{"id":71006,"date":"2010-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-06T12:00:29","modified_gmt":"2017-06-06T06:30:29","slug":"rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/13689\/2009\t 18\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \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. 13689 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 1548 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5007 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 5170 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\tSd\/- \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\tSd\/- \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 ?   1 &\n\t\t\t2: YES; 3 to 5 NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nRAMESHBHAI\nGANESHBHAI CHAUDHARI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT & 22 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMIHIR JOSHI with MR DIPEN A DESAI\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR PK JANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent\nState in SCA 13689\/09 and MR AJ DESAI AGP for respondent State in\nSCAs 1548, 5007 & 5170\/10 \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 4, 12, 16,18 - 21. \nMR PC KAVINA with MS.J\nK.MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 4, \nMS AVANI G THAKKER for\nRespondent(s) : 5,8-9,13-15, 17, 20,22-23. \nMR VC VAGHELA for\nRespondent(s) : 6, \nMR VIJAY PATEL for HL PATEL ADVOCATES for\nRespondent(s) : 7,10 -\n11. \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 D.H.WAGHELA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n:   06\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)<\/p>\n
1.\t\tAll
\nthese petitions are stated to be involving common issues and hence
\nthey are heard together for final disposal at the request of learned
\ncounsel. SCA No.13689 of 2009 was decided on 29.1.2010 by another
\nDivision Bench of this Court but, upon that decision being carried in
\nappeal, the Supreme Court has remanded the matters by order dated
\n03.6.2010 in Civil Appeal No.1706 of 2010 with the direction as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 ……Looking
\nto the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
\nthat it is a fit case which deserves to be remanded to the High Court
\nfor considering the objections of the appellant herein elaborately
\nand in more details, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity
\nof hearing to both sides. Since the matter pertains to election of
\nMarket Committee, it is desirable that it would be heard afresh in
\naccordance with law on merits at an early date. The impugned order
\nis, therefore, set aside. It is further necessary to order that until
\na final order is passed by the Division Bench, process of election
\nwould not commence.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tIn
\nSCA No.13689 of 2009, \tthe petitioner is an agriculturist operating
\nin the market area of respondent No.5, Agricultural Produce Market
\nCommittee (APMC), Sidhpur and has challenged as illegal the inclusion
\nof respondents No.5 to 23  societies in the provisional voters’ list
\npublished on 17.12.2009 for election of the committee. According to
\nhim, against inclusion of the names of respondents No.5 to 23
\nsocieties in the preliminary voters’ list, he had submitted his
\nobjections but their names appeared in the final voters’ list
\npublished on 29.12.2009 and hence, he approached this Court under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution. \tThe objections of the petitioner
\nwere decided and rejected by the impugned order dated 17.12.2009 of
\nauthorised officer. The main objection of the petitioner, which is
\nthe bone of contention all throughout, was that the aforesaid
\nrespondent co-operative societies were, by their very name and
\nobjectives, dealing with the activities of animal husbandry and milk
\nproduce, and hence could not be included in the constituency for
\n agriculturist  members of the APMC. The main contentions of the
\nrespondents herein were confined to the submissions that those
\nco-operative societies were in fact as well dispensing agricultural
\ncredit  in the market area and the petitioner ought to have  been
\nrelegated to the alternative appropriate remedy of raising an
\nelection dispute under Rule 28 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce
\nMarkets Rules, 1965 (for short,  the Rules ), even as the
\nelection process had already  commenced at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
2.1\t\tIn
\nSCA No.1548 of 2010, similar grievance is made against inclusion in
\nthe voters’ list of respondents No.4 to 8 therein and the orders
\ndated 18.01.2010 of the Authorized Officer rejecting the petitioner’s
\nobjections \t are called into question. This Court has, by order dated
\n05.03.2010 therein, stayed election of APMC, Harij.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tIn
\nSCA Nos.5007 of 2010 and 5170 of 2010,  petitioner societies have
\nmade a grievance against their representatives’
\nexclusion from the voters’ list by the impugned orders dated
\n19.4.2010 and 15.4.2010 respectively, which orders are based upon the
\nearlier decision dated 29.01.2010 of this Court in SCA No.13689 of
