{"id":235462,"date":"2010-06-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-09T00:40:31","modified_gmt":"2018-10-08T19:10:31","slug":"prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\/9123\/2009\t 16\/ 16\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9123 of 2009\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPRANTIJ\nMUNICIPAL BOROUGH - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHAUHAN\nPRABHUDAS SHANKARLAL - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJV JAPEE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR KV GADHIA for Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 16\/06\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\tHeard
\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npetitioner has challenged award passed by Labour Court, Himatnagar in
\nReference (LCH) No.108 of 2002 Ex.55 dated 29th December
\n2008. The Labour Court has partly allowed Reference with a direction
\nto petitioner to reinstate respondent workman to his original post
\nwith continuity of service without back wages of interim period and
\naward is required to be implemented within a period of 30 days from
\nthe date of publication.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording
\nto learned advocate Mr. Japee, respondent had raised industrial
\ndispute against the petitioner inter alia alleging that he was
\nserving as daily wager – Sweeper with petitioner establishment since
\n5th October 1996 and he had completed 240 days service in
\neach year. The petitioner had paid Rs.75\/- as daily wage. According
\nto petitioner, respondent was working in a group which consisted of 3
\nSweepers and 2 Daily Wagers. It was the further case of respondent
\nthat he was not getting the salary and other benefits equivalent to
\nthe salary of permanent employees. Therefore, on 8th
\nOctober 2000, respondent had further alleged that since he had made
\nfrequent demand for various service benefits, his services were
\norally terminated by petitioner w.e.f. 8th March 2000
\nwithout following required procedure under Section 25F and Section
\n25H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The industrial dispute has been
\nreferred for adjudication to Labour Court, Himatnagar.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nstatement of claim has been filed by workman. Against which,
\npetitioner had filed written statement. In written statement,
\ncontention raised by petitioner that respondent was engaged as daily
\nwager employee without undergoing the procedure of selection in view
\nof influence of the then President of Prantij Nagar Palika Shri
\nBharatsinh Solanki who belongs to caste of respondent. The respondent
\nwas not properly discharging his duties and therefore, there were
\nseveral complaints against his work, therefore, on 8th
\nMarch 2000, his services were terminated. The petitioner had not made
\nany fresh recruitment in view of instructions given by Director of
\nMunicipalities. As per the details submitted by respondent workman,
\nhe had completed an aggregate of 225 days during 1996 to 2000. Even
\nas per the vouchers produced about the payment to the workman,  the
\nrespondent had completed 225 days service only during the period of
\nfour years. This fact is also proved by the monthwise presence
\nstatement produced by petitioner. The respondent workman has not
\ndisputed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner about the details
\nregarding the working days produced by petitioner. The Labour Court
\nhas committed gross error in drawing adverse inference because the
\ndocuments, whose production was applied by respondent workman, were
\nalready produced by petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Japee submitted that it is a clear case wherein finding
\nof fact given by Labour Court that Sec.25F is not violated and only
\nSec.25H is violated. In such circumstances, relief of reinstatement
\nwith continuity of service is contrary to provisions of Section 25H
\nof ID Act. He also raised contention before this Court that witness
\nof petitioner who was examined but his cross-examination is not
\ncompleted and his right to cross-examine has been closed, because,
\nwitness was not remained present after some extent in
\ncross-examination made by advocate of respondent. A specific
\napplication was made by advocate of respondent to close the evidence
\nof petitioner because Ex.47 witness of petitioner   Chief Officer
\nwas not remained present subsequent to some extent in
\ncross-examination. Therefore, he submitted that Labour Court has
\ncommitted gross error in granting relief in favour of respondent.
\nExcept that, no other submission is made by learned advocate Mr.
