{"id":29415,"date":"2011-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011"},"modified":"2018-12-30T13:55:29","modified_gmt":"2018-12-30T08:25:29","slug":"state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","title":{"rendered":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nLPA\/2530\/2010\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 2530 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nMISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1607 of 2008\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nLETTERS\nPATENT APPEAL No. 2568 of 2010\n \n\nIn\nMISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1645 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRANCHHODBHAI\nRAMJIBHAI NAKUM - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNJ SHAH AND MR NIRAG PATHAK, AGPs for the Appellant. \nMR SHALIN\nMEHTA WITH MS VIDHI J BHATT for the\nRespondent. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 08\/02\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
\tAll
\nthe Appeals are admitted. Ms.Vidhi Bhatt waives service of notice of
\nadmission on behalf of the concerned workmen – original
\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tWith
\nthe consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides,
\nthe matters are finally heard.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nin all these matters, common order and common question arise for
\nconsideration, they are being considered by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\npresent Appeals arise against the order dated 22nd October
\n2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil
\nApplication No.13755\/2007 in Special Civil Application No.22301\/2007
\nas well as the order dated 16th May 2008 passed by the
\nlearned Single Judge in Misc. Civil Application No.1607\/2008 in
\nSpecial Civil Application No.22301\/2007 to Misc. Civil Application
\nNo.1645\/2008 in Special Civil Application No.22339\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nrelevant facts are that the petitioners who were working as
\nWork-charge Technical Assistant preferred Special Civil Applications
\nbefore this Court for the relief, inter alia, as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“(a)
\nthe Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
\nother appropriate order or direction directing the respondent to
\nconsider the case of Temporary Technical Assistant in view of the
\nCircular dated 16th August 1973;\n<\/p>\n
(b)
\nthe Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction
\ndirecting the respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for
\nthe post of Temporary Technical Assistant with effect from completion
\nof five years from the date of joining of each petitioners;\n<\/p>\n
(c)
\npending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, the
\nHon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent from changing
\nthe service conditions of the present petitioners;\n<\/p>\n
(d)
\nsuch other and further relief\/s as the Hon’ble Court may deem just
\nand proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may please be
\ngranted to the petitioners.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nbasis of the petition was that the benefit as per the Government
\nResolution upon completion of period of five years could have been
\ngiven to the petitioners by converting the post of Work-charge
\nTechnical Assistant to Temporary Technical Assistant since all the
\npetitioners as per them have completed period of more than five years
\nbut as the posts were not created so as to give them the benefit,
\ntherefore, the petitions were preferred.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nappears that initially one petition was filed being Special Civil
\nApplication No.22301\/2007, which came to be considered by the learned
\nSingle Judge and in the said petition Civil Application for interim
\ndirection being Civil Application No.13755\/2007 was preferred. The
\nlearned Single Judge passed the following order, the relevant part of
\nwhich is at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 :-\n<\/p>\n
“6.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, just to remove the doubt and clear the apprehension of the
\npetitioners, it is directed to the
\nrespondents to pass appropriate orders by concerned Zonal Office
\nextending the benefit of Government Resolution dated 16th
\nAugust 1973 in favour of petitioners while considering the date of
\njoining of each petitioners and after completion of five years as a
\nwork charge technical assistant, the benefit of ‘Hangami’ work charge
\nassistant is to be extended in their favour on the date on which they
\nhave completed five years period and accordingly, further benefit is
\nto be extended as per Government Resolution dated 16th
\nAugust 1973.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tTherefore,
\nin view of aforesaid clarification, no further order is required to
\nbe passed by this Court. However, any error if it is made by
\npetitioner in cause title of the main petition, the same may be
\ncarried out the amendment as per the prayer made in Para 9(b) and
\nthat prayer 9(b) is granted.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\naforesaid clarification is made by this Court today which is also
\nsubject to final outcome of the main petition.”\n<\/p>\n
\tFurther,
\nat paragraph 11, the learned Single Judge observed thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“11.\tThe
\npresent order is passed by this Court in present Civil Application
\nNo.13755 of 2007. The separate petitions were filed for each
\npetitioners, but, Civil Application is filed for only one applicant –
\npetitioner. Therefore, applicants shall have to file separate one
\npage civil applications for each petitioners. The registry are
\ndirected to accept it and signatures of the applicants, affidavits,
\nlist of events, index, vakalatnama are dispensed with, but, court
\nfees shall have to pay by applicants in respect to one page civil
\napplications. This one page Civil Applications are to be filed on or
\nbefore 29th October 2007 and the same are to be served to
\nlearned AGPs.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\nappears that it is on account of the aforesaid observation at
\nparagraph 11 of the order, separate Special Civil Applications came
\nto be filed being Special Civil Application Nos.22302\/2007 to
\n22339\/2007.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nper the aforesaid direction at paragraph 6 of the order, the learned
\nSingle Judge directed the respondent to pass appropriate orders as
\nper Government Resolution dated 16th August 1973 in favour
\nof the petitioners from the date on which they completed five years
\nof service and to extend the benefit accordingly. The pertinent
\naspect is that the prayers were also permitted to be amended
\naccordingly as per aforesaid paragraph 7 of the order. Thereafter,
\nfurther applications for clarification were preferred being Misc.