\n2009 referred hereinabove.  This Court has, by interim orders dated
\n27.4.2010 and 22.4.2010 stayed elections of APMC, Deodar and APMC,
\nBhabhar respectively in the said petitions.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\t\tThus,
\nthe common issue of legality or otherwise of inclusion of members of
\nmanaging committees (MMCs)  of various co-operative societies in the
\nvoters’ list of respective APMCs has arisen as such societies are
\nnamed as and alleged to be engaged in the activities related to
\nanimal husbandry. Such co-operative societies  popularly  known and
\nnamed as  gopalak sanghs  with different prefixes are described
\nhereunder for convenience as  respondents  and facts are taken
\nfrom the main and first SCA No.13689  of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tBefore
\nembarking upon the analysis and discussion related to the main and
\nmajor issue required to be resolved, it would be appropriate to
\naddress the preliminary issue of maintainability of the petitions
\ndespite availability of  alternative remedy. There is little doubt
\nand no serious controversy about the fact that the co-operative
\nsocieties  concerned have, as one of their objects and actual
\nactivities of dispensing agricultural credit, the factual aspect
\nwhereof is already ascertained  by the authorised officer. It could
\nalso not be gainsaid that, after the above directions of the Apex
\nCourt, the election process has to commence anew and hence it cannot
\nbe contended that this Court may not intervene while the process of
\nelection is underway. Prima facie, the decision on the
\naforesaid main and major legal issue goes to the root of election
\nprocess and may in any case be required to be finally decided by this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tIt
\nwas, however, argued on behalf of the respondents that there was no
\nexceptional circumstance or extraordinary requirement to justify
\ninterference by this Court  by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction,
\n when alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. Full Bench
\ndecision of this Court in Daheda Group Seva
\nSahakari Mandli Ltd. vs. R.D.Rohit, Authorised Officer &
\nCo-Operative of<\/a>ficer (Marketing) [2006 (1) GCD 211]
\nwas relied upon for the following propositions laid down therein:\n<\/p>\n
 32.\t…….The
\nsum and substance of those decisions apply to a situation where this
\nCourt would like to entertain a petition on the foundation that the
\norder is ultra vires and\/or without jurisdiction and\/or is violating
\nprinciples of natural justice. Thus, in an exceptional case, this
\nCourt can exercise the power of judicial review, which is a basic
\nstructure of the situation (sic: Constitution) in such cases more
\nparticularly, in the election process. One thing is clear that this
\nCourt ordinarily would not like to exercise its power under Article
\n226 of the Constitution when the process of election has been set in
\nmotion even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of
\nrules while preparing the electoral roll.\n<\/p>\n
 33.\t\tIn
\nview of the above discussion, we answer the Reference as under:\n<\/p>\n
i.\tA
\nperson whose name is not included in the voters’ list can avail
\nbenefit of provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules by filing Election
\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n
ii.\tAs
\nthe authority under rule 28 has wide power to cancel, confirm and
\namend the election and to direct to hold fresh election in case the
\nelection is set aside, remedy under Rule 28 is an efficacious remedy.\n<\/p>\n
iii.\tEven
\nthough a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
\nmaintainable though alternative remedy is available, the powers are
\nto be exercised in case of extraordinary or special circumstances,
\nsuch as where the order is ultra vires or nullity and\/or ex facie
\nwithout jurisdiction. The exclusion or inclusion of names in the
\nvoters’ list cannot be termed as extraordinary circumstances
\nwarranting interference by this court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India and such questions are to be decided in an
\nElection Petition under Rule 28 of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tHowever,
\nanother Division Bench has taken a slightly different view on the
\nbasis of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and in a recent
\ndecision in Patel Chandrakant Thakorbhai v. State
\nof Gujarat<\/a> [2009 (3) GLH 343], observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
 10.\t\tIt
\nis true that ordinarily this Court is not to interfere with the
\ndecisions of the Election Officer before the elections are held and
\nthat it is for the election Tribunal to examine the challenge to the
\ndecisions of the Election Officer. However,
\nin Pundlik v. State of Maharashtra<\/a> [2005 (7) SCC 181], the Apex Court
\nhas held that though preparation of list of voters is one of the
\nstages of election and though normally the High Court would not
\ninterfere in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nat the stage of preparation of list of voters, however, where voters’
\nlist is prepared in clear violation of the
\nstatutory rules, such action of the Election Officer could be
