{"id":223816,"date":"2010-03-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-05T18:03:43","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T12:33:43","slug":"ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&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\/659\/2010\t 9\/ 10\tORDER \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. 659 of 2010\n \n\n \n===================================\n \n\nRAMLAL\nHANSRAJ MALLAH &amp; 7 - Petitioners\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDIRECTOR\nGENERAL (PO &amp;T) &amp; 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nBP GUPTA for Petitioners. \nMR PS CHAMPANERI for\nRespondents. \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 K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/03\/2010 \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the<br \/>\n\tletter \/ order dated 07.07.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 with<br \/>\n\tall consequential and incidental effects.   By way of interim<br \/>\n\trelief, the petitioners have prayed for stay against the<br \/>\n\timplementation, execution and operation of the letter \/ order dated<br \/>\n\t07.07.2008 and seeking direction to the respondent authorities to<br \/>\n\tfollow the procedure of issuing, finalizing tenders for the license<br \/>\n\tto work as Professional Letter Writer and to permit \/ allow the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners to work as Professional Letter Writer in the premises of<br \/>\n\tthe Post Offices allotted to the petitioners under respondent No.2<br \/>\n\tafter taking appropriate license fees till the finalization of the<br \/>\n\ttenders.\n<\/p>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tCourt has issued notice on 28.01.2010. Pursuant to the notice, Mr.<br \/>\n\tP. S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared on<br \/>\n\tbehalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are working as<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writers at various Post Offices under respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 since last about 16 to 33 years as per the provisions of Post<br \/>\n\tand Telegraphs Manual.  On 11.03.2008, tender notice was issued by<br \/>\n\tthe respondent No.1 inviting tenders for giving contract of<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writer  at various Post Offices in the city of<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010, and the<br \/>\n\ttenders submitted by the petitioners were accepted and the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 informed the petitioners that the request of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners to work as Professional Letter Writer has been approved<br \/>\n\tfor the period 2008   09 and the petitioners were directed to pay<br \/>\n\tfees before the prescribed date as license fees for one year i.e.<br \/>\n\t2008-09, subject to further renewal for next one year.  The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners have paid the license fees and petitioners were working<br \/>\n\tas Professional Letter Writer.\n<\/p>\n<p>During<br \/>\n\tthe subsistence of this contract, the petitioners received two<br \/>\n\tletters dated 18.03.2009 and 23.03.2009 from respondent No.1 stating<br \/>\n\tthat the system of Professional Letter Writer in the post offices<br \/>\n\thas been discontinued w.e.f. 01.04.2009 and, therefore, no<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writer would be permitted \/ allotted in the Post<br \/>\n\tOffice premises. While issuing such letters, reliance was placed on<br \/>\n\tthe letter dated 07.07.2008 issued by the Directorate.  A copy of<br \/>\n\tthe said letter was not given to the petitioners.  The petitioners,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tNos.2904 of 2009 to 2911 of 2009 and this Court vide its order dated<br \/>\n\t30.03.2009 issued certain directions to the petitioners to make<br \/>\n\trepresentation and the Court directed the respondent authorities to<br \/>\n\tconsider such representation within two weeks from the date of<br \/>\n\treceipt of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tper the direction issued by this Court, copy of the order dated<br \/>\n\t07.07.2008 was supplied to the petitioners against which a<br \/>\n\trepresentation was made.  The representation came to be decided on<br \/>\n\t29.05.2009.  A detailed order was passed by the Deputy Director<br \/>\n\tGeneral (PG &amp; QA) on 29.05.2009 wherein it is observed that<br \/>\n\tafter careful examination of the issues raised in the petition,<br \/>\n\tfollowing discussion may provide the required clarification.<br \/>\n\tExplanation on the above issues are given below :-\n<\/p>\n<p> Rule 105 of<br \/>\nChapter-II of P&amp;T manual Vol. VIII which deals with the provision<br \/>\nof Professional Letter Writer, is not an act of the Parliament and<br \/>\ncan be amended by the Department by administrative process.\n<\/p>\n<p>The corrections<br \/>\nor otherwise of the action taken by SSP Ahmedabad City Division to be<br \/>\nexamined in the light of the following Rules :-\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 02 of Rule<br \/>\n105 of Chapter-II Vol.VIII empowers the Superintendent to lease out<br \/>\nthe right to use the post office premises to a contractor.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 3 (I) of<br \/>\nRule 105 says that wherever, license have been issued on contract<br \/>\nsystem adopted in the past, same system should continue in future.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 3 (v)<br \/>\nmentions about granting of annual license even as the lease may be<br \/>\ngiven for a period of three years.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\twas further made clear that the terms &#8216;annual license&#8217; and &#8216;Lease or<br \/>\n\tContract&#8217; are not interchangeable, as the provision for annual<br \/>\n\tlicense in very much inherent in the Lease or Contract and cannot be<br \/>\n\tcompared with the duration of annual license.  The authorities have,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, taken the view that the Contract which was executed for<br \/>\n\tthe period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, shall remain in force and<br \/>\n\tthe license of the petitioners would not be renewed after 01.04.2010<br \/>\n\tin light of the letter dated 07.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis this order which is under challenge in the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tB. P. