{"id":70169,"date":"2010-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-24T23:43:22","modified_gmt":"2018-10-24T18:13:22","slug":"kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&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\/4044\/2004\t 8\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \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. 4044 of 2004\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n \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\nKANTIBHAI\nVIRCHANDBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMEHUL SHARAD SHAH for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR JANAK RAVAL AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR DILIP B RANA for\nRespondent(s) :\n3, \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\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe short facts of the case appear to be that the market yard in<br \/>\n\tquestion was constructed by the Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\n\tCommittee, Patan (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Committee&#8217; for<br \/>\n\tshort) for traders, including the vegetable merchants.  It was<br \/>\n\tinsisted by the Market committee to the traders to shift their<br \/>\n\tbusiness to the market yard as the stalls were available.  However,<br \/>\n\tthe same was resisted.  Thereafter, the Market Committee also<br \/>\n\tundertook the process for allotment of the stalls to the traders in<br \/>\n\tthe year 1996, but it appears that there was resistance to shift<br \/>\n\ttheir business to the market yard.  Ultimately on 18.5.1996, in a<br \/>\n\tjoint meeting of the Market Committee, Traders and the Deputy<br \/>\n\tDirector, it was agreed to allot the shops on development charge of<br \/>\n\tRs.41,000\/- and the monthly rent was fixed for Rs.200\/-.  Six<br \/>\n\ttraders agreed for the same.  The essential purpose of the market<br \/>\n\tcommittee was to see that the market yard functions smoothly and was<br \/>\n\tto get regular income of market fees.  Thereafter, the market<br \/>\n\tcommittee fixed the upset price of Rs.1,25,000\/- and published<br \/>\n\tadvertisement in the newspaper Hamlok<br \/>\n\ton 5.4.2007, but there was no response and nobody came forward for<br \/>\n\tpurchase of the plots and the matter remained as it was.  It appears<br \/>\n\tthat thereafter, the traders made application to the market<br \/>\n\tcommittee to allot the shops on payment of Rs.31,000\/- as<br \/>\n\tdevelopment fee and the matter was deliberated and ultimately, it<br \/>\n\twas agreed to allot stalls for Rs.41,000\/- for the development fees<br \/>\n\tand the monthly rent was fixed of Rs.200\/- in the resolution passed<br \/>\n\tby the market committee on 2.11.1999.  Accordingly, 74 persons were<br \/>\n\tallotted plots, and they paid the development fees and they were<br \/>\n\tpaying the rent also.  On 29.7.2000 the Director of Agricultural<br \/>\n\tMarket Committee for Rural Finance issued instructions to the market<br \/>\n\tcommittee to recover additional amount of Rs.22,335\/- from each of<br \/>\n\tthe allottee comprising of the group of 74 persons and further<br \/>\n\tdirected to recover monthly rent of Rs.650\/- from those persons<br \/>\n\twithout giving any opportunity of hearing to the allottees.  The<br \/>\n\tpetitioners herein carried the matter in revision before the State<br \/>\n\tGovernment under Section 48 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market<br \/>\n\tAct (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) against the said<br \/>\n\tinstructions of the Director and the State Government found that the<br \/>\n\topportunity of hearing was not given, therefore, the matter was<br \/>\n\tremanded back to the Director.  It appears that thereafter the<br \/>\n\tDirector, Agricultural Marketing, once again passed the order,<br \/>\n\twhereby the direction to recover the additional amount and monthly<br \/>\n\trent of Rs.650\/- was maintained.  The petitioners further carried<br \/>\n\tthe matter in revision before the State Government.  The State<br \/>\n\tGovernment in the revision found that, based on the report of the<br \/>\n\tengineer towards construction cost of Rs.63,335\/- and for monthly<br \/>\n\trent of Rs.650\/-, the Director has exercised the power, therefore,<br \/>\n\tthe State Government did not interfere with the instructions issued<br \/>\n\tby the Director and dismissed the revision vide order dated<br \/>\n\t13.2.2004.  It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have<br \/>\n\tapproached this Court by the present revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned<br \/>\n\tCounsel for the petitioners, Mr.Raval, learned AGP for the State<br \/>\n\tAuthorities and Mr.Rana, learned Counsel for Mr.Jhaveri for<br \/>\n\trespondent No.3 Market Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs such<br \/>\n\tthe matter is pertaining to the recovery of the cost of construction<br \/>\n\tby the Market Committee by way of development fee.  It appears from<br \/>\n\tthe report of the Engineer that the cost assessed was of<br \/>\n\tRs.63,335\/-.  It is true that such report is not produced by either<br \/>\n\tside of the petition, but there is reference to the said report.