{"id":221857,"date":"2008-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-30T14:22:19","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T08:52:19","slug":"sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: A. B. Chaudhari<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                    NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n                    WRIT PETITION NO. 2212\/2007\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n    PETITIONER:-     Sau. Ashabai w\/o Ashok Shinde\n                     Age : 35 years, Occupation : Sarpancha,\n                     R\/o Gugli, At Post : Sindhkhed,\n\n\n\n\n                                                  \n                     Tq. Motala, Distt. : Buldhana.\n\n\n                               ...V E R S U S...\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n    RESPONDENTS:-\n                         \n                     1. Additional Commissioner,\n                        Amravati Division, Tq. and Distt. : Amravati.\n                        \n                     2. Additional Collector,\n                        Buldhana, Tq. and Distt. Buldhana.\n\n                     3. Tahsildar,\n          \n\n\n                        Motala, Tq. Motala, Distt. Buldhana.\n       \n\n\n\n                     4. Secretary,\n                        Gram Panchayat, Kolhi Gohar, Tq. Motala,\n                        Distt. : Buldhana.\n\n\n\n\n\n                     5. Bhalchandra s\/o Shriram Pise\n\n                     6. Sandip s\/o Haribhau Tayade\n\n\n\n\n\n                     7. Sau. Rekha w\/o Sudhakar Garwe\n\n                     8. Jeevansingh s\/o Divansingh More\n\n                     9. Dilip s\/o Supdassingh More\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::\n                                                    2\n\n                                    Respondent No.5 and 7 are R\/o Gugli,\n                                    At post : Sindhkhed, Tq. Motala,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                               \n                                    Distt. Buldhana, Respondent no.6,8 and 9\n                                    are R\/o Kolhi Gohar, Tq. Motala,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n                                    Distt. : Buldhana.\n\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                         [Shri A.J. Kadu, Adv. for petitioner]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                         [Smt. T.D. Khade, AGP for respdt. Nos.1 to 3]\n                         [Shri K.S. Narwade, Adv. for respdt. Nos.5 to 9]\n    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                              CORAM:-           A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       ig     DATED :-          11.09.2008\n\n    ORAL JUDGMENT\n                                     \n<\/pre>\n
    1.            This writ petition is directed against an order dated<\/p>\n
    30.3.2007 made by Additional Collector, Buldhana, dismissing the<\/p>\n
    dispute that was filed by petitioner Sarpanch in the matter of motion<\/p>\n
    of no confidence passed against her. In appeal, the said order made<\/p>\n
    by the Additional Collector was confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
                  FACTS :\n<\/p>\n
    2.            Petitioner Sau. Ashabai w\/o Ashok Shinde – Sarpanch of<\/p>\n
    Gram Panchayat Kolhi Gohar and Upa-Sarpanch Tulshiram s\/o<\/p>\n
    Ananda Wagh were elected to their respective offices. On 29.12.2006<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
    five members of the village panchayat out of seven submitted a<\/p>\n
    requisition to Tahsildar Motala for calling a special meeting to<\/p>\n
    consider the motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch both for the reasons stated in the said requisition. On<\/p>\n
    29.12.2006 itself Tahsildar Motala issued a notice of special meeting<\/p>\n
    to be held on 2.1.2007 at 2:00 p.m. for considering the motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch both. As decided, the<\/p>\n
    special meeting was held and the motion was put to vote against both<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch at a time and out of seven members<\/p>\n
    present in the meeting, five voted in favour of the motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence and thus by two third majority the Presiding Officer<\/p>\n
    declared motion of no confidence to have been passed against both<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.      Petitioner filed a dispute before the<\/p>\n
    Additional Collector against the said motion of no confidence under<\/p>\n
    Section 35 (3-B) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, but the<\/p>\n
    same was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal against the<\/p>\n
    said order before the appellate authority, namely, Additional<\/p>\n
    Commissioner, Amravati, which also met the same fate. Hence, this<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
    writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                SUBMISSIONS :\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Learned Counsel for the petitioner made the following<\/p>\n
    submissions :\n<\/p>\n
                (i)      The requisition that was given to Tahsildar by the<\/p>\n
    requisitionists is the joint one for both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch,<\/p>\n
    which was contrary to Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch And Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
    Not only that Tahsildar also issued only one notice of the special<\/p>\n
    meeting in respect of both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. According to<\/p>\n
    him, the said provision of Rule 2 (1) of the Rules is mandatory and<\/p>\n
    therefore, the motion of no confidence i.e. passed is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
                (ii)     The motion of no confidence was put to vote at<\/p>\n
