{"id":203838,"date":"1985-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985"},"modified":"2018-03-30T21:59:51","modified_gmt":"2018-03-30T16:29:51","slug":"babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","title":{"rendered":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 613, \t\t 1985 SCR (3) 614<\/div>\n
Author: V Tulzapurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBABUBHAI & CO. & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nBENCH:\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nKHALID, V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  613\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 614\n 1985 SCC  (2) 732\t  1985 SCALE  (1)658\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1986 SC 468\t (32)\n R\t    1989 SC1949\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\n\t     Bombay Town planning Act 1954 ,  s 54 read with\nRule 27\t of Bombay  Town planning  Rules 1955  Provision for\nsummary eviction  of  lands  required  for  public  purpose-\nAbsence of a corrective machinery by the appeal or revision-\nvalidity of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent-State  issued  notice  u\/s.\t 54  of\t the\nBombay Town  Planning Act 1954 (for short the Act) read with\nRule 27\t of the\t Bombay Town  Planning Rules 1955 (for short\nthe Rules)  to the  appellants to  hand over  possession  of\ntheir lands  lying within the limits of Borough Municipality\nof Ahmedabad  to the  Municipal Corporation  of Ahmedabad as\nthe  same   had\t vested\t  absolutely  -\t  in  the  Municipal\nCorporation free  from all encumbrance u\/s 53 (a) of the Act\nand were required for construction of roads and other public\npurposes. The  appellants challenged  before the  High Court\nunder Art.  226 the  constitutional validity of s. 54 of the\nAct and\t Rule 27  of the Rules. The High Court dismissed the\nwrit petitions\tholding; (i)  that the\trights of  the local\nauthority (to  own and obtain possession of such lands) with\nthe corresponding  liability  of  the  occupants  to  suffer\neviction therefrom  did not  exist under the general 11' law\nprior to  the making of the Final Scheme ,  that such rights\nand liabilities were created for the first time by the Final\nScheme which  is to be read as part of the Act and since the\nAct while creating these new rights and liabilities provided\nfor a special and particular remedy for enforcing them under\ns. 54  ,   the remedy of summary eviction must be held to be\nan exclusive  remedy and  the liability\t to eviction arising\nunder s.  53 (a)  or (b)  cannot be enforced by the ordinary\nremedy of  a suit;  (ii) that  s 54 conferred upon the local\nauthority a  quasi-judicial  power  and\t not  administrative\npower and  as such  it was  bound ,   in conformity with the\nprinciples of  natural justice\t,  to give an opportunity of\nhearing to the occupants before taking the threatened action\nof summary  eviction and  therefore no\tquestion of  section\nbeing bad in law arose; and (iii) that since Rule 27 did not\ncontain any express exclusion of such hearing and since s.54\nimpliedly required  the observance  of principles of natural\njustice on the part of the local authority\n615\nwhile exercising  the power  of summary eviction ,  the said\nrequirement must  also be  read in  Rule 27  and so read the\nRule could not be regarded as ultra vires the section.\n     In appeals\t to this  Court ,   the appellants contended\nthat even  proceeding on  the basis  that  s.  54  impliedly\nrequired a  hearing to\tbe given  and  consequently  such  a\nrequirement  could   be\t read\tinto  Rule   27\t which\t was\nasubordinate piece of legislation ,  there was no corrective\nmachinery provided  for by  way of  an appeal or revision to\nany superior  authority against an adverse order that may be\npassed by  the local  authority acting\tunder Rule 27 and in\nthe absence  of any  such corrective  machinery\t the  entire\nprovision must\tbe held\t to be\tbad in law and therefore the\nimpugned notices served on the appellants should be quashed.\n     Dismissing the appeals ,\n^\n     HELD: (1) Mere absence of a corrective machinery by way\nof appeal  or revision\tby itself  would not  make the Power\nunreasonable or\t arbitrary ,   much  less would\t render\t the\nprovision invalid.  