{"id":202675,"date":"2009-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-24T23:50:02","modified_gmt":"2019-03-24T18:20:02","slug":"appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: B.R. Gavai<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                      WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2009\n\n           Appa s\/o Munjaji Pawar\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n           age 33 yrs, Occ. Agri,\n           r\/o Salapuri, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.             PETITIONER.\n\n                 V E R S U S \n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     1.    The Divisional Commissioner, \n           Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     2.    The Additional Collector,\n           Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani.\n                     \n     3.    The Presiding Officer (Tahsildar),\n           Tahsil Office, Parbhani.\n                    \n     4.    Chaitanay s\/p Shivajirao Ghatge,\n           age major, Occ. Agri.\n      \n\n     5.    Deepak s\/o Uttamrao Ghatge,\n           age major, occ. Agri.\n   \n\n\n\n     6.    Madhukar s\/o Vishvanath Ghatge,\n           age major, Occ. Agri.\n\n\n\n\n\n     7.    Madhavrao s\/o Marotrao Ghatge,\n           age major, Occ. Agri.\n\n     8.    Bhaskar s\/o Haribhau Hurgule,\n           age major, Occ. Agri.\n\n\n\n\n\n     9.    Smt. Shobha w\/o Vaijinath Pawar,\n           age major, Occ. Household.\n\n     10.   Sow. Ratubai Ramrao Rathod,\n           age major, Occ. Household.\n\n     11.   Sow. Neelabai w\/o Tukaram Dhanure,\n           age major, Occ. Household.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::\n                                                2\n\n            Respondents No. 4 to 11 are r\/o <\/pre>\n
            Salapuri, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.                         RESPONDENTS.\n<\/p>\n
            Shri  B.N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
\n            Shri  S.D. Kaldate, AGP for the respondent 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
            Shri G.R. Sayyed & S.R.Ghatge, Advocate for resp. No. 4 to\n<\/p>\n
            10.<\/p>\n
                                                    CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J :\n<\/p>\n
                                                    DATE      : 2nd JULY, 2009\n\n     ORAL JUDGMENT :-\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n<\/pre>\n
     1.             By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the <\/p>\n
     order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad <\/p>\n
     dated 19.06.2009 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present <\/p>\n
     petitioner challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector <\/p>\n
     dated 19.05.2009, vide which dispute filed by the present petitioner <\/p>\n
     challenging the ‘no confidence motion’ dated 21.03.2009 came to be <\/p>\n
     rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     2.             Shri Ghatge, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
     the petitioner submits that, Rule 7 of the Bombay Village Panchayat <\/p>\n
     Rules,  1959   requires   that  notice   of   the  meeting   has   to  be   served <\/p>\n
     personally   on   the   members   and   in   his   absence   upon,   an   adult <\/p>\n
     member of the family residing with member.   It is submitted that <\/p>\n
     only   in   the   event   that   such   members   are   not   available   it   can   be <\/p>\n
     served by affixing the notice on the conspicuous part of the house.\n<\/p>\n
     3.             Shri Ghatge placed reliance on the judgment of Division <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Krishnakant Mehta v\/s State  <\/p>\n
     of Maharashtra and others reported in 2000 (4) Mh. L. J. and the <\/p>\n
     judgment of the single Judge of this Court in the case of Indubai Vedu  <\/p>\n
     Khairnar v\/s State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2003 (2)  <\/p>\n
     Bom C.R 239 and Bhima Narayan Gangurde and others v\/s State of  <\/p>\n
     Maharashtra and ors reported in 2002 (1) Bom C.R. 186.\n<\/p>\n
