{"id":41853,"date":"2010-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-05T11:14:35","modified_gmt":"2018-05-05T05:44:35","slug":"jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13641\/2010\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 13641 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nJAYKANT\nRAVJIBHAI PATADIYA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR.D\nM.DESAI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MR VIJAY H NANGESH for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR\nAMIT PATEL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n4. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate Mr. VH Nangesh on behalf of petitioner, learned AGP<br \/>\n\tMr. Amit Patel appearing for respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tpresent petition, petitioner has made an application for allotment<br \/>\n\tof Fair price shop in his favour but that allotment has been made in<br \/>\n\tfavour of respondent no. 4 Mayurkumar S Ranva by order dated<br \/>\n\t9\/5\/2006 by District Collector, Amreli page 14 Annexure A.  This<br \/>\n\torder was challenged by petitioner before this Court in SCA no.<br \/>\n\t24994\/2006 where this Court by order dated 9\/8\/2007 disposed of<br \/>\n\tpetition because petitioner is having alternative effective remedy<br \/>\n\tto approach higher authority.  Thereafter, petitioner has approached<br \/>\n\tto higher authority being Appeal no. 75\/2007 Annexure C page 16<br \/>\n\twhich appeal has been allowed by Appellate authority &#8211; Joint<br \/>\n\tSecretary respondent no. 1 and remanded matter back to District<br \/>\n\tCollector, Amreli by order dated 9\/1\/2008. Thereafter, both<br \/>\n\trespective parties made their written submissions before District<br \/>\n\tCollector, Amreli.  After receiving remanded order from Appellate<br \/>\n\tauthority, District Collector Amreli has decided remanded Appeal no.<br \/>\n\t75\/2007 Annexure E page 25 by order dated 17\/1\/2009, where<br \/>\n\tapplication made by petitioner has been rejected and confirmed<br \/>\n\tearlier order passed by District Collector in favour of respondent<br \/>\n\tno. 4 Mayurkumar S. Ranva by order dated 9\/5\/2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has approached to Appellate authority by application<br \/>\n\tdated 10\/2\/2009 page 29 Annexure F and written submissions is made<br \/>\n\tby petitioner on 24\/9\/2009. The Appellate authority has decided<br \/>\n\tAppeal no. 16\/2009 preferred by petitioner page 39 Annexure H. The<br \/>\n\tAppellate authority has given reasonable opportunity of hearing to<br \/>\n\tpetitioner as well as respondent. Thereafter, contention raised by<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has been considered by Appellate authority that<br \/>\n\tagriculture being a business and respondent no. 4 was holding land<br \/>\n\tin his name, therefore, he is not entitled to have allotment of Fair<br \/>\n\tprice shop in his favour.  The respondent no. 4 is not an educated<br \/>\n\tunemployed person, against which on behalf of respondent no. 4, who<br \/>\n\thas given details that land belonging to father of respondent no. 4,<br \/>\n\twhere his name was inducted by his father. Subsequently, that land<br \/>\n\tin question was sold to other person on 7\/3\/2008.  The respondent<br \/>\n\tno. 4 has also produced certain documents and also letter that card<br \/>\n\tholders are in his favour and also pointed out that nature and<br \/>\n\tconduct of petitioner as such who is harassing to other person and<br \/>\n\tdemanded unauthorized amount from various person.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tappellate authority has considered this written submissions made by<br \/>\n\tboth parties and come to conclusion that agriculture land which was<br \/>\n\tbelonging to father of respondent no. 4 and  name of respondent no.<br \/>\n\t4 was inducted as joint owner of land, which land has been<br \/>\n\tsubsequently sell to other person.  The Appellate authority has come<br \/>\n\tto conclusion that it is very difficult to consider agriculture work<br \/>\n\tbeing business or can not be treated as business and it can not<br \/>\n\tconsider to be an employment of such person and while keeping in<br \/>\n\tmind Government resolution dated 2\/8\/2004 para 2.9, according to<br \/>\n\tthat respondent no. 4 is covered by definition of unemployed<br \/>\n\teducated candidate. Merely agriculture land is in name of respondent<br \/>\n\tno. 4 can not consider that he is an earning member or earning<br \/>\n\tperson.  The contention raised by petitioner has been rejected and<br \/>\n\tAppeal preferred by petitioner has been also rejected while<br \/>\n\tconfirming earlier order passed by District Collector on 17\/1\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Nangesh submitted that Appellate authority has<br \/>\n\tcommitted gross error in rejecting appeal and also committed an<br \/>\n\terror in allotment of Fair price shop in name of respondent no. 4.<br \/>\n\tHe submitted that agriculture land belonging to respondent no. 4 it<br \/>\n\tmust be considered that income must have to be received by such<br \/>\n\tperson. Therefore, item no. 2.9 of Government resolution dated<br \/>\n\t2\/8\/2004 has been wrongly interpreted by Appellate authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave considered submission made by learned advocate Mr. Nangesh and<br \/>\n\tI have also considered relevant provision of Government circular<br \/>\n\tdated 2\/8\/2004 page 43 para 2.9 where being an educated unemployed<br \/>\n\tperson must be SSC or having equal qualification and not to have any<br \/>\n\tservice or business and also not to have any kind of income means at<br \/>\n\tthe time when application was made by respondent no. 4, he was<br \/>\n\tsatisfying this item no. 2.9 and accordingly at that occasion Fair<br \/>\n\tprice shop was alloted in favour of respondent no. 4.  However,<br \/>\n\tconsidering fact which found from record and each authority has<br \/>\n\tdecided factual aspect in favour of respondent no. 4.  This being a<br \/>\n\tconcurrent finding of fact by both authority normally this Court can<br \/>\n\tnot interfere in such administrative order which has been passed by<br \/>\n\tAdministrative authority while considering fact which are on record.<br \/>\n\t This Court can not Act as an Appellate authority ultimately this<br \/>\n\tCourt has to examine decision making process while exercising power<br \/>\n\tunder Article 226 of Constitution of India.  The view taken by Apex<br \/>\n\tCourt in such circumstances in case of Union of India and<br \/>\n\tAnother Vs. K. G. Soni  reported in 2006 (6) SCC 798 para 13<br \/>\n\tand 14 are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n<p> 13.\t<a href=\"\/doc\/1642910\/\">In<br \/>\n\tUnion of India v. G. Ganayautham<\/a> this Court summed up the position<br \/>\n\trelating to proportionality in para 31, which read as follows: (SCC<br \/>\n\tpp. 478-79)<\/p>\n<p> 31.