{"id":40847,"date":"2003-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003"},"modified":"2016-02-08T13:00:26","modified_gmt":"2016-02-08T07:30:26","slug":"rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","title":{"rendered":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) MhLj 571<\/div>\n
Author: R Kochar<\/div>\n
Bench: R Kochar, S Kharche<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 R.J. Kochar, J. <\/p>\n
 1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved in the petitions is the common one.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the communication
\ndated 9-3-2000 issued by the Registrar – respondent No. 2 refusing to grant renewal of Registration of the petitioners permitting them to act as Architects.The petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ to quash and set aside the said communication and directions to the respondent No. 2 to renew the registration of the petitioners by accepting the renewal fee as per the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Architects Act, 1972.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioners, young lady architects, were conferred a Degree of
\nBachelor of Architecture by the Nagpur University. Respondent No. 3 – the
\nCouncil of Architecture functioning under Section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972,
\nhad recognized the said Degrees conferred by the Nagpur University in 1989.
\nThe petitioners were registered with the respondent No. 3 in or around 1992 and
\n thereafter they have been prosecuting their career as Architects. They are also
\nregistered as the Members of the Indian Institutes of Architects and therefore, the
\npetitioners have claimed that they are qualified and eligible to carry on their
\nprofession as Architects in accordance with law. The petitioners’ registration
\nunder Section 23 of the Architects Act, 1972, is required, to be renewed annually
\nunder Section 27 of the Act on payment of renewal fees. According to the petitioners, they have satisfied and complied with all the lawfully prescribed
\nconditions under the provisions of the Architects Act and, therefore, they are
\nentitled to carry on their profession as Architects as guaranteed, under Article
\n19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have challenged the act of
\nthe respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the registration of the petitioners by
\nimpugned order dated 9-3-2000 being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
\nConstitution of India. According to the petitioners, they are bona fide Degree
\nHolders of the Nagpur University which has been recognized by respondent No.
\n3 under the Act and, therefore, the refusal on the part of the respondent No. 3 to
\nrenew the registration of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners got
\nlateral admissions directly in the fourth and fifth year B.Arch. programme being
\noffered by the Nagpur University after undergoing 4 years B. Tech. (House and
\nInterior Course) from the same University. According to the petitioners, the
\nrespondent No. 3 has erroneously presumed that the petitioners have not
\nundergone the course as stipulated in the Minimum: Standard of Architectural
\nEducation Regulations, 1983 (Regulations on Undergraduate Architectural
\nEducation) laid down by the Council of Architecture with the prior approval of
\nthe Central Government. According to the petitioners, they have successfully
\nundergone 4 years B. Tech. (HID) Course from the Nagpur University and
\nthereafter they were admitted to the 5 years B. Arch. Degree Course of the same
\nUniversity and, therefore, it can not be said that the petitioners have not
\nundergone 5 years Undergraduate programme in Architect as per the said
\nRegulation. According to the petitioners, the four years B. Tech. (HID) Degree
\nCourse has been recognized by the Nagpur University and that has been held to
\nbe eligibility for getting admission to the fourth year of B. Arch. Degree Course.
\nThe petitioners have further submitted that the 4 years B. Tech. Course has
\nidentical course for the first, three years which the three years of the B. Tech.
\nDegree Course has prescribed. According to the petitioners, the three years
\nsyllabus of B. Tech. is equivalent verbatim with the three years of B. Arch.
\nsyllabus and there is no difference of any nature. The Course of B. Tech. is not
\ninferior or is not less in any manner but on the contrary the students have to
\nspend 4 years to get the Degree of B. Tech. whereafter they become eligible to
\nget admission for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. for the fourth and final fifth
\nyear. From 1989 onwards, the respondent No. 3 have been registering all such
\ngraduates holding the Degree of B. Arch. and the petitioners have been practising
\nthe profession of Architect without any hindrance or without any problems.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Shri S. V. Manohar, the learned counsel has taken us through the
\nprescribed syllabus for the four years of the B. Tech. and three years of the B. Arch.