     4.            Shri   G.R.   Sayyed   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on <\/p>\n
     behalf of the respondents on the contrary submits that the resolution <\/p>\n
     has been passed by the requisite majority and merely because  there <\/p>\n
     are certain technical lacuna’s, cannot be a ground for upsetting the <\/p>\n
     motion of no confidence passed by the members.\n<\/p>\n
     5.            The  six members of the  grampanchayat had tendered <\/p>\n
     notice   of   no   confidence   motion   to   the   Tahasildar.     Accordingly <\/p>\n
     Tahasildar   conveyed   a   meeting   for   no   confidence   motion   on <\/p>\n
     19.03.2009.  In the said meeting 7 members out of 9 were present.\n<\/p>\n
     All   seven   members   supported   the   motion   for   no   confidence   and <\/p>\n
     accordingly   resolution   came   to   be   passed.     The   authorities   have <\/p>\n
     concurrently held that though notice was duly served on the present <\/p>\n
     petitioner, he did not remain present.\n<\/p>\n
     6.            The single judge of this Court in the case of Prabhawati <\/p>\n
     Vijaykumar   Khivsara   and   anr.   Vs\/   State   of   Maharashtra   and   ors.\n<\/p>\n
     Reported in 2008 (3) Bom. C.R.755 relied on the judgment of the Apex  <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
     Court in the case of  K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C.Singri Gowda,AIR 1966  <\/p>\n
     S.C. 330 has held that <\/p>\n
          “unless   prejudice   could   be   said   to   have   been   caused   on  <\/p>\n
          account   of   procedural   requirement,   the   court   should   not <\/p>\n
          interfere in the motion of no confidence.”.\n<\/p>\n
     While deciding the said petitions this Court has also relied on the <\/p>\n
     observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.\n<\/p>\n
     Annapurnabai Ajabrao Vs. Annapurnabai Anandrao, 1967 Mh. L. J  <\/p>\n
     NOC 36.\n<\/p>\n
     7.           It appears that the learned judges in the Division Bench <\/p>\n
     and the two learned single judges who have decided aforesaid three <\/p>\n
     matters relied upon by Shri Ghatge, have not noticed the judgment <\/p>\n
     of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Annapurnabai <\/p>\n
     Ajabrao cited supra.  It further appears that the Division Bench and <\/p>\n
     the learned Single Judges also have not noticed the judgment of the <\/p>\n
     Apex Court in the case of  K. Narasimhiah Vs. H.C.Singri Gowda,AIR  <\/p>\n
     1966 S.C. 330 cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
     8.           The Division Bench of this Court in the case of  (Smt.\n<\/p>\n
     Annapurnabai Ajabrao Vs. Annapurnabai Anandrao) reported in 1967  <\/p>\n
     Mh.L.J. NOC 36,    while considering the challenge to the regularity <\/p>\n
     of the proceedings of the meeting held to consider the resolution of <\/p>\n
     no-confidence motion against the Sarpanch, observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
                “Even   if   it   were   to   be   assumed   that   there   was   some
\n                technical   flaw  in   the  proceedings  of   the   meeting  or  in <\/p>\n
                transmission   of   the   results   of   the   meeting   to   the
\n                Panchayat Samiti, we do not see how that could entitle  <\/p>\n
                the petitioner to claim to continue as Sarpanch of the
\n                Gram   Panchayat.     A   Gram   Panchayat   is   essentially   a
\n                democratic institution which must be run on democratic  <\/p>\n
                principles.     When   the   majority   of   the   members   have
\n                clearly expressed that they do not desire the petitioner to <\/p>\n
                be their leader and Sarpanch, appropriate attitude of the
\n                petitioner as a person working for democracy whatever  <\/p>\n
                have been to tender her registration straightway.  At any
\n                rate, it does not behave of democratic spirit to challenge  <\/p>\n
                the decision of the majority who unmistakably declared
\n                their   want   of   confidence   in   their   erstwhile   leader.