    one time against both Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch and the reading of<\/p>\n
    the minutes of the said meeting do not reveal separately as to how<\/p>\n
    many votes were in favour and against the motion against Sarpanch<\/p>\n
    and Upa-Sarpanch and this happened because of the ambiguity which<\/p>\n
    crept in.     For this reason also therefore, according to him, the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
    impugned orders are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
              (iii)     He relied on the decision of this Court in the case<\/p>\n
    of Janardan Shankar Watane…Versus…C.E.O. Zilla Parishad,<\/p>\n
    Amravati, reported in Notes of Cases, 1965, 49.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        Per contra, Advocate Shri Narwade for respondent Nos.5<\/p>\n
    to 9 cited several decisions before me and argued that most of the<\/p>\n
    rules framed under Section 176 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act<\/p>\n
    have been held to be directory by this Court and according to him<\/p>\n
    even this provision of Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch And Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975 on<\/p>\n
    the same line of interpretation also will have to be held directory. He<\/p>\n
    cited following decisions before me.\n<\/p>\n
              (i)       2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 1004 (Yamunabai Laxman
\n    Chavan and others…Versus…Sarubai Tukaram Jadhav and others).\n<\/p>\n
              (ii)      2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 295 (Arjun Sambhaji Khade and
\n    others…Versus…Mangal Ankush Kharmate and others).\n<\/p>\n
              (iii)     2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 420 (Durgadas Ukhaji More and
\n    others…Versus…Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik
\n    and others).\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
                 (iv)     1998    (3)   Mh.L.J.     204        (Nimba          Rajaram<\/p>\n
    Mali…Versus…Collector, Jalgaon and others).\n<\/p>\n
                 (v)      1967    Mh.L.J.   Notes     of      Cases        21      (Smt.\n<\/p>\n
    Annapurnabai Ajabrao…Versus…Smt. Annapurnabai Anandrao).\n<\/p>\n
    5.           He further argued that admittedly the motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence was passed by the requisite two third majority and as held<\/p>\n
    by this Court as well as Apex Court in a democratic set-up a person<\/p>\n
    who has lost majority in an elected office must yield to the desire of<\/p>\n
    the majority and since in the instant case both Sarpanch and<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch have lost majority there is no need for the Court to<\/p>\n
    interfere.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           A.G.P. Smt. Khade for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the<\/p>\n
    impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
                 CONSIDERATIONS:\n<\/p>\n
    7.           After hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties and<\/p>\n
    having gone through the relevant provisions and in particular Section<\/p>\n
    35 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 which reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
              “35. Motion of no confidence :- (1) A<\/p>\n
    motion of no confidence may be moved by not less than
\n    [one-fifth] of the total number of the members who are<\/p>\n
    for the time being entitled to sit and vote at any
\n    meeting of the Panchayat against the Sarpanch or the
\n    Upa-Sarpanch after giving such notice thereof to the<\/p>\n
    Tahsildar as may be prescribed. [Such notice once given
\n    shall not be withdrawn].\n<\/p>\n
    (2)       Within seven days from the date of receipt by<\/p>\n
    him of the notice under sub-section (1), the Tahsildar<\/p>\n
    shall convene a special meeting of the Panchayat for
\n    considering the motion of no confidence at the office of
\n    the Panchayat at a time to be appointed by him and he<\/p>\n
    shall preside over such meeting.       At such special<\/p>\n
    meeting, the Sarpanch, or the Upa-Sarpanch against
\n    whom the motion of no confidence is moved shall have
\n    a right to speak or otherwise to take part in the<\/p>\n
    proceedings at the meeting (including the right to
\n    vote).\n<\/p>\n
    (3)       If the motion is carried by [a majority of not
\n    less than two-third of] the total number of the members
\n    who are for the time being entitled to sit and vote at<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
    any meeting of the Panchayat the Sarpanch or the<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch, as the case may be, shall cease to hold
\n    office after seven days from the date on which the<\/p>\n
    motion was carried unless he has resigned earlier or has
\n    disputed the validity of the motion so carried as
\n    provided in sub-section (3-B); and thereupon the office<\/p>\n
    held by such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch shall be
\n    deemed to be vacant.\n<\/p>\n
    [Provided that, where the office of the Sarpanch being<\/p>\n
    reserved for a woman, is held by a woman Sarpanch,<\/p>\n
    such motion of no-confidence shall be carried only by a
\n    majority of not less than three-fourth of the total
\n    number of the members who are for the time being<\/p>\n
    entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the<\/p>\n
    panchayat:];\n<\/p>\n
    [Provided      further   that,]   no   such    motion        of<\/p>\n
    no-confidence shall be brought within a period of six
\n    months from the date of election of Sarpanch or
\n    Upa-Sarpanch.\n<\/p>\n
    (3-A)     If the motion [is not moved or is not carried]
\n    by [a majority of not less than two-third of [or, as the<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
    case may be, three fourth, of] the total number of the<\/p>\n
    members who are for the time being entitled to sit and
\n    vote at any meeting of the Panchayat, no such fresh<\/p>\n