\nand has submitted that in fact the students have studied the same subject for first
\nfour years in the B. Tech. while the very same subjects are the syllabus of the
\nfirst three years of the Degree Course of the B. Arch. The Degree of the B. Tech.
\nand the Degree of the B. Arch. are the recognized Degrees conferred by the
\nNagpur University. According to Shri Manohar, the refusal to renew the
\nmembership of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not
\nundergone five years Degree Course of the B. Arch. is totally baseless and
\nerroneous. Shri Manohar has strenuously submitted that the B. Tech. Course of
\nfour years is a Degree Course validly prescribed by the Nagpur University as a prescribed qualification to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch.
\nDegree Course. The petitioners who have successfully undergone the course of
\nB. Tech. became eligible to get admission for the five years Degree Course of the
\nB. Arch. The respondent No. 3 has termed such admissions as lateral admissions
\nand it purports that the lateral admissions in the fourth and fifth year of the B.
\nArch. Course is not equivalent to undergoing the five years course of B. Arch. of
\nthe Nagpur University and, therefore, according to the respondent No. 3 such
\nBachelors of Architecture are not holding the recognized degree under the Act, as
\nper respondent No. 3 to deny renewal of the registration of the membership of the
\nrespondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
 5. According to Shri L. K. Khamborkar, the learned counsel appearing for
\nrespondents 1 to 3, justified the action of the respondent No. 3 in refusing to
\nrenew the registration of the petitioners as according to him, the petitioners have
\nnot successfully completed the Architectural Course of five years as prescribed
\nunder the Act. The learned counsel submits that a candidate to become eligible to
\nbe registered as the Member of the Council has to undergo five years Degree
\nCourse of the Bachelor of Architecture from the first year to fifth year. He
\nsubmits that in the case of the petitioners, they have not completed five years of
\nthe Degree Course of the B. Arch. as they got admissions in the fourth and fifth
\nyear of the Course and, therefore, they cannot be registered as the practising
\nArchitects under the Law. Shri Khamborkar further submitted that the Ordinance
\nissued by the Nagpur University is without any authority and, therefore, it could
\nnot prescribe the B. Tech. as the eligibility for admission to the fourth and fifth
\nyear of the Degree Course of the Architecture. In nutshell, the submission of the
\nlearned counsel is that the petitioners who have not undergone the studies from
\nthe first year to fifth year at a stretch in the College of Architecture, they cannot
\nbe recognized as Bachelor of Architecture. Since the Nagpur University had no
\npower and jurisdiction to prescribe the B. Tech. as a step stone to get admission
\nin the fourth year of the Degree Course of the Architecture, the said Ordinance is
\nnull and void and, therefore, the lateral admissions of the petitioners cannot be
\ntermed as lawful to be recognized as eligibility criteria for the registration of the
\npetitioners as the members of the respondent No. 3 Council. The learned counsel
\nfairly admitted that all the petitioners were registered initially under a bona fide
\nbelief held by the authorities of the Council that the petitioners were bona fide
\ngraduates from the Nagpur University holding the Degree of B. Arch. having
\nundergone the five years course as prescribed. According to the learned counsel,
\nthe officers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur
\nUniversity and, therefore, they were admitting the students in the category of the
\npetitioners who had taken the benefit of lateral admissions.\n<\/p>\n
 6. He also tried to argue that the petitioners and all such similarly placed
\nGraduates had not disclosed and had suppressed the fact that they were B. Tech.
\nand thereafter they got lateral admission in the fourth year course of B. Arch.
