{"id":221151,"date":"2010-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-02T18:02:38","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T12:32:38","slug":"hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.H.Waghela,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\/1030\/2010\t 5\/ 5\tORDER \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1030 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHEMA\nRITESH THAKKER (MAIDEN NAME HEMA H RATHOD) &amp; 16 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nHARDIK C RAWAL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 17.MRS MH RAWAL for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 17. \nMR\nSHIVANG SHUKLA ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nNILESH A PANDYA for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tPetitioners<br \/>\napproached this Court on 03.02.2010 with a request to urgently<br \/>\ncirculate the petition for hearing and grant of mandatory relief so<br \/>\nas to restrain the respondent concerned from discharging the<br \/>\npetitioners from service. The Court, however, ordered to issue urgent<br \/>\nnotice as to admission and interim relief, pursuant to which learned<br \/>\nA.G.P. has appeared for respondent No.1 and learned counsel<br \/>\nMr.N.A.Pandya appears for respondent No.2 and learned counsel on both<br \/>\nsides are heard in extenso. At the end of arguments on both<br \/>\nsides, learned counsel Mr.Pandya declared  that respondent No.2 has<br \/>\nconveyed to him instructions to support the petitioners and hence he<br \/>\nno longer wanted to represent respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetitioners are 17 clerks and peons employed by respondent No.2 since<br \/>\nthe year 1992 to 1995 and they have rushed to this Court to prevent<br \/>\nillegal termination of their service pursuant to the order dated<br \/>\n29.01.2010, made under section 160 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies<br \/>\nAct, 1961 by Registrar for Co-operative Societies. That order is also<br \/>\ncalled into question on the grounds that it is arbitrary, illegal,<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction and made in violation of principles of natural<br \/>\njustice. Each of these grounds has been substantiated on the basis of<br \/>\nmaterial on record and by arguments of learned counsel Mr.Rawal.<br \/>\nRespondent No.2 bank has admittedly sought to terminate service of<br \/>\nthe petitioners only on the basis of the directions contained in the<br \/>\naforesaid order dated 29.01.2010 of the Registrar. Since legality of<br \/>\nthat order and jurisdiction of the Registrar to make such order is<br \/>\nseriously disputed and in doubt, petition is required to be admitted<br \/>\nas far as challenge to that order is concerned. The action of<br \/>\nrespondent Bank based upon the said order was sought to be defended<br \/>\nonly on the basis that the order was not illegal. In reply to the<br \/>\nquery as to whether any  provision of law were attracted and applied<br \/>\nin the matter of termination of service of the petitioners, the bland<br \/>\nanswer by learned counsel Mr.Pandya was that no other provision of<br \/>\nany other law applied in the facts of the case as the very<br \/>\nappointments of the petitioners were held to be illegal in the<br \/>\nimpugned order of Registrar.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel Mr.Rawal, relying upon judgment of this Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1977642\/\">Arvindbhai<br \/>\nM.Bhutaiya v. Amreli District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.<\/a>  [(1998) 1 GLH<br \/>\n846], submitted that the petitioners&#8217; service could<br \/>\nnot have been terminated in the manner it was sought to be done and<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution confers  wide power on the High<br \/>\nCourts to reach injustice wherever it is found. He submitted that the<br \/>\nfacts and  ratio contained in the said judgment squarely applied in<br \/>\nthe facts of the present case.  It was further submitted that, in<br \/>\nthat case  employees were ordered to be reinstated by an order<br \/>\ngranting mandatory interim relief, and that order as well as the<br \/>\nfinal judgment mentioned hereinabove were carried in appeal.  He<br \/>\npointed out from the impugned order of the Registrar that the order<br \/>\nwas,  ex facie,  not only illegal but made in contempt of an<br \/>\nearlier judgment of this Court, insofar as the decision reported in<br \/>\nParmar Dipubhai B. v. Registrar of Co-operative<br \/>\nSocieties, Gujarat State [2006 (2)<br \/>\nGCD 1341 ] was cited before and disregarded by the<br \/>\nRegistrar only by observing that an L.P.A. was pending against that<br \/>\njudgment.  He further submitted that the plea of availability of<br \/>\nalternative remedy could not be entertained in the peculiar facts of<br \/>\nthe present case and relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1593674\/\">Committee of Management v. Vice Chancellor<\/a><br \/>\n[(2009) 2 SCC 630 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1885496\/\">Whirlpool<br \/>\nCorporation v. Registrar of Trade<\/a> marks, Mumbai  [(1998)<br \/>\n8 SCC 1]. He submitted that, in fact service of the<br \/>\npetitioners was sought to be terminated in flagrant violation of<br \/>\nmandatory provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act as well<br \/>\nas section 25-J of the Industrial Disputes Act. Since service is the<br \/>\nonly source of livelihood for the petitioners, it could not be<br \/>\nsnatched away, except in accordance with law and after following the<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed by law.  