{"id":217531,"date":"2010-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-03T09:52:06","modified_gmt":"2016-06-03T04:22:06","slug":"selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8408\/2009\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8408 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA  \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nSELVEL\nMEDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMUNICIPAL\nCORPORATION OF CITY OF AHMEDABAD & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nSN SOPARKAR with MR AMAR N BHATT\nfor Petitioner \nMR\nPRASHANT G. DESAI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR HIMANSHU K PATEL for\nRespondent-1 \nMR YN RAVANI for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n3. \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n
The
\n\tparties have been heard at length at the admission stage.
\n\tConsidering the controversy involved, the Court has found it
\n\tnecessary to hear the matter finally.  Rule.  Learned counsel
\n\tappearing for respective respondents are directed to waive service
\n\tof rule.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetition challenges the various communications issued by respondent
\n\tNo.1, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking service tax from the
\n\tpetitioner with incidental prayer to refund amount of Rs.6,17,165\/-
\n\twith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment
\n\ttill realization.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956
\n\tcarrying on business as an Advertising Agent.  Respondent No.1 is
\n\tAhmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as  the
\n\tAMC ).  As a part of the statutory duties and functions imposed by
\n\tvirtue of provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation
\n\tAct, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as  the BPMC Act ), AMC is
\n\trequired to grant written permission for erecting, fixing,
\n\texhibiting or retaining any sky-sign or advertisement of the kind
\n\tprescribed by Rules upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or
\n\tstructure.  The case of the petitioner is that since last more than
\n\tfifty years, AMC has been permitting placing of advertisements in
\n\tand on private properties and AMC charges fees at the prescribed
\n\trates for hoardings in and on private properties in the city of
\n\tAhmedabad.  The petitioner has been paying such fees regularly.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent
\n\t  AMC vide impugned communication dated 6.5.2008 (Annexure  A )
\n\tcalled upon the petitioner to pay service tax on the license fee
\n\tcharges for 2006-07 on the advertising boards put up on private
\n\tproperties.  This was followed by communications dated 8.7.2008,
\n\t30.9.2008, 6.10.2008, 14.7.2009 and 18.7.2009.  It appears that the
\n\tpetitioner has deposited various amounts from time to time towards
\n\tsuch demand of service tax, totalling to Rs.6,17,165\/-  under
\n\tprotest  while challenging the right of AMC to recover such
\n\tservice tax.  The petitioner has ultimately challenged the action of
\n\tAMC by way of this petition, and Commissioner of Central Excise,
\n\tCustoms and Service Tax, Ahmedabad has been impleaded as respondent
\n\tNo.3 after obtaining permission from this Court vide order dated
\n\t17.8.2009.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcase of the petitioner as propounded by learned Senior Advocate
\n\tappearing for the petitioner is that service tax which is levied by
\n\tprovisions of Finance Act, 1994 as amended from time to time,
\n\tincluding the amendments by Finance Act, 2006, has cast a duty on a
\n\tperson who is providing taxable service to pay service tax and
\n\t taxable service  has been assigned the meaning stipulated by
\n\tsection 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2006
\n\t(hereinafter referred to as  the Service Tax Act ), wherein
\n\tclause (zzzm) of section 65(105) of the Service Tax Act provides
\n\tthat  taxable service  means any service provided to any person,
\n\tby any other person, in relation to sale of space or time for
\n\tadvertisement etc. Explanation 1 thereunder explains what the phrase
\n\t sale of space or time for advertisement  includes.  That a
\n\tplain reading of the said provision would indicate that AMC cannot
\n\tbe termed to be a person who is providing service to any person so
\n\tas to fall within the ambit of the said definition of  taxable