\nwhen they came to know about this fact, they legally refused to renew the
\nregistration of the petitioners, submits the learned counsel. According to Shri
\nKhamborkar, the Course of Architecture is a technical subject and its only All
\nIndia Council for Technical Education established under the Act 1987 had
\nauthority to prescribe the curricula or the course for technical education for the technical Institutions established under the Act. According to him, the Nagpur
\nUniversity had no business to prescribe the syllabus of the Technical Education
\nof the Architecture and that it was the exclusive function or duty of the All India
\nCouncil For Technical Education established under Section 3 of the Act,  <\/p>\n
 7. Shri B. G. Kuikarni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
\nNo. 4 – Nagpur University countered the submissions of the counsel appearing
\nfor respondents 1 to 3 that Nagpur University had no power and jurisdiction to
\npromulgate the Ordinance to prescribe the eligibility for the Degree Course of
\nArchitecture. He fully supported the case of the petitioners and pointed out that
\nthe B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years was equivalent to three years course of
\nBachelor of Architecture. The Act has empowered the Nagpur University to pass
\nan appropriate Ordinance under sections 39 and 40 and it has after considering all
\nthe facts and circumstances prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Course of four years
\nas eligibility for admission to the Degree Course of the B. Tech. in the fourth and
\nfifth year of the B. Arch. He further submitted that when the respondent No. 3 –
\nCouncil had pointed out for the first time in the year 1999 or so that the lateral
\nadmissions were not recognized for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. the
\nNagpur University has discontinued the same from 2000 onwards and lateral
\nadmissions have not been permitted as an eligibility to get admission to the
\nfourth year of the B. Arch. This has been deleted by the Nagpur University.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has summarised his
\nsubmissions as under:\n<\/p>\n
 (A)    The Council has no authority to de-recognise the Degree of
\nBachelor of Architecture. Its only the Central Government that has
\nsuch power.\n<\/p>\n
 (B)    The refusal to renew the registration by the respondent No. 3
\namounts to disqualification of the petitioners and such
\ndisqualification can be only for a proved misconduct and for no
\nother reason a duly qualified Bachelor of Architecture can be
\nrefused to be registered or refused to be renewed.\n<\/p>\n
 (C)    The respondent No. 3 could not refuse to renew the registration of
\nthe petitioners who were already registered and if at all the Council
\nhad decided not to recognise the candidates who had lateral
\nadmissions in the B. Arch. such a Rule cannot be made applicable
\nretrospectively in respect of the petitioners and all such similarly
\nplaced Bachelors of Architecture, It would be open to the Council
\nto enforce its decision prospectively but not in respect of those
\nwho have already registered and were practising the profession of
\nArchitect.\n<\/p>\n
 (D)    The four years Course of B. Tech. (H.I.D.) is identical with the
\nthree years Course of B. Arch. verbatim and there is no difference
\nof any nature between these two curriculums and the prescribed
\nsyllabus.\n<\/p>\n
 (E)    The B. Tech. Examinations and also B. Arch. Examination are
\nconducted by the Nagpur University.\n<\/p>\n
 (F)     The Nagpur University had introduced the B. Tech. (HID) Course
\nspecially for the girls students to give them the facility and scope
\nfor their future career as it best suited the girls.\n<\/p>\n
 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel of both
\nsides. We have also carefully gone through the proceedings. We are not inclined
\nto dwell any more on the technical and fine law points raised by the learned
\ncounsel for the Council as they are not tenable. It is, however, an admitted
\nposition that the lateral admission to the fourth and fifth years Course to B. Arch.
\nhave been discontinued by the Nagpur University. The last batch of 1999 was the
\nbatch of lateral admissions and thereafter there is no batch of the students who
\nhave passed their B. Tech. (HID and who were admitted in the fourth year of B.
\nArch. Course. The petitioners and all other similarly placed Bachelors of
\nArchitecture are the bona fide Graduates of the Nagpur University. All of them
\nhad bona fide pursued their B. Tech. (HID) Course for four years as prescribed
\nby the Nagpur University itself. Further the Nagpur University itself has
\npermitted them to get admissions for the fourth year course of B. Arch. and to
\ncomplete the Graduation of the B. Arch. after undergoing two years of the said
\nCourse. The Nagpur University has prescribed the B. Tech. (HID) Degree Course
\nas eligibility to get admission in the fourth year of the B. Arch. Degree. All these
\nstudents including, the petitioners have bona fide got admission in the fourth year
\nand fifth year of the B. Arch. Degree Course and have successfully acquired the
\nB. Arch. Degree. There is absolutely no fraud or suppression or any such stigma
\nin the entire process. It is not that the Nagpur University is not a recognized
\nInstitution having no power or authority to prescribe the syllabus and to prescribe
\nthe eligibility qualification for admissions. The Nagpur University has lawfully,
\npromulgated the Ordinance and has prescribed the syllabus for the two courses
\nwhich the students bona fide believed and accepted and got admission in the B.
