{"id":251244,"date":"2008-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-21T02:35:48","modified_gmt":"2017-03-20T21:05:48","slug":"ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                        1\n\n\n               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 4612\/2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n             Ramesh Gopinath Tidke,\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n             Conductor, Buldhana Depot,\n             M.S.R.T.C., Buldhana,\n             R\/o. Ganesh Nagar, Chikhali,\n             Tq. Chikhali, Distt. Buldhana.         ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                        \n                                    ...versus...\n\n             Divisional Controller,\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n             M.S.R.T.C., Divisional Office,\n             Buldhana Division,\n                            \n             Malkapur Road, Buldhana.              ...Respondents\n\n    ====================================\n                           \n             Shri P.N.Verma, Adv. for the petitioner\n             Shri V.G.Wankhede, Adv. for Respondent\n    ===================================\n             CORAM : B.P.Dharmadhikari, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 03.12.2008<\/p>\n
             JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :10.12.2008<\/p>\n
        1.            By this Writ Petition, Petitioner employee<\/p>\n
        challenges the Judgment dated 27\/8\/2008 delivered by<\/p>\n
        Member, Industrial Court, Akola in Revision U.L.P.\n<\/p>\n
        45\/1997. Said Revision was under section 44 of<\/p>\n
        Maharashtra       Recognition       Of   Trade      Unions         and<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Prevention Of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971,<\/p>\n
    (hereinafter mentioned as Act No I of 1971). Learned<\/p>\n
    Member has allowed the Revision file by Respondent<\/p>\n
    M.S.R.T.C. and has set aside the judgment passed in<\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Complaint 45\/1994 on 18\/6\/1997 by Labour<\/p>\n
    Court, Akola.   The said U.L.P. Complaint was filed by<\/p>\n
    present Petitioner challenging the show cause notice<\/p>\n
    dated 24\/2\/1994 proposing punishment of dismissal after<\/p>\n
    completing departmental inquiry, as said show cause<\/p>\n
    notice was found to constitute unfair labour practice by<\/p>\n
    Labour Court. I have heard Advocate P.N. Verma for<\/p>\n
    Petitioner & Advocate V. G. Wankhede for Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    2.         Misconduct here is of unauthorised driving of<\/p>\n
    empty M.S.R.T.C. bus by Petitioner conductor from bus<\/p>\n
    depot to bus station while regular driver was sitting on<\/p>\n
    battery box. Details of misconduct are not necessary in<\/p>\n
    present matter because after this judgment             dated<\/p>\n
    18\/6\/1997 of Labour Court, the Respondent M.S.R.T.C.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
    filed Revision 45\/1997 and thereafter proceeded to<\/p>\n
    impose lesser punishment on 30\/8\/1997 for very same<\/p>\n
    misconduct. His salary was brought down by two stages<\/p>\n
    permanently and period of suspension was regularised as<\/p>\n
    paid leave and balance thereof as unpaid leave if requisite<\/p>\n
    paid leave was not available to his credit. It is not in<\/p>\n
    dispute that accordingly entry was made in his service<\/p>\n
    book & Petitioner earned the revised i.e. less salary<\/p>\n
    thereafter. Petitioner pointed out these developments to<\/p>\n
    learned Industrial Court & urged that the earlier show<\/p>\n
    cause notice dated 24\/2\/1994 was already rendered<\/p>\n
    infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          Learned Member considered        arguments in<\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Revision on merits ignoring the contention that<\/p>\n
    because of punishment of reduction in salary by two<\/p>\n
    stages said show cause notice has lapsed or           become<\/p>\n
    infructuous. There is no application of mind insofar as<\/p>\n
    the effect of said punishment on challenge before it is<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
    concerned.      Perusal   of       its   judgment    particularly<\/p>\n
    paragraph 29 shows that it has rightly considered the non<\/p>\n
    application of mind by Labour Court to vital aspects like<\/p>\n
    the consequences of grave and irresponsible act of<\/p>\n
    Petitioner or then his past service record. The application<\/p>\n
    of mind by learned member, Industrial Court particularly<\/p>\n