\nimmediately challenged by filing petition under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
 11.\t\tIn
\nElection Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar<\/a> [(2000) 8 SCC 216], the
\nApex Court has laid down  following principles:\n<\/p>\n
 (1)\tIf
\nan election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to
\ninclude all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of
\nnotification of election till the date of declaration of result) is
\nto be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of
\ninterrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in
\nany manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till
\nafter the completing of proceedings in elections.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tAny
\ndecision sought and rendered will not amount to calling in question
\nan election if it subserves the progress of the election and
\nfacilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards
\ncompleting or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be
\ndescribed as questioning the election.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
(4)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
3.3\t\tIn
\n Kalubhai Ranabhai Akabari v. State of Gujarat
\n[2007 (3) G.L.H.57], this Court has clearly observed,
\nin the same context, that the High Court may, in the facts of a given
\ncase, entertain a petition challenging illegality of the list of
\nvoters, even after commencement of the election process, if the list
\nis not prepared in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAgainst
\nthe backdrop of  aforesaid facts, stage of election process and
\njudicial dicta, it is clearly appropriate, expeditious and in the
\ninterest of justice that the law in respect of inclusion of MMCs  of
\nco-operative societies in question is settled now.  Therefore, the
\npreliminary objection based on availability of alternative remedy is
\noverruled.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tWithout
\nraising any peripheral, factual or other issues, learned counsel for
\nthe petitioners have concentrated on addressing inclusion in the
\nvoters’ list of the members of the respondent co-operative societies,
\n mainly on the basis of the amendment by way of Gujarat Act No.21 of
\n2006 published in the Official Gazette on 31.3.2006 and Circular
\ndated 13.7.2006 pursuant thereto, instructing all  authorized
\nofficers to undertake election of the Market Committees keeping in
\nview the aforesaid amendment.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe
\nStatement of Objects and Reasons of the Gujarat Act No.21 of 2006 and
\nthe relevant parts of the statutory provisions after amendment by the
\nGujarat Act No.21  read as under:\n<\/p>\n
  Statement
\nof Objects and Reasons:\n<\/p>\n
Since
\nthe animal husbandry products are not agricultural produce and it is
\nnot the produce from the land, it is considered necessary to delete
\nthe animal husbandry products from the definition of the agricultural
\nproduce in Sec.2 and also from the Schedule, appended to the Gujarat
\nAgricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Incidentally, clause (i) of
\nsub-section (1)  of Section 11 of the said Act is also amended
\naccordingly. This Bill seeks to amend the said Act to achieve the
\naforesaid objects.\n<\/p>\n
  Gujarat
\nAgricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963:\n<\/p>\n
An Act
\nto consolidate and amend the law relating to regulation of buying and
\nselling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for
\nagricultural produce in the State of Gujarat.\n<\/p>\n
 Sec.2
\nDefinitions:  In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\nrequires –\n<\/p>\n
(I)\t“agricultural
\nproduce” means all produce, whether processed or not, of
\nagriculture and horticulture, specified in the Schedule;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\t“agriculturist”\n<\/p>\n
means a person who ordinarily by himself or who by his tenants or
\nhired labour or otherwise is engaged in the production or growth of
\nagricultural produce, but does not include a trader or broker in
\nagricultural produce, although such a trader or broker may also be
\nengaged in the production or growth of agricultural produce;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\t“co-operative
\nmarketing society”\n<\/p>\n
means a society registered or deemed to be registered as such under
\nthe Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961  (Gujarat Act of 1962)
\nand engaged in the business of buying or selling of agricultural
\nproduce or of processing of agricultural produce and holding a
\nlicence;\n<\/p>\n
 Sec.11
\nConstitution of market committee.\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tEvery
\nmarket committee  shall  consist  of  the following
\nmembers,namely:\n<\/p>\n
(i) \teight agriculturists who shall be
\nelected by              \tmembers of managing committees of
\nco-\toperative \tsocieties  (other   than    co-\toperative \tmarketing
\n\tsocieties and milk \tproduce co-\toperative  societies)\tdispensing
\nagricultural \tcredit in the market \tarea;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tfour
\n  members  to  be elected  in  the prescribed manner from amongst