\n                Democratic principles as has also a sense of self respect <\/p>\n
                should have been impleaded the petitioner and persons <\/p>\n
                situated in similar circumstances to graciously submit to
\n                the decision of the majority and to walk out of the Gram  <\/p>\n
                Panchayat.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It can thus be clearly seen that the Division Bench in the case cited <\/p>\n
     supra  has  clearly held that when  a  person has  lost confidence  of <\/p>\n
     majority,   he   has   no  right   to   continue   in   the   post   of   Sarpanch   by <\/p>\n
     raising some hyper technical ground.  In a democratic society will of <\/p>\n
     the majority is paramount.   If view taken by the Division Bench in <\/p>\n
     the case of Annapurnabai is not accepted, it will create a  chaotic <\/p>\n
     condition,   like in the present case though 7 members are against <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
     the petitioner and if he is thurst against the wishes of majority as <\/p>\n
     their   leader   and   continue   to   permit   to   work   as   Sarpanch,   entire <\/p>\n
     functioning   of   the   Grampanchayat   would   come   to   a   standstill, <\/p>\n
     thereby   causing   a   grave   difficulties   in   the   functioning   of   the <\/p>\n
     Grampanchayat.\n<\/p>\n
     9.             As already discussed above, the said judgment has not <\/p>\n
     been   noticed   by   the   Division   Bench   and   Single   Judges   on   the <\/p>\n
     judgments of whom Shri Ghatge relies.   The Division Bench in the <\/p>\n
     case of Nimba Rajaram Koli vs. Collector, Jalgaon<\/a> 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. , <\/p>\n
     relying on the case of Annapurnabai Ajabrao has also held <\/p>\n
              “that   once   resolution   of   the   No   Confidence   Motion   is
\n              passed,   by   a   clear   majority   and   in   keeping   with   the  <\/p>\n
              requirements   of   the   concerned   statutory   provisions,   the
\n              person   against   whom   such   a   resolution   is   passed   must  <\/p>\n
              honour the will of the majority and make way for the new
\n              election of his successor.”\n<\/p>\n
     It   is   difficult   to   appreciate   that   when   all   other   members   have <\/p>\n
     received   notice   of   no  confidence   motion,   it   is   only  the   petitioner <\/p>\n
     who   has   not   received   the   notice   of   no   confidence   motion.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner and all other members are residents of a same village.  In <\/p>\n
     any case, notice has been served by the Tahasildar.  No allegations of <\/p>\n
     malafide   or   bias   have   been   made   against   the   Tahasildar   that   the <\/p>\n
     notice of meeting was not properly served on the petitioner by the <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
     Tahasildar with an ulterior motive.\n<\/p>\n
     10.             At   the   cost   of   repeatation,   I   must   say   that,   in <\/p>\n
     consonance   with   the   view   taken   by   the   aforesaid   two   Division <\/p>\n
     Benches in the case of Annapurnabai Ajabrao and Nimba Rajaram in <\/p>\n
     a democratic State it is .the will of majority that must prevail.  Once <\/p>\n
     a person looses the confidence of a majority, as required under the <\/p>\n
     statute, he has no right to continue in the office and thurst himself <\/p>\n
     against the wishes of the majority of the members.\n<\/p>\n
     11.<\/p>\n
                     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   no   case   is   made   out   for <\/p>\n
     interference with no confidence motion which has been passed by <\/p>\n
     the   requisite   majority   of   more   than   2\/3   members.     Hence   no <\/p>\n
     interference is warranted in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of <\/p>\n
     this   Court   under   Article   227   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner is therefore, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                      ( B. R. GAVAI )
\n                                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                             …..\n<\/p>\n
     aaa\/wp4096.09<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:44:18 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 Bench: B.R. Gavai 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4096 OF 2009 Appa s\/o Munjaji Pawar age 33 yrs, Occ. Agri, r\/o Salapuri, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. PETITIONER. V E R S U S 1. The Divisional […]<\/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-202675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-24T18:20:02+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\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-24T18:20:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1281,\"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\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-24T18:20:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-24T18:20:02+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\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-24T18:20:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009"},"wordCount":1281,"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\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009","name":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-24T18:20:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appa-vs-state-on-2-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appa vs State on 2 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/202675","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=202675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}