{"id":234524,"date":"2010-02-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-21T13:06:28","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T07:36:28","slug":"jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/1712\/2010\t 2\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1712 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nWith\n \n\n \n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1713 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \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 \n\nJAGDISHBHAI\nNARSINHBHAI MADHVANI, CHAIRMAN - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 6 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nAJ YAGNIK for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR.HH PARIKH, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, 3 &\n4 IN SCA 1712 OF 2010 & MR.HIMANSU PATEL, AGP for Respondent(s):\n1, 3 & 4 IN SCA 1713 OF 2010 \nPARTY-IN-PERSON for Respondent(s)\n: 2, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 3 -\n7. \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\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/02\/2010  \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tAs
\nthe facts of both the petitions are inter connected they are being
\nconsidered by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. H.H.Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice
\nfor respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4, Mr. V.K.Shah waives notice for
\nrespondent No.2 and Mr. Umang Vyas waives notice for respondent Nos.
\n6 & 7 in Special Civil Application No. 1712 of 2010. Mr. Himansu
\nPatel, learned A.G.P. waives notice   for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4,
\nMr. V.K.Shah waives notice for respondent No.2 and Mr. R.S.Oza waives
\nnotice for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in Special Civil Application No.
\n1713 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npresent petitions are directed against the orders passed by the
\nDistrict Registrar and confirmation thereof by the State Government
\nwhereby the petitioners have been disqualified and removed under
\nSection 76-B of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Act’).\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\npetitioner of Special Civil Application No. 1712 of 2010 was the
\nChairman of Savarkundla Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Bank’) and the petitioner of Special Civil
\nApplication No. 1713 of 2010 was the elected Managing Director of the
\nsaid Bank. It appears that while working
\nas the elected Managing Director of the Bank the petitioner of
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 1713 of 2010 performed well and in the
\nAnnual General Meeting of the society it was decided that he be
\nappointed on token honorarium of Rs. 2\/- as the Managing Director
\nsubject to the approval of the District Registrar. The District
\nRegistrar in response to the said resolution, observed that the
\npowers vest to the Managing Committee. Thereafter the Managing
\nCommittee instead of acting as per the resolution of the General
\nBoard, converted the post for the salary of Rs. 10,000\/- per month
\nand without giving any advertisement or without making any effort for
\ngiving opportunity to any other eligible or qualified persons,
\nappointed the petitioner of S.C.A. No. 1713 of 2010. The said
\nresolution was moved in the Managing Committee by the petitioner of
\nS.C.A. No. 1712 of 2010 as a Chairman and the pertinent aspect is
\nthat at the relevant point of time Shri Vadera who was to be
\nappointed as the Managing Director being paid employee had not
\nresigned. Powers for the resignation and appointment were assigned to
\nShri Madhvani who is petitioner of S.C.A. No. 1712 of 2010. The
\naforesaid action was made as a basis for initiation of the action
\nunder Section 76-B of the Act by the District Registrar. The District
\nRegistrar ultimately passed the order in exercise of the powers under
\nSection 76B of the Act and both the petitioners are removed from
\ntheir respective post of the Chairman and the Managing Director, as
\nthe case may be, and further
\ndisqualified for a period of four years, though in the show cause
\nnotice such period was provided for two years. The matter was carried
\nin appeal before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) by the respective
\npetitioners and the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and
\nremanded the matter to the District Registrar. The original
\ncomplainant and other party who was interested, carried the matter in
\nrevision before the State Government and ultimately the State
\nGovernment vide impugned order, maintained the order of removal under
\nSection 76B(1) and also disqualification under Section 76B(2). It is
\nunder these circumstances, the present petitions before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tHeard
\nMr. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the
\npetitions, Mr. H.H.Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
\nrespondent Nos. 1,3 and 4, Mr. V.K.Shah for respondent No.2 and Mr.
\nUmang Vyas for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in Special Civil Application
\nNo. 1712 of 2010 and Mr. R.S.Oza for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No. 1713 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\ncontention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that as per the
\nGujarat Cooperative Societies Rules, there is power with the Managing
\nCommittee for appointing any staff of the Bank, therefore if the
\npowers are exercised, it would not attract
\nthe provisions of Section 76B of the Act since the exercise of the
\npowers cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
\nIt was also contended that the concerned
\npetitioners are already removed pursuant to the impugned order.
