{"id":208946,"date":"2000-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000"},"modified":"2015-08-02T08:27:41","modified_gmt":"2015-08-02T02:57:41","slug":"mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Sethi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 10742  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nMOHAMMED GAZI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF M.P. &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t31\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS. Saghir Ahmad &amp; R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;I&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>    Whether  a\tperson can be penalised for no fault of\t his<br \/>\nmerely\tby  resorting  to  equity clause in  favour  of\t the@@<br \/>\n\t    JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nrespondent-State  particularly when such person is found  to@@<br \/>\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ<br \/>\nhave  not  been\t benefitted  or the State  deprived  of\t the<br \/>\nbenefits  on account of the stay order issued by the  Court?<br \/>\nis  the\t question  of  law to be  decided  in  this  appeal.<br \/>\nAnother\t related  question requiring determination is as  to<br \/>\nwhether\t on  account  of the pendency of the  writ  petition<br \/>\nfiled  by  another  party without  impleading  the  affected<br \/>\nperson\tas  a party in which the stay order granted  by\t the<br \/>\nCourt,\tsuch person can be directed to forfeit a part of the<br \/>\nsecurity amount deposited by him particularly when the court<br \/>\nitself\tfound  that even the equities were equally  balanced<br \/>\nbetween the State and such person.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t facts of the case giving rise to the  determination<br \/>\nof  the\t questions of law formulated hereinabove are that  a<br \/>\ntender\tnotice inviting tenders for disposal of Tendu leaves<br \/>\nfor  1995 session was issued by the respondent-State on 20th<br \/>\nNovember,  1995.   Respondent  No.4 offered  his  tender  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  different\tlots including Lot  No.597  and\t was<br \/>\ndeclared  the  highest\tbidder\tfor the\t said  lot  on\t20th<br \/>\nDecember, 1995.\t On account of some complaints made by other<br \/>\nbidders\t and on account of alleged manipulations on the part<br \/>\nof   the  official-respondents\tthe   highest  bid  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent No.4 was not accepted and his tender cancelled by<br \/>\norder  dated  27th January, 1996.  Fresh notice for  tenders<br \/>\nfor the aforesaid lot were issued on 20th May, 1996 in which<br \/>\nthe  appellant\therein was declared the highest bidder.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  meantime,\tthe  respondent\t No.4  filed  writ  petition<br \/>\nNo.2147\/96  in\tthe  High  Court challenging  the  order  of<br \/>\ncancellation   of  tender  dated   27th\t January,  1996\t and<br \/>\nre-tender  notice dated 23rd May, 1996.\t He also prayed\t for<br \/>\ninterim\t relief\t to  the extent that pursuant to  the  fresh<br \/>\ntender\tnotice dated 20th May, 1996 the official-respondents<br \/>\nbe  restrained from executing any fresh agreement.  The High<br \/>\nCourt vide order dated 18.6.1996 issued an interim direction<br \/>\nrestraining  the  official-respondents from taking any\tstep<br \/>\npursuant  to  the fresh tender notice.\tIt is  pertinent  to<br \/>\nnote  that  the\t appellant  herein was not  impleaded  as  a<br \/>\nparty-respondent  in  the  aforesaid   writ  petition.\t  He<br \/>\nreceived  a letter from official-respondents 1 to 3  calling<br \/>\nupon him to execute purchase agreement as per Clause 7(2) of<br \/>\nthe  tender  notice with the Conservative of  Forests  after<br \/>\ndepositing the balance security as shown in the letter dated<br \/>\n1.9.1996.   Consequently,  the appellant deposited a sum  of<br \/>\nRs.2,68,217.72 as security amount.  The appellant also filed<br \/>\nan  application for intervention in the writ petition  filed<br \/>\nby respondent No.4 which was rejected on 1.4.1997.  The writ<br \/>\npetition  filed by the respondent No.4 was disposed of by  a<br \/>\nlearned\t Single\t Judge of the High Court by  quashing  order<br \/>\ndated  27.1.1996  to the extent by which the  earnest  money<br \/>\ndeposited  by  respondent  No.4\t had  been  directed  to  be<br \/>\nforfeited  and a direction was issued to refund the  earnest<br \/>\nmoney  to respondent No.4.  After disposal of the  aforesaid<br \/>\nwrit  petition the appellant requested the respondents 2 and<br \/>\n3  to refund his security amount of Rs.2,68,217.72 vide\t his<br \/>\nletter dated 24.4.1997.\t He pleaded that since Tendu leaves,<br \/>\nwhich was a perishable item, had already perished and rotten<br \/>\nwith  the result that its value had become useless by  lapse<br \/>\nof  time.   He also prayed for 18% interest on the  security<br \/>\namount\twhich was alleged to have illegally been detained by<br \/>\nofficial-respondents  for no fault of the appellant.  It  is<br \/>\ncontended  by  the  appellant that after  his  letter  dated<br \/>\n24.4.1997  the\trespondent  No.2 sent an ante  dated  letter<br \/>\ndated  10.4.1997  directing  the appellant  to\texecute\t the<br \/>\nagreement  by  10.5.1997  and deposit the  remaining  tender<br \/>\nprice in four instalments as detailed therein.\tApprehending<br \/>\nthat  the  authorities might proceed to forfeit his  earnest<br \/>\nmoney  and  blacklist him, the appellant was constrained  to<br \/>\nfile  writ petition No.1934\/97 in the High Court praying for<br \/>\nquashing of order dated 1.4.1997 and refund of earnest money<br \/>\nalong  with an amount of Rs.10 lakhs claimed as damages.  He<br \/>\nfurther prayed that he should not be compelled to enter into<br \/>\nan  agreement  in pursuance to letter dated 19.6.1996.\t The<br \/>\nwrit  petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court on 10.12.1997 with a direction to the respondents<br \/>\n1  to  3  to  refund the security amount  to  the  appellant<br \/>\nforthwith.   Not  satisfied  with the order of\tthe  learned<br \/>\nSingle\tJudge, the respondents 1 to 3 filed a Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was<br \/>\npartly allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\tis  not\t disputed  that\t on  account  of  litigation<br \/>\ninitiated   by\trespondent  No.4   without  impleading\t the<br \/>\nappellants as party in his litigation, he was prevented from<br \/>\ntaking the benefit of the acceptance of his tender notice by<br \/>\nthe  official-respondents.   