{"id":226883,"date":"2011-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-23T01:00:11","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T19:30:11","slug":"patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2394\/2011\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2394 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nSUJABHAI KALUBHAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM, OIL & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMAHENDRA U VORA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PS CHAMPANERI for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nYV VAGHELA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \nMR. M.R. BHATT, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH\nMRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\tDate\n: 30\/06\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. V.Y. Vaghela, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, waives
\nservice of Notice of Rule for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.R. Bhatt,
\nlearned Senior Advocate with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned advocate,
\nwaives service of Notice of Rule for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tOn
\nthe facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent
\nof the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is
\nbeing heard and finally decided today.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nchallenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia, is to order dated 03.02.2011 passed by respondent No.2,
\nwhereby the petitioner has been informed that he has not been found
\nto be eligible for distributorship pursuant to the Rajiv Gandhi LPG
\nVitrak (RGGLV) scheme.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBriefly
\nstated, the facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued an
\nadvertisement in the daily vernacular newspaper, “Sandesh”,
\non 08.10.2010, inviting applications for distributorship of LPG gas
\ncylinders under the RGGLV scheme, from eligible persons who fulfilled
\nthe eligibility criteria enumerated in clauses 3(a) to (j) therein.
\nThe last date for receipt of the applications was 08.11.2010. The
\npetitioner made an application on 02.11.2010, along with certain
\ndocuments. One of the criteria  stipulated in the advertisement in
\nclause 3(g) is that the applicant should be the owner of land at the
\nadvertised site, for construction of the godown. It is further
\nmentioned in the advertisement, that in the event of the applicant
\nbeing married, the land belonging to his family, namely his spouse
\nand unmarried children, can be taken into consideration. The
\napplicant has disclosed in clause 7.7 of his application that he is
\nmarried. Along with the application, the applicant has enclosed a
\nconsent letter from his father, to the effect that if the petitioner
\nis found to be eligible, his father would transfer land owned by him
\nto the petitioner, for construction of the godown. On scrutiny of the
\napplication of the petitioner, respondent No.1 found him to be
\nineligible, as the petitioner did not own land at the advertised
\nlocation, at the time of making the application. This was conveyed to
\nthe petitioner by respondent No.2, vide communication dated
\n08.12.2010. It was mentioned in the said communication that the
\npetitioner could submit his representation, if any, by 28.12.2010,
\nafter which date, no representation would be entertained. The
\npetitioner submitted an undated  representation\/ clarification, which
\n has not been placed on the record of the case, but has been received
\nby the concerned respondent on 24.12.2010. After considering the
\nsame, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner, vide impugned
\ncommunication dated 03.02.2011, that he has not been found to be
\neligible under the RGGLV scheme for gas distributorship, as he did
\nnot own land in the advertised location on the date of making the
\napplication. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to making
\nthe application, land has been transferred to his name, which is
\nevident from Village Form No.6, dated 16.12.2010. According to the
\npetitioner, respondent No.2 has permitted him to make a
\nrepresentation, therefore, the fact that land has subsequently been
\ntransferred his name ought to have been considered while deciding the
\n representation, especially as the land has been transferred before
\nthe date of decision of the representation. Aggrieved by the
\nrejection of his candidature, vide the impugned communication dated
\n03.02.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the
\npresent petition.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Mahendra U. Vora, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
\nthat though the petitioner did not possess land in his name at the
\ntime of making the application on 02.11.2010, however, the father of
\nthe petitioner had consented to transfer land to the name of the
\npetitioner. In fact, the land has been transferred in the name of the
\npetitioner before the decision of the representation by respondent
\nNo.2. However, this aspect has been totally overlooked and ignored by
\nthe said respondent. It is further submitted that the said
\nrespondent, by communication dated 08.12.2010, had permitted the
\npetitioner to make a representation, therefore, the factum of
\ntransfer of land which took place before the decision of the
\nrepresentation ought to have been considered, and the petitioner
\nought to have been declared an eligible candidate for the gas
\ndistributorship. As the action of respondent No.2 is not in
\naccordance with the clauses of the advertisement, which permit filing
\nof a representation, the impugned action and consequent impugned
\norder passed by respondent No.2, be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\npetition has been resisted by Mr. V.Y. Vaghela, learned Central
\nGovernment Standing Counsel  for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.R. Bhatt,
\nlearned Senior Advocate with Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, appearing for
\nrespondent No.2. Mr. V.Y. Vaghela, learned Central Government
\nStanding Counsel  for respondent No.1 has supported the stand taken
\nby the learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAn
\naffidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it has
\nbeen elaborated that as per the eligibility criteria contained in
\nclause 3(g) of the advertisement, the petitioner should have owned
\nthe land in question at the time of filing the application, which is
\nnot the case, therefore, his candidature has been rightly rejected.
\nRelying upon the averments made in the said affidavit-in-reply, it is
\ncontended by the learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2, that
\nthe advertisement clearly stipulates that the applicant should own
\nsuitable land for the godown at the time of making the application.
