{"id":188335,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-14T19:37:39","modified_gmt":"2016-02-14T14:07:39","slug":"agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4132\/2010\t 12\/ 14\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 4132 of 2010\n \n\n=====================================================\n \n\nAGRICULTURE\nPRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPUTY\nSECRETARY(APPEALS) AGRICULTURE & CO OPERATION DEP & 3 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMr.Mihir\nJoshi,learned Senior Advocate with MR Dipan A\nDesai for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMr.Himanshu K.Patel,learned\nASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents Nos.1,3 and 4\n \n\nMR\nVC VAGHELA for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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\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: 07\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tThis
\npetition challenges order dated 31-3-2010 passed by respondent No.1
\nin Revision Application No.85 of 2010 whereby Resolution No.2 dated
\n27-2-2010, passed by the Licence Sub-Committee (petitioner No.2) of
\npetitioner No.1 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Junagadh,
\ngranting\/renewing 294 licences,has been stayed.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tMr.Mihir
\nJoshi,learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Dipan A.Desai,learned counsel
\nfor the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by
\nrespondent No.1 is illegal,arbitrary and contrary to the settled
\nposition of law inasmuch as, the authority has stayed the Resolution
\nof the petitioner No.2-Sub-Committee without recording any finding to
\nthe effect that the petitioners have no prima facie case in their
\nfavour or that the said licences have been granted with a view to
\ninflate the voters’ list. Further, the impugned order does not
\ncontain any finding to the effect that   a procedural breach or
\nillegality has been committed   by the petitioner No.2 while
\ngranting\/renewing the said licences. It is contended by the learned
\nSenior Advocate, that there is no finding on merits in the impugned
\norder regarding grant\/renewal of licences, which would go to show
\nthat the petitioners do not have a prima facie case, but even in the
\nabsence of  such a finding the authority has thought it fit to stay
\nthe Resolution granting licences to 294 persons.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThe
\nlearned Senior Advocate has further contended that the impugned order
\nhas been passed in purported reliance upon the judgment of a Division
\nBench of this Court, in Shrutbandhu H.Popat v. State of Gujarat,
\nreported in 2007(3)
\nGLR 1942,  without taking
\ninto consideration that the ratio of the said judgment turns upon the
\npeculiar facts of that case.  Even otherwise, it is not disputed that
\nthe Court has held in the said judgment, that licences could not have
\nbeen granted  after the date of declaration of elections. In the
\npresent case, as is evident from communication dated 26-2-2010 of the
\nDirector, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance  ( Director,AMRF
\nfor short) to the Chairman\/Secretary of petitioner No.1-Agriculture
\nProduce Market Committee, the date of declaration of elections is
\n3-3-2010, which is further fortified by the Election Programme issued
\nby the Director, AMRF, annexed as Annexure  F  collectively,
\nwherein the date of declaration of elections is stated to be
\n3-3-2010. The learned Senior Advocate has urged that  it cannot,
\ntherefore, be contended by the respondents, that the Resolution No.2
\npassed on 27-2-2010, has been passed after the date of declaration of
\n elections. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that
\nthe judgment in Shrutbandhu H.Popat v. State of
\nGujarat(Supra) has been misread
\nand misapplied in a mechanical manner by the Authority passing the
\nimpugned order,without taking into consideration
\nthe facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tIt
\nis further contended on behalf of the petitioners, that in the
\nRevision Application filed by respondent No.2, there is no specific
\nallegation that the petitioners have deliberately issued licences in
\na fraudulent manner, with  a view to inflate the voters’ list and
\neven  otherwise, such a contention  could  only have been examined at
\nthe time of final hearing of the Revision Application, after looking
\ninto the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThe
\nlearned Senior Advocate has contended that  the notice of the
\nRevision Application was issued to the petitioners on 19-3-2010 and
\nthe next date of hearing was fixed on 23-3-2010. On that date the
\nadvocate for the petitioner No.1-Market Committee filed his
\nappearance and sought time to file a  reply. The matter was kept  on
\n30-3-2010, on which date the reply was filed, but as the regular
