{"id":25053,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-23T20:36:50","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T15:06:50","slug":"indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\/13026\/2009\t 8\/ 11\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. 13026 of 2009\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nINDRAJEETSINH\nS SINDHA &amp; 8 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRK MISHRA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 9.MR DEEPAK P SANCHELA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 7,\n9, \nMR ANAND L SHARMA, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2, 4, \nNOTICE\nSERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. \nMR BS PATEL for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \nMR KEYUR A VYAS for Respondent(s) :\n3, \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: 07\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Mishra and learned advocate Mr. Sanchela both have<br \/>\nargued this matter at length for about more than one and half hours.<br \/>\nThis Court has permitted them to argue at length to the satisfaction<br \/>\nof both learned advocates. It is necessary to reproduce the prayers<br \/>\nmade in this petition in Para 23(A) and 23(B) as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 23(A)\tYour<br \/>\nLordships may be pleased to  quash and set aside the order of the<br \/>\ntermination under notices dated 27\/11\/2009 and others annex at<br \/>\nAnnexure-C (Colly) by holding and declaring that the action on the<br \/>\npart of the respondent authorities is against the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Payment of<br \/>\nGratuity Act, 1947 and the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereas one<br \/>\nmonth&#8217;s notice period has been given, and further be pleased to hold<br \/>\nthat the said action of the respondent is illegal, violative of<br \/>\nArticle 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, Your Lordships<br \/>\nmay be pleased to hold and declare that the proposed action seeking<br \/>\nto terminate the services of the petitioners is illegal, arbitrary,<br \/>\nviolative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nSection 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 4 of<br \/>\nthe Payment of Gratuity Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>23(B)\tYour<br \/>\nLordships may be pleased to hold and declare that since the Hon&#8217;ble<br \/>\nLabour Court, Baroda under Section 13 of the Industrial Disputes Act<br \/>\nand has rendered its awards, which are unchallenged, unmodified and<br \/>\nnot set aside, the action of the respondent authorities seeking to<br \/>\nterminate the services of the petitioners who have award in their<br \/>\nfavour from the Labour Court, Baroda, is illegal, arbitrary, against<br \/>\nthe awards which have been passed under Section 13 of the I.D. Act,<br \/>\ntherefore, also the notices are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction and the same are required to be set aside by<br \/>\nholding and declaring the same to be non est in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAgainst<br \/>\npresent petition, Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent No.2<br \/>\nNagarpalika raising number of contentions including maintainability<br \/>\nof petition and also stating that petitioners are having alternative<br \/>\neffective remedy and also raised contention that disputed question of<br \/>\nfacts are involved and petitioners have not challenged the order<br \/>\npassed by Labour Court as well as also stated that appointment of<br \/>\npetitioners are not approved by State Government and without prior<br \/>\npermission of State Government, such petitioners are not to be<br \/>\nappointed by Nagarpalika, therefore, appointment of petitioners<br \/>\ncannot be said legally and therefore, such appointments would be<br \/>\nwrongfully. According to Nagarpalika, since the appointment of<br \/>\npetitioners are not regularised so far and appointments were made<br \/>\nwithout following any procedure, and therefore, explanations were<br \/>\nsought for by Chief Officer on 12th July 2007. One<br \/>\nShilpaben Maheshbhai Shah, who was elected as a Member of Committee,<br \/>\nmade a complaint against earlier body which has committed several<br \/>\nirregularities in Nagarpalika and she made a complaint to Vigilance<br \/>\nOfficer, Gujarat State that to inquire about the appointment made in<br \/>\nNagarpalika by earlier body and take necessary action against them.<br \/>\nIt was directed to submit report by Nagarpalika about appointment<br \/>\nmade of petitioners. According to Nagarpalika, such appointment is<br \/>\nillegal, unjust, improper and not in accordance with law, therefore,<br \/>\naction taken by authority is just and proper.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs<br \/>\nper cause title, this petition is preferred under the provisions of<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in the matter of Awards of Labour<br \/>\nCourt, Vadodara. The contention raised before this Court that order<br \/>\nof one month notice dated 27th November 2009 issued by<br \/>\nRespondent   Nagarpalika is violating Section 25F of Industrial<br \/>\nDisputes Act, 1947. Looking to entire petition and prayers as well as<br \/>\naverments made in this petition and averments made in<br \/>\nAffidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3   Nagarpalika as<br \/>\nreferred above, if termination is found to be illegal or contrary to<br \/>\nSection 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, then, petitioner is<br \/>\nhaving effective alternative statutory remedy under provisions of<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner can raise industrial<br \/>\ndispute under Section 2A of ID Act against such termination which can<br \/>\nbe referred for adjudication to Labour Court concerned where Labour<br \/>\nCourt is competent having jurisdiction to decide legality and<br \/>\nvalidity of termination order. When right has been flowing from<br \/>\nparticular Statute in violating particular Section, then, naturally,<br \/>\nthe remedy is available to petitioner under that particular Statute.