{"id":204046,"date":"2010-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-11-22T03:26:47","modified_gmt":"2015-11-21T21:56:47","slug":"kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,\n                 AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                    WRIT PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2009\n\n    1         Kishor s\/o Mallayya Sandry,\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n              age 43 years, occ. Dy. Engineer,\n              Abhiyanta Pani Purwatha, Nagar Parishad,\n              Jalna.                                            ...Petitioner\n                      \n\n\n\n\n                                      \n              VERSUS \n    1         The State of Maharashtra,\n                    \n              through Secretary, Rural Water\n              Supply, Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n\n    2         Chief Administrative Officer,\n      \n\n\n              Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Mandal,\n              Mumbai,\n   \n\n\n\n    3         Chief Officer,\n              Nagar Parishad, Jalna,\n\n\n\n\n\n    4         Shri V.B.Sable,\n              age 40 years, occ. Engineer,\n              Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaram\n              Mandal, Nagpur Division                            ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       .....\n    Shri Prashant S.Shinde, advocate\n    h\/f Shri S.G.Shinde,  advocate for the petitioner\n    Shri S.K.Kadam, A.G.P.  for respondent no.1\n    Shri D.P.Bakshi, advocate for respondent no.2\n    Shri H.K.Munde, advocate for respondent no.3\n    Respondent no.4 deleted as per order dated 16.9.2009.\n                                       .....\n\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::\n                                            2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              \n                                  CORAM  : S.B.DESHUMKH \n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                                                   AND\n                                                   SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                  DATE OF RESERVING <\/p>\n
                                 THE JUDGMENT                :  12.10.2010
\n                                 DATE OF PRONOUNCING
\n                                 THE JUDGMENT                :  21.10.2010<\/p>\n
    J U D G M E N T   :  (Per Shrihari P. Davare, J.)<\/p>\n
    1           Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.  With the consent of <\/p>\n
    the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final <\/p>\n
    hearing at the admission stage.\n<\/p>\n
    2           The petitioner has assailed the order of his transfer dated <\/p>\n
    15.6.2009  (Exh.  ‘B’),  issued  by   respondent  no.2,    transferring   him <\/p>\n
    from Nagar Parishad, Jalna to Chief Engineer Divisional Department, <\/p>\n
    Aurangabad,   by   present   petition   filed   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
    3           The   petitioner   was   working   as   Dept.   Engineer   at <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   Jeevan   Pradhikaran   Division,   Aurangabad   i.e. <\/p>\n
    respondent   no.2.     By   communication   dated   30.8.2008,   he   was <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
    transferred on deputation to Nagar Parishad, Jalna by respondent <\/p>\n
    no.2 for the period of three years and copy thereof is annexed at <\/p>\n
    Exh. ‘A’.   Accordingly, the petitioner was relieved before 15.9.2008 <\/p>\n
    and joined his services at Jalna on 1.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
    4            However,   according   to   the   petitioner,     respondent   no.2 <\/p>\n
    again on 15.6.2009 issued transfer order, thereby re-transferring the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   to   Aurangabad.   Hence,   being   aggrieved   by   the   said <\/p>\n
    transfer   dated   15.6.2009,   by   which   the   petitioner   came   to   be   re-\n<\/p>\n
    transferred   within   the   period   of   three   years,   the   petitioner   has <\/p>\n
    challenged   the   said   order   in   the   present   petition   and   prayed   for <\/p>\n
    quashment thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    5            Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   canvassed   that   after <\/p>\n
    transfer   order   dated   15.6.2009,   the   petitioner   submitted <\/p>\n
    representation on 8.7.2009 to respondent no.2 seeking cancellation <\/p>\n
    thereof,   but   same   was   not   decided   by   the   concerned   authority.\n<\/p>\n
    Hence, the petitioner again submitted representation on 21.7.2009, <\/p>\n
    but same also was not decided by respondent no.2 and copies of the <\/p>\n
    said representations are produced at Exh. ‘F’ collectively.\n<\/p>\n
    6            Learned counsel for the petitioner  also submitted that by <\/p>\n