Regard will\t have to  be had  to several\nfactors ,  such as ,  on whom the power is conferred whether\non a  high official or a petty officer ,  what is the nature\nof the\tpower-whether the  exercise thereof depends upon the\nsubjective satisfaction\t of the authority or body on whom it\nis conferred  or  is  it  to  be  exercised  objectively  by\nreference to  some existing facts or tests ,  whether or not\nit is  a quasi-judicial\t power requiring  that authority  or\nbody to\t observe principles  of natural\t justice and  make a\nspeaking order\tetc.; the last mentioned factor particularly\nensures application  of mind on the part of the authority or\nbody only  to pertinet\tor germane  material on\t the  record\nexcluding the  extraneous and  irrelevant and  also subjects\nthe order  of the  authority or\t body to  a judicial  review\nunder the  writ jurisdiction  of the  Court  on\t grounds  of\nperversity ,   extraneous  influence ,\t malafides and other\nblatant infirmities.  Moreover all  these facts will have to\nbe considered  in the  light of\t the scheme of the enactment\nand the\t purpose intended  to be  achieved by  the concerned\nprovision. If  on  an  examination  of\tthe  scheme  of\t the\nenactment as  also the purpose of the concerned provision it\nis found  that the  power to decide or do a particular thing\nis conferred  on a  very minor\tor petty officer ,  that the\nexercise  thereof   by\thim   depends  on   his\t  subjective\nsatisfaction ,\t that  he is  expected to exercise the power\nadministratively without  any obligation  to make a speaking\norder then  ,\tof courtesy  ,\t the absence of a corrective\nmachinery will render the provision conferring such absolute\nand unfettered\tpower invalid.\tBut  it\t is  the  cumulative\neffect of  all these  factors that will render the provision\nunreasonable or arbitrary and liable to be struck down.\n\t\t\t\t\t    [619F-H; 620A-D]\n     (2) In  the instant  case ,   it  is at  the  stage  of\nexecution of  a town  planning\tscheme\tthat  the  power  of\nsummary eviction of occupants who have ceased to be entitled\nto occupy  the plots  in their occupation has been conferred\nupon the  Local Authority itself-a highly responsible body ,\nand that  the power  is required  to be\t exercised by  it in\nobjective manner  (it is  to be\t found by  reference to\t the\nFinal Scheme  and its  interpretation whether  the occupants\nare occupying\n616\nlands which  they are not entitled to occupy.) Further ,  as\nalready held  by the  High Court ,  the power conferred upon\nthe local  Authority is a quasi-judicial power which implies\nthat the  same has  to\tbe  exercised  after  observing\t the\nprinciples of  natural justice\t,  and that too by passing a\nspeaking order\twhich implies  giving of  reasons  and\tthat\nensures the  application of mind to only germane or relevant\nmaterial on the record eschewing extraneous and irrelevant ,\nMoreover  any\torder  of  summary  eviction  based  on\t any\nextraneous ,\tnon-  germane  ,    irrelevant\tor  malafide\nconsiderations would  be subject to the writ jurisdiction of\nCourt. [625E - H; 622A]\n\t   C. R. H. Ready money Ltd. case in AIR 1956 Bombay\n304 ,\tChandrakant Krishnarao's case ,\t in [1952] 3 SCR 108\n,   Lala Hari  Chand Sarda's  case ,  [ 1967] 1 SCR 1012 and\nExcel Wear's case in [1979] 1 SCR 1009 ,  referred to\n\t Organo Chemical Industries & Another v- Union India\nand Others ,  relied upon.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos
\n2084 2089 (N) of 1972 a
\n\t     From  the Judgment dated 24.12.1971 of the High
\ncourt of Gujarat in Special Civil Applications Nos. 650\/71 ,
\n652-654\/71 ,  81\/71 and 64\/71
\n     Soli J.  Sorabiee ,   Kamal Mehta ,  Aditya Narayan and
\nMrs. A.K. Verma for the Appellants
\n     M.N. Phadke and R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
\n     S.T. Desai and H.S.Parihar for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     TULZAPURKAR ,   J.\t There\tis  no\tsubstance  in  these
\nappeals\t preferred   by\t the  appellants  against  a  common
\njudgment rendered  in a\t batch of writ petitions by the High
\nCourt on  24th December\t 1971 wherein  the  High  Court\t has
\nupheld the  constitutional validity  of s.  54 of the Bombay
\nTown Planning  Act 1954\t (for short  the Act) and Rule 27 of
\nthe Bombay Town Planning Rules 1955 (for short the Rules).
