{"id":190339,"date":"2011-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-10T18:36:38","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T13:06:38","slug":"harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/2630\/2010\t 8\/ 8\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. 2630 of 2010\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR AMENDMENT No. 8945 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nSPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6416 of 1994\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 14968 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2630 of 2010\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE MR\nJUSTICE V.M.SAHAI\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE MR JUSTICE\nG.B.SHAH \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHARISH\nH. DAVE - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHIEF\nADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY &amp;SEWERAGE &amp; 2 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nFor Approval and Signature: \n \n \n\n\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V.M.SAHAI\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE\nG.B.SHAH \n=============================================================\n \n\t  \n\nWhether Reporters of Local Papers\n\tmay be allowed to see\n\t \n\nthe judgment ?                        \n\t                                                  YES\n\t \n\n\n\t  \n\nTo be referred to the Reporter or\n\tnot ?                                      YES\n\t \n\n\n\t  \n\nWhether their Lordships wish to\n\tsee the fair copy of the          NO\n\t \n\njudgment ?\n\t \n\n\n\t  \n\nWhether this case involves a\n\tsubstantial question of law          NO\n\t \n\nas to the interpretation of the\n\tConstitution of India, 1950 \n\t\n\t \n\nor any other order made thereunder ?\n\t \n\n\n\t  \n\nWhether it is to be circulated to\n\tthe Civil Judge ?                     NO\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\nHARISH\nH. DAVE - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHIEF\nADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY &amp;SEWERAGE &amp; 2 -\nRespondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPH PATHAK for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR DG CHAUHAN for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1108075\/\">HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI\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\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\tDate<\/a>\n: 16\/03\/2011 \n\n \n\nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t(Per<br \/>\n: <a href=\"\/doc\/1108075\/\">HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)<\/a><\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis<br \/>\nLetters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge dated 30.8.2010 in Civil Application for<br \/>\namendment No.8945 of 2010 has been dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tWith<br \/>\nthe consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up this<br \/>\nappeal for final disposal, at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tSpecial<br \/>\nCivil Application No.6416 of 1994 and Civil Application No.6416 of<br \/>\n1994 and Civil Application No.3125 of 2008 were disposed by a common<br \/>\norder dated 4.4.2008. The order is extracted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1)\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>2)\tMr.P.H.Pathak,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the applicant-original petitioner, relying on the<br \/>\nletter dated 8.2.2007 addressed by Zonal Officer and Superintending<br \/>\nEngineer of opponent-Department and submits that in case if the<br \/>\npetition is withdrawn, there may be some delay in granting deemed<br \/>\ndate, as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)\tMr.Deepak<br \/>\nPatel, learned counsel for the opponents Nos.2 and 3 submits that if<br \/>\nthe main Special Civil Application is withdrawn by the petitioner,<br \/>\ncase of the applicant-petitioner for granting deemed date will be<br \/>\nexpedited.\n<\/p>\n<p>4)\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, Mr.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nseeks permission to withdraw Special Civil Application No.6416 of<br \/>\n1994 with a request to direct the respondent authorities to pass<br \/>\nappropriate orders granting deemed date at the earliest. Mr.Deepak<br \/>\nPatel, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to it.\n<\/p>\n<p>5)\tPermission<br \/>\nas prayed for is granted. This Special Civil Application No.6416 of<br \/>\n1994 stands disposed of as withdrawn. The respondent authorities are<br \/>\ndirected to pass appropriate order granting deemed date to the<br \/>\npetitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of<br \/>\nthe writ of this order. In case of any difficulty, liberty is granted<br \/>\nto the petitioner to revive this petition. Rule is discharged.<br \/>\nHowever, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6)\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, Civil Application \t\tNo.3125  of 2008 also stands<br \/>\ndisposed of.