    the   initial   order   dated   30.8.2008   (Exh.   ‘A’),   the   petitioner   was <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    transferred from Aurangabad to Nagar Parishad, Jalna on deputation <\/p>\n
    for the period of three years.   However, by order dated 15.6.2009 <\/p>\n
    (Exh.   ‘B’)   he   was   re-transferred   from   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna     to <\/p>\n
    Auranabad   by   respondent   no.2     within   the   period   of   thee   years, <\/p>\n
    which is contrary to Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Government <\/p>\n
    Servants   Regulation   of   Transfers   and   Prevention   of   Delay   in <\/p>\n
    Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the <\/p>\n
    Transfer Act of 2005’) and Circular dated 2.6.2001.\n<\/p>\n
    7            It   is   further   canvassed   by   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   that   the   President,   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna   has   also <\/p>\n
    recommended   that   the   petitioner   has   not   completed   his   term   of <\/p>\n
    tenure of three years   and it is necessary that the petitioner should <\/p>\n
    be allowed to continue with his deputation at Jalna and copy of the <\/p>\n
    said   letter   dated   16.6.2009   is   annexed   at   Exh.   ‘C’.     Moreover, <\/p>\n
    learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   also   invited   our   attention   to   the <\/p>\n
    communication   dated   15.7.2009,   issued   by   the   President,   Nagar <\/p>\n
    Parishad, Jalna, whereby the order of transfer dated 15.6.2009 i.e. <\/p>\n
    impugned order was stayed, since the petitioner had not completed <\/p>\n
    his tenure of three years and copy thereof is produced at Exh. ‘E’.\n<\/p>\n
    8            Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that <\/p>\n
    one   Mr.   V.B.Sable,   who   was   transferred   to   Jalna   by   order   dated <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.8.2009   had   taken   the   charge,   but   now     again   he   has   been <\/p>\n
    transferred to Yeotmal by order dated 31.5.2010.   Accordingly, it is <\/p>\n
    submitted  that both the posts are vacant at Nagar Parishad, Jalna, <\/p>\n
    and hence, it is urged that there is no impediment in retaining the <\/p>\n
    petitioner at Nagar Parishad, Jalna and prayed that the impugned <\/p>\n
    order dated 15.6.2009, being arbitrary and illegal, be quashed and <\/p>\n
    set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    9             Learned   A.G.P.   appearing   for   the   respondents <\/p>\n
    vehemently   opposed   the   present   petition   and   countered   the <\/p>\n
    arguments   advanced   by   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner     and <\/p>\n
    submitted   that   by   letter   dated   21.11.2008   the   President   of   Nagar <\/p>\n
    Parishad, Jalna requested the Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan <\/p>\n
    Pradhikaran,   Aurangabad   Region,   Aurangabad   that   the   petitioner, <\/p>\n
    who   was   transferred   to   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna   on   deputation   has <\/p>\n
    joined on 1.10.2008, but  thereafter due to some domestic reason, he <\/p>\n
    never   turned   up   to   the   office   since   then.     In   the   said   letter,   the <\/p>\n
    President  also requested  to  Chief  Engineer,   Maharashtra  Jeevan <\/p>\n
    Pradhikaran   Division,   Aurangabad     i.e.   respondent   no.2,   that <\/p>\n
    experienced   Deputy Engineer may be sent on   deputation for two <\/p>\n
    years to Nagar Parishad, Jalna, to regulate the water supply to city of <\/p>\n
    Jalna, and copy of the said letter dated 21.11.2008 is annexed at <\/p>\n
    Exh. ‘R-1’ to the affidavit in reply filed by respondent no.2.  It is also <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
    submitted that in view of the request letter of the President, Nagar <\/p>\n
    Parishad,   Jalna   dated   21.11.2008,   respondent   no.2   re-transferred <\/p>\n
    the   petitioner   from   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna   and   posted   him   at <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Division, Aurangabad, and the said <\/p>\n
    action of re-transfer of the petitioner from  Nagar Parishad, Jalna  to <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   Jeevan   Pradhikaran   Division,   Aurangabad   is   in <\/p>\n
    accordance with  Section 4(4)(ii) of the Transfer Act of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
    10           It is further submitted that after re-transfer of the petitioner <\/p>\n
    from   Nagar Parishad, Jalna   to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran <\/p>\n
    Division, Aurangabad, one Deputy Engineer, namely Shri V.B.Sable <\/p>\n
    was   transferred   from   Maharashtra   Jeevan   Pradhikaran   Division, <\/p>\n
    Nagpur   to   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna     and   he   joined   at   said   Nagar <\/p>\n
    Parishad, Jalna  in place of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    11           Moreover,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   also <\/p>\n
