{"id":22900,"date":"2011-05-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-09T02:56:59","modified_gmt":"2018-12-08T21:26:59","slug":"anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/219\/2011\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 219 of 2011\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8063 of 2004\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 1278 of 2011\n \n\nIn\nLETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 219 of 2011\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI \n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH<\/a>\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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nANWAR\nHUSSAIN SATAR & 14 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nMARITIME BOARD & 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMRS VASAVDATTA BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 11,11.2.1 - 15, 15.2.1, 15.2.2, 15.2.3,15.2.4  \nMr\nK B Naik for M\/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2 -\n3. \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 V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n      Date<\/a> : 04\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)<\/a><\/p>\n
1.\t\tWe
\nhave heard Ms. Vasavdatta Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellants
\nand Mr K.B. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent
\nNo.1.  This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellants
\nchallenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.12.2010
\npassed in Special Civil Application No.8063 of 2004 filed by the
\nrespondent employer by which the award of the Labour Court granting
\nreinstatement with continuity of service without back wages was
\nchallenged by the respondents and the learned Single Judge has
\nallowed the writ petition.  The other writ petition being Special
\nCivil Application No.13393 of 2010 was filed by the appellant workmen
\nafter seven years from the date of passing of the award dated
\n29.11.2003 and he claimed back wages which was not granted by the
\nIndustrial Tribunal, Rajkot.  The learned counsel for the appellants
\nhas urged that the appellant workmen had worked for a period of 240
\ndays in a calendar year in the last preceding year, therefore, they
\nwere entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service
\nas well as back wages which has been controverted by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondent.  The learned Single Judge has
\nrecorded a finding of fact that in the last preceding year which
\ncommences from 30.9.1987 to 30.9.1988 the appellants had worked only
\nfor a period of 40-45 days as Safai Kamdar, after considering various
\ndecisions of the Apex Court.  The findings recorded by the learned
\nSingle Judge is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n
“7.01.\tAt
\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that the concerned workmen
\nraised industrial dispute in the year 1991 challenging their
\ntermination \/ retrenchment on and from 30\/09\/1988, inter-alia
\nalleging that their termination was in breach of Section 25(F),
\n25(G) and 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. To prove that
\nthe termination \/ retrenchment was in breach of sec.25(F) of the I.D.
\nAct, the workmen have failed to prove that they have worked for more
\nthan 240 days in the last preceding year i.e. for the period between
\n30\/9\/1987 and 30\/9\/1988.\n<\/p>\n
7.02.\t\tIn
\ncase of Surendranagar District Panchayat V\/s. Dahyabhai Amarsinh
\nreported in (2005) 8
\nSCC 750 (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court  held that the
\ninitial onus\/burden is on the workman to prove the fact that he has
\nworked for 240 days in the last preceding year.  It is also held by
\nHon’ble Supreme Court  in the said decision that it is
\nnecessary for the workman to produce relevant material to prove that
\nhe has worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12
\ncalendar months preceding the date of termination. In the case before
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court the workman relied upon  the only
\noral evidence that he has worked for more than 240 days in the last
\npreceding year and did not produce any evidence to prove the fact
\nthat he has worked for 240 days.  It is also required to be noted
\nthat in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, adverse
\ninference was drawn by the Labour  Court  on non-production of the
\nrelevant muster roll by the employer and in the  said decision, in
\npara 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed and held as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“18.\tIn
\nthe light of the aforesaid, it was necessary for the workman to
\nproduce the relevant material to prove that he had actually worked
\nwith the employer for not less than 240 days during the period of
\ntwelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. What we
\nfind is that apart from the oral evidence the workman has not
\nproduced any evidence to prove the fact that he has worked for 240
\ndays. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order
\nin that regard was produced; no co-worker was examined; muster roll
\nproduced by the employer has not been contradicted. It is improbable
\nthat the workman who claimed to have worked with the appellant for
\nsuch a long period would not possess any documentary evidence to
\nprove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had
\nundertaken with his employer. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
\nthe workman has failed to discharge his burden that he was in
\nemployment for 240 days during the preceding 12 months of the date of
\ntermination of his service. The courts below have wrongly drawn an
\nadverse inference for non-production of the record of the workman for
\nten years. The scope of enquiry before the Labour
\nCourt was confined to only 12 months preceding the date of
\ntermination to decide the question of continuation of service for the
\npurpose of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman
\nhas never contended that he was regularly employed in the Panchayat
\nfor one year to claim the uninterrupted period of service as required
\nunder Section 25-B(1) of the Act. In the facts and situation and in
\nthe light of the law on the subject, we find that the respondent
\nworkman is not entitled to the protection or compliance with Section
\n25-F of the Act before his service was terminated by the employer. As
\nregards non-compliance with Sections 25-G and 25-H suffice it to say
\nthat witness Vinod Misra examined by the appellant has stated that no
\nseniority list was maintained by the department of  daily-wagers. In
\nthe absence of regular employment of the workmen, the appellant was
\nnot expected to maintain seniority list of the employees engaged on