\n\t By a notification dated 21st July ,  1965 the State
\nGovernment of  Gujarat sanctioned  the final  Town  Planning
\nScheme in respect
\n617<\/span>
\nof  certain   areas  lying  within  the\t limits\t of  Borough
\nMunicipality of\t Ahmedabad and\tdirected that the said Final
\nScheme shall  come into\t force on 1st September ,  1965. The
\nlands in  the possession  of the appellants were allotted or
\nreserved for construction of roads and other public purposes
\nin that\t Scheme and therefore ,\t being lands required by the
\nMunicipal Corporation  they vested  absolutely in  Municipal
\nCorporation (local  authority) free  from  all\tencumbrances
\nunder s.  53 (a)  of the  Act. Thereafter  by notices issued
\nunder s.54  read with  Rule  27\t the  Municipal\t Corporation
\ncalled upon  the appellants  to hand  over possession of the
\nlands in their – occupation ,  which ,\tsince such vesting ,
\nthey were  not entitled\t to occupy;  in other  words ,\t the
\nprocedure  or\tthe  remedy  for  summary  eviction  of\t the
\nappellants was resorted to by the Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
     By\t writ\tpetitions  filed   under  s.   226  of\t the
\nConstitution the appellants challenged the validity of these
\nnotices on two grounds:\n<\/p>\n
     (a)  that s  54 confers  absolute discretion  upon\t the
\n\t  local\t authority   to\t adopt\t for  eviction\t the
\n\t  occupants of\tsuch lands  either the normal remedy
\n\t  of a\tcivil suit  or the drastic remedy of summary
\n\t  eviction under  it without  any guide-lines  being
\n\t  prescribed or\t indicated for\tthe exercise of such
\n\t  discretion and therefore the section was violative
\n\t  of Art.  14 inasmuch\tas the local authority could
\n\t  pick ‘and  choose at\tits sweet  will some of such
\n\t  occupants for\t subjecting them to the more drastic
\n\t  remedy;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  that s.  54 which provides for summary eviction by
\n\t  service  of  notice  contemplated  thereunder\t was
\n\t  opposed to  principles of natural justice inasmuch
\n\t  as no\t opportunity was contemplated to be afforded
\n\t  to the  occupants of\tsuch  lands  to\t show  cause
\n\t  against the  proposed eviction and as such was bad
\n\t  in law;  and in  any event even if s. 54 was ,  on
\n\t  proper construction  held to include the affording
\n\t  of such  opportunity Rule  27 was  ultra vines the
\n\t  said\tsection\t  inasmuch  as\t it  laid  down\t the
\n\t  procedure which  did not  conform to principles of
\n\t  natural justice.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court  has  negatived  both  the\t grounds  of
\nchallenge. As :\n<\/p>\n
618<\/span><\/p>\n
regards ground\t(a) ,\trelying upon the decision in Wolver-
\nhampton New Water Works case reported in ( 1859) 6 B. (N.S.)