\nTherefore, if the punishment is further continued of disqualification
\nfor a period of four years or even for two years, such would be very
\nharsh and the same cannot be maintained in view of the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tWhereas,
\nthe learned counsel for the respondents supported the order. But, the
\npertinent aspect is that none of the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondents has been able to support the order for disqualifying
\nthe petitioners concerned for a period of four years though show
\ncause notice was only for two years.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt
\nis an admitted position that the petitioners were holding capacity as
\nthe elected representative of a Cooperative Bank, one was the
\nChairman of the Bank and another was the Managing Director. This
\nCourt had an occasion to consider the issue of status of an elected
\nrepresentative in a Cooperative Society in case of V.J.Patel,
\nChairman & Ors. v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.<\/a>
\nin Special Civil Application No. 12548 of 2009 in the matter where
\nthe powers were to be exercised by the members of the Managing
\nCommittee of the society or the office bearers in the field of
\nemployment or appointment of the staff. This Court had observed in
\npara 13 to 17 as under:\n<\/p>\n
 13.\tIt
\nmay be recorded that this Court had an occasion to consider the
\nquestion of status of an elected representative of a specified
\nCooperative Society, i.e. Khedut Sahakari Khand Udhyog Mandali, and
\nthe  faith reposed upon such elected representatives and nature of
\npower whether could be said with public duty or not and the
\naccountability thereof, while considering the  question of fastening
\nthe financial liabilities under section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative
\nSocieties Act, in the decision in the  case of Ishwarbhai
\nNarottambhai Patel Vs. K.H.Trivedi, reported at 2003(1) GLR 537. In
\nthe said decision, it was inter alia observed at para 15, the
\nrelevant of which is as under:\n<\/p>\n
        15.\t  Further the earning of profits out  of  the \tutilisation  of  the      machinery  is  always  the  \tpurpose  of \tinvestment \tof the \tmoney by the \tsociety.  \tThe  \t society \thad placed \tthe  \torder
\n      with  a  view  to  see that the machinery can be used and
\n      profit can be earned therefrom.    If  the  supplier  had
\n      supplied  a  genuine  and good quality machine and if the
\n      society  had  earned  profit  by   utilising   the   said
\n      machinery,   the   supplier  would  be  entitled  to  the
\n      legitimate price of the machinery as per  the  terms  and
\n      conditions of  the  purchase agreement.  At this stage it
\n      would be worthwhile to refer to some of the  observations
\n      made  by  this  Court in the case of “Varvabhai Nathabhai
\n      Rabari Vs State of Gujarat” as per  the  judgement  dated
\n      28-1-2002 in  LPA  No.8\/2002 of the Division Bench.  In a
\n      matter of supersession of  the  Market  Committee,  while
\n      dealing  with  the  contentions  of the elected body that
\n      when two views are  possible,  it  cannot  be  said  that
\n      default is  committed  in  performance  of duties.  While
\n      \t\ttesting the  said  submission  it  was  observed  by  the  Division Bench at para 9 as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 \t      ” The status of the elected members of the market
\n              committee  is  more  or  less  like the status of
\n              other elected members holding  the  office  under
\n              the  local  authorities or statutory authorities.
\n              It is true that the  market  committee  has  been
\n              given  power  to  purchase and sell its property,
\n              but its power to purchase and sell the properties
\n              are coupled with the duty  to  ensure  that  such
\n              powers are used for enforcement of the objects of
\n              the At,  rules  and  bye-laws.   These powers are
\n              coupled with the public duty and such powers  are
\n              not  like  powers  of individual persons managing
\n              their own affairs but  there  is  something  more
\n              about the  accountability.    It  is  needless to
\n              point out that when any representative is elected
\n              by the voters, some  faith  is  reposed  on  such
\n              elected  representative by the voters that the so
\n              elected representative would exercise his  powers
\n              under  statutes  for the larger interested of the
\n              institution or the local body by acting as a wise
\n              person keeping in view the pros and  consequences
\n              of the action to be taken and keeping in view the
\n              interest of institution or the body.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      I  am  of  the  view  that  the  observations made by the
\n      Division Bench were pertaining to the elected body  of  a
\n      market  committee in a matter of supersession of a market
\n      committee which is a statutory body.    I  find  that  the
\n       status  of  the elected members of the society is more or
\n       less at par  with  the  elected  representative  of  such
\n       market  committee  or  any  other elected representative.
