is no such person to
\n           whom notice can be given or tendered or<\/p>\n
           where the member, or as the case may be, in
\n           his absence such adult male member, is
\n           present but refuses to accept the notice, it<\/p>\n
           shall be served by affixing it, in the presence<\/p>\n
           of two witnesses, on the outer door or some
\n           other conspicuous part of the house in<\/p>\n
           which the member ordinarily resides.                  If
\n           none of the aforesaid modes of serving notice
\n           is feasible, the notice shall be affixed, in the<\/p>\n
           presence    of   two   witnesses,      on       some<\/p>\n
           conspicuous part of the house in which the
\n           member is known to have resided or carried
\n           on business or personally worked for gain.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5.         Relying on this Rule, Mr.Patil argued that the<\/p>\n
    notice shall be delivered personally to the member or the<\/p>\n
    person concerned. If he is not found then the same has to<\/p>\n
    be tendered to the adult male member of the family. If no<\/p>\n
    such person is available then the same shall be affixed in<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the presence of two witnesses on the outer door of the<\/p>\n
    house on the conspicuous part of the house. On the basis<\/p>\n
    of this provision, he argued that neither the concerned<\/p>\n
    Talathi nor the petitioners have showed that any attempt<\/p>\n
    was made to serve the notice on a adult member in the<\/p>\n
    family. There is no report to that effect. He argued that the<\/p>\n
    evidence of two panch witnesses in the form of affidavits<\/p>\n
    dated 3.8.2007 clearly show that no such notice was at all<\/p>\n
    affixed in their presence and those affidavits being first in<\/p>\n
    point of time, no fault could be found out with the courts<\/p>\n
    below to ignore the subsequent affidavits filed after ten<\/p>\n
    days by them to the contrary. These findings of fact cannot<\/p>\n
    be examined in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He then<\/p>\n
    argued that not only respondent no.5 but other persons,<\/p>\n
    i.e. no. 6 to 8 were also similarly not served with the notice<\/p>\n
    of the meeting.   He relied on the decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
    Sou. Indubai w\/o Vedu Khairnar v. State of Maharashtra<\/a><\/p>\n
    reported in 2002(4) ALL MR 110 (ii) 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 420<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
    and (iii) Rachapalli Abbulu v. State of A.P.<\/a> – AIR 2002 SC<\/p>\n
    1805.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           I have gone through the copy of dispute<\/p>\n
    reference that was filed before the Collector by respondent<\/p>\n
    no.5.    The dispute does not narrate any facts.            The only<\/p>\n
    ground taken in the dispute in respect of which arguments<\/p>\n
    have been advanced before me, is numbered 6 and reads<\/p>\n
    thus :\n<\/p>\n
               “Further more there is no proper service of
\n               the notices served upon the respective<\/p>\n
               members inclusive of the petitioner as a
\n               result of which for infraction of mandatory<\/p>\n
               Rules and Principles of natural justice, the
\n               motion is vitiated.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6.           In my opinion, the proceedings of dispute being<\/p>\n
    of plenary in nature, at the most minimum required<\/p>\n
    adequate and appropriate facts ought to be pleaded in<\/p>\n
    support of the dispute.           Respondent no.5 being the<\/p>\n
    disputant, who challenged the motion of no confidence<\/p>\n
    against him, was bound to discharge the initial burden of<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:23 :::<\/span>
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
    proof and that could not be done by inadequate and<\/p>\n
    inappropriate pleadings or on a vague ground, that is<\/p>\n
    ground no.6. The evidence may be in the form of affidavit,<\/p>\n
    or as the case may be, could well be appreciated in the light<\/p>\n
    of the pleadings of the parties. In the instant case, there is<\/p>\n
    no foundation in the form of minimum required pleadings<\/p>\n
    and consequently respondent no.5 failed discharge initial<\/p>\n
    burden of proof.    In order to appreciate the contention<\/p>\n
    raised by Mr.Patil that there is violation of Rule 7 relating<\/p>\n
    to service of notice of meeting, I find that there is no<\/p>\n
    pleading whatsoever that the adult member from the house<\/p>\n
    of respondent no.5 was present in the house and still there<\/p>\n
    was no attempt to tender it to such adult member.                    No<\/p>\n
    affidavit or evidence of any adult member of the house, who<\/p>\n
    according to respondent no.5 was present in the house,<\/p>\n
    was filed or adduced      before the Collector nor such a<\/p>\n
    person was put to the test of cross-examination.            There is<\/p>\n
    no pleading    or   explanation on    record as          to     where<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 had gone from 11.7.2007 to 17.7.2007. It<\/p>\n
    is not his case that he did not return to his village or house<\/p>\n
    from 11.7.2007 to 17.7.2007 or that he never noticed the<\/p>\n