\nCivil Application No.1607\/2008 in Special Civil Application
\nNo.22301\/2007 to Misc. Civil Application No.1645\/2008 in Special
\nCivil Application No.22339\/2007. In the said Misc. Civil Applications
\nthe learned Single Judge, considering the earlier order dated 22nd
\nOctober 2007 made in Civil Application No.13755\/2007, issued the
\nfollowing direction at paragraph 8 :-\n<\/p>\n
“8.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid clarification is made by this Court today which is also
\nsubject to final outcome of the main petition.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore,
\nin light of the aforesaid background, the original respondent –
\nappellant herein is directed to implement the order passed by the
\nlearned Single Judge in Civil Application No.13755\/2007 in Special
\nCivil Application No.22301\/2007 dated 22nd October 2007 as
\nearly as possible and it was further directed to grant the benefit
\naccordingly to the petitioners. It is on account of the aforesaid
\nfact situation, the present Appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nhave heard Mr.Shah, learned AGP for the appellant and Mr.Shalin Mehta
\nwith Ms.Bhatt for the respondent – original petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tTwo
\naspects are mainly required to be taken into consideration: (1)
\nwhether the interim direction could be granted by the learned Single
\nJudge, which practically results into allowing the petition; and (2)
\nwhether the benefit could be conferred by interim direction from the
\nperiod at which there was no existence of any post of Temporary
\nTechnical Assistant.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\nthe first point, no further discussion would be required since it is
\nby now well-settled that in normal situation no interim order can be
\npassed, which results into allowing the petition. If the main prayers
\nof the petitions are considered they are for issuance of appropriate
\nwrit, order or direction to the respondent to consider the case of
\nthe present petitioners for the post of Temporary Technical Assistant
\nin view of the Circular dated 16th August 1973 and the
\nanother prayer is to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to
\nthe respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for the post
\nof Temporary Technical Assistant with effect from the date of
\ncompletion of five years in service of each petitioners. The interim
\nprayer as prayed for in the petition was to restrain the respondents
\nfrom changing the service condition of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nsuch, if the matter is to be considered in compass of the interim
\nprayer made, it can be said that the learned Single Judge considered
\nthe matter which was not even prayed in the petition. Further, even
\nif it is considered that by virtue of the amended prayer vide order
\ndated 22nd October 2007 then also grant of interim prayer,
\nwhich practically resulted into allowing the petition could not be
\ncountenanced.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother
\naspect is that in the present Letters Patent Appeal, it has already
\nbeen stated at paragraph 3.4 in the grounds of the Letters Patent
\nAppeal that the department has already converted total 55 posts of
\nWork-charge Technical Assistant into Temporary Technical Assistant as
\nper the direction of this Court. Moreover, the aspect mentioned in
\nthe memo of the appeal at paragraph 3.5 is that in the meeting with
\nthe Union held on 31st December 1997, the benefit was
\nclaimed only from the date on which the posts of Work-charge
\nTechnical Assistant were converted into Temporary Technical Assistant
\nand not retrospectively.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Mehta,
\nlearned counsel appearing for the original petitioners did contend
\nthat the original petitioners who were not party to the said meeting
\nand, therefore, it would not bind the original petitioners. But, in
\nour view, in normal circumstances no benefit would flow even as that
\nof Temporary Technical Assistant unless and until the posts are so
\ncreated for such purpose. Therefore, if the posts are created of
\nTemporary Technical Assistant, one might claim the benefit but such
\nsituation would arise after the creation of posts for the prospective
\nperiod and it cannot relate back with retrospective effect touching
\nto the period at which there were no existence of the posts.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nmay say that even if the resolution of the Government is considered
\nfor forwarding the proposal for creation of posts of Temporary
\nTechnical Assistant if the posts of Work-charge Technical Assistant
\nhave continued for a long time exceeding five years, it cannot be
\nsaid that there will be automatic creation of posts upon the expiry
\nof the period of five years and the benefit would flow therefrom.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nmake it clear that the aforesaid are the prima facie observations for
\nthe purpose of examining the legality and validity of the impugned
\norders. But, ultimately, what will be the real effect of the
\nresolution of the Government and whether the Court can exercise the
\npower by way of mandatory direction to the Government to create posts
\nor not, are the aspects which may be required to be examined in the
\nmain Special Civil Application at the time of final hearing. Suffice
\nit to say that at the time of passing interim order if there was no
\nexistence of post, the benefit could not be ordered as observed and
\ndirected in the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that the
\norders passed by the learned Single Judge in so far as giving
\ndirections to extend the benefit to all the original petitioners –
\nrespondents herein upon completion of five years of their service as
\nWork-charge Technical Assistant cannot be sustained. However, as the
\nposts have already been created as recorded hereinabove, the benefit
\nso conferred after creation of the posts may continue until final
\ndisposal of the main Special Civil Application and also subject to
\nthe final decision which may be taken in the main Special Civil
\nApplication. Hence, the impugned orders passed in the main Special
\nCivil Application by the learned Single Judge deserve to be modified
\nand shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n
\tLetters
\nPatent Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order
\nas to cost.\n<\/p>\n
(Jayant
\nPatel, J.)<\/p>\n
(J.C.Upadhyaya,
\nJ.)<\/p>\n
\/moin<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel,&Nbsp;Honourable J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print LPA\/2530\/2010 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2530 of 2010 In MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1607 of 2008 To LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 2568 of 2010 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-30T08:25:29+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\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-30T08:25:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1836,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\",\"name\":\"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-30T08:25:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - 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\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-30T08:25:29+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\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011","datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-30T08:25:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011"},"wordCount":1836,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011","name":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-30T08:25:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-vs-ranchhodbhai-on-8-february-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State vs Ranchhodbhai on 8 February, 2011"}]},{"@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\/29415","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=29415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}