{"id":212599,"date":"2011-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011"},"modified":"2017-09-08T07:13:56","modified_gmt":"2017-09-08T01:43:56","slug":"ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n
    VBC                                       1                              wp792.10-23.2\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                             O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2010\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n    Ikram Suleman Qureshi.                                        ...Petitioner.\n                            Vs.\n    Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n    Board & Ors.                                                  ...Respondents.\n                                    ....\n    Mr.Ramesh Dube-Patil and Mr.Ashish Giri i\/b. Ajay Misar & Co.  for \n    the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    Mr.V.M.Parashurami for Respondent No.1.\n    Mr.Kevit Setelwad i\/b. Mulla & Mulla for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.\n                                   \n    Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for the State.\n                                    .....\n                                    CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND \n                                  \n                                                   ANOOP V. MOHTA,  JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                  February 23, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :\n<\/p>\n
                Rule;   by   consent     returnable   forthwith.       With   the <\/p>\n
    consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for <\/p>\n
    hearing and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          The challenge in these proceedings  is to a No Objection <\/p>\n
    Certificate     dated  13   June   2009   issued  by   the   Mumbai   Building <\/p>\n
    Repairs and Reconstruction Board and to an IOD dated 28 January <\/p>\n
    2010 issued by the Municipal Corporation.  The authorities whose <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:47 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                     2                             wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    action   is   challenged   are   impleaded   as   the   First   and   Second <\/p>\n
    Respondents.     The   subject   matter   of   the   petition   is   a   proposed <\/p>\n
    redevelopment   to   be   carried   out   by   the   Seventh   and   Eights <\/p>\n
    Respondents in respect of land and immovable property situated at <\/p>\n
    Survey No.200 of Tardeo Division.  The redevelopment is proposed <\/p>\n
    under   DCR   33(7)   of   the   Development   Control   Regulations   for <\/p>\n
    Greater Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The Petitioner is an occupant of a residential flat   in an <\/p>\n
    adjoining   building,   which   is   known   as   Suleman   Tower.     The <\/p>\n
    building where the Petitioner resides was also redeveloped under <\/p>\n
    DCR 33(7) and the construction is complete.  At the time when the <\/p>\n
    building belonging to the Petitioner was redeveloped, the structure <\/p>\n
    situated on C.S.200   comprised of a ground floor and first floor.\n<\/p>\n
    The building in which a flat is in the occupation of the Petitioner <\/p>\n
    consists of 19 storeys.  Under DCR 29, it has been provided that the <\/p>\n
    open   space   for   separation   between   any   building   and   a   single <\/p>\n
    storeyed   accessory   building   need   not   exceed   1.5   meters.     The <\/p>\n
    developer   of   Suleman   Tower   sought   a   condonation   of   the <\/p>\n
    deficiency in the open space under DCR 64(b) which was granted <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:47 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                       3                              wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    by   the   Municipal   Commissioner.     The   Petitioner   now   seeks   to <\/p>\n
    challenge   the   condonation   in   the   deficiency   of   open   space   in <\/p>\n
    relation   to   the   redevelopment   which   is   taking   place   on   the <\/p>\n
    adjoining plot, C.S.200.  The deficiency has been condoned by the <\/p>\n
    Municipal Commissioner on 12 January 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          Under   a  notification   issued   by  the   Urban   Development <\/p>\n
    Department on 15 October 2003, the marginal open space required <\/p>\n
    for   a   building   having   a   height   of   more   than   24   meters,   is   six <\/p>\n
    meters.   A proposal was put up by the Architect of the Seventh and <\/p>\n
    Eighth Respondents for condoning the deficiency in the open space.\n<\/p>\n
    It is common ground between Counsel appearing on behalf of the <\/p>\n
    Petitioner    and   the   Seventh   and   Eighth   Respondents   that   the <\/p>\n
    building in which the Petitioner resides (Suleman Tower)  is on the <\/p>\n
    eastern side of the plot in which a redevelopment under DCR 33(7) <\/p>\n
    is to be carried out by the Seventh and Eighth Respondents.   The <\/p>\n
    Assistant Engineer (Building Proposals), City-III  submitted a report <\/p>\n
    in   which   he   noted   that   the   proposal   for   redevelopment   of   the <\/p>\n
    Seventh and Eighth Respondents envisaged condoning a deficiency <\/p>\n
    in   open   space   ranging   between   6.67%   to   100%.     The   relevant <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:47 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                   4                           wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    observation of the report is as follows :\n<\/p>\n
               “Thus, it can be seen that Architect is unable to provide
\n               required   open   space.     The   open   space   deficiency   is <\/p>\n