    said notice of meeting affixed on the outer door of his<\/p>\n
    house. It is not his case that such notice was not at all<\/p>\n
    pasted on his house. On preponderance of probabilities, it<\/p>\n
    is difficult to believe that respondent no.5- Sarpanch of the<\/p>\n
    village for no cause or reason would remain absent from a<\/p>\n
    small village during this period of six days.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           The only evidence relied on by respondent no.5<\/p>\n
    is in the form of affidavit dated 3.8.2007 of the two panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses. But it cannot be forgotten that the same panch<\/p>\n
    witnesses after ten days filed affidavits to the contrary. It is<\/p>\n
    difficult to understand as to how the courts below chose to<\/p>\n
    rely upon such panch witnesses who had no regard for the<\/p>\n
    truth who went on filing contrary affidavits in a span of ten<\/p>\n
    days. To say the least, the testimony of such witnesses in<\/p>\n
    the   form    of   affidavits   was   wholly    unreliable           and<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
    untrustworthy and ought to have been outrightly rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    There was no other evidence placed by respondent no.5 in<\/p>\n
    support of his case.   No affidavit of other persons, i.e.<\/p>\n
    respondents 6 to 8 were filed on record in respect of whom<\/p>\n
    respondent no.5 claimed that they also did not receive the<\/p>\n
    notices. Evidence of said persons was also not tendered. I<\/p>\n
    do not want to convey that strict rules of pleadings are<\/p>\n
    required to be followed in such cases. But the case in hand<\/p>\n
    suffers from vice of absence of minimum pleadings to<\/p>\n
    enable the authorities below to appreciate the pleadings as<\/p>\n
    well as evidence    tendered before it.     Such cases are<\/p>\n
    ultimately to be decided on preponderance of probabilities.\n<\/p>\n
    In my opinion, this is manifest error which the authorities<\/p>\n
    below have committed and writ jurisdiction can certainly<\/p>\n
    be exercised to correct such basic errors. The motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence was passed by eight member out of 12 against<\/p>\n
    respondent no.5, i.e. by 2\/3rd majority and it could not be<\/p>\n
    set aside on such flimsy ground raised by respondent no.5.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
    The decision cited by Mr.Patil in the case of Sou. Indubai is<\/p>\n
    clearly distinguishable on facts and is not even nearer to<\/p>\n
    the instant case on facts. As regards the decision in AIR<\/p>\n
    2002 SC 1805, supra, in my opinion, the same will have no<\/p>\n
    application because respondent no.5 was duly served but<\/p>\n
    he himself took the risk of not attending the meeting of no<\/p>\n
    confidence motion. In the result, I find that the impugned<\/p>\n
    orders are illegal. Hence the following order.\n<\/p>\n
    8.         Writ petition is allowed.     Impugned orders are<\/p>\n
    quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of<\/p>\n
    prayer (i) and (ii) of writ petition.    Respondent no.3 is<\/p>\n
    directed to hold election to the post of Sarnpanch, Gram<\/p>\n
    Panchayat, Andhera, immediately. Respondent no.5 shall<\/p>\n
    pay the costs of Rs.5,000\/- (Rs. Five thousands only) to the<\/p>\n
    petitioners within four weeks from today. Rule accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:24 :::<\/span>
\n             14<\/span><\/p>\n
    \/TA\/<\/p>\n
                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:41:24 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R. WRIT PETITION NO. 2209 OF 2008 1. Subhash s\/o Rambhau Doifode, Agriculruist, r\/o Anhera, Tah. Deulgaon Raja. 2. Bhanudas Pundlik Sanap, […]<\/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-177984","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 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\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-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=\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-27T21:42:54+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\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T21:42:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1886,\"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\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-27T21:42:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 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":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 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\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-27T21:42:54+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\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T21:42:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008"},"wordCount":1886,"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\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008","name":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-27T21:42:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhash-vs-the-additional-commissioner-on-13-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhash vs The Additional Commissioner on 13 August, 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\/177984","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=177984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}