\ndaily wages and in the absence of any proof by the respondent
\nregarding existence of the seniority list and his so-called
\nseniority, no relief could be given to him for non-compliance with
\nprovisions of the Act. The courts could have drawn adverse inference
\nagainst the appellant only when seniority list was proved to be in
\nexistence and then not produced before the court. In order to entitle
\nthe court to draw inference
\nunfavourable to the party, the court must be satisfied that evidence
\nis in existence and could have been proved.”\n<\/p>\n
7.03.\t\tIn
\nthe case of State of M.P. and others V\/s. Arjunlal Rajak
\nreported in (2006)2
\nSCC 711, the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt has observed that the onus to prove that workman had completed
\n240 days of work and he had not been gainfully employed within the
\nsaid period, was on the workman.\n<\/p>\n
7.04.\t\tIn
\nthe case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited V\/s. Mohammed Rafi
\nreported in (2009) 11 SCC 522 also the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court  has held that it is for the claimant to lead evidence
\nto show that he had, in fact, worked for 240 days in the last
\npreceding year of his termination. It is further observed by the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court  in the said decision that filing of an
\naffidavit is only his own statement  in his favour and that cannot be
\nregarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to
\nthe conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a
\nyear.  On non-production of the proof of receipt of salary or wages
\nfor 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for the
\nsaid period, by the workman, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set
\naside the judgement and award.\n<\/p>\n
7.05.\t\tConsidering
\nthe facts of the case on hand, it appears that the concerned workmen
\nhave not produced  any document, evidence or proof to prove that they
\nhad worked for more than 240 days in the last  preceding year.\n<\/p>\n
7.06.\t\tThe
\nsubmission of Ms.Bhatt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
\nconcerned workmen that the workmen  have worked for 240 days
\ncontinuously during the period between 1982 and 1985, is not proved.
\nIt is to be noted that as such  it was the specific case on behalf of
\nthe concerned workmen in the Statement of Claim that their services
\nhave been terminated on and from 30\/09\/1988. Apart from the fact that
\nno document is produced by the workmen to prove and establish that
\nthey have worked for 240 days  in the last 12 months preceding their
\nalleged termination i.e. from 30\/9\/1988. In absence of any document,
\nmaterial, proof and\/or evidence worth the name, the Tribunal has
\nerred in holding that the alleged termination of the concerned
\nworkmen was in breach of Sec.25(F) of the Industrial Disputes  Act.
\nThe finding given by the Labour  Court  that  the concerned workmen
\nhave worked for more than 240 days in the last preceding year and\/or
\ntheir termination was in breach of sec.25(F) of the Act, is contrary
\nto the aforesaid  decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
7.07.\t\tNow,
\nso far as the finding given by the Tribunal that the termination \/
\nretrenchment of the concerned workmen was in breach of Section 25(G)
\nand 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, the same is
\nbased on no evidence. No document worth the name  is produced by the
\nconcerned workmen to prove and establish that their juniors  have
\nbeen continued and\/or some other  workmen have been employed. Even
\notherwise, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
\nCourt  in the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic),
\nBhopal, Vs.  Santosh Kumar Seal and others, reported in (2010)
\n6 SCC 773 and in the case of Jagbir singh V\/s. Haryana State
\nAgriculture Marketing Board and another,
\nreported in (2009) 15
\nSCC 327, the impugned judgement and award passed by the
\nTribunal directing the Gujarat Maritime Board – employer to
\nreinstate the concerned workmen, cannot sustain, as it appears that
\nthe concerned workmen have  worked only for 40 to 45 days as daily
\nwager – Safai Kamdar in the month of August and September,1988.”\n<\/p>\n
After recording
\nthe aforesaid finding, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
\npetition filed by the respondent and set aside the award of the
\nIndustrial Tribunal, Rajkot  dated 29.11.2003 passed in Reference
\n(IT) No.160\/91 and the writ petition filed by the appellants has been
\ndismissed.  We are in agreement that the view taken by the learned
\nSingle Judge is well founded on both law and facts.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tFor
\nthe aforesaid reasons, we agree with the view taken by the learned
\nSingle Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
 CIVIL
\nAPPLICATION NO. 1278 OF 2011<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nview of the order passed in the Appeal, Civil Application No.1278 of
\n2011 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[V
\n M SAHAI, J.]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[G
\nB  SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
msp<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/219\/2011 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 219 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8063 of 2004 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1278 of 2011 […]<\/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-22900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 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\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-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=\"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-08T21:26:59+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T21:26:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1708,\"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\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-08T21:26:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 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\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-08T21:26:59+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T21:26:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011"},"wordCount":1708,"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\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011","name":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-08T21:26:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anwar-vs-gujarat-on-4-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anwar vs Gujarat on 4 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/22900","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=22900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}