\nJapee before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Gadhia appearing on behalf of respondent workman
\nsubmitted that after award is published, respondent workman was
\nreinstated in service as per order dated 26th March 2009
\npassed by Resolution from President of Prantij Nagar Palika with
\nsignature of Chief Officer. This Resolution has been passed in
\nSpecial General Board Meeting and accepted the award passed by Labour
\nCourt and accordingly, respondent was appointed as Class-IV employee
\nas Daily Wager in Sanitation Department. Accordingly, resume report
\nsubmitted by respondent workman on 30th March 2009. But,
\nsubsequently, his service has been terminated by petitioner Nagar
\nPalika, because, petitioner wants to challenge the award passed by
\nLabour Court, Himatnagar. The relevant documents of order passed in
\nSpecial General Board Meeting of Prantij Nagar Palika and order of
\nreinstatement issued in favour of respondent dated 26th
\nMarch 2009, Resume Report dated 27th March 2009 and letter
\nfrom Chief Officer dated 30th March 2009 are produced on
\nrecord. The respondent has also produced on record letter dated 2nd
\nApril 2009, where, his service was terminated w.e.f. 31st
\nMarch 2009 only on the ground that petitioner wants to challenge
\naward passed by Labour Court, Himatnagar. Therefore, learned advocate
\nMr. Gadhia submitted that Special General Board has accepted the
\naward and accordingly, reinstatement order has been passed in favour
\nof respondent and he was reinstated as a Class-IV employee   daily
\nwager in Sanitation Department. That resolution has been cancelled
\nand directed the respondent workman not to remain present in service
\nw.e.f. 31st March 2009 by petitioner. Against that,
\ncomplaint has been made to Chief Officer by respondent on 2nd
\nApril 2009. He submitted that service of respondent was terminated by
\nviolating the provisions of Section 25F and Section 25H of ID Act.
\nHis service was terminated on 8th March 2000. Against
\nwhich, dispute was raised and statement of claim was filed in support
\nof his case by respondent vide Ex.7. Against which, written statement
\nwas filed by petitioner vide Ex.20. Thereafter, purshis was filed by
\nrespondent workman vide Ex.8 that without prejudice to his rights and
\ncontention, respondent is prepared to resume duty with petitioner.
\nThe respondent workman was examined vide Ex.11 and vide Ex.22, one
\napplication was made by respondent before Labour Court, Himatnagar
\ncalling certain documents from petitioner which has been referred in
\nPara 6 by Labour Court. In support of Ex.22 application, affidavit
\nvide Ex.23 has been also placed on record by respondent. Vide Ex.39,
\ntwo documents have been produced by petitioner i.e. total working
\ndays of respondent has been produced on record by petitioner and
\ndetails of monthwise presence of workman which comes to 225 days in a
\nperiod from 1996 to 2000. Thereafter, vide Ex.47, one Mr. Dave, Chief
\nOfficer of petitioner was examined, but, his cross-examination is not
\ncompleted and for that, documentary evidence is to be produced by
\nwitness. That cross-examination has been adjourned or postponed and
\naccordingly, note has been made by Labour Court, Himatnagar to that
\neffect. Vide Ex.48, application has been given by respondent to
\nconsider the evidence of witness Ex.47 is not completed, because,
\nwitness was not remained present subsequently and therefore, the
\nstage of witness of petitioner has been closed by Labour Court vide
\nEx.52. That application   Ex.52 is submitted by advocate of
\nrespondent. Vide Ex.53, written arguments have been produced on
\nrecord along with certain decisions by petitioner. The Labour Court
\nhas considered undisputed facts between both parties that workman is
\nappointed in October, 1996 as a Sweeper   Daily Wager and his
\nservice was terminated on 8th March 2000. The question has
\nbeen considered by Labour Court whether workman has completed
\ncontinuous service of 240 days or not. For that, Labour Court, in
\nterms, has come to conclusion that workman has failed to establish
\n240 days continuous service within 12 preceding months from date of
\ntermination. Such finding has been given by Labour Court based on
\nfacts at Page 39, internal page 17 of the award. But, he submitted
\nthat Labour Court has examined another question whether provisions of
\nSection 25H of ID Act has been complied by petitioner or not ? After
\nevidence of witness of petitioner Ex.47, documents demanded by
\nrespondent’s advocate from witness of petitioner to produce the
\ndetails of employees – daily wagers those who have been recruited or
\nappointed subsequent to termination of respondent workman and their
\ndate of joining as per Mark 22\/5, but, these documents have not been
\nproduced by witness of petitioner Ex.37. The respondent workman has
\nproduced a list of 36 daily wagers those who have been recruited or
\nappointed subsequent to termination of respondent workman. Therefore,
\nwhy the said list of 36 workmen have not been produced on record by
\nwitness of petitioner ? For that, no affidavit to that effect is
\nfiled by responsible officer from petitioner. Considering the
\nevidence of workman Ex.11, after his termination as a Sweeper
\nDaily Wager, new 10 to 15 persons have been recruited or appointed
\nand they are still continue in service with petitioner and they were
\nrecruited in the same manner as recruited the respondent workman by
\npetitioner. The witness of petitioner has admitted in his
\ncross-examination as discussed at Page 44, internal page 22 of the
\naward that he will produce details of 36 employees whose who have
\nbeen recruited\/appointed subsequent to termination of respondent
\nworkman as per Mark 22\/5. These documents, though admitted by witness
\nEx.47 of petitioner that he will produce it before Labour Court, have
\nnot been produced by witness  of petitioner as per Mark 22\/5 and
\nbecause of  cross-examination which is remained incomplete and
\nthereafter, witness has not entered into the witness box, therefore,
\nlearned advocate Mr. Gadhia submitted that Labour Court has rightly
\ndrawn adverse inference in light of the facts that documents have not
\nbeen produced on record by petitioner. Even no affidavit is filed
\nthat why such documents have not been produced on record. Therefore,
\nlearned advocate Mr. Gadhia submitted that order of termination has
\nbeen held to be violated the provisions of Sec.25H of ID Act which is
\nmandatory in nature and not complied with by petitioner. Therefore,
\nLabour Court has rightly granted reinstatement in favour of workman.