               ranging from 6.67% to 100%.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                          The   Architect   contended   that   open   space
\n               required cannot be proposed due to planning constraints <\/p>\n
               and the F.S.I. permissible is 3.810.  In order to consume
\n               such F.S.I. open space deficiency is inevitable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The report also notes that in view of the fact that another proposal <\/p>\n
    under DCR 33(7) was allowed by his office (that proposal is the <\/p>\n
    one which  pertains to Suleman Tower),  the open space  between <\/p>\n
    the two buildings will be 2.10 meters, including 1.5 meters open <\/p>\n
    space in respect of the development on the East side.\n<\/p>\n
    5.         The Municipal Commissioner   allowed the proposal and <\/p>\n
    condoned the deficiency in open space on the ground that out of <\/p>\n
    285.12 sq.mtrs.   being the area of the plot, the setback is 135.79 <\/p>\n
    sq.mtrs.   and   25   rehabilitation   tenements   were   required   to   be <\/p>\n
    provided.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         The grievance of  the Petitioner is that as a result of the <\/p>\n
    order which has been passed by the Municipal Commissioner, the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:47 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                       5                             wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    deficiency in the open space, which is extremely drastic, would be <\/p>\n
    condoned and there would be virtually no distance at all between <\/p>\n
    the   two   sets   of   buildings.     Learned   Counsel   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   has   not   applied   his   mind   to   the   requirements   of <\/p>\n
    Regulation 64(b)under which a deficiency can be condoned only <\/p>\n
    provided   that   the   relaxation   will   not   affect   health,   safety,   fire <\/p>\n
    safety, structural safety and public safety of the inhabitants of the <\/p>\n
    building and the neighbourhood.   On the other hand, it has been <\/p>\n
    urged on behalf of the  Seventh and Eighth Respondents that when <\/p>\n
    the building of the Petitioner was constructed, the deficiency in the <\/p>\n
    open space came to be condoned under Regulation 64(b).  Hence, <\/p>\n
    it is urged that the Petitioner cannot be heard to argue against the <\/p>\n
    condonation   which   has   been   granted   in  respect   of   the  adjoining <\/p>\n
    plot.     Moreover,   it   was   submitted   that   the   deficiency   has   been <\/p>\n
    occasioned by the fact that an area of 135.79 sq.mtrs. out of the <\/p>\n
    total   area   of   plot   of   285.12   sq.mtrs.   has   to   be   surrendered   as <\/p>\n
    setback to the Municipal Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Regulation   64(b)   contemplates   that   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner     in   specific   cases   of   demonstrable   hardship   may <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:48 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                      6                              wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    permit the dimensions prescribed by the Regulations (except those <\/p>\n
    relating   to   FSI)   to   be   relaxed.       However,   the   power   can   be <\/p>\n
    exercised   only   when   the   relaxation   does   not   affect   the   health, <\/p>\n
    safety,   fire   safety,   structural   safety   and   public   safety   of   the <\/p>\n
    inhabitants   of   the   building   and   the   neighbourhood.     DCR   64(b) <\/p>\n
    provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “In specific cases where a clearly demonstrable hardship
\n                is   caused,   the   Commissioner   may   for   reason   to   be <\/p>\n
                recorded in writing, by special permission permit any of
\n                the   dimension   prescribed   by   these   regulations   to   be
\n                modified,   except   those   relating   to   floor   space   indies <\/p>\n
                unless   otherwise   permitted   under   these   regulation,
\n                provided   that   the   relaxation   will   not   affect   the   health,
\n                safety, fire safety, structural safety, and public safety of
\n                the inhabitant of the building and the neighbourhood.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In the present case, it is evident from the proposal of the Architect <\/p>\n
    which is noted in the report of the Assistant Engineer that on the <\/p>\n
    eastern side, as opposed to the required open space of six meters, <\/p>\n
    the average open space is 0.61 meters; 0.32 meters, 0.81 meters <\/p>\n
    and 0.65 meters   at points B-C, D-E, F-G and H-I.   The Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner     has   condoned   the   deficiency   only   on   the   ground <\/p>\n
    that: (i) There is a setback of 135.79 sq.mtrs. out of the total plot <\/p>\n
    area of 285.12 sq.mtrs.; and (ii) That there are 25 rehabilitation <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:48 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                     7                             wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    tenements.  Ex-facie, the Municipal Commissioner has not applied <\/p>\n
    his mind to  the requirements of Regulation 64(b).  The report of <\/p>\n
    the Assistant Engineer did  advert to issues pertaining to hardship, <\/p>\n
    health, safety, fire safety, structural safety and the neighbourhood.\n<\/p>\n
    The Municipal Commissioner  must, however, independently apply <\/p>\n
    his mind to all the facets required under Regulation 64(b).   The <\/p>\n
    power to grant a relaxation under Regulation 64(b) is coupled with <\/p>\n