It also cannot be\tdenied\tthat<br \/>\nTendu leaves are a perishable item.  For no fault of his the<br \/>\nappellant was prevented from collecting the Tendu leaves for<br \/>\nwhich  he  had deposited his security amount.  It  is  worth<br \/>\nnoticing  that\twhen the writ petition filed  by  respondent<br \/>\nNo.4  was  partly allowed by a learned Single Judge  of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court, the official-respondents had not filed a Letters<br \/>\nPatent Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In\tthe writ petition No.1934\/97 filed by the appellant,<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of the High Court held on facts:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;In\t view  of  these circumstances, this  Court  has  no<br \/>\nhesitation  in holding that the contract between the parties<br \/>\nhas  frustrated.  The respondents are not entitled to compel<br \/>\nthe  petitioner to purchase or lift the Tendu leaves at\t the<br \/>\nprice  quoted  by  him.\t The respondents are duty  bound  to<br \/>\nreturn the money received from the petitioner at the time of<br \/>\nsubmission  of\tthe tender.  If the respondents\t suffer\t any<br \/>\nlosses\tbecause of the acts of the respondent No.4 they\t are<br \/>\nfree  to take proper legal proceedings before the  competent<br \/>\ncourt  of  law\tfor recovery of damages if the\tlaws  permit<br \/>\nthem.  The petition is allowed.\t No costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Division  Bench, while disposing of the  LPA,\talso<br \/>\nfound  that the appellant could not be held responsible\t for<br \/>\nnot  lifting the Tendu leaves and thereby had not  committed<br \/>\nbreach\tof  any condition of the tender.  Finding  that\t the<br \/>\nState  was also not responsible for any breach, the Division<br \/>\nBench  decided\tto pass the order impugned on the  basis  of<br \/>\nequities.  The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  Division Bench that there was no fault  on\t his<br \/>\npart  because he had offered bid and was prepared to  accept<br \/>\nthe  Tendu leaves which he could not lift on account of stay<br \/>\norder  were found by the Division Bench to be not erroneous.<br \/>\nThe  Division Bench held that &#8220;the submisson of the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel does not appear to be erroneous&#8221;.  As the State also<br \/>\ncould  not  be held responsible for the fault, the  Division<br \/>\nBench  directed\t that a sum of Rs.30,000\/- be deducted\tfrom<br \/>\nthe earnest money of the appellant.  Such a direction of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  cannot be sustained in view of the findings  on<br \/>\nfact  returned in favour of the appellant.  In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the\tcase, the maxim of  equity,  namely,<br \/>\nactus  curiae  neminem gravabit &#8211; an act of the Court  shall<br \/>\nprejudice  no  man,  shall  be applicable.   This  maxim  is<br \/>\nfounded\t upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and<br \/>\ncertain\t guide\tfor  the administration of law.\t  The  other<br \/>\nmaxim  is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia &#8211; the law does\t not<br \/>\ncompel\ta  man to do which he cannot possibly perform.\t The<br \/>\nlaw  itself and its administration is understood to disclaim<br \/>\nas  it\tdoes  in  its general aphorisms,  all  intention  of<br \/>\ncompelling  impossibilities,  and the administration of\t law<br \/>\nmust  adopt  that general exception in the consideration  of<br \/>\nparticular cases.  The applicability of the aforesaid maxims<br \/>\nhas  been approved by this Court in Raj Kumar Dey &amp;  Ors.vs.<br \/>\nTarapada  Dey &amp; Ors.[1987 (4) SCC 398] and Gursharan Singh &amp;<br \/>\nOrs  vs.  NDMC &amp; Ors.  [1996 (2) SCC 459].  Keeping in\tview<br \/>\nthe  facts  and\t circumstances\tof the case we\tare  of\t the<br \/>\nopinion\t that  the Division Bench of the High Court was\t not<br \/>\njustified  in  directing  the  deduction   of  the  sum\t  of<br \/>\nRs.30,000\/-  from  the\tsecurity  amount  deposited  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   We\t find  that  the learned  Single  Judge\t had<br \/>\nassigned  cogent reasons for return of the earnest money  to<br \/>\nthe  appellant and those findings could not be disturbed  by<br \/>\nthe Division Bench allegedly on the ground of equities.\t The<br \/>\nappeal\tis allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated<br \/>\n1.12.1998  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of<br \/>\nM.P.   in  LPA No.270\/98.  The order of the  learned  Single<br \/>\nJudge  is restored and the appellant held entitled to refund<br \/>\nof  the whole amount of the earnest money deposited by\thim.<br \/>\nNo costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: S. Saghir Ahmad, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 10742 of 1999 PETITIONER: MOHAMMED GAZI Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF M.P. &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/2000 BENCH: S. Saghir Ahmad &amp; R.P. Sethi. JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208946","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-02T02:57:41+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T02:57:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1492,\"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\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-02T02:57:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-02T02:57:41+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T02:57:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000"},"wordCount":1492,"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\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000","name":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-02T02:57:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-gazi-vs-state-of-m-p-ors-on-31-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammed Gazi vs State Of M.P. &amp; Ors on 31 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/208946","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=208946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208946\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}