{"id":266657,"date":"1996-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996"},"modified":"2015-07-29T17:07:39","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T11:37:39","slug":"j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","title":{"rendered":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 661\t 1996 SCALE (5)375<\/div>\n
Author: K Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: Kuldip Singh (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nJ.N. GANATRA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMORVI MUNICIPALITY, MORVI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/07\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nBENCH:\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\nAHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (6)   661\t  1996 SCALE  (5)375\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     Kuldip Singh, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  was employed  as an\t Overseer with Morvi
\nMunicipality in\t Rajkot District,  State of  Gujarat. He was
\ndismissed from\tservice by  a resolution  dated December  1,
\n1970 passed  by the  Municipality. The\tappellant challenged
\nthe order  of dismissal\t by way\t of a  civil suit. The trial
\ncourt dismissed\t the suit.  The\t appellate  court,  however,
\nreversed the  findings of  the trial  court and\t decreed the
\nsuit. The  second  appeal  filed  by  the  Municipality\t was
\nallowed by the High Court and the judgment and decree passed
\nby the\tfirst appellate\t court was set aside and the suit of
\nthe appellant  was dismissed  on the  short ground  that the
\nsame was  barred by  limitation under  Section 253(1) of the
\nGujarat Municipalities\tAct, 1963  (the Act). This appeal by
\nway of\tspecial leave  is against  the judgment\t of the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not disputed  that before  passing the order. of
\ndismissal it  was mandatory  for the  Municipality  to\thave
\nfollowed the  procedure\t laid  down  under  the\t Morvi\tCity
\nMunicipal  Officers   and  Servants,   Conduct,\t Discipline,
\nDismissal, Penalty  and Appeal etc., Rules 1960 (the Rules).
\nRule 35 of the Rules, which is relevant is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “Before imposing  the penalty under
\n     sub-sections 3,6,7\t & 8  of Section
\n     21 upon  the officer  or  employee,
\n     the investigating\tgeneral Board or
\n     Committee shall  have to follow the
\n     following methods\/procedure.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     1.\t  To take  dscision  for  action
\n     asainst the  responsible officer or
\n     employee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2.\t  Written Charge-sheet should be
\n     given to him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3.\t  To make  investigation\/enquiry
\n     and to  take evidence in respect of
\n     his misbehaviour, fault of offence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.\t  To  take  written  explanation
\n     from him.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.\t  After the aforesaid proceeding
\n     the opinion  should  be  given  and
\n     decision of order should be made.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court on\t merits came  to the conclusion that
\nthe  order  dismissing\tthe  appellant\twas  passed  without
\ncomplying with\tthe provisions\tof rule 35 of the Rules. The
\nHigh Court,  therefore, held that the order of dismissal was
\nillegal. The  relevant part  of the  High Court\t judgment in
\nthis respect is as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “Rule  35\t of   the   Morvi   City
\n     Municipal\tOfficers  and  Servants,
\n     Conduct,\tDisciplines   Dismissal,
\n     Punishment and  Appeal Rules framed
\n     by the  said Municipality\tin  1960
\n     lays down\tthat before  imposing  a
\n     punishment\t upon\tan  officer   or
\n     servant of\t the  Municipality,  the
\n     General Board  or the Committee has
\n     to: (1)  take a  decision\tto  take
\n     action  against   the  officer   or
\n     servant, (2)  give\t him  a\t charge-
\n     sheet in writing, (33 take evidence
\n     about   the   misconduct\tof   the
\n     servant, (4)  call for  his written
\n     explanation, (5) reach a conclusion
\n     and give  a decision  and\tpass  an
\n     appropriate order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In\t the  present  case,  it  is  an
\n     admitted position\tthat no decision
\n     was taken\teither\tby  the\t General
\n     Board   or\t  by   the   Controlling
\n     Committee of  the\tMunicipality  to
\n     take any  such action  against  the
\n     plaintiff. It  is also  an admitted
\n     position that  no charge-sheet  has
\n     been given\t by the General Board or
\n     by the Committee acting through the
\n     Chief Officer or any other officer.