\n\tservice , and if AMC cannot be termed to be a person who is
\n\tproviding space for display or for advertisement, AMC cannot seek to
\n\trecover any service tax on the fees charged by AMC as license fees
\n\tbecause, as per provisions of the BPMC Act, such fees are charged as
\n\tlicense fees for the purposes of putting up \/ erecting a structure \/
\n\thoarding for the purposes of advertisement, but the erection of such
\n\thoarding is on a land belonging to and owned by a private party and
\n\ttherefore, the license fees charged by AMC cannot be equated with
\n\tany services being rendered by AMC so as to fall within the ambit of
\n\tdefinition of the term  taxable service  envisaged by section
\n\t65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tbehalf of AMC, no affidavit in-reply has been tendered, but
\n\tconsidering the stand of AMC, it is strictly not necessary that AMC
\n\tshould file an affidavit in-reply.  On behalf of AMC, learned Senior
\n\tAdvocate submitted that, because AMC has been called upon to make
\n\tpayment of service tax by the Service Tax Department, AMC has sought
\n\tto recover such service tax, after paying the same to the  Service
\n\tTax Department, from persons like the petitioner to whom written
\n\tpermission is granted upon payment of license fees.  It was
\n\tsubmitted that if AMC is not liable to pay service tax, there is no
\n\tquestion of AMC being required to make payment to the  Service Tax
\n\tDepartment and recover the same from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tbehalf of respondent No.3, attention was invited to paragraphs No.7
\n\tand 8 of the affidavit in-reply dated 4.11.2009, to submit that it
\n\twas not relevant whether AMC was owner of the space let out for
\n\tbillboards \/ hoardings in respect of such billboards \/ hoardings put
\n\tup in or on private properties within the city of Ahmedabad, nor was
\n\tit relevant whether AMC was charging any rent in this regard.  That
\n\tso long as service is provided by AMC, irrespective of the fact as
\n\tto who holds the material \/ property on the basis of which service
\n\tis provided, the service rendered becomes taxable event and as laid
\n\tdown in the case of Empire India Ltd. v. Union of India,
\n\t1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC), ownership was not a relevant factor.  That a
\n\tplain reading of section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act made
\n\tit clear that the provision was unambiguous and had no nexus with
\n\tthe aspect of ownership while providing service.  Learned advocate
\n\tappearing for Service Tax Department, therefore, submitted that AMC
\n\twas justified in raising the demand of service tax from the
\n\tpetitioner and the petition was devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetition raises two issues which can be formulated in the following
\n\tterms :\n<\/p>\n
Firstly,
\n\twhether AMC is rendering any service which can be
\n\ttermed to be  taxable service  within the meaning of the said
\n\tterm as defined in section 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act?\n<\/p>\n
\tSecondly,
\n\tif AMC is liable to pay service tax on the footing that AMC is
\n\trendering taxable service, whether AMC is entitled to recover the
\n\tsame from the petitioner, and if so, under which provision?\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfacts are not in dispute.  In the present case, AMC has granted
\n\twritten permission to the petitioner to erect certain hoardings on
\n\tprivate premises and for granting such written permission, AMC has
\n\tcharged and collected certain fees.  For this purpose, sections 244
\n\tand 245 of BPMC Act when read together provide for granting of
\n\twritten permission for erecting, fixing, exhibiting or retaining any
\n\tsky-sign or advertisement upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or
\n\tstructure, subject to the applicant fulfilling the requisite
\n\tconditions prescribed by Rules.  Under section 386 of the BPMC Act,
\n\tAMC is entitled to charge a fee at the prescribed rate for granting
\n\tthe written permission.  It is necessary to note that all the
\n\tparties, including AMC, have used the term  license fees ,
\n\thowever, a conjoint reading of the provisions of sections 244, 245
\n\tand 386 of the BPMC Act makes it clear that what is envisaged by the
\n\tprovisions is only a written permission and not a license.