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that large number of persons are approaching the post<br \/>\n\toffices daily, out of which some are very old persons, some are<br \/>\n\tilliterate, some are literate but they need assistance of<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writers in filling up the forms and sealing the<br \/>\n\tarticles intended for transmission by post.  He has further<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that thousands of letters are still reaching dead letters<br \/>\n\toffice because of not writing the correct address on the article of<br \/>\n\tthe post and, therefore, it is not proper to say that because of<br \/>\n\tincrease in the literacy of the people, the scheme of Professional<br \/>\n\tLetter Writers deserves to be discontinued.  The presence of the<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writers in the premises of the post office makes<br \/>\n\thandy the things which are required for preparing insured covers and<br \/>\n\tother articles, sealing them with gum and wax, packing and stitching<br \/>\n\tof parcels etc. and, therefore, the services provided by<br \/>\n\tProfessional Letter Writers is in the interest of general public.<br \/>\n\tHe has further submitted that there is no rational behind passing<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order nor it is in the interest of general public.  The<br \/>\n\tCircular \/ letter issued by the respondents is contrary to the<br \/>\n\tconstitutional provisions and it can be done only by the legislative<br \/>\n\taction.  Though the Director General has power to issue Circulars<br \/>\n\tunder Article 22, the said Circular should not be in contrast with<br \/>\n\tthe other provisions of the Manual.  He has, therefore, submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 requires to be<br \/>\n\tquashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tP. S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other<br \/>\n\thand, makes it clear that while issuing the Circular dated<br \/>\n\t07.07.2008 to all the post offices in the country, it was made clear<br \/>\n\tthat this system was set up at a time when the literacy rate was not<br \/>\n\thigh in the country and there was a need for assistance for<br \/>\n\tilliterate people in facilitating their interaction with the post<br \/>\n\toffice and fulfilling their communication requirements.  Now with<br \/>\n\tthe changes in the literacy profile all over the country along with<br \/>\n\tthe changes in the communications technology, it is felt that<br \/>\n\tprofessional letter writers have become redundant.  Based on these<br \/>\n\treasons, throughout the country, the system was directed to be<br \/>\n\tdiscontinued.  He has further submitted that in any case, this is a<br \/>\n\tpolicy matter and the contracts were executed for a specific time.<br \/>\n\tThe petitioners have no inherent right to insist that the said<br \/>\n\tcontract should be executed from year to year.  He has, therefore,<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that no indulgence be shown in this petition and it is<br \/>\n\trequired to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Having<br \/>\n\theard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and<br \/>\n\thaving gone through the relevant Rules and the order passed earlier,<br \/>\n\tthe Court is of the view that same grievance was raised by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner earlier which was redressed by the Division Bench of this<br \/>\n\tCourt directing the petitioners to make representation after receipt<br \/>\n\tof the Circular dated 07.07.2008 and now the said representation is<br \/>\n\tconsidered and decided with sound reasoning and the decision was<br \/>\n\ttaken to discontinue the system after the contract period is over.<br \/>\n\tWhile discontinuing the system, the authority has made it very clear<br \/>\n\tthat this system is no longer required in view of the changed<br \/>\n\tcircumstances.  There is no denial of the fact that literacy ratio<br \/>\n\thas gone up and there are other mode of communication available and<br \/>\n\tthe assistance of the Professional Letter Writers is no longer<br \/>\n\trequired.  Even otherwise, by not allowing them to use the post<br \/>\n\toffice premises, the business of the Professional Letter Writers<br \/>\n\twould not come to an end.  They can certainly render such assistance<br \/>\n\tif so required outside the post office premises.  They are not<br \/>\n\trestrained from carrying on their business outside the post office<br \/>\n\tpremises.  It is also true that the arrangement between the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners and the respondent authorities are absolutely based on<br \/>\n\tcontractual terms and once this period is over, it is none of the<br \/>\n\tfunction of the Court to direct the authorities to enter into the<br \/>\n\tcontract with the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>Taking<br \/>\n\tany view of the matter, the Court does not find any subtance in this<br \/>\n\tpetition.  Hence the petition is dismissed.  Notice discharged<br \/>\n\twithout any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n<p>Savariya      <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/659\/2010 9\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 659 of 2010 =================================== RAMLAL HANSRAJ MALLAH &amp; 7 &#8211; Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL (PO &amp;T) &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondents [&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-223816","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 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\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-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=\"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1455,\"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\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramlal vs Director on 12 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":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 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\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010"},"wordCount":1455,"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\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010","name":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-05T12:33:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramlal-vs-director-on-12-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramlal vs Director on 12 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\/223816","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=223816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}