    in paragraph 30-31 in this background cannot be labeled<\/p>\n
    either as erroneous or perverse or then in excess of<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction available to it under Section 44 of Act No. I of<\/p>\n
    1971. But then impact of voluntary act of petitioner of<\/p>\n
    selecting & imposing another punishment in the matter<\/p>\n
    needed consideration.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           Petitioner on 7\/7\/2008 filed a Pursis before<\/p>\n
    Industrial Court & disclosed these events. At the request<\/p>\n
    of Respondent M.S.R.T.C., Revision           was adjourned to<\/p>\n
    25\/7\/2008 obviously with a view to enable M.S.R.T.C. to<\/p>\n
    meet the facts mentioned in Pursis.          Vide said Pursis,<\/p>\n
    Petitioner pointed out to Industrial Court that after<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    adjudication by Labour Court in his favour, a fresh show<\/p>\n
    cause notice dated 30\/7\/1997 was served upon him<\/p>\n
    mentioning a lesser punishment of permanently reducing<\/p>\n
    basic wages by two stages, that it was replied to by him<\/p>\n
    and accordingly punishment of bringing down his wages<\/p>\n
    by two stages permanently was inflicted on him on<\/p>\n
    30\/8\/1997 and that he was suffering that punishment i.e.<\/p>\n
    its effect for last about 11 years. In Pursis therefore it<\/p>\n
    was specifically stated that as misconduct proved against<\/p>\n
    him in departmental inquiry which formed subject matter<\/p>\n
    of U.L.P. Complaint No. 45\/1994 was already suitably<\/p>\n
    punished by his Employer M.S.R.T.C., there was no<\/p>\n
    occasion for imposing any further or other punishment<\/p>\n
    for   the   same   and   hence,   Revision      had      become<\/p>\n
    infructuous. Though chance was given to Respondent by<\/p>\n
    adjourning the matter to 25\/7\/2008, it was not utilised.\n<\/p>\n
    Ultimately, though all these facts figure in impugned<\/p>\n
    judgment of Industrial Court, still          its impact or<\/p>\n
    significance has been lost sight of.   Respondent could<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    have pointed out to Industrial Court what was the correct<\/p>\n
    factual position in the matter.      Instead of so doing,<\/p>\n
    Respondent continued to beat the dead horse and wasted<\/p>\n
    valuable time of Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           Even this Court in present Writ Petition by<\/p>\n
    speaking order dated 21st October 2008 the contention of<\/p>\n
    two punishments for same misconduct was mentioned<\/p>\n
    and time was given to Respondent M.S.R.T.C. to verify<\/p>\n
    the position. Then, it was pointed out to this Court that<\/p>\n
    after judgment of Industrial Court, Petitioner was<\/p>\n
    dismissed by order dated 1\/10\/2008. Though time of<\/p>\n
    3    weeks   was   given,   on   11\/11\/2008      Respondent<\/p>\n
    contended that after judgment of Labour Court in favour<\/p>\n
    of present Petitioner was set aside by Industrial Court, the<\/p>\n
    Respondent proceeded to impose punishment as per show<\/p>\n
    cause notice dated 24\/2\/1994 as it was restored and it<\/p>\n
    imposed the punishment of dismissal. It was also argued<\/p>\n
    that M.S.R.T.C. was ready to withdraw the punishment<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    of reduction of salary by two stages. As these arguments<\/p>\n
    were not supported by any affidavit, time till 28\/11\/2008<\/p>\n
    was given to Respondent to place said stand on record<\/p>\n
    through proper affidavit.        On said date, W.P. was<\/p>\n
    adjourned to 3\/12\/2008 at the request of Petitioner. On<\/p>\n
    3rd December, Respondent did not file any affidavit and<\/p>\n
    arguments on lines already mentioned were again<\/p>\n
    reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
    6.            Perusal   of   punishment    order         dated<\/p>\n
    30\/8\/1997 shows that for very same misconduct<\/p>\n
    punishment was inflicted upon Petitioner and the order<\/p>\n
    did not mention that it was without prejudice to rights of<\/p>\n
    M.S.R.T.C. to proceed to impose more severe punishment<\/p>\n
    if it’s U.L.P. Revision 45\/1997 was allowed.               This<\/p>\n
    punishment order does not mention either pending<\/p>\n
    Revision or then the judgment of Labour Court.              The<\/p>\n
    order of dismissal dated 1\/10\/2008 again nowhere<\/p>\n
    mentions the order of punishment dated 30\/8\/1997 or<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    then the judgment of Industrial Court or of Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Thus competent authority of M.S.R.T.C. has imposed two<\/p>\n