\n\tLicensing is providing in sections 372 to 385 of Chapter XXII of the
\n\tBPMC Act, and the same is in relation to specific items enumerated
\n\tin the said provisions.  As against this, sections 244, 245 and 386
\n\tof the BPMC Act only talk of written permission and
\n\tthe two are not one and the same.  Even if, a common application
\n\tform may be prescribed, the fees which are charged and collected by
\n\tAMC for granting written permission under sections 244 and 245 of
\n\tthe BPMC Act, are fees for the written permission and not for a
\n\tlicense.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\n\tplain reading of sections 244 and 245 of the BPMC Act makes it clear
\n\tthat the said provisions are for the purposes of regulating and
\n\tcontrolling the erection etc. of sky-signs and\/or billboards,
\n\thoardings etc., to ensure that the structure so erected does not
\n\tpose as a public hazard either by virtue of projection \/ abutment on
\n\ta public road\/street, or by way of obstructing vision, or any such
\n\tsimilar hazard to the public at large.  Hence, granting of written
\n\tpermission, after ensuring that the structure so erected complies
\n\twith the relevant bye-laws and\/or the building regulations in force
\n\tfrom time to time, is a part and parcel of function of a Municipal
\n\tCorporation in the form of a duty to the public to ensure a better
\n\tmunicipal government of the city and cannot be termed to be a
\n\tservice rendered to the petitioner so as to be covered by the
\n\tmeaning of the definition of  taxable service  envisaged by
\n\tsection 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection
\n\t65 of the Service Tax Act provides in the opening portion that in
\n\tChapter 5, unless the context otherwise requires, the definition
\n\tprovided in various sub-sections would become applicable.
\n\tSub-section (105) and clause (zzzm) of section 65 of the Service Tax
\n\tAct, which are relevant for the present, read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 (105)\t Taxable
\nservice  means any service provided or to be provided –\n<\/p>\n
(zzzm)\tto
\nany person, by any other person, in relation to sale of space or time
\nfor advertisement, in any manner; but does not include sale of space
\nfor advertisement in print media and sale of time slots by a
\nbroadcasting agency or organisation.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation
\n1   For the purposes of this sub-clause,  sale of space or time
\nfor advertisement  includes –\n<\/p>\n
[i]\tproviding
\nspace or time, as the case may be, for display, advertising,
\nshowcasing of any product or service in video programmes, television
\nprogrammes or motion pictures or music albums, or on billboards,
\npublic places, buildings, conveyances, cell phones, automated teller
\nmachines, internet;\n<\/p>\n
[ii]\tselling
\nof time slots on radio or television by a person, other than a
\nbroadcasting agency or organisation; and<\/p>\n
[iii]\taerial
\nadvertising.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation
\n2   For the purposes of this sub-clause,  print media  means
\n book  and  newspaper  as defined in sub-section (1) of
\nsection 1 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of
\n1867) <\/p>\n
A
\n\tplain reading of the aforesaid provisions indicates that  taxable
\n\tservice  means any service provided to any person, by any other
\n\tperson in relation to sale of space for advertisement.
\n\tExplanation-1 thereunder specifies what the phrase  sale of space
\n\tfor advertisement  includes.  Sub-clause (i) stipulates providing
\n\tspace for display, advertising, etc., on billboards, public places,
\n\tbuildings etc.  For the present, it is not necessary to refer to
\n\tthe remaining portion of the provisions.  Thus, what is primarily
\n\trequired for a service to become a taxable service for the purposes
\n\tof levy of service tax, is a service being provided to any person,
\n\tby any other person in relation to sale of space for advertisement,
\n\tnamely, providing space for display.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tquestion, therefore, that is required to be posed and answered is
\n\twhether AMC is providing any service to any person in relation to
\n\tsale of space for advertisement by providing space for display in
\n\tthe facts of the case. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case,
\n\tthe property on which the structure is erected in the form of
\n\tbillboard or hoarding is not owned by AMC.  AMC is only granting
\n\twritten permission after ensuring compliance with the requisite
\n\tregulatory requirements for a fee.  AMC is not rendering any service
\n\tto the petitioner.  It may be that in a wider sense, the regulatory
\n\tfunction of AMC could be termed to be a public service for ensuring
\n\tsafety of public at large or providing a hazard-free environment
\n\twithin the local limits of AMC.  However, the service envisaged by
\n\tsection 65(105)(zzzm) of the Service Tax Act, is not of this nature
\n\tand therefore, there is no question of AMC being charged service tax
\n\tin relation to the fees collected for granting written permission in
\n\tterms of sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act read together.