<br \/>\n\tReport of the approved Engineer could be said as a report of an<br \/>\n\texpert on the aspects of cost structure.  If the Director or the<br \/>\n\tState Government have acted upon such report, so as to compel the<br \/>\n\tMarket Committee to recover the cost of the shops\/stalls by way of<br \/>\n\tdevelopment fees, at the time of allotment to the traders, such<br \/>\n\texercise of the power cannot be said to be unreasonable or<br \/>\n\tarbitrary.  The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that<br \/>\n\tthe copy of the report was not supplied and no material is produced<br \/>\n\tin the present record as to the basis for arriving at the figure of<br \/>\n\tRs.63,335\/-.  In such situation, the matter could have been referred<br \/>\n\tto some other Governmental authority for arriving at the figure of<br \/>\n\tcost structure by the Market Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHowever,<br \/>\n\tat that stage, Mr.Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners,<br \/>\n\tdeclared that let there not be any reference to any other agency and<br \/>\n\tthe petitioners would agree at the cost structure fixed by the<br \/>\n\tDirector based on the report of the Engineer as that of Rs.63,335\/-<br \/>\n\tand he submitted that Rs.41,000\/- per stall was already paid at the<br \/>\n\ttime of allotment and pursuant to the interim order dated 10.8.2004<br \/>\n\tpassed by this Court, the difference of Rs.22,335\/- was also<br \/>\n\tdeposited by the petitioners concerned and he submitted that the<br \/>\n\tsaid amount may be retained by the Market Committee towards the<br \/>\n\tdevelopment fee by way of compliance to the order of the Director.<br \/>\n\tHowever, he contended that the rent, which is fixed at Rs.650\/-,<br \/>\n\tcould be said as discriminatory and arbitrary inasmuch as the Market<br \/>\n\tCommittee has not charged rent to any shop-holder at the rate of<br \/>\n\tRs.650\/-, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to the same<br \/>\n\ttreatment.  In furtherance to his contention, he submitted that the<br \/>\n\trent fixed for the earlier allottee of the shop was of Rs.200\/- and<br \/>\n\tthey are paying the rent at the rate of Rs.200\/- per month and not<br \/>\n\tonly that, but he also submitted that for the subsequent allottees,<br \/>\n\tthe rent is the same as that of Rs.200\/- per month.  Therefore, the<br \/>\n\tsame treatment should be given.  He alternatively submitted that<br \/>\n\tsince the petitioners were desirous to enjoy the benefits of the<br \/>\n\tinterim order dated 10.8.2004 and created the situation of holding<br \/>\n\tof no action if the rent was paid at the rate of Rs.650\/- per month,<br \/>\n\tthe rent already paid at the rate of 650\/- per month by way of<br \/>\n\tdifference may be retained by the Market Committee, but for the<br \/>\n\tperiod of unpaid rent, the Market Committee may not recover the<br \/>\n\tamount exceeding Rs.200\/- per month.  He submitted that, if for the<br \/>\n\tunpaid rent, the same treatment is given at the rate of Rs.200\/- per<br \/>\n\tmonth, the petitioners would not insist for the refund of the<br \/>\n\tdifference amount of development fee as well as the rent already<br \/>\n\tpaid at the rate of Rs.650\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhereas,<br \/>\n\ton behalf of the Market Committee, it was submitted that since the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners had paid the amount of Rs.650\/- as monthly rent, the<br \/>\n\tMarket Committee did not hold public auction, but subsequently since<br \/>\n\t2004 the petitioners have not paid any rent to the Market Committee<br \/>\n\teven at the rate of Rs.200\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhereas,<br \/>\n\tthe learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in contra,<br \/>\n\tcontended that the rent was tendered at the rate of Rs.200\/- per<br \/>\n\tmonth but as was not at the rate of Rs.650\/- per month, the same was<br \/>\n\tnot accepted by the Market Committee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tlearned AGP has supported the order passed by the lower authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt appears<br \/>\n\tto the Court that if the Director has acted upon the report of an<br \/>\n\texpert for directing the Market Committee to recover the development<br \/>\n\tfee at par with the cost structure, the same even otherwise also<br \/>\n\tcould be maintained.  The attempt to contend that in the year 1996<br \/>\n\tthe allotment was for Rs.41,000\/- cannot be accepted, because the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners are alloted the shops in the year 1999, after three<br \/>\n\tyears and, therefore, keeping in view the element of appreciation<br \/>\n\talso the amount of Rs.63,335\/- cannot be said as invalid, more<br \/>\n\tparticularly because there is no other material produced before this<br \/>\n\tCourt to show that the cost structure of the Market Committee was<br \/>\n\totherwise in the year 1999.  