{"id":214575,"date":"2006-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006"},"modified":"2016-06-22T10:33:23","modified_gmt":"2016-06-22T05:03:23","slug":"dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Guj 177<\/div>\n
Author: M Shah<\/div>\n
Bench: M Shah<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
M.R. Shah, J.<\/p>\n
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996 confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Information & Broadcasting Department, State of Gujarat by its order dated 19.9.1996 in cancelling the Video Cinema licence of the petitioner, on the ground that there is a breach of Rule-11 of the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by Video) Rules; 1984 and Condition No. 4 of the Licence as the petitioner found to be running Video Cinema in the premises without N.A. permission.\n<\/p>\n
2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he is carrying on the business of running Video Cinema Theatre in the name of Valam Video Cinema at Varachha Road, Surat and the Video Cinema licence was granted in his favour on 3.12.1993 and subsequently, the licence was renewed on two occasions for a period of 6 months and one year respectively. The District Magistrate, Surat issued a notice dated 19.2.1996 to the effect that the petitioner had not produced the N.A. permission before the respondent authority and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the licence should not be cancelled. It appears from the record that the petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice and thereafter, the respondent No. 1 – District Magistrate, Surat passed the impugned order dated 25.5.1996 in cancelling the petitioner’s licence and also rejecting his renewal application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996 in cancelling the Video Cinema licence, the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Government i.e. the respondent No. 2 who initially granted the stay however, subsequently, vide order dated 19.9.1996 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate, Surat dated 25.5.1996. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
3. Shri R.R.Marshall, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that 85 persons in the said area i.e. Varachha area, Surat are running Video Cinemas in the premises without N.A. permission and their licences are not cancelled. He has further submitted that even the very appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate in cases where the Video Cinemas were being run in a premises without N.A. permission and therefore, similar treatment should be given by the appellate authority in favour of the petitioner and therefore, it is requested on behalf of the petitioner to remand the matter to the appellate authority so that similar treatment be given to the petitioner. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are other Video Theatres in the same locality such as Soneri, VIP and New Akshar who are not having N.A. permission and their plans are also not sanctioned and the action is only taken against the petitioner and the petitioner has been singled out and given discriminatory treatment. It is further submitted by Shri Marshall, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that if the Video Cinema of the petitioner is closed down then in that case the very building will be used for other purpose and that too without N.A. permission as in the area in question most of the occupiers\/persons are not having N.A. permission and still either they are carrying on the business and\/or they are residing and therefore, the petitioner should be permitted to run the Video Cinema.\n<\/p>\n
4. Ms. Archna Raval, learned AGP while opposing the present Special Civil Application and while relying upon the affidavit-in-reply has submitted that initially when the licence was granted to the petitioner to run Video Cinema vide order dated 3.12.1993 there was specific condition imposed by the licensing authority i.e. District Magistrate, Surat that after obtaining the N.A. permission within 6 months, the petitioner should produce order of N.A. permission before the licensing authority, still the petitioner did not get the N.A. permission and even thereafter also whenever the licence was renewed such a condition was imposed, still the petitioner did not obtain the N.A. permission and continued to run Video Cinema which is not permissible under the law and as per the Gujarat Cinemas (Regulation of Exhibition by Video) Rules, the N.A. permission is must and therefore, the order passed by the respondent No. 1 confirmed by the respondent No. 2 is just and proper and in accordance with law. She has further submitted that merely because some other persons might be running the Video Cinemas without N.A. permission, that itself is not ground to allow the petitioner to run Video Cinema dehors the Rules. She has also further submitted that even the contention on behalf of the petitioner that other persons are permitted to run Video Cinemas and their licences are continued by the licensing authority though they did not have N.A. permission, is factually incorrect and on the basis of the instructions given by one Shri D.V. Mevada, Additional District Magistrate i.e. licensing authority who is personally present in the Court, she has submitted that whenever it is found that there is a breach of Rules inclusive of not having N.A. Permission, either the licences are cancelled and\/or not renewed and in most of the cases now the show-cause notices are already issued and has submitted that in all those cases wherever the Video Cinemas are being run in a premises without N.A. Permission, their licences were cancelled and\/or not renewed and therefore, it is submitted that there is no discriminatory treatment given to the petitioner. She has also further made specific statement under the instructions from the Additional District Magistrate, Surat, Shri D.V. Mevada, who is personally present in the Court that all those Video Theaters who are being run in the premises without N.A. Permission, their licences will be cancelled and\/or the same will not be renewed and henceforth no fresh licences will be granted to run Video Theaters in the premises not having N.A. Permission. It is also further submitted that merely because the appellate authority in one or two cases had remanded the matter is not ground to allow the petitioner to run Video Cinema without N.A. Permission and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