\nHe submitted that when reinstatement order has been passed in favour
\nof respondent, it includes continuity of service, otherwise, Labour
\nCourt can pass an award of re-employment. He submitted that under
\nSec.25H of ID Act; after retrenchment of respondent workman, if any
\nemployee is recruited or appointed in the same manner in a same
\ncategory, then, it is a legal obligation upon employer to recall the
\nservices of respondent workman, which was not recalled by petitioner.
\nTherefore, he submitted that Labour Court has rightly granted relief
\nof reinstatement with continuity of service to original post of daily
\nwager.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Gadhia relied upon the decision of this Court in case of
\nPratikshaben B. Utrankar and Anr. v. State of Gujarat &
\nOrs.<\/a> reported in 2004(1) GLH 501. The relevant
\ndiscussion is made in Para 8 and 9 which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 8.  The
\ncontroversy involved in the present petition has
\n       been earlier dealt with by this Court in the order  dated
\n      7th  March,  2002  passed  in  Special  Civil Application
\n      No.13758 of 1993.  The relevant observations made by this
\n      Court in aforesaid decision are referred as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “I have considered the submissions made by both. I
\n              have considered the submissions made by both  the
\n              learned advocates.    There  are ways of granting
\n              order of reinstatement by the labour court.    If
\n              the  order of reemployment would have been passed
\n              by the labour court, then, naturally,  continuity
\n              of  service  would  not  have been there but once
\n              reinstatement has been granted, it would  include
\n              continuity of   service  too,  impliedly.    This
\n              aspect has been considered by the apex  court  in
\n              case  of  Sanat  Kumar  Dwivedi  versus Dhar Jila
\n              Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank  Maryadit  and  Others
\n              reported in  2001 AIR SCW 2430.  In para 3 of the
\n              said decision, the apex  court  has  observed  as
\n              under :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “3.\tIt is  clarified  that  this  order will  not
\n              be  treated  to  be  resulting  in  any  break in
\n              service of the appellant.  He will be deprived of
\n              only the back wages.  The continuity  of  service
\n              and  all  other  notional  benefits on that basis
\n              will be available to him.  It appears  that  when
\n              the  order  of  reinstatement was granted, except
\n              depriving him of back wages, it necessarily meant
\n              that the continuity of service  was  implicit  in
\n              the reinstatement.   Even condition Nos.  1 and 2<\/span>
\n              of the order of  reinstatement  clearly  indicate
\n              that  he is reinstated in service with continuity
\n              as  pay  scales  and  other  benefits  were  also
\n              directed to be given.”\n<\/p>\n
      \t\tIt is further observations that;\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Recently, the apex court has considered the same
\n              question  in  case of Gurpreet Singh and State of
\n              Punjab and others reported in 2002 (92) FLR  838.
\n              The  relevant observations made by the apex court
\n              in 1 and 2 of the said judgment are reproduced as
\n              under :\n<\/p>\n
\t       “Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
      \t \tThe  Plaintiff  is   in  appeal  against  the
\n              impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and
\n              impugned judgment of the High Court of Punjab and
\n              services  stood  terminated and he filed the suit
\n              for declaring the order of termination  null  and
\n              void.  The   suit   was  dismissed.    The  lower
\n              appellate court, however,  on  reappreciation  of
\n              the  materials  on record, came to the conclusion
\n              that the order passed by the D.I.G.  must be held
\n              to be illegal and consequently directed that  the
\n              plaintiff   should   be  reinstated  in  service.\n<\/p>\n
              Having directed so,  the  first  appellate  court
\n              categorically held that the plaintiff will not be
\n              entitled for any arrears of salary for the period
\n              for which  he  has  not  served.    The plaintiff
\n              assailed the appellate decree by filing a  second
\n              appeal  claiming that he would be entitled to the
\n              arrears of  salary.    The  High  Court  by   the
\n              impugned  order  not only confirmed the decree of
\n              the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will
\n              not be entitled to any arrears of salary but also
\n              further added that the plaintiff will not get his
\n              continuity of service.  The  plaintiff  therefore
\n              is in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
       \t2.\t    Having heard the learned counsel for  the
\n              parties and on examining the materials on record,
\n              we  fail  to  understand  how  the  continuity of
\n              service could be denied  once  the  plaintiff  is
\n              directed  to  be reinstated in service on setting
\n              aside the order of termination.  It is not a case
\n              of  fresh  appointment  but  it  is  a  case   of
\n              reinstatement.     That   being   the   position,
\n              direction of the High Court  that  the  plaintiff
\n              will  not  get  continuity  of  service cannot be
\n              sustained and we  set  aside  that  part  of  the
\n              impugned order.   So far as the arrears of salary
\n              is  concerned,  we  see  no  infirmity   in   the
\n              direction  which was given by the lower appellate
\n              court  taking  into   account   the   facts   and
\n              circumstances  including  the  fact that the suit
\n              was filed after a considerable  length  of  time.