\nArch. One cannot find any fault with the petitioners and all other similarly placed
\nBachelors of Architecture. It cannot be believed that the respondent No. 3-
\nCouncil was not aware of the Ordinance issued by the Nagpur University as was
\ntried to be canvassed by the learned counsel. It is totally ridiculous, and absurd,
\nto say that the Council of Architecture was not aware of the Ordinance issued by
\nthe Nagpur University prescribing the eligibility criteria for the admissions to the
\ncourses of the B. Arch. The said Ordinance was in enforcement for more than a
\ndecade and if the Management of the Council did not know of the ordinance
\nwhich was lawfully promulgated and which was gazetted in the Government
\nGazette, they have to thank themselves. We must observe that there is something
\nwrong with the administration of the Council when it feigned ignorance of the
\nlaw. Such a conduct on the part of the Council is contrary to the functions and
\nduty of the Council as laid down under Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987
\nwhich requires the Council to take all such steps to ensure coordinated and
\nintegrated development of the technical education and for that purpose it has to
\nundertake survey in the various fields of the technical education, collect data on
\nall related matters and coordinate the development of technical education in the
\ncountry at all levels. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that the Council did not
\nknow that the lateral admissions to the course of the B. Arch. was available and
\nwas permissible under the Nagpur University. We are not able to believe this  bald and unfounded submissions of the learned counsel for the Council that the
\noffice bearers of the Council were not aware of the Ordinance issued by the
\nNagpur University under Section 40 read with Section 39 of the Nagpur
\nUniversity Act. Section 10 of the AICTE Act, 1987 enumerated about. 22
\nfunctions and duties of the Council and the basic one underlying all of them is
\nthe coordination and development of the technical education all over the country,
\nin the Universities and in all such other Institutions. We, therefore, can safely
\npresume that the responsible office bearers of this Council were very well aware
\nof the Ordinance of the Nagpur University at the relevant time and they accept
\nthe same without any objection and\/or acquiesce. It would not be legally
\npermissible for the Council to go back and seek to cancel the registration of the
\npetitioners retrospectively. It cannot put back the hands of the clock after a
\ndecade or so. It is certainly empowered to announce and regulate the revised
\ncourse and deny the registration on the basis of the newly introduced programme
\nin accordance with the law. It cannot one fine morning get up and withdraw the
\nrecognised qualifications of the Architects and refuse to register them or renew
\ntheir registration. It must announce its new revised eligibility criteria well in
\nadvance in accordance with law and well known procedure or manner.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Secondly, the Council had recognized the B. Arch. Degree of the
\nstudents who got the lateral admissions from 1989 onwards. They registered
\nthem in the year 1992 and registration continued till 1999. In the year 1999, for
\nthe first time, the Council appears to have refused to renew the said registrations
\non the purported ground of lateral admission to the fourth year course being in
\nviolation of the Regulation. The Council has continued the registration of all such
\nstudents upto 1999. The petitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. students have
\nbeen lawfully practicing since then. It cannot be said that they are quack and
\nbogus Graduates from any bogus University or unrecognized Institution. They
\nhave been carrying on their profession lawfully and honourably after their
\nsuccessful pursuit of the two degree courses of the Nagpur University. They have
\nbeen renewing their registration only till 1999. Furthermore, as far as the subjects
\nand competence of the petitioners and other similarly placed Architects, it can
\nnot be said that they have not learnt the subjects of the first three years course of
\nthe B. Arch. There is no dispute that the B. Tech. (HID) Course is equivalent to
\nthe three years course of the B. Arch. In fact, they have spent one year more in
\nthe subjects. The Council is all of a sudden trying to disqualify and derecognise
\nthem after the period of 10 years which is not a small period in the career of the
\nprofessionals. Most of the petitioners might have established themselves
\ncomfortably and might have taken off in their profession by 1999. To de-
\nrecognise or to disqualify them at this stage would not be in the interest of justice
\nat all and it will not be equitable to do so. There is no element of fraud or
\nillegality at any stage, though the learned counsel for the Council tried to argue
\nthat the petitioners had not disclosed that they were lateral admissions in the
\nfourth year course of B. Arch. They have filled up the prescribed forms as per the
\nrequirements and they have not suppressed any material from the Council. It was
\nfor the Council to have asked the applicants if the Council had any doubt about
\nthe fact of their admissions and the fact of their becoming B. Arch. After completing the course. The Nagpur University has validly accepted the B. Tech.
