{"id":224788,"date":"2011-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-09T08:04:18","modified_gmt":"2017-01-09T02:34:18","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: J.N.Bhatt,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2222 of 1988\n\n\n\n\n     For Approval and Signature:\n\n\n\n              Hon'ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT\n                                 and\n              Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\n\n     ============================================================\n<\/pre>\n
    1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed      : YES
\n       to see the judgements?\n<\/p>\n
    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  : YES<\/p>\n
    3. Whether Their Lordships     wish to see the fair copy   : NO
\n       of the judgement?\n<\/p>\n
    4. Whether this case involves a substantial question       : NO
\n       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\n       of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?\n<\/p>\n
    5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned       : NO
\n       Magistrate\/Magistrates,Judge\/Judges,Tribunal\/Tribunals?\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     GUJARAT STATE CONSUMERS’ PROTECTION CENTRE
\nVersus
\n   STATE OF GUJARAT\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n
          MR DM THAKKAR for Petitioner
\n          MRS MANISHA LAVKUMAR for Respondents<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
              CORAM : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT
\n                                 and
\n                      MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ<\/p>\n
Date of decision: 03\/05\/2003<\/p>\n
ORAL JUDGEMENT
\n      (Per : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT)
\n #.   The petitioner, by way of this petition,         has
\nchallenged the legality and validity of Sections 62 to 65
\nof the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as “the Act”), as also Rule 35 of the Bombay
\nPublic Trusts (Gujarat) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred
\nto as “the Rules”), by invoking the provisions of Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
#.    The petitioner-organization is floated for the
\nprotection of consumers’ statutory rights, and as stated
\nin the petition, the petitioner-organization takes up,
\ninteralia, certain public causes as public interest
\nlitigation,    and the present petition is of public
\ninterest.   The petitioner-organization is     registered
\nunder the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and also
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
#. The provisions of Sections 62 to 65 of the Act, which
\nare under challenge, are provided in Chapter IX of the
\nAct, and they are referable to `assessors’. Section 62
\nof the Act provides for the list of assessors, whereas
\nsection 63 of the Act provides for securing presence of
\nthe assessors by way of summons to attend the matter at a
\nspecified place. Section 64 of the Act deals with the
\ncases in which the assessors are summoned, whereas
\nSection 65 of the Act authorizes the competent authority
\nas to the number of assessors to be called for help and
\nassistance in defined and earmarked cases.    The entire
\nconspectus of the provisions incorporated in Sections 62
\nto 65 under the head of `Assessors’ in Chapter IX of the
\nAct would go to show that the legislature has enacted
\nthese provisions so as to get help and aid in discharge
\nof functions by the competent authorities under the
\ncharity organization. In view of the nature, quality and
\ntype of cases to be decided by the competent authorities,
\nviz. Charity Commissioner or Deputy or Assistant Charity
\nCommissioner, it is provided in Section 65 of the Act
\nthat such authority may choose not less than 3 and not
\nmore than 5 assessors to aid and assist him. Further, it
\nis provided that in any inquiry relating to religions
\ndenomination, the assessors chosen shall, as far as may
\nbe practicable, belong to the particular        religious
\ndenomination.   It is also provided that at the end of
\ninquiry, the authority shall record the opinion of the
\nassessors in writing, duly signed by the assessors, and
\nthat such opinion shall form part of the proceeding and
\ndue consideration shall be given to it in passing an
\norder or arriving at a decision or making report in the
\ninquiry.   Therefore, obviously, the purpose and design
\nwith which such provisions are incorporated in the Act,
\nis to render help and assistance to the officials of the
\n charity organization in view of diverse and multi faceted
\nactivities and inquiries.\n<\/p>\n
#. During the course of hearing of this petition, it was
\nbrought to our notice that what is mainly complained of,
\nby the petitioner in this petition, is the compulsion
\ncast upon the persons who are summoned as assessors by
\nthe competent officials of the charity organization.   In
\nthat regard, it has been contended that failure on the
\npart of an assessor to attend upon the summons issued
\nupon him under Section 63 to 65 of the Act, attracts
\npenalty of Rs.500\/= payable by such assessor.     At the
\nsame time, an assessor who is summoned by the competent
\nauthority to attend the time and place specified under
\nSection 65 of the Act is entitled for a meagre conveyance
\nallowance, i.e.    Rs.3\/= per day for the assessors from
\nthe area of Greater Bombay and Rs.2\/= per day for the
\nassessors from other places, as per Rule 35 of the Rules.