\n\tThe property being admittedly owned by a private person, as
\n\tdistinguished from AMC, a public body, the act of granting written
\n\tpermission cannot be treated to be a sale of space for
\n\tadvertisement, that is, providing space for display.  Therefore,
\n\tonce it is found that AMC is not rendering
\n\tany taxable service to the petitioner, in the facts of the present
\n\tcase, it is not possible to uphold the action of AMC in calling upon
\n\tthe petitioner to make payment of service tax.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere
\n\tis one more aspect of the matter.  The provision nowhere envisages
\n\tAMC being entitled to charge and collect service tax on the fees
\n\tcharged and collected by AMC for granting written permission.  AMC
\n\tcannot act as an agent for the purpose of recovery of service tax,
\n\teven if one assumes that the service provided by the petitioner to
\n\tthe client of the petitioner might be a taxable service. In the
\n\tfacts of the present case, it is nobody’s case that the demand has
\n\tbeen raised by the Service Tax Department on the petitioner in
\n\trelation to the service rendered by the petitioner to its client.
\n\tHence, it is not necessary to dwell any further on this aspect of
\n\tthe matter, namely,  whether the petitioner is rendering any service
\n\tto its client so as to be treated as a taxable service under the
\n\tprovisions of the Service Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
Hence,
\n\tin absence of any authority in law by way of any statutory provision
\n\tempowering AMC to collect service tax, the demand raised by AMC and
\n\tthe amount collected by AMC are without authority of law and cannot
\n\tbe upheld.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis also necessary to note that the contention raised on behalf of
\n\trespondent No.3, Service Tax Department, that ownership of property
\n\tis not a relevant factor for determining liability to pay service
\n\ttax may in abstract appear to be correct.  However, what has to be
\n\tconsidered is whether a taxable event has taken place, in the facts
\n\tof the present case.  The provisions of section 65(105)(zzzm) of the
\n\tService Tax Act require sale of space for advertisement, in other
\n\twords, providing space for display or advertisement, and AMC is not
\n\tin any manner providing space for display.  Hence, to the said
\n\textent, aspect of ownership assumes significance.  If the structure
\n\tis erected by the petitioner on a premise privately owned, it cannot
\n\tbe stated that AMC has provided space for display.  In the present
\n\tcase, the Court is not called upon to decide as to whether owner of
\n\tsuch private property answers the description of the person who is
\n\tproviding service by sale of space for advertisement or providing
\n\tspace for display.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tlight of what is stated hereinbefore, it is apparent that the act of
\n\tAMC in granting written permission for a fee is in context of
\n\tprovisions of sections 244, 245 and 386 of the BPMC Act read
\n\ttogether and the said act cannot be termed to be a service provided
\n\tby AMC to make the act a taxable service for the purposes of Service
\n\tTax Act.\n<\/p>\n
AMC
\n\thas, therefore, erred in law in demanding service tax from
\n\tpetitioner in the facts of the case and recovering the
\n\tsame without authority of law.  Accordingly, communications dated
\n\t6.5.2008 (Annexure  A ), 8.7.2008 and 30.9.2008 (Annexure  AA
\n\tcollectively), 6.10.2008 (Annexure  B ), 14.7.2009 (Annexure
\n\t D ) and 18.7.2009 (Annexure  E ), are hereby quashed and
\n\tset aside, and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is directed not to
\n\ttake any
\n\tsteps for the purposes of effecting coercive recovery of service
\n\ttax.  Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is also directed to refund an
\n\tamount of Rs.6,17,165\/- having wrongly recovered the same towards
\n\tservice tax from the petitioner.  Considering the nature of the
\n\tcontroversy, the prayer for refunding amount of Rs.6,17,165\/- with
\n\tinterest, is not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tpetition is allowed, accordingly, in the aforesaid terms.  Rule made
\n\tabsolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t[D.A.MEHTA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8408\/2009 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8408 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-217531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSelvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 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\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-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=\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-03T04:22:06+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T04:22:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2640,\"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\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-03T04:22:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 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":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 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\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-03T04:22:06+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T04:22:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010"},"wordCount":2640,"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\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010","name":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-03T04:22:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/selvel-vs-municipal-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Selvel vs Municipal on 19 March, 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\/217531","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=217531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}