\n(HID) Course as the eligibility for the Degree Course of the B. Arch. and the
\nstudents of the B. Tech. students got admissions to the B. Arch. Degree Course in
\naccordance with law. We do not find any suppression or fraud or any dishonesty
\non the part of the petitioners. Their degrees are not spurious nor are they from a
\nfake University. These degrees were and are genuine and bona fide degrees
\nconferred on them by the Nagpur University and, therefore, the Council initially
\nrecognized the fact of the Ordinance and also the fact of the lateral admissions in
\nthe B. Arch. Course and registered, the petitioners on the “architects” as holders
\nof the recognized qualifications under the Architects Act, but for the reasons best
\nknown to it, in and from the year 1999 the Council changed its mind and refused
\nto renew the registration on the ground of lateral admissions of the students of the
\nB. Tech. (HID) to B. Arch. Degree Course. In our considered opinion the
\ndecision of the Council to refuse to renew the registration of the petitioners is
\nunreasonable and arbitrary and is contrary to the provisions of the Architect Act,
\nThe Petitioners are the architects holding recognized qualifications as included in
\nthe Schedule at item 1 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Act recognises
\neven diplomas of many specified Institutes also.\n<\/p>\n
 11. Further since the lateral admission qualifications have been
\ndiscontinued by the University itself, it will not be in the interest of the
\npetitioners and similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates who bona fide passed their
\nB. Arch. Graduation on the basis of the lateral admissions to deprive them of
\ntheir qualification to practice the profession of B. Arch. From 1999 onwards, the
\nNagpur University as also both the counsels have agreed that B. Tech. (HID)
\nCourse will not be held to be eligible for admission to the fourth year and fifth
\nyear of B. Arch. course. We, therefore, allow the petitions and quash and set
\naside the impugned communication of the respondent No. 3 refusing to renew the
\nregistration on the alleged ground of lateral admissions to the course of the B.
\nArch. We hold that the petitioners and all similarly placed B. Arch. Graduates are
\nlawfully entitled to be registered with respondent No. 3 and they are lawfully
\nentitled to practice the profession of Architecture. We have followed the
\n“doctrine of defacto” while granting this relief. Respondent No. 3 – Council shall
\nrenew their registration and shall never discontinue their registration on this
\nground on their being B. Arch. on account of lateral admission.\n<\/p>\n
 12. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses A and B. The
\nrespondent No. 3 shall renew the registration of the petitioners and all other
\nsimilarly placed B. Arch. Graduates forthwith and shall continue to renew their
\nregistration unless there is a breach of other regulations committed by them. No
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) MhLj 571 Author: R Kochar Bench: R Kochar, S Kharche JUDGMENT R.J. Kochar, J. 1. All the above petitions are being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order as the issue involved […]<\/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-40847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - 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\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-08T07:30:26+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T07:30:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3709,\"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\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\",\"name\":\"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T07:30:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - 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\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-08T07:30:26+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003","datePublished":"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T07:30:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003"},"wordCount":3709,"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\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003","name":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T07:30:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajashree-bokade-and-ors-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors-on-27-june-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajashree Bokade And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 June, 2003"}]},{"@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\/40847","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=40847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}