{"id":181649,"date":"2008-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-06T09:02:57","modified_gmt":"2018-01-06T03:32:57","slug":"state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/682\/2003\t 7\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 682 of 2003\n \n\nin\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10587 of 2002\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No.3270 of 2003 \n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE  \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nSMT.JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\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\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIPAK\nKUMAR MOHANBHAI JADAV &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMS\nSANGEETA VISHEN, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR IS SUPEHIA for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED 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 A.L.DAVE\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellant-State is aggrieved by an order passed by the learned<br \/>\n\tSingle Judge in Special Civil Application No.10587 of 2002 on 22nd<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 2003. The said petition was preferred by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 aggrieved by the action on the part of the appellant of not<br \/>\n\tgranting compassionate appointment to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfacts of the case can be stated thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfather of respondent No.1 was serving as a Driver with Taluka<br \/>\n\tDevelopment Officer at Rajkot. He expired on September 20, 1995,<br \/>\n\twhile in harness. The respondent No.1 therefore applied for grant of<br \/>\n\tan appointment on compassionate ground by application dated 6th<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 1999, which was rejected by the appellant-authority<br \/>\n\tconsidering the relevant Circulars\/ Resolutions of the Government.<br \/>\n\tHe again applied for the post on 8th January, 2001. Since<br \/>\n\tthere was no reply, he preferred Special Civil Application No.10587<br \/>\n\tof 2002 which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by an<br \/>\n\torder dated 22nd January, 2003. This order has aggrieved<br \/>\n\tthe appellant-authority and hence this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tAssistant Government Pleader Ms.Sangeeta Vishen submitted that the<br \/>\n\tcase of respondent No.1 could not be favourably considered by the<br \/>\n\tappellant because his case did not fall within the income criteria<br \/>\n\tfixed by the Government by various Resolutions and Circulars. The<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge has taken a view that while considering income<br \/>\n\tcriteria, income received by way of family pension is required to be<br \/>\n\texcluded from the income of the family  and if that was done, the<br \/>\n\tfamily income of the respondent No.1 would be below the criteria<br \/>\n\tfixed, making the case of respondent No.1 fall within the parameters<br \/>\n\tfor consideration for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.<br \/>\n\tHowever, Ms.Vishen submitted that this aspect has been considered in<br \/>\n\tdetail by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J.N.Bhatt &amp;<br \/>\n\tKundan Singh, JJ.) while dealing with Letters Patent Appeal No.97 of<br \/>\n\t2002 with allied matters, by judgment dated 31st March,<br \/>\n\t2003. Ms.Vishen submitted that it is clearly observed in the said<br \/>\n\tdecision that it is for the Government to fix the parameters for<br \/>\n\tconsidering the cases for compassionate appointment and the Court<br \/>\n\tmay not interfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India in such a situation. She submitted further<br \/>\n\tthat the cut-off date fixed by the Government has also been upheld<br \/>\n\tby the Division Bench by the said judgment. It is, therefore,<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the Appeal may be allowed and the order of the<br \/>\n\tlearned Single Judge may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr.I.S.Supehia for the respondent No.1 has opposed this<br \/>\n\tAppeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave considered rival side submissions. It is clear that the case of<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 was rejected on income criteria. The income limit<br \/>\n\tfixed for the family income was Rs.2,500\/- per month with effect<br \/>\n\tfrom 1st January, 1995, and in the case of respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1, the family income was more than that, if the amount of family<br \/>\n\tpension received was taken into consideration. Therefore, the<br \/>\n\tquestion that falls for consideration is whether the view taken by<br \/>\n\tthe appellant-authority is correct? We find that the said view is<br \/>\n\ttaken on the basis of the Circulars and Resolutions issued by the<br \/>\n\tGovernment from time to time.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave gone through a copy of the judgment rendered by the Division<br \/>\n\tBench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.97 of 2002 dated<br \/>\n\t31st March, 2002, wherein in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, it<br \/>\n\thas been observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>       ?S21. As it  is  a  question  of law, that question of law              \tcan be raised at any stage, even before the Supreme Court<br \/>\n      also.  The decisions of the learned Single Judges of this<br \/>\n      Court  are  against  the  instructions,  rules and policy<br \/>\n      framed by the Government regarding the income limit which<br \/>\n      are against the decisions of  the  Supreme  Court.    The<br \/>\n      learned  Single  Judges  are  not  entitled to bypass the<br \/>\n      relevant instructions, rules and  policy  framed  by  the<br \/>\n      State  Government  regarding  employment  on the basis of<br \/>\n      compassionate ground wherein the income of family pension<br \/>\n      has also been included.  It is  complete  domain  of  the<br \/>\n      State  Government  over the policies that can be changed,<br \/>\n      modified and altered from time to time.  This Court under<br \/>\n      Article  226  of  the  Constitution  cannot  direct   the<br \/>\n      authorities  of  the  State Government to ignore or relax<br \/>\n      the family pension under the instructions and to consider<br \/>\n      the  applications  for  appointments   on   compassionate<br \/>\n      ground.   