    invited   our   attention   to   the   relieving   letter   dated   9.7.2009,   which <\/p>\n
    discloses that the petitioner has been relieved from Nagar Parishad, <\/p>\n
    Jalna from 10.7.2009,     in pursuance of the order dated 15.6.2009, <\/p>\n
    and hence,  it is urged  that the transfer order dated 15.6.2009 has <\/p>\n
    been   already   acted   upon,   and   therefore,     nothing   survives   in   the <\/p>\n
    present   petition     and   same   deserves   to   be   dismissed.     It   is   also <\/p>\n
    pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the so-called <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    stay   order   issued   by   the   President,   Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna   on <\/p>\n
    15.7.2009   bears   no   substance,   since   the   impugned     order   dated <\/p>\n
    15.6.2009 was already acted upon, as the petitioner was relieved  as <\/p>\n
    afore   said,   and   it   is   submitted   that   there   is   no   substance   in   the <\/p>\n
    argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that <\/p>\n
    respect.\n<\/p>\n
    12<\/span><\/p>\n
                  We have perused the contents of the present petition as <\/p>\n
    well as affidavit in replies filed by respondent no.2 and respondent <\/p>\n
    no.3, and annexures thereto, and also affidavit in rejoinder filed by <\/p>\n
    the petitioner and the annexures thereto  as well as considered  the <\/p>\n
    submissions advanced by learned respective counsel for the parties <\/p>\n
    anxiously, and at the out set, it is seen that the initial order dated <\/p>\n
    30.8.2008 (Exh. ‘A’) is the order, by which the petitioner was posted <\/p>\n
    at  Nagar Parishad, Jalna on deputation for the period of three years, <\/p>\n
    and   accordingly,   he   was   relieved   on   15.9.2008   and   joined   the <\/p>\n
    services at Jalna on 1.10.2008.   Thereafter by the impugned order <\/p>\n
    dated 15.6.2009 (Exh. ‘B’) he was repatriated from  Nagar Parishad, <\/p>\n
    Jalna to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Division, Aurangabad in <\/p>\n
    public   interest   and   for   administrative   reasons,   in   accordance   with <\/p>\n
    Section 4(4)(ii) of the Transfer Act of 2005, and therefore apparently, <\/p>\n
    there is no impediment of Section 3(1) of the Transfer Act of 2005, as <\/p>\n
    canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner.  Moreover, since the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner  was   relieved  from   Nagar  Parishad,  Jalna    on  10.7.2009 <\/p>\n
    itself in pursuance of the impugned order dated 15.6.2009, the very <\/p>\n
    impugned order dated 15.6.2009 has been already acted upon, and <\/p>\n
    hence, there is no substance in the subsequent so-called stay order <\/p>\n
    dated 15.7.2009 issued by the President, Nagar Parishad, Jalna, and <\/p>\n
    consequently, there is no substance in the present petition also.\n<\/p>\n
    13<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Moreover,   the   contents   of   the   letter   dated   21.11.2008 <\/p>\n
    (Exh. ‘R-1’), issued by the President, Nagar Parishad, Jalna   to the <\/p>\n
    Chief   Engineer,   Maharashtra   Jeevan   Pradhikaran,   Aurangabad <\/p>\n
    Region,   wherein   it   is   stated   that   although   the   petitioner   joined <\/p>\n
    services at Nagar Parishad, Jalna on 1.10.2008, thereafter he never <\/p>\n
    turned up to the office,  and the said fact cannot be ignored.  So also, <\/p>\n
    during the course of arguments, learned counsel  for respondent no.\n<\/p>\n
    2   tendered   the   copy   of   the   letter   dated   21\/25.11.2008,   issued   by <\/p>\n
    Chief   Executive   Officer   to     respondent   no.2,   which   is   marked   at <\/p>\n
    document ‘X’ for identification purpose, wherein it is stated that the <\/p>\n
    petitioner herein has not worked for a single day after resumption of <\/p>\n
    duties  at Nagar Parishad, Jalna, and therefore, requested to appoint <\/p>\n
    another substitute Deputy Engineer in his place and sight cannot be <\/p>\n
    lost of said material aspect.  Accordingly, it is evident  from both the <\/p>\n
    said letters i.e. letter dated 21.11.2008 (Exh. ‘R-1’) and letter dated <\/p>\n
    21\/25.11.2008 (document marked  ‘X’ for identification) that petitioner <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    never worked at Nagar Parishad, Jalna, after resumption of duty, and <\/p>\n
    hence,   there is substance in the argument canvassed by learned <\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   respondents   that   the   action   of   re-transfer   of   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   from     Nagar   Parishad,   Jalna   to     Maharashtra   Jeevan <\/p>\n
    Pradhikaran   Division,   Aurangabad   is   in   accordance   with     Section <\/p>\n
    4(4)(ii) of the Transfer Act of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
    14<\/span><\/p>\n