\n              That  part  of  the decree denying the arrears of
\n              salary stands affirmed  and  this  appeal  stands
\n              allowed in part to the extent indicated above.”\n<\/p>\n
      9.   Thus, in the above decision, this Court has examined
\n      the question and observed  that  once  reinstatement  has
\n      been  granted  and  accepted by the the employer, meaning
\n      thereby, it impliedly includes continuity of service.  In
\n      such  circumstances,  continuity  of  service  cannot  be
\n      denied to   the   workman.    Unless  there  is  negative
\n      direction  issued  by  the   labour   court,   otherwise,
\n      continuity  of  service must have to be impliedly covered
\n      in case when reinstatement has been granted by the labour
\n      court.  In the facts of this also, reinstatement has been
\n      granted by the labour court on  13th  March,  1992  which
\n      remained  intact and upheld by the Division Bench of this
\n      Court and therefore,  the  effect  of  that  award  still
\n      remained  continued  till even in between two termination
\n      orders  upto  reinstatement  has  been  granted  by   the
\n      respondent.   Therefore,  according  to  my  opinion, the
\n      workmen are entitled to all the benefits of continuity of
\n      service under the Service Rules which  are  available  to
\n\tthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Gadhia also relied upon another decision of this Court
\nin case of Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
\nreported
\nin JT 2002 (1) SC 409,
\nwhere, relevant discussion is made in Para 2 and 3 which are quoted
\nas under :\n<\/p>\n
 2.\tThe
\nPlaintiff is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the High
\nCourt of Punjab   & Haryana in a second appeal. The plaintiff’s
\nservices stood terminated and he filed the suit for declaring the
\norder of termination null and void. The suit was dismissed. The lower
\nappellate Court, however, on re-appreciation of the material on
\nrecord, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the D.I.G.
\nmust be held to be illegal and consequently directed that the
\nplaintiff should be reinstated in service. Having directed so, the
\nfirst appellate court categorically held that the plaintiff will not
\nbe entitled to any arrears of salary for the period for which he has
\nnot served. The plaintiff assailed the appellate decree by filing a
\nsecond appeal claiming that he would be entitled to the arrears of
\nsalary. The High Court by the impugned order not only confirmed the
\ndecree of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff will not be
\nentitled to any arrears salary, but also further added that the
\nplaintiff will not get his continuity of service. The plaintiff,
\ntherefore, is in appeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tHaving
\nheard the learned counsel for the parties and on examining the
\nmaterials on record, we fail to understand how the continuity of
\nservice could be denied once the plaintiff is directed to be
\nreinstated in service on setting aside the order of termination. It
\nis not a case of fresh appointment, but, it is a case of
\nreinstatement. That being the position, direction of the High Court
\nthat the plaintiff will not get continuity of service cannot be
\nsustained and we set aside that part of the impugned order. So far as
\nthe arrears of salary is concerned, we see no infirmity with the
\ndirection which was given by the lower appellate court taking into
\naccount the facts and circumstances including the fact that the suit
\nwas filed after a considerable length of time. That part of the
\ndecree denying the arrears of salary stands affirmed and this appeal
\nstand allowed in part to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing
\non behalf of respective parties. The Labour Court has rightly come to
\nconclusion that workman is failed to prove 240 days continuous
\nservice in 12 preceding months, therefore, Section 25F of ID Act is
\nnot violated, but, Labour Court has also rightly discussed the
\nevidence which are on record and evidence of witness of petitioner
\nEx.47. The documents\/details have been demanded as per Mark 22\/5 by
\nadvocate of respondent in respect to 36 employees, those have been
\nrecruited or appointed in the same manner subsequent to the date of
\ntermination of respondent workman, have not been given or produced on
\nrecord by the petitioner. Not only that, no affidavit has been
\nproduced on record in support of facts that why such documents as
\ndemanded by workman vide Mark 22\/5 have not been produced by
\npetitioner. The case of respondent workman was as per Ex.11 in his
\nevidence, certain new persons have been recruited or appointed in
\nsame manner as he was appointed in the post of Sweeper subsequent to
\ntermination of workman. Therefore, at that occasion, as per Sec.25H
\nof ID Act, it was a legal obligation upon petitioner to recall the
\nservice of respondent workman, but, in fact, it was not recalled by
\npetitioner. Therefore, breach of mandatory provision has been
\ncommitted by petitioner. Sec.25H being an independent Section, which
\napplies even in case where workman has not completed 240 days
\ncontinuous service. Section 25H is made applicable in case of
\nretrenchment. Whether workman has completed 240 days continuous
\nservice or not, that facts are totally irrelevant while question of