\n       Perusal  of  the  scheme  of  the   Gujarat   Cooperative
\n       Societies   Act   also   shows  that  the  principles  of
\n       accountability is maintained even in the affairs  of  the
\n       administration of cooperative societies.  In that view of
\n       the  matter,  I  find  that  there  is no reason why such
\n       principles  should  not  be  applied   to   the   elected
\n       representative of  the  cooperative society also.  In the
\n      present case, there was absolutely no  justification  for
\n      condoning  the  amount  because the test would be whether
\n      any   prudent   person   would   allow   an   amount   of
\n      Rs.1,45,000\/to  let  go  merely  because the supplier had
\n      supplied a machinery of good quality or merely because he
\n      has earned good profit out of it.  The normal conduct  of
\n      any  office  bearers  of  the  society  or  even a normal
\n      prudent person would insist that the excess payment which
\n      is made  must  be  refunded  because  the  price  of  the
\n      machinery  which  was fixed was for supplying genuine and
\n      good quality machinery and investment was with a view  to
\n      make  profit  and,  therefore,  there  can  be hardly any
\n      justification for condoning such amount.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(Emphasis \tsupplied) <\/p>\n
Therefore,
\nit appears to the  Court that when it is a matter pertaining to
\nrecruitment of number of posts in a specified society in whom the
\npower vests, such power is required to be exercised with public duty
\nto observe minimum basic principles of fairness, which is one of the
\nfoundation of common law.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tEven
\nif this Court is to proceed on the basis that the autonomy of the
\nDistrict Union as a specified Society is to be maintained by
\naccepting the power with the District Union itself to make
\nappointment of its own staff for regulating its business, then also,
\nit can hardly be said that such powers can be exercised by the office
\nbearers of the District Union or the person concerned in charge of
\nthe District Union as per their own sweet will or as per their whims
\nand caprice nor can it be said that merely because such powers are
\navailable to appoint, such powers can be exercised in an unfair
\nmanner on any ground whatsoever.  It is true that the Act does
\nprovide for enabling power with the State Government under Section 76
\nread with Section 168 of the Act to provide for the qualification for
\nappointment of the manager, secretary, accountant, or any other
\nofficer or employee of the Society, but merely because the State
\nGovernment in exercise of its power to frame Rules under Section 168
\nof the Act has not framed Rules for the power under Section 76 of the
\nAct, it cannot be said that the same would make room for the Society
\nconcerned to exercise power in an unfair manner or that without
\nobserving the basic principles of fairness and transparency in the
\nprocess of recruitment to be undertaken by the Society.  The same
\nwould more be required if such Society is a specified Society whose
\nfunctioning involves huge public interest.  Therefore, even if such
\npowers are read and retained by the office bearers of the Society to
\nundertake recruitment and to make appointment of its staffs for the
\nfunctioning of the District Union, basic principles of fairness would
\nbe required to be followed.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tIt
\nmay be recorded that it is a fact that the  office bearers of such
\nsociety are to act in the  interest of the  society as against or in
\nisolation to their individual interest. The  post held is at par with
\nthe  position of any person holding post in fiduciary capacity. The
\nperson holding fiduciary capacity should always be conscious of the
\nfact that he or she has to act for betterment of the  interest of the
\n beneficiary. No consideration of his\/her private interest should
\nprevail as against betterment of interest of the  beneficiary. None
\ncan discharge the  duty in fiduciary capacity properly unless he
\nkeeps his individual or personal interest away from the  interest of
\nthe  beneficiary for whom he has to work. Therefore, the  basic
\nprinciples of fairness will have the  role to play while functioning
\nin fiduciary capacity by the  office bearers of the  society and more
\nparticularly the  specified society whose functioning involves huge
\npublic importance.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tSuch
\nbasic principles of fairness can broadly be classified into 5
\ncategories:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe
\nset-up of the staff. Such
\nwould be dependent upon its financial condition and to meet with the
\nquantum of work.\n<\/p>\n
It is
\ndifficult to accept that irrespective of its financial condition or
\nquantum of work, the District Union can have the set up of its staffs
\nas per the whims and desire of the office bearers of such District
\nunion or a specified Society.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nminimum qualification required keeping in view the nature of the work
\nto be discharged by the person concerned.\n<\/p>\n
It is not
\npossible to accept that the minimum qualification for the post
\nconcerned would have no relevance at all if the principles of basic
\nfairness is to be observed.  Such principles of basic fairness would
\nrequire that the related qualification may be atleast to the minimum
\nextent, must be in existence for the post for which the recruitment
\nprocess is undertaken.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nthird would be the public advertisement not only for giving
\nopportunity to the eligible persons to apply for the post, but also
\nto enable the specified Society to chose more meritorious and
\nappropriate persons for the post in question.\n<\/p>\n
It is not
\npossible to accept that if the public advertisement is not given, it
\nwill leave room for offering appointment by the office bearers of
\nsuch Society by private negotiations which would not only be against
\nthe basic principles of fairness, but would also leave room for large
\nnumber of malpractices. In any case bonafide attempt to find out
\nmeritorious and appropriate person would require the  consideration
\nof eligible persons which will not be over unless properly advertised
\nor made known to the  eligible persons or public at large generally.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nfourth is the mode of selection through the proper selection
\ncommittee with a view to see that the meritorious candidates are
\ninducted without any bias or favour.\n<\/p>\n
If less
\nmeritorious person is appointed, it would be against the interest of
\nthe Society itself and the basic principles of fairness would be
\nfrustrated if a person having bias is to participate at the selection