\n336 and observations of Willes J. therein (appearing at page
\n356 of\tthe Report)  the High  Court took  the view that the
\nrights of  the local authority (to own and obtain possession
\nof such\t lands) with  the  corresponding  liability  of\t the
\noccupants to  suffer-eviction therefrom\t did not exist under
\nthe law prior to the making of the Final Scheme ,  that such
\nrights and  liabilities were  created for  the first time by
\nthe Final Scheme which is to be\t read as part of the Act and
\nsince the  Act creating\t these new  rights  and\t liabilities
\nprovided for  a special\t and particular remedy for enforcing
\nthem under s. 51 the remedy of summary eviction must be held
\nto be  an exclusive  remedy and\t the liability\tto  eviction
\narising under  s. 53  (a) or  (b) cannot  be enforced by the
\nordinary remedy\t of a  suit; in other words ,  the remedy of
\nsummary eviction  under s.  54 having  been held  to  be  an
\nexclusive remedy the entire ground of challenge disappeared.
\nAs regards  ground (b)\tthe High Court took the view that s.
\n54 conferred upon the local authority a quasi-judicial power
\nand not\t administrative power  and as  such it\twas bound  ,
\nconformity with the principles of natural justice ,  to give
\nan opportunity of hearing to the occupants before taking the
\nthreatened action  of  summary\teviction  and  therefore  no
\nquestion of  section being bad in law arose; as regards Rule
\n27 the\tHigh Court  held that  since the  said Rule  did not
\ncontain any  express exclusion\tof such hearing and since s.
\n54  impliedly  required\t the  observance  of  principles  of
\nnatural justice\t on the\t part of  the local  authority while
\nexercising the\tpower  of  summary  eviction  ,\t   the\tsaid
\nrequirement must  also be  read in  Rule 27  and so read the
\nRule could  not be  regarded as ultra vires the section. The
\nHigh Court  also proceeded  to indicate\t in what  ways\tsuch
\nhearing could  be afforded  by\tthe  local  authority  while
\nacting under  the said\tRule. This  is how  the\t High  Court
\nupheld the  constitutional validity  of s. 54 of the Act and
\nRule 27 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
     Counsel for the appellants fairly conceded the validity
\nof the High Court’s view on the first ground of challenge to
\ns. 54.\tIt was\tonly in\t regard\t to  the  second  ground  of
\nchallenge that\the pressed  one more aspect before us on the
\nbasis of which he contended that s. 54 read with Rule 27 may
\nhave to be struck down. He urged that even proceeding on the
\nbasis that  s. 54  impliedly required  a hearing to be given
\nand consequently  such a requirement could be read into Rule
\n27 which was a subordinate piece of legislation ,  there was
\nno
\n619<\/span>
\ncorrective machinery  provided for  by way  of an  appeal or
\nrevision to  any superior authority against an adverse order
\nthat may  be passed by the local authority acting under Rule
\n27 and\tin the\tabsence of any such corrective machinery the
\nentire provision must be held to be bad in law and therefore
\nthe impugned  notices served  on the  appellants  should  be
\nquashed. In  support of\t this contention counsel relied upon
\nthree or  four decisions  in C.R.H. Ready money Ltd. case(l)
\nChandrakant Krishnarao’s  case , (2) Lala Hari Chand Sarda’s
\ncase(3) and Excel Wear’s case(4) where a view has been taken
\nthat in\t the absence of a provision for corrective machinery
\nby way\tof appeal  or revision ,  the provision conferring a
\npower to  decide or  do a  particular thing  may have  to be
\nregarded as  unreasonable and  or un-guided ,  un-controlled
\nand arbitrary  and hence  violative of\tArticle\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution. It is not possible to accept the contention.\n<\/p>\n
     It cannot\tbe disputed  that the absence of a provision
\nfor a corrective machinery by way of appeal or revision to a
\nsuperior authority  to rectify an adverse order passed by an
\nauthority or  body  on\twhom  the  power  is  conferred\t may
\nindicate that  the power  so conferred\tis  unreasonable  or
\narbitrary but  it is  obvious that providing such corrective
\nmachinery is only one of the several ways in which the power
\ncould be  checked or  controlled and its absence will be one
\nof the\tfactors to  be considered  along with several others
\nbefore coming  to the conclusion that the power so conferred