\n\tthemselves by \tthe traders \tholding general \tlicences;\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii)\ttwo
\nrepresentatives of the Co-operative marketing \tsocieties   situate
\nin   the  market  \tarea and \tholding  general  licences,  to     be
\n\telected \tfrom \tamongst the members (other than \tnominal, \tassociate
\nor  sympathiser  members)  of \tsuch \tsocieties \tby \tthe members of
\n\tthe\tmanaging \tcommittees of such societies :\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided
\nthat ……..\n<\/p>\n
(iv) \tone member to be nominated by the local
\n\tauthority  …………\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided
\nthat ……\n<\/p>\n
(2)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
(3)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
(4)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
(5)\t…..\n<\/p>\n
\t\tPrior
\nto the 2006 Amendment,  section 2 (1) of the Act read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 S.2(1)\t agricultural
\nproduce  means all produce, whether processed or not, of
\nagriculture,  horticulture and animal husbandry, specified in the
\nSchedule.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnd
\nS.11 (1) (i)
\nformerly read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t (1)\tEvery
\nmarket committee shall  consist  of   the  following \t\tmembers,
\nnamely:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\teight
\nagriculturists who shall be  elected by members of managing
\ncommittees of co-operative societies (other than co-operative
\nmarketing societies) dispensing agricultural credit in the market
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tRelying
\nupon exclusion of the words  animal husbandry  in section
\n2 (i)  and addition of the words  and milk produce co-operative
\nsocieties  in section 11 (1) (i);  and exclusion of all items under
\nthe head  animal husbandry products  from the Schedule, it
\nwas  argued that the MMCs of co-operative societies, such as the
\nrespondent societies, which  were primarily formed by and catering to
\nthe needs of cattle breeders producing animal husbandry products
\ncould not legally be included in the voters’ list for the
\nagriculturists’ constituency.  Elaborating that contention,  it was
\nsubmitted by learned counsel Mr.Dipen Desai and learned senior
\nadvocate Mr.Mihir Joshi that milk produce co-operative societies have
\nbeen excluded as a  class from the constituency and their dispensing
\nagricultural credit, incidentally or as a subsidiary part of their
\nmain objects and activities, could not be considered for the purpose
\nof their inclusion in the voters’ list. It was further submitted that
\nwhen all the animal husbandry products were excluded from the
\nSchedule so as to confine the operation of the Act  to only
\nagricultural and horticultural produce, excluding animal husbandry
\nproducts, the co-operative societies dealing with animal husbandry
\nproducts cannot have a place in the constituency, even without
\namendment of Section 11 of the Act. It was also submitted that
\nagricultural co-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit
\nare in a separate class and any other co-operative society catering
\nto the cattle breeders or dealing with animal husbandry products are
\nnot allowed to have any say in the constitution of the market
\ncommittee in view of the amended statutory scheme. It was further
\nargued that just as the co-operative marketing societies were, as a
\nclass, excluded from the constituency,  milk produce co-operative
\nsocieties  were, as a class, excluded from the constituency
\npopularly known as  agriculturists’ constituency .\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tAs
\nagainst the above contentions of the petitioners, it was submitted
\nfor the respondents, including the authorities of the State
\nGovernment, that all co-operative societies dispensing agricultural
\ncredit were forming the agriculturists’ constituency, with the only
\nexception of co-operative marketing societies, and now the milk
\nproduce co-operative  societies.  It was submitted that the
\nrespondent societies were found, after enquiry, to be actually
\ndispensing agricultural credit and hence could not be excluded from
\nthe constituency only by branding them as milk produce co-operative
\nsocieties.  It was submitted that factually and in reality even the
\nco-operative societies having as its main object catering to the
\nneeds of and facilitating breeding of cattle, were extending
\nagricultural credit as a part of their main activities, because many
\nagriculturists were simultaneously breeding cattle and producing
\nanimal husbandry products. It was further submitted that, in reality,
\nmilk producers’ co-operative societies are registered as such and
\nthey have a different pyramidical structure with primary milk
\nproducers societies at the local level, district co-operative milk
\nproducers’ unions and Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation
\nat the State level. It was submitted by learned counsel
\nMr.V.C.Vaghela and learned counsel Mr.Vijay Patel that the model
\nbye-laws of such milk producers’ co-operative societies were
\ndifferent; whereas the respondent co-operative societies were