\n     It is  clear on the face of it that
\n     the charge-sheet,\tEx.41, is issued
\n     by the  president in  his own  name
\n     and is signed by him. There is also
\n     nothing on\t record to show that any
\n     evidence was  taken in  the present
\n     case  to\tconsider   whether   the
\n     charges   levelled\t   against   the
\n     plaintiff\twere   established.   It
\n     appears  that   the  plaintiff  was
\n     called upon to give his explanation
\n     and he  did give  some  explanation
\n     There is  nothing on record to show
\n     that any  notice was  given to  the
\n     plaintiff informing  him  that  the
\n     charges against him were proved and
\n     calling upon  him to show cause why
\n     he should\tnot  be\t dismissed  from
\n     service. But  it appears  that  the
\n     Chief Officer  of the  Municipality
\n     gave a  notice, Ex.55,  dated 7-10-
\n     1969 to the plaintiff informing him
\n     that  the\tGeneral\t Board\twill  be
\n     taking  up\t for  consideration  the
\n     resolution\t   passed     by     the
\n     Controlling Committee  on 17-4 1969
\n     with regard  to his  dismissal from
\n     service and he may produce whatever
\n     evidence he  wants\t to  in\t defence
\n     before the\t General Board.\t In view
\n     of this,  we may  say that\t he  was
\n     given  an\topportunity  to\t give  a
\n     written explanation  as required by
\n     sub-rule (4)  of the  Rule 35.  The
\n     provision of  sub-rule (5)\t of Rule
\n     35 lays down that the General Board
\n     or the  Committee, as  the case may
\n     be, has  to reach\ta conclusion and
\n     pass a  judgment and  also\t pass  a
\n     consequential  order.   This  shows
\n     that  the\t General  Board\t or  the
\n     Committee, as  the case may be, has
\n     to record\ta finding  with\t reasons
\n     for reaching  the conclusion  about
\n     the guilt\tof the\tdelinquent.  The
\n     resolution\t  of   the   Controlling
\n     Committee is  at Ex.38. It is dated
\n     17-4-1969. It  only  mentions  that
\n     the charge\t against the  delinquent
\n     plaintiff was  established and  the
\n     Committee was  of the  opinion that
\n     the  plaintiff  should  be\t removed
\n     from service  and the matter may be
\n     placedbefore the  General Board. No
\n     reasons  are   disclosed  in   this
\n     resolution as  to why the Committee
\n     had reached  such a  conclusion The
\n     resolution also does not show as to
\n     what  inquiry,  if\t any,  was  held
\n     against the plaintiff before taking
\n     this decision.  The  resolution  of
\n     the General  Board is at Ex.85. The
\n     resolution is dated 1-12-1970. This
\n     resolution also  does not\tdisclose
\n     any reasons  as to\t why the General
\n     Board had reached the conclusion to
\n     dismiss the  plaintiff except  that
\n     it had taken into consideration the
\n     resolution\t  of   the   Controlling
\n     Committee and  the submissions made
\n     by\t the   advocate\t on   behalf  of
\n     theplaintiff.   This   shows   that
\n     neitherEx.38  nor\tEx.85  disclosed
\n     any reasons whatsoever.”
\n     The High Court finally concluded as
\n     under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “It will  appear from what has been
\n     discussed\t  above\t   no\t inquiry
\n     ,4<he     plaintiff-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     respondent as required by the rules
\n     framed  by\t the  Municipality.  The
\n     order passed  by the  General Board
\n     of the  Municipality dismissing the
\n     plaintiff-respondent from\tservice,
\n     therefore, is  on the  face of  it,
\n     illegal and inoperative. On merits,
\n     therefore,\t     the      defendant-
\n     Municipality has no case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Having held  that the order passed by the General Board
\nof the\tMunicipality dismissing\t the appellant\tfrom service
\nwas on\tthe face  of it\t illegal and  inoperative, the\tHigh
\nCourt non-suited  the appellant on the short ground that the
\nsuit was  barred by limitation in terms of Section 253(1)(a)
\nof the Act. The said section reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “253(1) – No suit shall lie against
\n     a muticipality  in respect\t of  any
\n     act done  in pursuance or execution
\n     or intended  execution of\tthis Act
\n     or\t in   respect  of   any\t alleged
\n     neglect or default in the execution
\n     of this Act,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  Unless  it  instituted  within
\n     six months\t next after  the accrual
\n     of the cause of action; and…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     On the  interpretation of\tSection 253(1)(a),  the High
\nCourt posed the following question :\n<\/p>\n
     “On  facts,   I  have   found,   as
\n     discussed earlier,\t that the action
\n     of the  Municipality  was\tbad,  in
\n     that the procedure laid down by the
\n     rules has\tnot  been  followed  and
\n     further  because  no  reasons  have
\n     been   given    either    by    the
\n     Controlling  Committee  or\t by  the
\n     General  Board   for  reaching  the
\n     conclusion to dismiss the plaintiff
\n     from  service   The   question   is
\n     whether in\t view  of  this\t factual
\n     position, can  it be said\tthat the
\n     act  of  the  Municipality\t was  in
\n     pursuance\t or,\tat   any   rate,
\n     execution or  intended execution of
\n     the Act?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The High  Court finally came to the conclusion that the
\nsuit filed  by the  appellant was barred by limitation as it
\nwas not\t filed within the period of limitation prescribed by
\nSection 253(1)(a)<\/a>  of the  Act The  High Court\treached\t the
\nfinding on the following reasoning:\n<\/p>\n
     “The discussion  made above clearly
\n     shows that\t even though  the action
\n     of the  Municipality in  dismissing
\n     the plaintiff was null and void for
\n     the reasons  which have been stated
\n     in the  beginning none-the-less the
\n     Municipality can  be said\tto  have
\n     acted in  intended execution of the
\n     Act and  hence  the  provisions  of
\n     Section 253(1)(a)<\/a> will be attracted
\n     in the present case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties. We are
\nof the\tview that  the High  Court fell into patent error in
\nreaching the  conclusion that the dismissal of the appellant
\nfrom service,  in utter\t violation of  rule 35 of the Rules,
\nwas an\t“act done  in pursuance\t or  execution\tor  intended
\nexecution of  this Act…..” It is no doubt correct that the
\nGeneral Board  of the  Municipality had\t the power under the
\nAct to\tdismiss the  appellant but the said power could only
\nbe exercised  in the  manner indicated\tby rule\t 35  of\t the
\nRules. Admittedly  the\tpower  of  dismissal  has  not\tbeen
\nexercised the  way it was required to be done under the Act.