                  Besides   that,   as   canvassed   by   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    respondents that one Shri V.B.Sable, Sub-Divisional Engineer was <\/p>\n
    transferred from Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Nagpur to Nagar <\/p>\n
    Parishad, Jalna and he joined said Nagar Parishad, Jalna in place of <\/p>\n
    the   petitioner,   and   therefore,   also   nothing   survives   in   the   present <\/p>\n
    petition, and further, transfer of said Shri Sable to Yeotmal by order <\/p>\n
    dated 31.5.2010, as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, <\/p>\n
    is of no consequence, and cannot be of any aid and assistance to <\/p>\n
    the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    15            It is also material to note that although the petitioner was <\/p>\n
    relieved on 10.7.2009 by order dated 9.7.2009 by Nagar Parishad, <\/p>\n
    Jalna (Exh. ‘D’), in pursuance of the impugned order dated 15.6.2009 <\/p>\n
    (Exh.   ‘B’),   it   is   submitted   that   the   petitioner   has   not   resumed   his <\/p>\n
    duties   so   far   at   his   repatriated   place   i.e.   Maharashtra   Jeevan <\/p>\n
    Pradhikaran   Division,   Aurangabad   and   the   said   conduct   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioner speaks volumes for itself.\n<\/p>\n
    16            In   the   circumstances,   considering   the   legal   and   factual <\/p>\n
    position, we are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by <\/p>\n
    the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are of the considered <\/p>\n
    view   that     this   is   not   a   fit   case   to   exercise   extra   ordinary   writ <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction, and hence, no interference is warranted in the impugned <\/p>\n
    order dated 15.6.2009, issued by respondent no.2, and accordingly, <\/p>\n
    present petition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    17            In the result, present petition which is  sans merits stands <\/p>\n
    dismissed.     Rule   stands   discharged   accordingly.   In   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
    circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)                                  (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)  \n\n\n\n\n\n    18            After pronouncement of this judgment, learned counsel for \n\n<\/pre>\n
    the petitioner Shri Shinde made a request that representations filed <\/p>\n
    by   the   petitioner   on   8.7.2009   and   21.7.2009   be   considered   by <\/p>\n
    respondent   No.2   employer.     We   have   heard   learned   AGP   for <\/p>\n
    respondent No.1, Shri Bakshi, learned Advocate for respondent No.2 <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>
\n                                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
    and Shri Munde, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.   Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submit that now the judgment <\/p>\n
    has   been   pronounced     and   such   request   could   have   been <\/p>\n
    considered   by   them   before   pronouncement   of   the   judgment,   if   so <\/p>\n
    made by the petitioner.   In our view, representations which are made <\/p>\n
    by the petitioners can be considered by respondent No.2 – employer <\/p>\n
    in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   law   and   decision   thereof   be <\/p>\n
    communicated to the petitioner within two months from today.\n<\/p>\n
    (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.)                               (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)  \n   \n\n\n\n    dbm\/wp5398.09\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:34:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 Bench: S.B. Deshmukh, Shrihari P. Davare 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2009 1 Kishor s\/o Mallayya Sandry, age 43 years, occ. Dy. Engineer, Abhiyanta Pani Purwatha, Nagar Parishad, Jalna. …Petitioner […]<\/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-204046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-21T21:56:47+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T21:56:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1797,\"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\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T21:56:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-21T21:56:47+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T21:56:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010"},"wordCount":1797,"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\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010","name":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T21:56:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishor-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-21-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishor vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204046","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=204046"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204046\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}