\nDeputy Secretary was not available, the hearing was kept on
\n31-3-2010. However,on 31-3-2010 as well,  the regular Deputy
\nSecretary was not available, and as the petitioner No.1-Market
\nCommittee was under the impression
\nthat the matter would not be proceeded with,the record was not kept
\npresent. However, the Incharge Deputy Secretary not only heard the
\nmatter on 31-3-2010, but also refused to grant a day’s adjournment
\nfor production of the record,on the prayer of the petitioner
\nNo.1-Market Committee. It is in the above circumstances that the
\nimpugned order has been passed on 31-3-2010 in hot haste, after
\noffice hours at about 7.30 PM to 8.0 PM. The learned counsel for the
\npetitioners has further submitted that respondent No.2, who has filed
\nthe Revision Application, has not joined the persons who have been
\ngranted licences by Resolution No.2 as parties to the Revision
\nApplication even though they are directly and adversely affected, and
\nthe impugned order has been passed behind their backs. Even though
\nthis objection was taken before the revisional Authority, the same
\nwas not considered and the order staying the Resolution has been
\npassed first,and thereafter a direction has been given  to join  the
\npersons who have been granted licences by the petitioner No.1-Market
\nCommittee.  The respondent No.2 has been directed to do so by
\npublication of a notice in two leading daily newspapers. However,
\ntill date the affected
\npersons  have not been joined and the notices published by respondent
\nNo.2 only state that persons who are interested in the litigation may
\napply for being joined,before 9-4-2010, which is the  date on which
\nthe hearing of the Revision Application has been kept. The learned
\nSenior Advocate has forcefully contended that by passing the
\nimpugned order without hearing the affected parties, the respondent
\nNo.1 has adopted a procedure unknown to law and has committed a
\nserious breach of the principles of natural justice. Not only that,
\nbut even one day’s adjournment for production of the record has not
\nbeen granted, though one of the grounds for passing impugned order is
\nthat the record is not available for scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tIt
\nis further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that respondent
\nNo.2 has filed the Revision Application under the provisions of
\nSection 48 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act,1963 ( the
\nAct  for short) whereas the remedy  lies under Section 27 of the
\nAct in view of the judgment in Shrutbandhu H.Popat v. State
\nof Gujarat (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
2.5\tIt
\nis, therefore, submitted that on the above grounds, the petition may
\nbe admitted, and the impugned order stayed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nadmission of the petition and grant of interim relief has been
\nstrongly  opposed by Mr.V.C.Vaghela, learned counsel for respondent
\nNo.2. It is submitted by  him that there is a tendency in the State
\nof Gujarat that on the eve of elections,a large number of licences
\nare granted to persons by Agriculture Produce Market Committees in
\norder to inflate the voters’ list, so that the other persons do not
\nget sufficient time to challenge the grant of licences. In the
\npresent case,  294 licences have been granted by Resolution No.2
\ndated 27-2-2010 by petitioner No.2-Sub-committee of petitioner
\nNo.1-Market Committee, in order to inflate the voters’ list in a mala
\nfide manner.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\tIt
\nis further submitted that under the provisions of Section 48 of the
\nAct, the State Government has wide powers and any Resolution of an
\nAgriculture Produce Market Committee can be challenged. As respondent
\nNo.2 has challenged the Resolution
\nof the petitioner No.1-Market Committee, there is no need to join the
\npersons who  have been granted licences as the Market Committee has
\nbeen joined. It is contended by Mr.V.C.Vaghela that even otherwise,
\nrespondent No.2 does not know  the names or addresses of the persons
\nwho have been granted licences, as those are not mentioned in the
\nResolution,therefore, it is not possible to  join them as parties to
\nthe Revision Application. It is further submitted that now, two
\nnotices have been published in two leading daily newspapers on
\n2-4-2010, and all persons who are interested in the litigation have
\nbeen asked to make applications for joining as parties in the
\nRevision Application, before 9-4-2010.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\tThe
\nlearned counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that the
\ncommunication dated 26-2-2010 of the Director,AMRF to the petitioner
\nNo.1-Market Committee, whereby the proposed Election Programme has
\nbeen communicated, should be taken to be the date of declaration of
\nelections and in that  view of the matter,  Resolution No.2, which
\nhas been passed on 27-2-2010, is after the date of declaration.