    a duty that the Municipal Commissioner must apply his mind to all <\/p>\n
    the   circumstances   which   are   considered   to   be   relevant   and <\/p>\n
    germane by the subordinate legislation.   Evidently, the Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner     has   not   done   so.     The   requirements   of     health, <\/p>\n
    safety,   fire   safety,   structural   safety   and   public   safety   of   the <\/p>\n
    inhabitants of a building and the neighbourhood cannot be lightly <\/p>\n
    brushed  aside   and  must be   taken into  account   by the  Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner  before he grants a relaxation.   In the affidavit filed <\/p>\n
    by the Municipal Corporation, the only attempt at justification is in <\/p>\n
    the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
                “I   say   that   the   proposal   under   reference   has   been
\n                submitted under modified D.C. Rule 33(7)   and as per
\n                notification   from   U.D.   Department,   margin   open   space
\n                required for  building  having height  more  than 24 mtr. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                are   6.00   or   as   prescribed   by   C.F.O.     However,   the \n\n\n\n\n                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:00:48 :::<\/span>\n     VBC                                      8                             wp792.10-23.2\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                architect   has   provided   open   space   with   deficiency
\n                ranging from 6.67% to 100%.  The open space deficiency <\/p>\n
                is   mainly   created   due   to  smaller   plot   area   and  135.79
\n                sq.mtrs. area in set back to be handed over to MCGM for <\/p>\n
                road widening out of the plot area to 285.12 sq.mtrs.  I
\n                say   that   the   Hon’ble   Municipal   Commissioner   by   his
\n                approval   dated   7.1.2010   accorded   specific   sanction   in
\n                accordance with law under C.D.R. 64(b) to condone the <\/p>\n
                open space deficiency by charging premium mentioning
\n                that “since out of 285.12 sq.mtrs. plot area, set back is
\n                135.79   mtrs.   and   25   rehab   tenements   the   proposal   is
\n                appoved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It   is   surprising   as   to   how   the   Corporation   considered   that   the <\/p>\n
    Architect has provided open space   with a deficiency ranging from <\/p>\n
    6.67% to 100%.   The Municipal Corporation seems to proceed on <\/p>\n
    the   basis   that   the   mere   charging   of   premium   is   sufficient   to <\/p>\n
    condone a deficiency of open space.  This is completely contrary to <\/p>\n
    the underlying basis and purpose of Regulation 64(b).\n<\/p>\n
    8.          In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   Municipal   Commissioner     is   unsustainable   and <\/p>\n
    should   be   quashed   and   a   direction   should   be   issued   to   the <\/p>\n
    Municipal Commissioner  to apply his mind afresh to the proposal <\/p>\n
    submitted by the   Seventh and Eighth Respondents.   It would be <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:48 :::<\/span>
\n     VBC                                      9                             wp792.10-23.2<\/p>\n
    open to the Seventh and Eighth Respondents to submit a modified <\/p>\n
    proposal   for   the   approval   of   the   Municipal   Corporation,     in   the <\/p>\n
    event that they are advised to do so.  In order to facilitate a fresh <\/p>\n
    determination,   we   quash   the   impugned   order   of   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner     dated   12   January   2010.     The   Municipal <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   shall pass a fresh order preferably within a period <\/p>\n
    of six weeks.   Rule is made absolute in these terms.  There shall be <\/p>\n
    no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                  ( Anoop V. Mohta, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:00:48 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Anoop V.Mohta VBC 1 wp792.10-23.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2010 Ikram Suleman Qureshi. …Petitioner. Vs. Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board & Ors. …Respondents. …. […]<\/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-212599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIkram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - 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\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-08T01:43:56+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\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T01:43:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1584,\"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\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\",\"name\":\"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-08T01:43:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - 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\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-08T01:43:56+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\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T01:43:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011"},"wordCount":1584,"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\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011","name":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-08T01:43:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ikram-suleman-qureshi-vs-board-ors-on-23-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ikram Suleman Qureshi vs Board & Ors on 23 February, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/212599","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=212599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}