\ncompliance of Sec.25H is considered by Labour Court. [See
\n: 2010 (1) SCALE 613   Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing
\nCorporation]<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nlight of these facts, Labour Court has rightly come to conclusion
\nthat petitioner establishment has violated Sec.25H, because, no
\ndetails have been produced on record in spite of demand made by
\nworkman as per Mark 22\/5. No affidavit to that effect is filed by
\nofficer of petitioner as to why such documents have not been
\nproduced. Therefore, adverse inference has been rightly drawn by
\nLabour Court that after termination of services of respondent workman
\nin the same post as a daily wager, new persons have been
\nrecruited\/appointed in the same manner as respondent was appointed,
\ntherefore, Sec.25H has been violated.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nLabour Court has also considered certain decisions which have been
\nrelied upon by advocate of petitioner in written arguments at Ex.53
\ni.e. 2007-II-CLR 859   Rameshwar Dayal v. Presiding Officer, Labour
\nCourt No.VI and Others of Delhi High Court. The Labour Court<\/a> has also
\nconsidered decision of Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India v.
\nS. Satyam & others<\/a> reported in 1996-II CLR 1095 and also
\nconsidered decision of Apex Court in case of Jaipur Development
\nAuthority v. Ram Sahay & Others<\/a> reported in 2006-II Scale 95.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\nconsidering the reasoning given by Labour Court and also keeping in
\nmind that details though admitted by witness of petitioner Ex.47 that
\nhe will produce details as demanded by respondent as per Mark 22\/5 in
\ncross-examination, but, that has not been produced, even though,
\nincomplete cross-examination has been closed and right to lead
\nfurther evidence of petitioner has been closed. No affidavit in
\nsupport of that as to why documents have not been produced by
\npetitioner, is filed. Therefore, considering the facts, Labour Court
\nhas rightly come to conclusion that petitioner establishment has
\nviolated mandatory provisions of Sec.25H of ID Act, therefore,
\nrespondent workman is entitled right of reinstatement in service.
\nAccordingly, direction order has been set aside and ordinary relief
\nof reinstatement has been granted. The Labour Court has rightly not
\ngranted relief of re-employment, therefore, the relief of
\nreinstatement has been granted which includes continuity of service
\nand accordingly, Labour Court has rightly granted benefits of
\ncontinuity of service in favour of respondent workman. Therefore,
\ncontentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Japee cannot be accepted,
\nbecause, there is no error committed by Labour Court in granting
\nrelief in favour of respondent workman. The Labour Court has rightly
\nnot awarded any amount of back wages in favour of respondent workman,
\nbecause, only Sec.25H of ID Act has been violated by petitioner
\nestablishment.\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\naccording to my opinion, Labour Court has rightly discussed oral as
\nwell as documentary evidence which are on record and Labour Court has
\nnot committed any error in deciding reference and Labour Court has
\ngiven correct reason in support of its conclusion. For that, no
\ninterference is required by this Court while exercising the powers
\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\tHence,
\nthere is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present
\npetition is dismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9123\/2009 16\/ 16 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9123 of 2009 ========================================================= PRANTIJ MUNICIPAL BOROUGH – Petitioner(s) Versus CHAUHAN PRABHUDAS SHANKARLAL – Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JV […]<\/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-235462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 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\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-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=\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-08T19:10:31+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T19:10:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3733,\"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\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T19:10:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 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":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 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\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-08T19:10:31+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T19:10:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010"},"wordCount":3733,"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\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010","name":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T19:10:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prantij-vs-chauhan-on-16-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prantij vs Chauhan on 16 June, 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\/235462","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=235462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}