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThereafter,<br \/>\nthe appellant-petitioner made a representation before the respondents<br \/>\non 23.4.2008. The respondents have decided the said representation by<br \/>\norder dated 21.5.2008 wherein they have held that the<br \/>\nappellant-petitioner is not entitled to deemed date of seniority<br \/>\nvis-a-vis his juniors.  The appellant filed an application for<br \/>\nreviving the writ petition.  The application was allowed on<br \/>\n20.7.2009. The order dated 20.7.2009 wrongly mentioning the date of<br \/>\ndisposal of the petition as 4.4.2009 though the correct date is<br \/>\n4.4.2008. The order dated 20.7.2009 is extracted as below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;ORAL<br \/>\nORDER<\/p>\n<p>1)\tThe<br \/>\n\tapplicant-original petitioner has filed this application with the<br \/>\n\tfollowing prayers:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(A)\tThe<br \/>\n\tHon&#8217;ble Court be pleased to set aside the order dated Annexure.A and<br \/>\n\trevive the Spl.C.A. No.6416\/1994 and direct the office to place the<br \/>\n\tsaid Spl.CA for hearing before the Hon&#8217;ble Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>(B)\tBe<br \/>\n\tpleased to condone the 50 delay, if any, in filing of the present<br \/>\n\tMisc. Application in interest of justice and further direct the<br \/>\n\trespondents to pay the cost and compensation to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>(C)\tPending<br \/>\n\tadmission and final disposal of the application be pleased to direct<br \/>\n\tthe respondents to give the deemed date of seniority to the<br \/>\n\tapplicant at par with other similarly placed employees forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>(D)\tAny<br \/>\n\tother and further relief this Hon&#8217;ble Court deem fit and proper in<br \/>\n\tinterest of justice together with costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>2)\tLearned<br \/>\n\tcounsel for the applicant submits that order dated 21.05.2008 passed<br \/>\n\tby the respondent-Board does not confer correct deem date in<br \/>\n\taccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)\tMr.Dipak<br \/>\n\t Patel, learned counsel for the opponent, submits that granting of<br \/>\n\tdeem date to the applicant is in accordance with various circulars<br \/>\n\tissued by the Board and in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>4)\tHowever,<br \/>\n\tvide order dated 04.04.2009 liberty was granted to the petitioner to<br \/>\n\trevive the petition in case of difficulty. In view of the above, I<br \/>\n\tdeem it just and proper to revive Special Civil Application No.6416<br \/>\n\tof 1994. Order accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>5)\tThis<br \/>\n\tapplication is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. The Office is<br \/>\n\tdirected to notify the main matter for hearing.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThereafter,<br \/>\n\tthe appellant-petitioner filed an amendment application in Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application No.6416 of 1994. The said application had been<br \/>\n\tdismissed by the learned Single Judge on 30.8.2010 on the ground<br \/>\n\tthat it was filed after one year. It is this order dated 30.8.2010<br \/>\n\twhich has been challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the<br \/>\norder passed by the respondents on 21.5.2008 gave fresh cause of<br \/>\naction to the appellant and it  could be challenged by the<br \/>\nappellant-petitioner by way of filing fresh (writ petition) Special<br \/>\nCivil Application.  The revival of the petition in case of difficulty<br \/>\nwas permissible only in case if there was some difficulty or problem<br \/>\nwith the respondents in not deciding the question of deemed<br \/>\nseniority, then only the petition can be revived. Once the<br \/>\nrepresentation of deemed seniority had been decided, it could be<br \/>\nchallenged by way of filing fresh writ petition because, after<br \/>\ndisposal of the earlier writ petition, the Court has become functus<br \/>\nofficio except for that limited purpose.  Therefore, we are of<br \/>\nthe opinion that the revival of the petition by order dated 20.7.2009<br \/>\nis not valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nquestion arises whether the Court should permit revival of the writ<br \/>\npetition or any other case.  Ordinarily revival of the case is<br \/>\npermissible only where a party has no remedy. If the order dated<br \/>\n4.4.2008 was not complied by the respondents then it was open to the<br \/>\nappellant to file Contempt Petition under the Rules of the Court.