\nSection 35 of the Rules reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
 “35.    Allowance to assessors under Section 65\n<\/p>\n
          -The assessors summoned shall be entitled to
\n          allowance as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 (1) Local Assessors — A conveyance to local
\n        assessors of Rs.3\/= per day in Greater Bombay and
\n        Rs.2\/= per day in other places.\n<\/p>\n
 (2)    Assessors from outside — (a) For journeys
\n          between places connected by rail, return second
\n          class fare, (b) For journeys between places
\n          connected by steamer, return fare by the upper
\n          class, if there are two classes; by the middle or
\n          second class; if there are more than two classes;\n<\/p>\n
          (c) For journeys between places not connected by
\n          rail or steamer, actual expenses, subject to a
\n          maximum   of annas 7 per mile, (d) a daily
\n          allowance of Rs.5 in Greater Bombay and Rs.3
\n          elsewhere, for days of attendance including days
\n          required for the journey;\n<\/p>\n
 Provided that the Charity Commissioner or Deputy
\n        or Assistant Charity Commissioner may for reasons
\n        recorded in writing, in the case of any assessor,
\n        sanction allowances at such higher rates as he
\n        may deem fit.”\n<\/p>\n
#. In the above backdrop, the plea propounded by the
\npetitioner in the petition is that the provisions of
\nSection 62 to 65 of the Act as also of Rule 35 of the
\nRules, are clearly bad, illegal and violative of Articles
\n 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
#.   On behalf of respondents, the then Joint Secretary,
\nLegal Department, Government of Gujarat, has        filed
\naffidavit-in-reply, and it has been interalia contended
\nthat the aforesaid provisions are neither illegal nor
\nviolative   of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
\nConstitution of India.   According to the respondents,
\nRule 34(2) of the Rules provides for exemption from
\nliability to serve as an assessor. It is submitted that
\nin view of Rule 34(2)(f) of the Rules, the case of the
\npetitioner that any person cannot be compelled to serve
\nin a particular capacity is without any substance. It is
\nalso contended that the provisions relatable to the
\nassessors have been validly enacted by the legislation,
\nand   it cannot be said that in exercise of these
\nprovisions, a person can be compelled to act contrary to
\nhis beliefs and wishes and can be compelled to act as an
\nassessor. It is also denied that no guidelines are
\nprescribed as to how the list of assessors is required to
\nbe prepared under the provisions of the Act and that
\npolicy of pick and choose would be adopted by the
\nauthorities because of these provisions. The allegations
\nof the provisions being illegal and arbitrary are also
\ncountenanced. It is also denied that the challenged
\nprovisions are susceptible to cause delay in inquiries.\n<\/p>\n
#.    We   have heard Mr.D.M.Thakkar, learned counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner, who is appointed under the
\nscheme of Legal Aid under the Legal Services Authorities
\nAct, 1987, and Mrs.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Assistant
\nGovernment Pleader on behalf of respondents. We have
\nalso examined and evaluated the legislative scheme, and
\nthe purpose and objects of the impugned provisions of the
\nAct and Rules.\n<\/p>\n
#. During the course of hearing, our attention was
\njointly invited by the learned counsel for the parties to
\nthe fact that the provisions of Sections 62 to 65
\npertaining to the scheme of assessors in the Act have
\nbeen deleted by the State of Maharashtra vide Maharashtra
\nAct 22 of 1967. It was also jointly submitted before us
\nthat instead of going into the constitutionality and
\nvires of the challenged provisions, it would be expedient
\nand necessary to issue appropriate directions to the
\nrespondent-State in the light of legislative action taken
\nby the State of Maharashtra of deleting those provisions,
\nmore particularly, when the same Act is applicable in
\nGujarat in letter and spirit upon its adoption by the
\nState of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
 #. In view of the above, and more particularly, in view
\nof the changed socio-economic and legal perceptions and
\nenvironment prevalent after the gap of 52 years as the
\nAct is of 1950, we are keeping the question of vires, and
\nthe issue of constitutionality raised originally in the
\npetition, open, and deem it necessary to direct the State
\nof Gujarat to consider and decide the object, design,
\nutility,   functional   value, and requirement of the
\nchallenged provisions.\n<\/p>\n
##.   It is rightly said that nothing is constant but the
\nchange. It is equally true that law should be stable.