\nIt is  settled proposition  of law  that  a  power  under  a
\nstatute\t has   to  be\texercised  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions of the statute and in no other manner. In view of
\nthe categoric  finding given by the High Court to the effect
\nthat the  order of  dismissal was  on the face of it illegal
\nand  void,  we\thave  no  hesitation  in  holding  that\t the
\ndismissal of  the appellant was not an act done in pursuance
\nor execution  or intended execution of the Act. The order of
\ndismissal being\t patently and  grossly in  violation of\t the
\nplain provisions  of the  Rules it cannot be treated to have
\nbeen passed under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in Poona  City\t Municipal  Corporation\t vs.
\nDattatraya Nagesh  Dattatraya Nagesh  Deodher<\/a> 1964 8 SCR 178
\nwhile interpreting  a similar  provision  under\t the  Bombay
\nProvincial  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1949\tobserved  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “The benefit  of this section would
\n     be\t available  to\tthe  Corporation
\n     only  if  it  was\theld  that  this
\n     deduction of  ten per  cent was “an
\n     act done or purported to be done in
\n     pursuance or  execution or intended
\n     execution of  this\t Act.”\tWe  have
\n     already held that this levy was not
\n     in pursuance  or execution\t of  the
\n     Act. It  is equally  clear that  in
\n     view of  the provisions of s.l27(4)
\n     (to which we have already referred)
\n     the levy\tcould  not be said to be
\n     “purported to  be done in pursuance
\n     or execution  or intended execution
\n     of the  Act.” For,\t what is plainly
\n     prohibited by  the\t Act  cannot  be
\n     claimed to\t be purported to be done
\n     in pursuance  or intended execution
\n     of the Act”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This   Court   in\t Municipal   Corporation   vs.\t Sri
\nNiyamatullah S\/o Masitulla<\/a> 1970 2 SCR 47 interpreted Section
\n135(2) of the Indore Municipal Act, 1909 which is similar to
\nSection 253(a)<\/a> of the Act in the following term:\n<\/p>\n
     “The   provisions\t  contained   in
\n     section 135 of the Indore Municipal
\n     Act will  be applicable  to  things
\n     done under\t the Act. It is manifest
\n     that in  the present case the order
\n     of\t  dismissal   passed   by   Shri
\n     Ghatpande\t  was\t  beyond     his
\n     jurisdiction and  is therefore  not
\n     an act done under the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The dismissal  order in  the present case could only be
\npassed by following the procedure laid down under rule 35 of
\nthe Rules.  The\t Municipal  Board  had\tno  jurisdiction  or
\nauthority to  dismiss the  appellant without  following\t the
\nmandatory procedure. We are, therefore, of the view that the
\nHigh Court was not justified in reaching the conclusion that
\nthe order dismissing the appellant was within the provisions
\nof the\tAct. We\t allow the  appeal, set\t aside the  impugned
\njudgment of  the High  Court and  decreed the  suit  of\t the
\nappellant with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs.20,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (6), 661 1996 SCALE (5)375 Author: K Singh Bench: Kuldip Singh (J) PETITIONER: J.N. GANATRA Vs. RESPONDENT: MORVI MUNICIPALITY, MORVI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/07\/1996 BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) CITATION: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266657","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nJ.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - 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\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T11:37:39+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T11:37:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1892,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\",\"name\":\"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T11:37:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - 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\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T11:37:39+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996","datePublished":"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T11:37:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996"},"wordCount":1892,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996","name":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T11:37:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-n-ganatra-vs-morvi-municipality-morvi-on-19-july-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.N. Ganatra vs Morvi Municipality, Morvi on 19 July, 1996"}]},{"@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\/266657","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=266657"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266657\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266657"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266657"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266657"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}