\nprocess or the person participating in the selection holds no
\ncapability at all to judge the merit of any candidate.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nfifth and the last would be reasonable transparency to be maintained
\nin all the above referred four steps before finalization of the
\nrecruitment process.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tIt
\nappears to the Court that if the above referred principles of basic
\nfairness are not observed in the matter of recruitment to be
\nundertaken by a specified Society, it would not only result into
\nlarge number of chaotic situation, but would also leave room for
\nlarge number of manipulations and malpractices resulting into
\nultimate damage to the interest of the Society and its members and
\nconsequently, damage to the public interest in the field of
\nemployment as well as in the field of operation of such Society
\ninvolving huge public interest and such would be in contravention of
\npublic duty to be discharged by the  office bearers of the  society
\nby non observance of the  basis or foundation of common law.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\naforesaid shows that the status of the elected representative was at
\npar with the person holding fiduciary capacity. Therefore, while
\nexercising the powers, it was required for the person concerned to
\nkeep in mind the basic principles of common law while exercising the
\npowers by maintaining the status as that of the trustee of the
\nproperties of the society, which is bank in the present case. If the
\naction is tested in light of the aforesaid observations made by this
\nCourt, the action could not be sustained. One who is an elected
\nrepresentative, cannot convert the post unto himself nor such post
\ncan be filled up without following the basic principles referred to
\nherein above in the aforesaid decision for filling up of the post of
\nManaging Director which is a top most position in the bank. Acting in
\ncontravention thereto could be said to be prejudicial to the interest
\nof the bank inasmuch as acting in contravention thereto would not
\nonly run counter to the basic principles of common law to be observed
\nby the person in fiduciary capacity but would also be prejudicial to
\nthe interest of the bank inasmuch as no effort has been made to see
\nthat the more meritorious person is offered the post by giving
\nopportunity to the other eligible persons.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tApart
\nfrom the above, the fact remains that the powers have been exercised
\nnot in conformity with the resolution of the General Board but have
\nbeen exercised in contravention to the resolution of the General
\nBoard inasmuch as the General Board has resolved for token honorarium
\nof Rs. 2\/-, whereas by the resolution of the Managing Committee,
\nwherein one of the petitioners was the Chairman, the post is
\nconverted for Rs. 10,000\/- per month on regular basis.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tIt
\nis true that the lower authorities have not considered the matter
\nkeeping in view the aforesaid aspects. However, the fact that the
\nelected representatives have converted the post unto themselves
\ncould, per se, be said to be a misuse of the powers and prejudicial
\nto the interest of the Bank. Apart from the above such conduct on the
\npart of the office bearers would shake the basic confidence of the
\nvoters or the share holders of the society who have reposed into the
\noffice bearers the holy hope for exercise of the powers in bonafide
\nmanner and in the larger interest of the society.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tUnder
\nthese circumstances, it cannot be said that the District Registrar or
\nthe State Government has committed error for removal under Section
\n76B(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tHowever,
\nthe contention that the disqualification under Section 76B(2) of the
\nAct is beyond the show cause notice deserves consideration. The
\nlearned counsel for the respondents have not been able to show any
\nother show cause notice whereby the petitioner was given opportunity
\nfor the contemplated disqualification for a period of four years.
\nUnder these circumstances, if it is an admitted position that the
\nshow cause notice was for disqualification under Section 76B(2) of
\nthe Act for two years while passing the final order, the petitioners
\ncould not have been disqualified for the period of exceeding two
\nyears, which, in the present case has been four years. Therefore, the
\nimpugned order, to that extent, for disqualifying the petitioners
\nunder Section 76B(2) of the Act for a period exceeding two years
\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid, the impugned orders passed by the District
\nRegistrar and confirmation thereof by the State Government for
\nremoval of the concerned petitioners under Section 76B(1) of the Act
\ndo not deserve to be interfered with. However, for the further
\ndisqualification under Section 76B(2) of the Act, the order for
\ndisqualifying exceeding two years is quashed and set aside.
\nConsequently such disqualification under Section 76B(2) of the Act
\nwould remain for the period of two years only.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tPetitions
\nare partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
[JAYANT
\nPATEL, J.]<\/p>\n
jani<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1712\/2010 2\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1712 of 2010 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1713 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL […]<\/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-234524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-21T07:36:28+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T07:36:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3336,\"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\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-21T07:36:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 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":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - 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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-21T07:36:28+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T07:36:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010"},"wordCount":3336,"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\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010","name":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-21T07:36:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagdishbhai-vs-state-on-23-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagdishbhai vs State on 23 February, 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\/234524","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=234524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}