If  the instructions, rules or policy prescribe<br \/>\n      certain income limit including  the  family  pension  per<br \/>\n      incuriam  that  condition cannot be overlooked or ignored<br \/>\n      by this Court as held by the Supreme Court in  the  cases<br \/>\n      referred to   above.     As  such,  the  income  criteria<br \/>\n      mentioned in the instructions and policy  framed  by  the<br \/>\n      State  Government,  this  Court cannot interfere with the<br \/>\n      same and cannot direct the authorities concerned  of  the<br \/>\n      State   Government   contrary   to  the  income  criteria<br \/>\n      mentioned in the instructions and policy  framed  by  the<br \/>\n      State  Government  even  though  those  instructions  and<br \/>\n      policy or resolution or circular etc.    are  not  framed<br \/>\n      under  any  statutory Rules under Articles 309 and 162 of<br \/>\n      the Constitution  of  India  as  the  Supreme  Court  has<br \/>\n      directed  that  those  instructions  and policy should be<br \/>\n      adhered and followed.  This  Court  has  no  jurisdiction<br \/>\n      even   to   dispense   with   the  income  criteria  with<br \/>\n      retrospective effect prior to 1-1-1996 as provided by the<br \/>\n      resolution dated 10-3-2000.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      22.\tConsidering the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the<br \/>\n      case,  submissions  made  by  the learned counsel for the<br \/>\n      parties, decisions of the Supreme Court  and  this  Court<br \/>\n      referred  to  hereinabove  and the material on record, we<br \/>\n      are constrained to hold that this Court cannot ignore  or<br \/>\n      strike  down the terms and conditions of the instructions<br \/>\n      and the policy framed by the State Government  from  time<br \/>\n      to  time regarding the income criteria for appointment on<br \/>\n      compassionate ground.  As such, all  the  Letters  Patent<br \/>\n      Appeal  are allowed and the impugned judgments and orders<br \/>\n      of the learned Single Judges rendered  in  the  concerned<br \/>\n      petitions are  hereby  quashed  and set aside.  The above<br \/>\n      numbered petitions are dismissed and rule issued  therein<br \/>\n      stand  discharged  subject to our observations hereafter,<br \/>\n      with no order as to costs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      23.\tHowever, in  L.P.A.   No.  344 of 2002 the  learned<br \/>\n      counsel   for  the  respondent  original  petitioners  of<br \/>\n      Special Civil Application No.  11416  of  2000  contended<br \/>\n      that the the appellant authority committed grave error in<br \/>\n      calculating  the  family income of the deceased employee,<br \/>\n      the income of grand father has also  been  included  such<br \/>\n      income  of  grand  father  cannot  be included as per any<br \/>\n      norms or guide lines  or  terms  and  conditions  of  the<br \/>\n      Policy  \/  instructions as such this Court is required to<br \/>\n      direct the authority concerned to reconsider the case  of<br \/>\n      the  respondent\/original  petitioner excluding the income<br \/>\n      of grand father.  Such  prayer  does  not  appear  to  be<br \/>\n      unreasonable.   It  is  also submitted that in some of he<br \/>\n      cases mentioned above, the respondents have been provided<br \/>\n      employment in compliance with the orders of  the  learned<br \/>\n      Single Judges of this Court, they should not be disturbed<br \/>\n      even  the  judgments of the learned Single Judges are not<br \/>\n      sustained.??\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis thus clear that the decision by the appellant-authority was<br \/>\n\twell-founded and did not call for any interference by entertaining<br \/>\n\tthe petition, as has been done by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>Compassionate<br \/>\n\tappointment is not a matter of right and the Government may fix<br \/>\n\tcriteria for the purpose as a matter of policy and once that is<br \/>\n\tdone, judicial review thereof would not be warranted unless policy<br \/>\n\tis not properly followed. In the light of what is observed by<br \/>\n\tearlier Division Bench, with which view we also concur, the Appeal<br \/>\n\tmerits acceptance. It is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 22nd<br \/>\n\tJanuary, 2003, passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No.10587 of 2002 is hereby set aside. There shall be no<br \/>\n\torder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication No.3270 of 2003 is disposed of in the light of dismissal<br \/>\n\tof the Appeal. Notice is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(A.L.Dave,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.Abhilasha<br \/>\nKumari, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(sunil)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 Author: A.L.Dave,&amp;Nbsp;Honble Smt. Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/682\/2003 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 682 of 2003 in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10587 of 2002 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3270 of 2003 For [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-06T03:32:57+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T03:32:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1333,\"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\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\",\"name\":\"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T03:32:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Dipak on 8 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":"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-06T03:32:57+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T03:32:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008"},"wordCount":1333,"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\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008","name":"State vs Dipak on 8 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T03:32:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-dipak-on-8-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Dipak on 8 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\/181649","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=181649"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181649\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}