    motion shall be moved against the Sarpanch or, as the
\n    case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch within a period of [one
\n    year from the date of such special meeting].\n<\/p>\n
    (3-B) If the Sarpanch or, as the case may be, the<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch desires to dispute the validity of the
\n    motion carried under sub-section (3), he shall, within<\/p>\n
    seven days from the date on which such motion was<\/p>\n
    carried, refer the dispute to the Collector who shall
\n    decide it as far as possible, within fifteen days from the
\n    date on which it was received by him; and any such<\/p>\n
    decision shall, subject to an appeal under sub-section<\/p>\n
    (3-C), be final.\n<\/p>\n
    (3-C)      Any person aggrieved by the decision of the<\/p>\n
    Collector may, within seven days from the date of
\n    receipt of such decision, appeal to the Commissioner
\n    who shall decide the appeal, as far as possible, within<\/p>\n
    fifteen days from the date on which the appeal is
\n    received by him, and any such decision shall be final.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
            (3-D)        Where on a reference made to him under<\/p>\n
            sub-section (3B), the Collector upholds the validity of
\n            the motion carried under sub-section (3) and no appeal<\/p>\n
            is made by the Sdarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch under
\n            sub-section (3-C) within the limitation period specified
\n            in that sub-section, or where an appeal is made under<\/p>\n
            sub-section (3-C) but it is rejected by the Commissioner,
\n            the Sarpanch or as the case may be, the Upa-Sarpanch<\/p>\n
            shall cease to hold office, in the former case
\n            immediately after the expiry of the said limitation<\/p>\n
            period and, in the latter case, immediately after the<\/p>\n
            rejection of the appeal, and thereupon the office held
\n            by such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch shall be deemed to
\n            be vacant.]”\n<\/p>\n
              Further in exercise of powers conferred by Section 176 of<\/p>\n
    the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, Rules have been framed, called<\/p>\n
    the   Bombay    Village   Panchayats   Sarpanch     and      Upa-Sarpanch<\/p>\n
    (No Confidence Motion) Rules, 1975. Rules 2 and 3 of the Rules<\/p>\n
    provide as under :\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
               “2.   (1) The members of a panchayat who<\/p>\n
     desire to move a motion of no-confidence against the
\n     Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch shall give notice<\/p>\n
     thereof in the form appended hereto to the Tahsildar
\n     of the taluka in which such panchayat is functioning.
\n     Where the members desire to move the motion of<\/p>\n
     no-confidence against the Sarpanch as well as the
\n     Upa-Sarpanch, they shall give two separate notices.\n<\/p>\n
               (2)        The notice under sub-rule (1)
\n     shall be accompanied by seven additional copies<\/p>\n
     thereof, and the Tahsildar shall send one copy to the<\/p>\n
     Sarpanch, one to the Upa-Sarpanch and one each to
\n     the Zilla Parishad, the Panchayat Samiti, the Collector
\n     and the Commissioner. One copy shall also be given<\/p>\n
     to the Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
               (3)        The Tahsildar shall, immediately
\n     on receipt of notice under sub-rule (1), satisfy himself
\n     that the notice has been given by not less than<\/p>\n
     one-third of the total number of members (other than
\n     associate members) who are for the time being
\n     entitled to sit and vote at any meeting of the<\/p>\n
     panchayat and then convene a special meeting for the
\n     purpose within seven days from the date of receipt of
\n     such notice.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
                       3.         Immediately after the meeting,<\/p>\n
             the Tahsildar shall communicate to the Zilla Parishad,
\n             the   Panchayat   Samiti,        the   Collector    and      the<\/p>\n
             Commissioner, the names of all the members of the
\n             Panchayat who were present at the meeting, the
\n             decision taken on motion, and the Number of votes in<\/p>\n
             favour of, or against, the motion.”\n<\/p>\n
    8.        Perusal of Rule 2 (1) of the Rules lays down a procedure to<\/p>\n
    be adopted by the members of Gram Panchayat who desire to move a<\/p>\n
    motion of no confidence against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch.\n<\/p>\n
    Election to the post of Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch is governed by the<\/p>\n
    provisions of the Act and the Rules, so also the motion of no<\/p>\n
    confidence to be brought against elected Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch.\n<\/p>\n
    The same is not a common law right. Rule 2 (1) of the Rules provides<\/p>\n
    that where the members desire to move a motion of no confidence<\/p>\n
    against both Sarpanch as well as Upa-Sarpanch they shall give two<\/p>\n
    separate notices. It cannot be said that the aforesaid words used in<\/p>\n
    the Rule are superfluous or have been unnecessarily used. It is well<\/p>\n
    settled that the legislature does not utilize the words without purpose.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
    The fact that Rule 2 (1) of the Rules which provides for two separate<\/p>\n
    notices    for    Sarpanch   and     Upa-Sarpanch     becomes          significant<\/p>\n
    particularly because a particular procedure has been provided therein.\n<\/p>\n
    In the case of Bhavnagar University…Versus…Palitana Sugar Mill<\/p>\n
    (P) Ltd. and others, reported in 2003 (2) Supreme Court Cases 111.\n<\/p>\n
                The Supreme Court has clearly held that if a particular thing<\/p>\n