\nLand owned by spouse or unmarried child or children who are included
\nin the family could also have been considered. It is emphasized that
\nat the relevant point of time, the land was not owned by the
\napplicant. Being a married person,
\nthe applicant cannot be included in the family unit of his father.
\nThe subsequent transfer of land by the father of the petitioner to
\nthe name of the petitioner would not make the petitioner eligible, if
\nhe did not possess the eligibility at the time of making the
\napplication. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that
\nthe Village Form No.6 that has been annexed by the petitioner to
\nprove the transfer of land to his name is dated 16.12.2010, whereas
\nhe has made the application on 02.11.2010. The said document, being
\nsubsequent to the date of the application, cannot retrospectively
\nconfer eligibility upon the petitioner, therefore, the representation
\nmade by the petitioner has rightly been rejected. On the strength of
\nthe above submissions, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\nlearned Senior Advocate has brought to the notice of this Court,
\njudgment dated 21.04.2011 rendered in Special Civil Application
\nNo.2391 of 2011, by a concurrent Bench, wherein the Court has
\ndismissed the petition on similar facts.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tI
\nhave heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused
\nthe averments made in the petition, and the documents annexed
\nthereto.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt
\nis not disputed that at the time of making the application on
\n02.11.2010, the petitioner did not own land at the advertised
\nlocation, for the construction of a godown, as per the eligibility
\ncriteria prescribed in clause 3(g) of the advertisement. The
\npetitioner has submitted a consent letter given by his father, along
\nwith the application. A perusal thereof reveals that the father of
\nthe petitioner has consented to transfer land to the name of the
\npetitioner, in the event that the petitioner is given gas
\ndistributorship. Such a document would not confer eligibility on the
\npetitioner, as the petitioner did not own the requisite land on the
\ndate of making the application.  Though the father of the petitioner
\nappears to have transferred
\nland to the name of the petitioner, subsequently, this would not
\nconfer eligibility to the petitioner, when none existed at the time
\nof making the application. There is no clause in the advertisement
\nthat stipulates that a subsequent transfer of land would make the
\napplicant eligible, even if he was not eligible at the time of making
\nthe application. The eligibility criteria of the petitioner has to be
\nseen as on the date of making the application and not subsequent
\nthereto. Admittedly, the petitioner is married, and his family unit
\nwould comprise of himself, his wife and unmarried children, if any.
\nBeing an adult, married person, he would not be included in the
\nfamily unit of his father. The fact remains that on the date of
\nmaking the application, neither the petitioner, nor his spouse or
\nunmarried children, if any, owned any land at the advertised
\nlocation. In these circumstances, as the petitioner did not fulfil
\nthe eligibility criteria as stipulated in the advertisement, his
\ncandidature has rightly been rejected by respondent No.2. The
\npetitioner has been informed by communication dated 08.12.2010 that
\nhe has been found to be ineligible and has been permitted
\nto make a representation before 28.12.2010. The petitioner has made a
\nrepresentation, the contents of which are not known, as this document
\nhas not been placed on the record of the case. However, after
\nconsidering the said representation, respondent No.2 has informed the
\npetitioner, vide impugned order dated 03.02.2011, that he has not
\nbeen found to be eligible, as he did not own land in his name at the
\nadvertised location, on the date of the application.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt
\nhas been strenuously argued by the learned advocate for the
\npetitioner that respondent No.2 should have considered the aspect
\nthat the land has been transferred to the name of the petitioner
\nbefore the impugned order dated 03.02.2011 has been passed. The
\npetitioner has been permitted to make a representation by respondent
\nNo.2, therefore, the transfer of land to his name should have been
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tI
\nam afraid that I cannot agree to this submission of the petitioner.
\nIn my considered view, the fact that the petitioner has been
\npermitted to make a representation would not change the eligibility
\ncriteria, stipulated in the advertisement. It is clearly mentioned in
\nthe advertisement that the petitioner would have to fulfil the
\nrequisite criteria on the date of the application. There is no clause
\nin the advertisement that stipulates that a subsequent transfer of
\nland to the name of the applicant after the date of the application
\nwould make the applicant eligible to be considered. In the absence of
\nany such clause, the subsequent transfer of the land in the name of
\nthe petitioner would make no difference, insofar as his eligibility
\nis concerned. The impugned order of respondent No.2, therefore, calls
\nfor no interference.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFor
\nthe aforestated reasons, there is no merit in the petition, which
\ndeserves to be rejected. It is, accordingly rejected. Rule is
\ndischarged.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t(Smt.\n<\/p>\n
Abhilasha Kumari, J.)<\/p>\n
Safir*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011 Author: Abhilasha Kumari, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2394\/2011 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2394 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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-226883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPatel vs Union on 30 June, 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\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-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=\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-22T19:30:11+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\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T19:30:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1746,\"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\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-22T19:30:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 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":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 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\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-22T19:30:11+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\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T19:30:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011"},"wordCount":1746,"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\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011","name":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-22T19:30:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-union-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs Union on 30 June, 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\/226883","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=226883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}