\nis unreasonable or arbitrary; in other words mere absence of
\na corrective  machinery by  way of  appeal  or\trevision  by
\nitself would  not make the power unreasonable or arbitrary ,
\nmuch less  would render\t the provision\tinvalid. Regard will
\nhave to\t be had to several factors ,  such as ,\t on whom the
\npower is  conferred-whether on\ta high\tofficial or  a petty
\nofficer ,   what  is the  nature of  the  power-whether\t the
\nexercise thereof depends upon the subjective satisfaction of
\nthe authority or body on whom it is conferred or is it to be
\nexercised objectively by reference to some existing facts or
\ntests ,\t  whether  or  not  it\tis  a  quasi-judicial  power
\nrequiring that\tauthority or  body to  observe principles of
\nnatural justice and make a\n<\/p>\n
(l) A.I.R. 1956 Bom. 304
\n(2) [1962] 3.S.C.R. 108
\n(3) [1967] 1.S.C.R. 1012
\n(4) [1979] 1.S.C.R. 1009
\n620<\/span>
\nspeaking order\tetc; the  last mentioned factor particularly
\nensures application  of mind on the part of the authority or
\nbody only  to pertinent\t or germane  material on  the record
\nexcluding the  extraneous and  irrelevant and  also subjects
\nthe order  of the  authority or\t body to  a judicial  review
\nunder the  writ jurisdiction  of the  Court  on\t grounds  of
\nperversity,   extraneous influence  ,\tmalafides and  other
\nblatant infirmities  Moreover all these factors will have to
\nbe considered  in the  light of\t the scheme of the enactment
\nand the\t purpose intended  to be  achieved by  the concerned
\nprovision. If  on an  examinations  of\tthe  scheme  of\t the
\nenactment as  also the purpose of the concerned provision it
\nis found  that the  power to decide or do a particular thing
\nis conferred  on a  very minor\tor petty officer ,  that the
\nexercise  thereof   by\thim   depends  on   his\t  subjective
\nsatisfaction ,\t that  he is  expected to exercise the power
\nadministratively without  any obligation  to make a speaking
\norder then  ,\tof course  ,   the absence  of a  corrective
\nmachinery will render the provision conferring such absolute
\nand unfettered\tpower invalid.\tBut  it\t is  the  cumulative
\neffect of  all these  factors that will render the provision
\nunreasonable or\t arbitrary and\tliable to be struck down. In
\nthree of  the decisions\t referred to  by counsel  where\t the
\nconcerned provision was struck down the cumulative effect of
\nseveral factors\t that were  present in\teach was  taken into
\nconsideration by  the Court  ,\twhile in C.R.H. Readymoney’s
\ncase the provision was held to be valid .\n<\/p>\n
     In this behalf we might usefully refer to a decision of
\nthis Court in Organo chemical Industries Another V. Union of
\nIndia and  Others.(1) In  this case  s. 14B of the Employees
\nProvident Fund\tand Miscellaneous  Provisions Act 1952 which
\nconferred power upon the Central Provident Fund Commissioner
\nto levy\t and recover  punitive\tdamages\t from  a  defaulting
\nemployer was  challenged on the ground that within the limit
\nof 100%\t of the\t defaulted amount  it  conferred  naked\t and
\nunguided power\ton the Commissioner to impose any quantum of
\ndamages as  he fancied\tthat no\t reasons were required to be
\ngiven by  him for  such imposition  and that no appellate or
\nrevisional review  was prescribed  against any adverse order
\nthat may  be made  by  him  and\t as  such  the\tsection\t was
\nviolative of  Art. 14  of the  Constitution. Negativing\t the
\ncontention this Court took the
\n(1) [9801] 1 S.C.R. 61.\n<\/p>\n
621<\/span><\/p>\n
view that  the power  under the\t section had  been conferred
\nupon one  of the highest officials of the Government ,\tthat
\nthe power to impose damages on a party after hearing him was
\na quasi-judicial  one that  observance\tof  requirements  of
\nnatural justice\t was implicit  in such jurisdiction that one
\ndesideratum thereof  was spelling out of the reasons for the
\norder to  be made ,  that giving of reasons ensured rational
\naction on  the part  of the  Officer because reasons implied
\nrelevant reasons  necessitating the  application of  mind on
\nthe part  of the  Officer  only\t to  pertinent\tand  germane
\nmaterial on  record and\t that once  reasons were set out the
\norder readily exposed itself to the writ jurisdiction of the
\nCourt so  that\tperversity  ,\t illiteracy  ,\t  extraneous
\ninfluence ,   malafides\t and other  blatant infirmities\t got