6. It is not in dispute that as per the Rules one of the condition is that a person must have N.A. permission for the premises in which the Video Cinema is run and the same is the statutory requirement under the Rules and also one of the condition of the licence. Even when the petitioner was granted the licence on 3.12.1993, one of the condition was that the petitioner must get N.A. permission within 6 months and the petitioner was directed to produce the N.A. permission before the licensing authority. The petitioner did not comply with the same. Even thereafter, whenever the licence was renewed i.e. twice, the petitioner was informed and\/or directed to produce the N.A. permission, still the petitioner did not produce the N.A. permission and therefore, the show-cause notice came to be issued and the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the licence infavour of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground that there is a breach of provisions of Rules and the conditions of licence and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the order came to be passed cancelling the licence which came to be confirmed by the appellate authority. The only contention on behalf of the petitioner is that some other 85 persons are running Video Cinemas in the premises without N.A. permission and their licences are not cancelled and therefore, the petitioner should be given the similar treatment. It is required to be noted and as stated herein above, to have N.A. permission is a statutory requirement and therefore, no person can run Video Cinema in a premises without N.A, permission and therefore, to allow a person to run Video Cinema in a premises without N.A. permission itself is contrary to the Rules and conditions of licence. Therefore, assuming that some other persons might be running Video Cinemas in a premises without N.A. permission by itself cannot entitles the petitioner to run the Video Cinema in a premises without N.A. permission which is dehors the law. The law on this point is very clear. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments such as in case of Yogesh Kumar And Ors. v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi and Ors.  and in case of Union of India and Anr. v. International Trading Co. and Anr.<\/a> , the order passed in favour of one person, if it is found that it is a wrong order, another person cannot claim parity. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wrong order in favour of one person cannot entitle another person to get the same order. Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that as no action has been taken against the other Video Cinema owners though similarly situated, the petitioner should be given the same treatment, cannot be accepted as there cannot be negative discrimination.\n<\/p>\n
7. The another contention on behalf of the petitioner is that in the entire area the constructions and houses are without N.A. permission and therefore, if Video Cinema is closed down, it might be used for some other purpose i.e. for other residential and\/or commercial use without N.A. Permission, than why not to allow the petitioner to run Video Cinema. It is required to be noted that this Court and\/or the respondents authorities cannot permit the petitioner to use the premises without N.A. permission dehors the Rules merely because some other persons are using it without N.A. Permission. Such a contention cannot be accepted. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that the very appellate authority has in some of the cases remanded the matter and\/or allowed the appeal and allow the Video Cinema owners to run the Video Cinemas without N.A. permission and therefore, the matter should be remanded to the appellate authority so that similar treatment can be given to the petitioner. It is required to be noted that what the appellate authority has done if it is illegal and\/or dehors the Rules, this Court cannot either put a seal upon that or cannot direct the appellate authority to give similar treatment which otherwise is illegal. Under the circumstances, the said contention also cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
8. So far as the complaint with regard to discriminatory treatment to the petitioner is concerned, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, one Shri D.V. Mevada, Additional District Magistrate, licensing authority, Surat is personally present in the Court and has submitted the list of Video Cinemas whose licences have been cancelled and\/or not renewed and according to the same, 11 Video Cinemas’ licences were cancelled where it was found that the Video Cineas were running in a residential houses which were given by the government to flood affected persons. As per the said statement, 25 Video Cinemas’ licences have been cancelled who are not having N.A. permission. He has also produced one statement with licence numbers with regard to 95 licence holders against whom the show-cause notices have been issued to cancel the licences. He has also made a statement before the Court that in all those cases where the Video Cinemas are being run contrary to the provisions of the Rules and in a premises without N.A. permission, the licences will be cancelled and\/or the licences will not be renewed. The District Magistrate, Surat – licensing authority is directed to act accordingly, failing which, strict action will be taken either for making a false statement before this Court or to make a show before this Court that the licensing authority is taking action, and\/or appropriate action can be taken against him having not complying with this direction. In view of the above statement, the contention on behalf of the petitioner with regard to discriminatory treatment also requires rejection. Even otherwise, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is referred to herein above merely because, some other persons are running the Video Cinemas in a premises without N.A. Permission and\/or are allowed to run the Video Cinemas without N.A, permission, is not ground to allow the petitioner to run Video Cinema in a premises without N.A. permission which is dehors the law and the Rules and is in breach of conditions of Licence.\n<\/p>\n
9. For the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Special Civil Application and the same is required to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith however, there will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Guj 177 Author: M Shah Bench: M Shah JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-22T05:03:23+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-22T05:03:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2236,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-22T05:03:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-22T05:03:23+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-22T05:03:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006"},"wordCount":2236,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006","name":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-22T05:03:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharamshibhai-virjibhai-vs-district-magistrate-and-anr-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharamshibhai Virjibhai vs District Magistrate And Anr. on 8 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/214575","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=214575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}