\nHowever, it   should not be standstill.       No person,
\nauthority, organization, society, State, or for that
\npurpose, nation, can afford to be oblivious of the
\nchanged circumstances and events, and fail to         get
\nadjusted with the changed circumstances, requirements,
\naspirations as those who do not fall in line with this
\nconcept, may not find place even in the waste paper
\nbasket in the history.\n<\/p>\n
##.   The core concept, and the main perception of
\nenactment or a piece of legislation is designed in a
\nmanner to resolve disputes in the field of conflict
\nmanagement so as to do justice between the rival parties
\nor groups. The State of Maharashtra has taken a lead in
\ndeleting those provisions in changed circumstances, and
\nthat too as early as in 1967, i.e.      within seventeen
\nyears from the life of said legislation. The purpose and
\nobject for which the provisions under challenge have been
\ndeleted by another State, are relevant and the same also
\nrequire consideration by the respondent-State.\n<\/p>\n
##.    We   may   also   mention    at  this stage that
\njurisprudential philosophy and the concept of doctrine of
\ndestitute could have been resorted to or employed in the
\ninstant case in view of the fact that virtually, the
\nchallenged provisions of the Act and Rules are in non-use
\nsince long. However, in view of the joint submission
\nthat appropriate directions for consideration by the
\nrespondent-State for deletion or repeal of the challenged
\nprovisions be    issued,   we    desist  ourselves   from
\nmeticulously examining and probing the aforesaid doctrine
\nqua the provisions under challenge. It is heartening to
\nnote that on behalf of the respondents, it has been
\nstated that on appropriate directions being issued, the
\nprovisions under challenge will be seriously examined and
\nshall be given due consideration by the State Government
\nfor the purpose of either amendment or deletion of the
\nsaid provisions appropriately by keeping in mind the
\naction by the State of Maharashtra as back as in 1967.
\n We,   therefore,   decide   not    to   go     into    the
\nconstitutionality   and   also    do  not    consider the
\napplicability of the aforesaid celebrated doctrine of
\ndestitute to the questioned provisions and think it
\nexpedient to direct the respondent-State to examine the
\nusefulness, utility, continuity etc. of the questioned
\nprovisions in the light of changed socio-legal political
\nissues and circumstances.      In view of the assurance
\nforthcoming from the respondent-State, we are confident
\nthat the respondent-State shall seriously consider and
\naccord weightage to our recommendation by considering the
\nprovisions of the Act and Rules        under    challenge,
\nexpeditiously, within reasonable time, and in proper
\nperspective.\n<\/p>\n
##.   Before parting with the judgment, we deem it
\nimperative to place it on record, the help, assistance
\nand service rendered by the advocates, particularly, the
\nMr.D.M.Thakkar, for helping the petitioner in espousing
\nits cause by providing effective legal representation.\n<\/p>\n
##. The petition and the Rule     shall therefore stand
\ndisposed of in aforesaid terms.   There shall be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(J.N.Bhatt, Acting C.J.)<\/p>\n
(K.A.Puj, J.)<\/p>\n
(sunil)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 Author: J.N.Bhatt,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.A.Puj,&Nbsp; IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2222 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon’ble ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.JN BHATT and Hon’ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters […]<\/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-224788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-09T02:34:18+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T02:34:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1937,\"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\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-09T02:34:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-09T02:34:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T02:34:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011"},"wordCount":1937,"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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-09T02:34:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mrs-manisha-lavkumar-for-on-25-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mrs Manisha Lavkumar For on 25 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/224788","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=224788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}