No further discussion may be required<br \/>\n\ton the said aspects in view of the declaration made on behalf of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioners that the petitioners are ready to abide by the amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.63,335\/- as development fee, therefore, the said part of the<br \/>\n\torder of the lower authority does not deserve to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn the<br \/>\n\taspects of equal treatment to be given by the Market Committee, the<br \/>\n\tmatter, if examined, it appears that when the shops were allotted in<br \/>\n\tthe year 1996, the rent fixed by the Market Committee is at Rs.200\/-<br \/>\n\tper month.  Thereafter when the shops were allotted in the year 1999<br \/>\n\twith the higher premium of Rs.23,335\/- more, i.e. the total of<br \/>\n\tRs.63,335\/-, as against the earlier premium of Rs.41,000\/- in the<br \/>\n\tyear 1996, the Market Committee had decided to charge monthly rent<br \/>\n\tof Rs.200\/-.  As per the statement made at the bar by the learned<br \/>\n\tCounsel for the petitioners as well as by the learned Counsel for<br \/>\n\tthe Market Committee, when the auction has been subsequently held<br \/>\n\tafter 2004, the price realised of the shop is about Rs.2 lac and<br \/>\n\tmore, but the monthly rent is fixed at Rs.200\/- per month only.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, it is undisputed position that barring the petitioners,<br \/>\n\tfor other traders, who have occupied the stalls, the Market<br \/>\n\tCommittee has charged Rs.200\/- per month as rent.  Under these<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, for the subsequent period, if the rent is maintained<br \/>\n\tat the rate of Rs.200\/- per month, keeping in view the aforesaid<br \/>\n\tpeculiar circumstances that there is already an additional amount<br \/>\n\ttowards development fee and the amount of arrears is already paid,<br \/>\n\tfor which the refund is not claimed by the petitioners and the<br \/>\n\tMarket Committee has decided to charge the same rent even to the<br \/>\n\tsubsequent allottees, the amount of Rs.200\/- as rent for the<br \/>\n\tremaining period can be maintained if the market committee has to<br \/>\n\tmaintain the parity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn view of<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid, the impugned order passed by the Director and its<br \/>\n\tconfirmation thereof by the State Government deserves to be modified<br \/>\n\tto the effect that the direction for recovery of the additional<br \/>\n\tpremium at the rate of Rs.22,335\/- shall remain confirmed, but the<br \/>\n\tdirection for recovery of the monthly rent of Rs.650\/- shall stand<br \/>\n\tmodified to the effect that the amount of rent already paid at the<br \/>\n\trate of Rs.650\/- pursuant to the interim order dated 10.8.2004 shall<br \/>\n\tnot be required to be refunded, but after the interim order dated<br \/>\n\t10.8.2004, if the concerned shop holders have not paid the monthly<br \/>\n\trent, the same shall be payable at the rate of Rs.200\/- per month<br \/>\n\tand the accumulated arrears shall be paid within six weeks from the<br \/>\n\tdate of receipt of the order of this Court.  It is also observed<br \/>\n\tthat the rent of Rs.200\/- is since about 14 years and, therefore, it<br \/>\n\twould be open to the Market Committee to consider issue of revision<br \/>\n\tof the monthly rent in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\n\tpetition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.  Rule made<br \/>\n\tabsolute.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.2.2010<br \/>\n      (Jayant Patel, J.)<\/p>\n<p> vinod<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4044\/2004 8\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4044 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-70169","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 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\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-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=\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-24T18:13:22+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\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-24T18:13:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1872,\"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\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-24T18:13:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 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\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-24T18:13:22+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\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-24T18:13:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"},"wordCount":1872,"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\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010","name":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-24T18:13:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kantibhai-vs-state-on-10-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kantibhai vs State on 10 February, 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:\/\/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\/70169","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=70169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70169\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}