{"id":259146,"date":"2008-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-29T23:00:12","modified_gmt":"2016-08-29T17:30:12","slug":"khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                         WRIT PETITION NO.5738 OF 2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    Khadi and Village Industries Commission,\n    At Sutari Lohari Udyog Workshop, \n    Dahanu Road, Taluka Dahanu, \n    Dist. Thane-401 601.                                   ...Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                            Vs.\n    1. Jagdish Balkrishna Patil,  \n    2. Navase Babu Rasale.\n        Both residing At & Post Chikhale,\n                                 \n        Taluka Dahanu, Dist.Thane.                         ...Respondents.  \n                                    ....\n    Mr. D.A. Athawale for the Petitioner.\n    Mr. Y. M. Pendse for the Respondents.\n            \n\n                                    .....\n                                    CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                  September 30, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                 Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith.  Counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing on behalf of  the Respondents waives service.  By consent<\/p>\n
    of   Counsel   and   at   their   request   taken   up   for   hearing   and   final<\/p>\n
    disposal.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.         The   Petitioner   before   the   Court   is   a   statutory   body<\/p>\n
    constituted under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
    1956.   The activities of the Petitioner are subject to the supervision<\/p>\n
    and control of the Central Government.  The expenditure incurred by<\/p>\n
    the Petitioner, including the salaries of its employees, is provided from<\/p>\n
    the   Consolidated   fund.     The   Central   Government     appoints   the<\/p>\n
    Chairman   and   other   Directors   on   the   Board   of   Directors   of   the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    3.         The   two   Respondents   are   unskilled   workmen,   who   are<\/p>\n
    engaged in an establishment conducted by the Petitioner at Dahanu,<\/p>\n
    known   as  the    Gajanan   Naik   Multidisciplinary   Trading   Centre.   The<\/p>\n
    workmen were  initially engaged  in  1988  as daily  wagers.    In  1992<\/p>\n
    their services came to be terminated.   The Respondents challenged<\/p>\n
    the dispensation of their services and succeeded before the Labour<\/p>\n
    Court   at   Thane.     The   workmen   were   reinstated   in   service   by   the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner as daily wagers and have continued to  thereafter remain in<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
    service.\n<\/p>\n
    4.           A complaint of unfair labour practices was instituted by the<\/p>\n
    Respondent-workmen,   being   Complaint   (ULP)   212   of   2006   under<\/p>\n
    Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of<\/p>\n
    Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.\n<\/p>\n
    The   relief   that   was   sought   against   the   Petitioner   was   that   the<\/p>\n
    workmen   be   made     regular   employees  and   be   given   the   status   of<\/p>\n
    permanent  employees.   Consequential relief    of the  fixation  of  pay<\/p>\n
    scales, increments and allowances was also sought.   Evidence was<\/p>\n
    adduced before the Industrial Court.   On behalf of the workmen, the<\/p>\n
    First Respondent and on behalf of the Petitioner, an officer of the rank<\/p>\n
    of   Assistant   Director   working   in   the   Workshop   at   Dahanu,   filed<\/p>\n
    affidavits in lieu of Examination-in-Chief.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The defence to the complaint of unfair labour practices was<\/p>\n
    that the  activities  of the  Petitioner are subject  to the  administrative<\/p>\n
    control   of   the   Central   Government     under   the   Khadi   and   Village<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
    Industries  Commission Act, 1956.  It has been stated that the Central<\/p>\n
    Government  has laid down the procedure for making appointments to<\/p>\n
    various categories of posts.   Before appointments are made, posts<\/p>\n
    have to be sanctioned and the procedure for selection, including by<\/p>\n
    advertising   of   posts,   has   to   be   followed.     Reliance   was   placed   on<\/p>\n
    Standing Order 766 dated 28th April 1969.  It has been stated that the<\/p>\n
    workshop at Dahanu was suffering heavy losses and the consolidated<\/p>\n
    balance sheet in respect thereof would show an accumulated loss of<\/p>\n
    Rs. 1.26 crores.  According to   the Petitioner, sufficient work was not<\/p>\n
    available even for the regular employees of the Commission and the<\/p>\n
    salaries of the regular employees have not been paid on time.  In the<\/p>\n
    circumstances, it was stated that the establishment of the Petitioner is<\/p>\n
    not   in   a   position   to   absorb   an   additional   burden   by   way   of   salary<\/p>\n
    expenditure   and   there   was   no   question,   therefore,   of   recruiting<\/p>\n
    additional man power.  It was stated that there was no vacant post of<\/p>\n
    a   helper   at   Dahanu   sanctioned   by  the   Central   Government.     As   a<\/p>\n
    matter of fact, the officers of the Petitioner have been directed to stop<\/p>\n
    appointing daily wagers  altogether.   In any event, it was submitted,<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Respondents could not be   regularized by bypassing the regular<\/p>\n
    recruitment procedure.\n<\/p>\n
    6.         Before the Industrial Court one of the defences which was<\/p>\n
    raised   was     as   regards   the  jurisdiction  of   the   Court   under   the<\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair<\/p>\n