\ncaught and  corrected. Under  such circumstances  this Court
\nheld that  the needs  of the factual situation and the legal
\nmilieu were  such that the absence of appellate review in no
\nway militated  against the justice and reasonableness of the
\nprovision and  that the\t argument of  arbitrariness on\tthis
\nscore was untenable.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  instant case on an examination of the Scheme of
\nthe Act\t as also  the purpose sought to be achieved by s. 54
\nit will\t appear clear  that the\t topic\tof  making  of\ttown
\nplanning schemes  is dealt  with in ss. 21 to 53 while s. 54
\n(and some  of the  following sections  like 55 and 71 to 78)
\ndeal with  the aspect  of the  execution  of  town  planning
\nschemes and  it is  at the  stage of  execution\t of  a\ttown
\nplanning scheme\t that  the  power  of  summary\teviction  of
\noccupants who have ceased to be entitled to occupy the plots
\nin their  occupation  has  been\t conferred  upon  the  Local
\nAuthority itself-a  highly responsible\tbody ,\tand that the
\npower is  required to be exercised by it in objective manner
\n(it is\tto be found by reference to the Final Scheme and its
\ninterpretation whether\tthe occupants  are  occupying  lands
\nwhich they are not entitled to occupy , ). Further we are in
\nagreement with\tthe High Court that the power conferred upon
\nthe Local  Authority is a quasi-judicial power which implies
\nthat the  same has  to\tbe  exercised  after  observing\t the
\nprinciples of  natural justice\t,   that is  to say  ,\t the
\ndecision that  the occupants  are not entitled to occupy the
\nplots in their occupation has to be arrived at after hearing
\nsuch occupants\tand that  too by  passing a  speaking  order
\nwhich  implies\tgiving\tof  reasons  and  that\tensures\t the
\napplication of\tmind to only germane or relevant material on
\nthe record
\n622<\/span>
\neschewing extraneous  and irrelevant.  Moreover any order of
\nsummary eviction  based on  any extraneous  ,  non-germane ,
\nirrelevant or  malafide considerations\twould be  subject to
\nthe writ  jurisdiction of  Court.  Having  regard  to  these
\naspects ,   more  absence of  corrective machinery by way of
\nappeal or  review would not in our view render the provision
\ninvalid.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the\t appeals are dismissed with no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
M.L.A.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
623<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 613, 1985 SCR (3) 614 Author: V Tulzapurkar Bench: Tulzapurkar, V.D. PETITIONER: BABUBHAI & CO. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1985 BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, V.D. BENCH: TULZAPURKAR, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBabubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - 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\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\" \/>\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=\"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-30T16:29:51+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T16:29:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2287,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\",\"name\":\"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T16:29:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@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":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - 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\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-30T16:29:51+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T16:29:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985"},"wordCount":2287,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985","name":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T16:29:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babubhai-co-ors-vs-state-of-gujarat-ors-on-9-april-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babubhai & Co. & Ors vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 9 April, 1985"}]},{"@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\/203838","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=203838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203838\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}