<br \/>\nIt is also necessary to note that one month notice dated 27th<br \/>\nNovember 2009 received by employee petitioner. Thereafter, first<br \/>\ntime, petitioner has approached this Court on 8th December<br \/>\n2009 and first order has been passed by this Court on 11th<br \/>\nDecember 2009. The writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court<br \/>\nunless petitioner first approach the concerned authority. This law is<br \/>\nsettled that unless and until first petitioner approached to<br \/>\nauthority and if authority is not giving any response or reaction,<br \/>\nthen, writ petition can be filed by concerned petitioner. That view<br \/>\nhas been taken by Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in case of<br \/>\nBalwant Singh Parihar &amp; Anr. v. Union of India &amp; Ors.<br \/>\nreported in 2006<br \/>\nLAB I.C. 2081.\n<\/p>\n<p>The relevant Para 19 is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 19.\t\tFrom<br \/>\nthe record of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners have<br \/>\nneither given any representation to the Pay Commission nor to the<br \/>\nUnion of India nor Railway Administration nor given any notice for<br \/>\ndemand of justice and straightway filed the writ petition fro seeking<br \/>\nmandamus in the matter of pay parity contrary to the well established<br \/>\nprinciple of law that giving notice for demand of justice is sine qua<br \/>\nnon for seeking writ of mandamus. The writ petition deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed on this ground alone as there was no occasion for the<br \/>\nrespondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners of claim of<br \/>\nparity in pay scale and also consider the objection of the<br \/>\nrespondents in reply of interference by the High Court under Article<br \/>\n226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. In the judgments<br \/>\ncited by the counsel for the petitioners, it is nowhere laid down<br \/>\nthat the Court should evaluate the job for the purpose of grant of<br \/>\nequal pay for equal work. On the contrary, in some of the judgments<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the petitioners also and in<br \/>\nthe other judgments, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court<br \/>\nthat it is not for the Court to make job evaluation for the purpose<br \/>\nof considering the equation of post and parity in pay scale and it is<br \/>\nfor the Pay Commission, the expert body and the Government to<br \/>\nconsider and decide. Thus, it would not be proper for this Court to<br \/>\nmake an enquiry in the matter of equation of post as well as grant of<br \/>\nequal pay scale in absence of any representation to the respondents<br \/>\nor Pay Commission and findings thereon. Therefore, we may observe<br \/>\nthat it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the<br \/>\nrespondents\/Pay Commission as and when it is constituted in the<br \/>\nmatter of parity in pay scale and it is further expected from the<br \/>\nrespondents\/Pay Commission to consider the same and pass the<br \/>\nappropriate order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nApex Court, in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/170705\/\">Secretary,<br \/>\nMinor Irrigation &amp; Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others v.<br \/>\nSahngoo Ram Arya and Another<\/a> reported<br \/>\nin 2002<br \/>\nSCC (L&amp;S) 775,<br \/>\nwherein, it is held that when the statute has provided for the<br \/>\nconstitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a<br \/>\ngovernment servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to<br \/>\ngrant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. In<br \/>\nan appropriate case after entertaining the petition by an aggrieved<br \/>\nparty if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it<br \/>\nhas no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can<br \/>\nseek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no<br \/>\nground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself.<br \/>\nTherefore, there is no infirmity in this case in the order of the<br \/>\nHigh Court directing the writ petition before it to approach the UP<br \/>\nPublic Services Tribunal. Therefore, similarly, writ petition is not<br \/>\nmaintainable without approaching to Respondent   Nagarpalika, State<br \/>\nAuthorities and Director of Municipalities. It is an undisputed fact<br \/>\nthat no approach has been made by petitioner before filing petition<br \/>\nbefore this Court. The alternative effective remedy is available with<br \/>\npetitioner to challenge the termination order if it is found to be<br \/>\nillegal and contrary to Section 25F of ID Act, 1947.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nApex Court has considered the same question in case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1009743\/\">State<br \/>\nof U.P. &amp; Anr. v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. &amp; Ors.<\/a><br \/>\nreported in 2008(9)<br \/>\nSCALE Page-1.\n<\/p>\n<p>The relevant observations are made in Para 31 and 50 to 53, which are<br \/>\nquoted as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> 31.\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court was<br \/>\nwholly wrong in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution and in not relegating the writ petitioners to avail of<br \/>\nalternative remedy available under the Industrial Law. It was also<br \/>\nsubmitted that disputed questions of fact were involved in the<br \/>\npetition which could not be appropriately dealt with and decided in<br \/>\nexercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by a writ court and on that<br \/>\nground also the Court ought to have directed the writ petitioners to<br \/>\napproach an appropriate forum.  