<br \/>\nUnder Article 215 of the Constitution of India power to punish for<br \/>\ncontempt has been provided to the High Court. This does not mean that<br \/>\nevery Single Judge or Division Bench possesses power to punish for<br \/>\ncontempt. Power to take action for contempt in case of non-compliance<br \/>\nof the order is within the jurisdiction of Single Judge or Division<br \/>\nBench in whose jurisdiction of contempt had been vested under the<br \/>\nroster nominated by Hon&#8217;ble the Chief Justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter<br \/>\nfinal disposal of the case only review application or application for<br \/>\ncorrecting clerical or arithmatical errors could be  filed. But by<br \/>\nmoving an application saying that revive the case as the order passed<br \/>\nby the respondents is not to the satisfaction  of the appellant. In<br \/>\nour considered opinion, the application to revive the writ petition<br \/>\nwas not maintainable and the order of learned Single Judge dated<br \/>\n20.7.2009 was illegal and without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tWe<br \/>\nhave gone through the amendment sought by the appellant-petitioner.<br \/>\nAs we have already held that once the writ petition was dismissed as<br \/>\nwithdrawn or disposed of on 4.4.2008 by the Court, the Court becomes<br \/>\nfunctus officio.  The Court has granted liberty to revive the<br \/>\npetition in case of difficulty, i.e. for  the limited purpose and if<br \/>\nthe order passed by the Court is not carried out by the respondents,<br \/>\nthen only petition can be revived. But, once the order dated<br \/>\n21.5.2008 had been passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of<br \/>\nseniority of the appellant, in that case, the petition could not be<br \/>\nrevived and the only option available to the appellant was to<br \/>\nchallenge the decision by way of filing separate fresh writ petition.<br \/>\n In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge had no jurisdiction to reopen the entire case and entertain the<br \/>\namendment application which has rightly been rejected as time barred.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant has further stated that the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge has dismissed the application on the ground of delay only.  We<br \/>\nare of the opinion that if a fresh petition was filed, the appellant<br \/>\nwas required to explain latches. Therefore, revival application and<br \/>\namendment application were filed. There was one year&#8217;s delay and in<br \/>\nview of the legal position discussed above, the amendment application<br \/>\nwas not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed as it was nothing<br \/>\nbut an abuse of the process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt in the case of  <a href=\"\/doc\/720870\/\">Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. &amp;<br \/>\nOrs., AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 2511.  We have gone through this decision.  The<br \/>\nview taken by the Apex Court is that, normally an application for<br \/>\namendment should not be dismissed on the ground of delay. In the<br \/>\npresent case, though the learned Single Judge has dismissed the<br \/>\namendment application on the ground of delay, we are of the opinion<br \/>\nthat the Court had become functus officio when it disposed of<br \/>\nthe writ petition giving liberty only for a limited purpose and if<br \/>\nthe respondents do not comply the order directing the respondents to<br \/>\ndecide the question of deemed seniority, only then the petition could<br \/>\nhave been revived.  Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case,<br \/>\nthe amendment application was not maintainable and it has been<br \/>\nrightly dismissed.  We do not find any reason to interfere with the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the order passed in the appeal, the Civil Application for<br \/>\ninterim relief shall also stand dismissed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(V.M.Sahai,\nJ.)\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSreeram.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(G.B.Shah,\nJ.)\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/2630\/2010 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2630 of 2010 In CIVIL APPLICATION &#8211; FOR AMENDMENT No. 8945 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. [&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-190339","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - 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\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T13:06:38+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T13:06:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1507,\"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\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\",\"name\":\"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T13:06:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - 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\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T13:06:38+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T13:06:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011"},"wordCount":1507,"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\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011","name":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T13:06:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-vs-chief-on-16-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harish vs Chief on 16 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190339","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=190339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}