\n It is emphasised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that
\ncommunication dated 26-2-2010 by which the proposed Election
\nProgramme has been communicated,has rightly been considered to be the
\ndate of declaration of election,therefore, the stay  granted by
\nrespondent No.1 by passing the impugned order is perfectly legal and
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
3.3\tThe
\nlearned counsel for  respondent No.2  has further submitted that it
\nwas known to the petitioner No.1-Market Committee that the record was
\nto be kept ready, as this aspect was communicated to it on 19-3-2010,
\non which date notice was issued, therefore, it cannot be said that
\neven one day’s time was not given for production of the record. In
\nfact, the petitioners have deliberately not kept the record ready.\n<\/p>\n
3.4\tEven
\nthough respondent No.2 has issued a public notice in two newspapers,
\nthe petitioners may be directed to provide a list of the persons who
\nhave been granted licences,if the Court comes to the conclusion that
\nthe said persons ought to be joined, and the same can be done by
\n9-4-2010, which is the next
\ndate of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
3.5\tIt
\nis further contended that the affected persons have not approached
\nthe Court or made any grievance and it is only the petitioner
\nNo.1-Market Committee and petitioner No.2-Sub-Committee, who have
\nfiled the petition and raised such a grievance,therefore, for the
\nabove reasons,the petition may not be admitted or  interim relief
\ngranted.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tMr.Himanshu
\nK.Patel,learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
\nrespondents Nos.1,3 and 4 has supported the stand taken by the
\nlearned counsel for respondent No.2 by submitting that, in spite of
\nnotice dated 19-3-2010  informing the petitioner-Market Committee to
\nkeep the record present on the next date of hearing, the same was not
\nkept present and the observation to this effect in the impugned order
\nis,therefore, perfectly justified. It cannot be said that even one
\nday’s time was refused by respondent No.1-authority to produce the
\nrecord as the petitioner-Market Committee was aware that it was
\nsummoned.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tIt
\nis further submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that
\nunder Section 48 of the Act, the State Government has wide powers and
\nby invoking such powers, the authority has rightly passed the
\nimpugned order, as the petitioners have obviously issued licences
\nwith the sole intention of  inflating the Voters’ list. The learned
\nAssistant Government Pleader has submitted that the hearing of the
\nRevision Application has been fixed for 9-4-2010 and as the impugned
\norder is of an interim nature, the court may not interfere.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tSeveral
\ndetailed and elaborate contentions have been raised by the learned
\ncounsel for the respective parties,  touching upon the merits of the
\ncase,which  are not being dealt with  at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tHaving
\nheard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the
\naverments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and
\nother documents on record, the following undisputed aspects emerge
\nfor consideration:\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tRespondent
\nNo.2 has filed Revision Application No.85 of 2010, which is pending.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe
\nimpugned order has been passed on an application for stay of
\nResolution No.2, dated 27-2-2010, passed by the Licence Sub-Committee
\nof petitioner No.1-Market Committee.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tThe
\npersons to whom licences have been granted\/renewed, have not been
\nmade parties to the Revision Application and the impugned order
\nstaying the Resolution vide which such licences were granted has been
\nstayed.\n<\/p>\n
(d)\tThough
\nit is  submitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the
\nnames and addresses of the grantees of the licences could not be
\nascertained, it is, however,  admitted that respondent No.2 has not
\nasked the petitioners to supply the said particulars.\n<\/p>\n
(e)\tWhile
\npassing the impugned order,  staying the Resolution in question, and
\nafter granting the stay, respondent No.1-Authority has directed
\nrespondent No.2 to issue  notices and take steps to join the persons
\nwho have been granted licences by petitioner No.1-Market Committee,
\nbefore 9-4-2010.\n<\/p>\n
(f)
\nCopies of the notices dated 2-4-2010 published in two newspapers i.e.
\nNobat and Divya Bhaskar,respectively, are produced by the learned
\ncounsel for respondent No.2 and are taken on  record. The said public
\nnotices state that persons who are interested in the litigation may
\napply for joining as parties,  before 9-4-2010.\n<\/p>\n
(g)\tCommunication
\ndated 26-2-2010 informs the petitioner No.1-Market Committee
\nregarding the proposed Election Programme, which is to come into
\neffect from 3-3-2010.\n<\/p>\n
(h)\tThe
\nElection Programme annexed at running page 82 states, apart from
\nother dates mentioned therein, that the date of declaration of
\nelection is 3-3-2010,  the elections are to be held on 30-5-2010 and
\ncounting is on 31-5-2010.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tConsidering
\nthe above aspects, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
\nfor the respective parties, and in  light of the material on record,
\nprima facie, it emerges that the petitioners have made
\nout a case for admission of the petition and grant of interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tHence,Rule
\nis issued,making it returnable on 13-4-2010. Mr.V.C.Vaghela,learned
\ncounsel, waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No.2.
\nInterim relief in terms of paragraph 6(b) is granted, till then. In
\naddition to the normal mode of service,direct service, qua the rest
\nof the respondents,is also permitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nis open to respondent No.2 to take steps for joining the affected
\nparties i.e. persons to whom licences have been granted by
\nResolution No.2 dated 27-2-2010,as expeditiously as possible, to
\nensure that the election  schedule, including publication of the
\nfinal Voters’ list, is not disturbed.\tLooking
\nto the issues involved in  the petition, and with the co-operation of
\nthe learned counsel for the respective parties, the matter can be
\nheard and finally decided on the next date of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
   \t\t           \t(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n
arg<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4132\/2010 12\/ 14 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4132 of 2010 ===================================================== AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & 1 – Petitioner(s) Versus DEPUTY SECRETARY(APPEALS) AGRICULTURE & CO OPERATION […]<\/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-188335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAgriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - 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\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-14T14:07:39+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-14T14:07:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2364,\"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\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-14T14:07:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - 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\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-14T14:07:39+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-14T14:07:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":2364,"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\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010","name":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-14T14:07:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-vs-deputy-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agriculture vs Deputy on 7 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/188335","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=188335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}