Moreover, no  action of retrenchment<br \/>\nof employees had been taken and, as such, the writ petition was<br \/>\npremature and not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>50.<br \/>\n\t\tIn our considered view, however, all <\/p>\n<p>such<br \/>\nactions could be examined by an appropriate Court\/Tribunal under the<br \/>\nIndustrial Law and not by a writ Court exercising power of judicial<br \/>\nreview under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the impugned action<br \/>\nof the Corporation of retrenchment of several employees is not in<br \/>\nconsonance with law, the employees are certainly entitled to relief<br \/>\nfrom an appropriate authority. If any action is taken which is<br \/>\narbitrary, unreasonable or otherwise not in consonance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of law, such authority or Court\/Tribunal is bound to<br \/>\nconsider it and legal and legitimate relief can always be granted<br \/>\nkeeping in view the evidence before it and considering statutory<br \/>\nprovisions in vogue. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider<br \/>\nall these aspects and issued a writ of mandamus which should not have<br \/>\nbeen done. Hence, the order passed and directions issued by the High<br \/>\nCourt deserve to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>51.\t\tFor<br \/>\nthe foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the<br \/>\norder passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and is<br \/>\naccordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>52.\t\tSince<br \/>\nwe are of the view that one of <\/p>\n<p>the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court which decided<br \/>\nthe matter at the initial stage was right in relegating the <\/p>\n<p>petitioners<br \/>\nto avail of alternative remedy under the Industrial Law and as we<br \/>\nhold that the High Court should not have entertained the petition and<br \/>\ndecided the matter on merits, we clarify that though the writ<br \/>\npetition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed, it is open to the<br \/>\nemployees to approach an appropriate Court\/Tribunal in accordance<br \/>\nwith law and to raise all contentions available to them. It is<br \/>\nequally open to the Corporation and the State authorities to defend<br \/>\nand support the action taken by them. As and when such a course is<br \/>\nadopted by the employees, the Court\/Tribunal will decide it strictly<br \/>\nin accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the<br \/>\nwrit petition filed by the writ petitioners is dismissed by this<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>53.\t\tThe<br \/>\nappeal is allowed accordingly.  Considering the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis also necessary to note that petitioners are not appointed by<br \/>\nNagarpalika after following statutory recruitment rules as per<br \/>\ncontentions raised in Affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.3<br \/>\nNagarpalika.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\non both grounds, according to my opinion, present petition is not<br \/>\nmaintainable and cannot be entertained by this Court wherein disputed<br \/>\nquestion of facts are involved.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTherefore,<br \/>\nthis petition is accordingly disposed of by this Court without<br \/>\nexpressing any opinion on merits. Interim relief granted by this<br \/>\nCourt, if any, shall stand vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nrequest made by learned advocate Mr. Mishra to continue the interim<br \/>\nrelief for some period, cannot be granted because once petition<br \/>\nitself is not maintainable and not entertained by this Court,<br \/>\nquestion of granting or continuing any interim relief further in<br \/>\nfavour of petitioner does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>[H.K.\n<\/p>\n<p>RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n<p>#Dave<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13026\/2009 8\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13026 of 2009 ========================================================= INDRAJEETSINH S SINDHA &amp; 8 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= [&hellip;]<\/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-25053","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-23T15:06:50+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T15:06:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2092,\"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\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-23T15:06:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 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:\/\/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":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-23T15:06:50+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T15:06:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":2092,"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\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010","name":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-23T15:06:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indrajeetsinh-vs-state-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indrajeetsinh vs State on 7 April, 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:\/\/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\/25053","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=25053"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25053\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25053"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25053"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25053"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}