    Labour   Practices   Act,   1971.     This   challenge   is   founded   on   the<\/p>\n
    argument that the appropriate Government in respect of the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    is   the   Central   Government     and   not   the   State   Government     under<\/p>\n
    Section 2(a)(i)<\/a> of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.  In so far as  this<\/p>\n
    aspect is concerned, the issue is no longer  res integra and is covered<\/p>\n
    by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 5th May 2005<\/p>\n
    in  Khadi   and   Village   Industries   Commission   vs.   Jagdish   B.Patil<\/p>\n
    (LPA 55 of 2004 in Writ Petition 5312 of 2001).  In fact,  the judgment<\/p>\n
    was in a case involving the Respondents to these proceedings.   The<\/p>\n
    Division  Bench  held  that the  appropriate  Government  in  relation  to<\/p>\n
    industrial   disputes   concerning   the   Khadi   and   Village   Industries<\/p>\n
    Commission is the State Government.  In the circumstances, the first<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    issue would stand concluded by the judgment of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
    7.         The Industrial Court by its order dated 21st April 2008 held<\/p>\n
    that   the   workmen   had   been   continued   as   daily   wagers   ever   since<\/p>\n
    1988 and that it was necessary that the posts on which they were<\/p>\n
    working should be got sanctioned.  The operative direction which was<\/p>\n
    issued by the Industrial Court was to the following effect :\n<\/p>\n
               “The respondents are hereby directed to consider the claim
\n               of the complainants on priority and if at any time in near<\/p>\n
               future  the posts on which they are working are sanctioned
\n               and if not it is further directed that the Respondents should
\n               take   necessary   positive   steps   to   submit   proposal   to   the
\n               appropriate   authority   of   the   concerned   for   getting<\/p>\n
               sanctioned posts on which the complainants are working,
\n               so   that   the   same   needs   to   be   get   sanctioned   within   the<\/p>\n
               stipulated period of three months from the date of this order
\n               and thereafter the workers concerned be awarded all the
\n               monetary   and  consequential  benefits   arising   out   of   the
\n               same.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    8.         Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   Petitioner   submitted<\/p>\n
    that the Industrial Court has transgressed its  jurisdiction  in issuing a<\/p>\n
    direction that   the Petitioner should submit a proposal for getting the<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
    posts   on   which   the   Respondents   are   working   sanctioned   from   the<\/p>\n
    Competent   Authority   and   that   the   posts   should   be   got   sanctioned<\/p>\n
    within a period of three months upon which the workmen concerned<\/p>\n
    should be awarded all  monetary  and consequential benefits arising<\/p>\n
    therefrom.  It was submitted that such a direction for getting the posts<\/p>\n
    sanctioned  by the Central Government   could not have been issued<\/p>\n
    and having regard to the precarious financial position of the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
    it was impossible to contemplate any further recruitment at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
    On the other hand, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-\n<\/p>\n
    workmen supported the order of the Industrial Court.\n<\/p>\n
    9.         The   Petitioner   is   a   statutory   body   constituted   under   the<\/p>\n
    Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act<\/a>, 1956.  The Commission<\/p>\n
    is established and constituted under Section   4(1)<\/a> and the members<\/p>\n
    of the Commission are appointed by the Central Government.   The<\/p>\n
    functions   of   the   Commission   under   Section     15(1)<\/a>   are   to   plan,<\/p>\n
    promote,  organize  and assist in the establishment and development<\/p>\n
    of khadi and village industries in rural areas.  Section 16<\/a> provides that<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
    the Commission would be bound in the discharge of its functions by<\/p>\n
    such directions   as the Central Government   may give to it.   Under<\/p>\n
    Section 17<\/a>, the Central Government, after due appropriation made by<\/p>\n
    Parliament   by   law,   pays   to   the   Commission   in   each   financial   year<\/p>\n
    such sums as may be considered necessary for the performance of<\/p>\n
    the functions of the Commission under the Act.   Under Section 20(1)<\/a><\/p>\n
    the Commission is required to prepare and submit its budgets to the<\/p>\n
    Central Government.  Sub-section (2) of Section 20<\/a> provides that  no<\/p>\n
    sum shall be expended by or on behalf of the Commission unless the<\/p>\n
    expenditure is covered by a specific provision in the budget approved<\/p>\n
    by   the   Central   Government.         The   Central   Government     is<\/p>\n
    empowered  to   frame   rules   under  Section     26<\/a>   to   give   effect   to   the<\/p>\n
    provisions   of   the   Act.       The   Commission   is   subject   to     the<\/p>\n
    administrative control of the Central Government.  The Respondents<\/p>\n
    are   daily   wagers   whose   services   were   dispensed   with   in   1992.\n<\/p>\n
    Following an order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court, they<\/p>\n
    have been continued as daily wagers.     On behalf of the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
    evidence   was   adduced   before   the   Industrial   Court.     The   Assistant<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
    Director,   who   deposed,     stated   that   no   post   of   helper   had   been<\/p>\n