\tThe<br \/>\n\tcurrent position of proportionality in administrative law in England<br \/>\n\tand India can be summarized as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">(1)<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\tTo judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory<br \/>\n\tdiscretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find<br \/>\n\tout if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural<br \/>\n\timproprieties or was one which no sensible decision maker could, on<br \/>\n\tthe material before him and within the framework of the law, have<br \/>\n\tarrived at.  The court would consider whether relevant matters had<br \/>\n\tnot been taken into account or whether irrelevant mattes had been<br \/>\n\ttaken into consider whether decision was not bona fide.  The court<br \/>\n\twould also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse.<br \/>\n\tThe court would not however go into the correctness of the choice<br \/>\n\tmade by the administrator amongst the various alternatives open to<br \/>\n\thim.  Nor could the court substitute its decision to that of the<br \/>\n\tadministrator.  This is the Wednesbury test.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tThe<br \/>\n\tcourt would not interfere with the administrator&#8217;s decision unless<br \/>\n\tit was illegal or suffered from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\n\tirrational in the sens that it was in outrageous defiance of logic<br \/>\n\tor moral standard.  The possibility of other tests including<br \/>\n\tproportionality being brought into English administrative law in<br \/>\n\tfuture is not ruled out.  These are the CCSU principles.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(a)<br \/>\n\tAs per Bugdecay, Brind and Smith as long as the Convention is not<br \/>\n\tincorporated into English law, the English Courts merely exercise a<br \/>\n\tsecondary judgment to find out if the decision maker could have, on<br \/>\n\tthe material before him, arrived at the primary judgment in the<br \/>\n\tmanner he has done.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)(b)\tIf<br \/>\n\tthe Convention is incorporated in England making available the<br \/>\n\tprinciple of proportionality, then the English courts will render<br \/>\n\tprimary judgment on the validity of the administrative action and<br \/>\n\tfind out if the restriction is disproportionate or excessive or is<br \/>\n\tnot based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental freedom and the<br \/>\n\tneed for the restriction thereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(a)<br \/>\n\tThe position in our country, in administrative law, where no<br \/>\n\tfundamental freedoms as aforesaid are involved, is that the<br \/>\n\tcourts\/tribunals will only play a secondary role while the primary<br \/>\n\tjudgment as to reasonableness will remain with the executive or<br \/>\n\tadministrative authority.  The secondary judgment of the court is to<br \/>\n\tbe based on Wednesbury and CCSU principles as stated by Lord Greene<br \/>\n\tand Lord Diplock respectively to find if the executive or<br \/>\n\tadministrative authority has reasonably arrived at his decision as<br \/>\n\tthe primary authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)(b)<br \/>\n\tWhether in the case of administrative or executive action affecting<br \/>\n\tfundamental freedoms, the courts in our country will applied the<br \/>\n\tprinciple of  proportionality  and assume a primary role, is<br \/>\n\tleft open, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is<br \/>\n\topen, to be decided in an appropriate case where such action is<br \/>\n\talleged to offend fundamental freedoms.  It will be then necessary<br \/>\n\tto decide whether the courts will have a primary role only if the<br \/>\n\tfreedoms under Articles 19, 21, etc are involved and not for Article\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. <\/p>\n<p>14.\tThe<br \/>\n\tcommon thread running through in all these decision is that the<br \/>\n\tcould should not interfere with the administrator&#8217;s decision unless<br \/>\n\tit was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was<br \/>\n\tshocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in<br \/>\n\tdefiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been<br \/>\n\tstated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the<br \/>\n\tcorrectness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and<br \/>\n\tthe court should not substitute its decision to that of the<br \/>\n\tadministrator.  The scope of judicial review is limited to the<br \/>\n\tdeficiency in the decision making process and not the decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of aforesaid decision given by Apex Court and considering<br \/>\n\treasoning given by each authority as District Collector, as well as<br \/>\n\tAppellate authority, according to my opinion no error is committed<br \/>\n\tby either of authority and both orders are passed on fact being fact<br \/>\n\tfinding given by authority this Court can not disturb it while<br \/>\n\texercising power under Art. 226 of Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,<br \/>\n\tcontention raised by learned advocate Mr. Nangesh can not be<br \/>\n\taccepted hence rejected. There is no substance in present petition.<br \/>\n\tAccordingly, present petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(H.K.RATHOD,<br \/>\nJ)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13641\/2010 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13641 of 2010 ========================================================= JAYKANT RAVJIBHAI PATADIYA &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT &amp; 3 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&hellip;]<\/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-41853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-05T05:44:35+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T05:44:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1531,\"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\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-05T05:44:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-05T05:44:35+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T05:44:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010"},"wordCount":1531,"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\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010","name":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-05T05:44:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaykant-vs-state-on-26-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaykant vs State on 26 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/41853","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=41853"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41853\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}