    punishments     for   same   misconduct   upon        present<\/p>\n
    Petitioner. Petitioner was brought down by two stages in<\/p>\n
    1997 itself and appropriate note in this respect was taken<\/p>\n
    in his service book by that competent authority. The<\/p>\n
    permanent reduction by two stages implemented in 1997<\/p>\n
    therefore has affected the salary of Petitioner for last<\/p>\n
    more than 10 years.\n<\/p>\n
                       ig    It is therefore clear that the<\/p>\n
    punishment cannot be and could not have been treated as<\/p>\n
    provisional. In fact, Respondent M.S.R.T.C. also has not<\/p>\n
    treated it as stopgap arrangement. Contentions of Adv.\n<\/p>\n
    V.G. Wankhede on behalf of Respondent as mentioned<\/p>\n
    above are totally misconceived & it could not support the<\/p>\n
    same by filing appropriate affidavit of its competent<\/p>\n
    authority.\n<\/p>\n
    7.           Respondent could have mentioned pending<\/p>\n
    challenge in U.L.P. Revision while imposing punishment<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
    of reduction of salary by two stages permanently in<\/p>\n
    punishment order dated 30\/8\/1997 and forewarned<\/p>\n
    Petitioner that the punishment was provisional and<\/p>\n
    without prejudice to its right to inflict punishment as<\/p>\n
    mentioned in show cause notice dated 24\/2\/1994 if it<\/p>\n
    succeeded in Revision.    To keep the records straight,<\/p>\n
    Respondent ought to have filed a Pursis accordingly in its<\/p>\n
    pending Revision before Industrial Court. In absence of<\/p>\n
    all these steps which were essential in present facts, the<\/p>\n
    conduct of Respondent – the public Corporation, does not<\/p>\n
    inspire any confidence. Though it was given opportunity<\/p>\n
    by Industrial Court it was not taken advantage of and<\/p>\n
    even before this Court, no affidavit explaining the<\/p>\n
    situation in this respect as may appear from records of<\/p>\n
    punishment orders, has been filed. It is obvious that in<\/p>\n
    view of punishment order dated 30\/8\/1997, challenge in<\/p>\n
    U.L.P. Revision 45\/1997 was rendered infructuous and<\/p>\n
    meaningless.    Subsequent dismissal for very same<\/p>\n
    misconduct vide order dated 1\/10\/2008 is nothing but<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
    mala-fide action taken to victimise the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    8.          Judgment      of        Industrial     Court        dated<\/p>\n
    27\/8\/2008 in Revision U.L.P. 45\/1997, therefore, shows<\/p>\n
    manifest error and it is unsustainable.                    Same is<\/p>\n
    accordingly quashed and set aside.               Judgment dated<\/p>\n
    18\/6\/1997 delivered by Labour Court, Akola in complaint<\/p>\n
    U.L.P. 45\/1994 is hereby restored only because show<\/p>\n
    cause notice dated 24\/2\/1994 has lapsed.\n<\/p>\n
    9.          Thus Writ Petition No. 4612\/2008 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    Rule made absolute in above terms. Respondent to pay<\/p>\n
    cost of Rs 2000\/- to the present Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     JUDGE<\/p>\n
    Rvjalit<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:08:10 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4612\/2008 Ramesh Gopinath Tidke, Conductor, Buldhana Depot, M.S.R.T.C., Buldhana, R\/o. Ganesh Nagar, Chikhali, Tq. Chikhali, Distt. Buldhana. …Petitioner …versus… Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Divisional […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - 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\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-20T21:05:48+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T21:05:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1402,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-20T21:05:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - 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\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-20T21:05:48+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T21:05:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008"},"wordCount":1402,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008","name":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-20T21:05:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-gopinath-tidke-vs-divisional-controller-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Gopinath Tidke vs Divisional Controller on 10 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/251244","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=251244"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251244\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}