    sanctioned by the Central Government  and even against sanctioned<\/p>\n
    posts, there was a regular procedure for filling up vacancies.  In so far<\/p>\n
    as     the   workshop   at   Dahanu   is   concerned,   it   has   sustained<\/p>\n
    accumulated losses of Rs. 1.26 crores and sufficient work was not<\/p>\n
    available even for regular employees.  The Respondents were being<\/p>\n
    paid minimum wages at the rate of Rs.110\/- per day.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        The   Central   Government     which   has   the   power   and<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction to sanction posts in the establishment of the Commission<\/p>\n
    was not a party to the complaint.   There is merit in the submission<\/p>\n
    which was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that  the Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in directing that the posts should<\/p>\n
    be got sanctioned within three months by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
    The jurisdiction to sanction   posts does not vest with the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
    but with the Central Government.  The Central Government  was not<\/p>\n
    before the Industrial Court.   A direction that the posts should be got<\/p>\n
    sanctioned   within   a   period   of   three   months   could   not   have   been<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
    passed in  proceedings to which the sanctioning authority was not a<\/p>\n
    party.   That apart, the fundamental point is that the question as to<\/p>\n
    whether a particular post should be sanctioned or otherwise is entirely<\/p>\n
    a matter which has to be determined by the Central Government   in<\/p>\n
    its   discretion,   having   regard   to   the   financial   and   administrative<\/p>\n
    implications     of   creating   additional   posts.     It   is     no   part   of   the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of the Court to intercede in this area.  Recruiting additional<\/p>\n
    manpower impinges on budgetary provisions.   Granting permanency<\/p>\n
    similar     affects   the   financial   position   of   the   organization   which<\/p>\n
    government funds.   Judicial orders of the nature which the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court   has   passed   will   only   hasten   the   process   of   rendering   a<\/p>\n
    disfunctional organization defunct.  Courts, including Industrial Courts,<\/p>\n
    wide as their jurisdiction may be, must be conscious of the clear line<\/p>\n
    which   demarcates   judicial   review   from   matters   which   lie   within   the<\/p>\n
    province of government.  Sanctioning posts is an instance of a power<\/p>\n
    which is the realm of the executive.  There is merit in the submission<\/p>\n
    which has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that having regard to<\/p>\n
    the   precarious   financial   position,   particularly   of   the   workshop   at<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
    Dahanu, there is no need for additional man power, particularly in the<\/p>\n
    context of a situation where even the regular employees do not have<\/p>\n
    adequate   work.     The   Petitioner   has   continued   the   Respondents   in<\/p>\n
    service   in   pursuance   of     the   order   passed   by   the   Labour   Court<\/p>\n
    following     the   earlier   termination   in   the   year   1992,   which   was<\/p>\n
    challenged.   That however, cannot confer upon the Respondents a<\/p>\n
    right   to   regularization.       The   direction   which   was   issued   by   the<\/p>\n
    Industrial Court to the Petitioner to move the Central Government  for<\/p>\n
    sanction   and   to   get   the   posts   sanctioned   within   a   period   of   three<\/p>\n
    months     is, in the circumstances, unsustainable and will have to be<\/p>\n
    quashed   and   set   aside.     The   Petition   has   to   be   allowed   and   is<\/p>\n
    accordingly allowed.  Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause<\/p>\n
    (a).   In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to<\/p>\n
    costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                         …..\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:55:16 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5738 OF 2008 Khadi and Village Industries Commission, At Sutari Lohari Udyog Workshop, Dahanu Road, Taluka Dahanu, Dist. Thane-401 601. …Petitioner. […]<\/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-259146","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 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\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-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=\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1823,\"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\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 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\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008"},"wordCount":1823,"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\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008","name":"Khadi And Village Industries ... vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-29T17:30:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khadi-and-village-industries-vs-jagdish-balkrishna-patil-on-30-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khadi And Village Industries … vs Jagdish Balkrishna Patil on 30 September, 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:\/\/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\/259146","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=259146"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259146\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259146"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259146"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259146"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}