    is required to be done by law in a particular manner, the same has to<\/p>\n
    be done in the same manner and not in any other manner. I quote the<\/p>\n
    paragraph No.40 from the Supreme Court judgment cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
                         “40.      The statutory interdict of use and<\/p>\n
              enjoyment of the property must be strictly construed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is well settled that when a statutory authority is
\n              required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same<\/p>\n
              must be done in that manner or not at all. The State
\n              and other authorities while acting under the said Act
\n              are only creature of statute. They must act within the
\n              four corners thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9.          The    judgments       cited    by   Advocate     Shri       Narwade<\/p>\n
    undoubtedly held those particular Rules and Sub-Rules directory but<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                         14<\/span><\/p>\n
    they have been held so looking to the object sought to be achieved<\/p>\n
    under those Rules. In the instant case, I find that there is a specific<\/p>\n
    object of providing for two separate notices for Sarpanch and<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch right from the inception. By two separate notices those<\/p>\n
    members who do not desire to move motion of no confidence against<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch may have desire to move such motion against Upa-Sarpanch<\/p>\n
    or vice versa. Similarly, on the date of meeting of no confidence, some<\/p>\n
    of those, who have signed the requisition against both may not like to<\/p>\n
    vote in favour of or against the motion of no confidence against<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch.        In order to avoid any such type of<\/p>\n
    confusion and to have proper regulatory process for adhering to the<\/p>\n
    democratic process this was essential. In this background therefore, it<\/p>\n
    is difficult to hold the provision of Rule 2 (1) of the Rules as directory,<\/p>\n
    as contended by Advocate Shri Narwade.\n<\/p>\n
    10.       In the instant case, it is seen that the Presiding Officer put<\/p>\n
    the motion to vote at the same time against both Sarpanch and<\/p>\n
    Upa-Sarpanch. In fact, in my opinion, the motion should have been<\/p>\n
    put to vote separately against Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch. Since the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
    provision of Section 35 (1), (2) and (3) of the Bombay Village<\/p>\n
    Panchayats Act is silent on this issue, to my mind, making provision<\/p>\n
    for separate notices in Rule 2 (1) of the Bombay Village Panchayats<\/p>\n
    Sarpanch And Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion) Rules is nothing<\/p>\n
    but supplementing provision of Section 35 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    It is well settled that the Rules are held to be valid, if they supplement<\/p>\n
    the provisions of the parent Act.       As earlier stated the decisions<\/p>\n
    holding various Rules to be directory rendered by this Court, cited by<\/p>\n
    Advocate Shri Narwade, being in relation to those particular Rules,<\/p>\n
    there is no need for me to discuss those judgments here. As regards<\/p>\n
    the judgment regarding loss of majority by a person holding elective<\/p>\n
    office, I find that the said democratic set-up spoken up by the Courts<\/p>\n
    obviously means in accordance with the provisions of Law and the<\/p>\n
    Rules framed by the legislature and therefore, it cannot be held that<\/p>\n
    principles regarding democratic set-up should be read de hors the<\/p>\n
    provisions of law and Rules. For these reasons therefore, I hold that<\/p>\n
    both the impugned orders are illegal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
    11.       Writ Petition is therefore, accepted. Rule is made absolute<\/p>\n
    in terms of prayer Clause-(1) of the writ petition.                 In the<\/p>\n
    circumstances, no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
    ssw<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:50:45 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 Bench: A. B. Chaudhari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2212\/2007 PETITIONER:- Sau. Ashabai w\/o Ashok Shinde Age : 35 years, Occupation : Sarpancha, R\/o Gugli, At Post : Sindhkhed, Tq. Motala, Distt. : […]<\/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-221857","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - 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\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T08:52:19+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T08:52:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2479,\"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\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T08:52:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - 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\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T08:52:19+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T08:52:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008"},"wordCount":2479,"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\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008","name":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T08:52:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sau-ashabai-vs-additional-commissioner-on-11-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sau. Ashabai vs Additional Commissioner on 11 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/221857","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=221857"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221857\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221857"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221857"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}