There is not even an averment or<br \/>\nargument to the effect that any procedure, much less any legal<br \/>\nprocedure prescribed by law, was complied by the respondent Bank in<br \/>\nseeking to terminate services of the petitioners. Learned counsel<br \/>\nMr.Pandya only submitted in this context that undated Resolution No.1<br \/>\npassed in a meeting of the executive committee of the employer bank<br \/>\nhad already authorized en- mass termination of service of 18<br \/>\nemployees. Perusing a copy of the resolution, which was placed on<br \/>\nrecord, it appears that the resolution which is supposed to be<br \/>\nunanimous is as yet to be approved in a regular meeting and  it<br \/>\npurported to have been  signed by eight members of the Board of<br \/>\nDirectors.  As against the submission of Mr.Pandya, learned counsel<br \/>\nMr.Rawal placed on record affidavits of seven Directors, out of total<br \/>\n12 Directors, of the respondent Bank stating in substance that<br \/>\ntermination of service is illegal and service of the petitioners  is<br \/>\nrequired by the bank. Curiously it was also the case of the<br \/>\nrespondent Bank before the Registrar that appointment of the<br \/>\npetitioners were legal and their services were required by the bank.<br \/>\nIt was further stated at the bar that, out of total staff of 38<br \/>\nemployees, 18 employees were sought to be  discharged by the impugned<br \/>\naction of the bank. Therefore, it is, prima facie, clear that<br \/>\nthe bank has sought to terminate service of the petitioners  in hot<br \/>\nhaste only on the basis of the impugned order of the Registrar and<br \/>\nwithout following any procedure worth the name. Observations of the<br \/>\nApex Court in recent decision in Harjinder Singh<br \/>\nv. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [2010 (1) SCALE 613]<br \/>\nare apposite in the present context.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances briefly narrated hereinabove, it, prima<br \/>\nfacie,  appears that respondent No.2 Bank is a house divided<br \/>\nagainst itself and there is no valid reason to terminate service of<br \/>\nthe petitioners, except the impugned order of Registrar; and the bank<br \/>\nhas sought to terminate service of the petitioners without following<br \/>\nany procedure, except sending letters dated 03.02.2010 to the<br \/>\npetitioners to collect their legal dues. In such circumstances, mere<br \/>\nadmission of the petition and denial of interim relief would render<br \/>\nthe petition infructuous and the impugned action of terminating<br \/>\nservices would be harmful both to the petitioners as well as the<br \/>\nrespondent bank. Therefore, the Court finds it to be an exceptional<br \/>\ncase in which mandatory injunction is required to be granted in the<br \/>\ninterest of justice and to prevent multiplicity  of proceedings as<br \/>\nalso violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tAccordingly,<br \/>\nPETITION IS ADMITTED and, by way of interim relief, respondent<br \/>\nNo.2 bank is directed not to operate or execute the orders<br \/>\nterminating service of the petitioners and, even if they are relieved<br \/>\nby now, reinstate them in their original post, on the same terms and<br \/>\nconditions on which they were serving before 03.02.2010,  till and<br \/>\nsubject to further orders of this court. It would, however, be open<br \/>\nfor the respondent bank to initiate necessary legal procedure for<br \/>\ntermination of service of any of the petitioners in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw.  RULE returnable on 09.03.2010. Notice of Rule is<br \/>\nwaived by  learned A.G.P. for respondent No.1 and notice of Rule may<br \/>\nbe served upon respondent No.2 by way of direct service as learned<br \/>\ncounsel Mr.Pandya has expressed his inability to waive service of<br \/>\nRule.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>(<br \/>\nD.H.Waghela, J.)<\/p>\n<p>(KMG<br \/>\nThilake)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 Author: D.H.Waghela,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1030\/2010 5\/ 5 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1030 of 2010 ========================================================= HEMA RITESH THAKKER (MAIDEN NAME HEMA H RATHOD) &amp; 16 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-221151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T12:32:38+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T12:32:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1251,\"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\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T12:32:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hema vs State on 10 February, 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":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T12:32:38+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T12:32:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"wordCount":1251,"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\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","name":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T12:32:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hema-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hema vs State on 10 February, 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\/221151","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=221151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}