\nregistered as multi-purpose co-operative societies of cattle
\nbreeders, whose members could as well be agriculturists. The main
\nactivity of such members could be rearing of animals or farming for
\nfodder  and incidentally producing milk. But they were certainly not
\nexclusively the co-operative societies of only milk producers insofar
\nas credit facilities could be extended to them under the bye-laws
\nwhich were shown and submitted to be different from the bye-laws of
\nmilk producers’ co-operative societies.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tIt
\nmay be pertinent to note here that, as stated  on oath by the
\nAuthorized  and Co-operative Officer (Market) for APMC, Sidhpur,
\nby-laws of the societies in question specifically provided for
\ndispensing agricultural credit and such societies had in fact
\nadvanced\/dispensed agricultural credit  to their members. The
\nSecretary of APMC, Sidhpur has averred that milk producing societies
\nwere registered only for procuring milk and to aid cattle breeders,
\nwhereas the societies in question were Vividh Karyakari Sahakari
\nMandlies, i.e. multi-purpose co-operative societies. Even the
\npetitioner, objecting to inclusion of the MMCs of such
\ncattle-breeders’ societies, has averred that as per instructions
\ndated 14.08.2003 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
\nGopalak Multi-purpose Co-operative Societies were required to be
\nestablished to settle the ‘gopalaks’ who were moving from one place
\nto another along with their cattle, by establishing a society and
\ngiving them lands on which they could settle. It is clearly mentioned
\nin the circular dated 21.09.2004 of the Registrar, Co-operative
\nSocieties that different multi-purpose co-operative societies are
\nestablished with the main objective of extending agricultural credit,
\nwherein persons of any cattle-breeding community could be members;
\nwhile other milk producing co-operative societies were also
\nregistered in large numbers. Thus, there is a clear and discernible
\ndifference between multi-purpose co-operative societies extending
\nagricultural credit and the co-operative societies exclusively
\ndealing in milk produce or constituted for producing or procuring
\nmilk, which may be known as milk producers’ society. However, there
\nis no well-defined class of  milk produce co-operative societies ,
\nin fact or in law and no society is even alleged to be specially
\nregistered as such or to whom the above epithet  could be applied.\n<\/p>\n
8.1\t\tIn
\nthe recent decision of Division Bench of this Court in Jagdishbhai
\nRanchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a> [(2008) GLHEL-HC-220473],
\n the Court has made the following pertinent observations:\n<\/p>\n
 13.\t\t…..Nothing
\nin the language of Sec.11 of the Act of 1963 suggests that the
\nco-operative societies dispensing agricultural credit, which form the
\nelectorate for election of eight agriculturists, are required to
\ncarry on the function of dispensing  agricultural credit exclusively
\nor that if they take up any other function they would forfeit their
\nright to elect eight agriculturist members.\n<\/p>\n
 15.\t\t……In
\nour opinion, so long as the appellant societies are real and genuine;
\nare dispensing agricultural credit in the market area; and are not
\nthe co-operative marketing societies within the meaning of Sec.2 (v)
\nof the Act of 1963, the members continue to enjoy right to elect
\nagriculturist-members of the market Committee.\n<\/p>\n
 16.\t\tWe
\nare also of the opinion that registration of a society under the
\nGujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as,
\n the Act of 1961 ) is for the purpose of  that Act. The
\nclassification made under that Act cannot govern the status of a
\nsociety under the Act of 1963. We are, therefore of the opinion that
\nthe registration of the appellant-Societies as credit co-operative
\nsocieties under the Act of 1961 is of no consequence……\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tConsidering
\nthe rival submissions in light of the statutory provisions,  effect
\nof the amendment and the precedents, none of which directly applies,
\nit was seen that exclusion of animal husbandry products from the
\nSchedule  and from the definition of  agricultural produce
\nappears to have been intended to see that buying and selling of
\nanimal husbandry products was no longer to be regulated by the
\nprovisions of the Act. On the other hand, in the matter of
\nconstitution of the Market Committee, while representatives of
\nco-operative marketing societies formed a distinct and separate
\nconstituency, no representation is intended or reserved for  milk
\nproduce co-operative societies . By virtue of the exceptions carved
\nin the constituency for agriculturists by bracketing two classes of
\nco-operative societies in Section 11 (1) (i),  the constituency is
\nmade to consist of all kinds of co-operative societies, howsoever
\nnamed, described or registered, if they are dispensing agricultural
\ncredit in the market area. While  co-operative marketing society
\nis defined in section 2 (v), the words  co-operative societies
\nor  milk produce co-operative societies  are not defined in the
\nAct. Therefore, strictly interpreting the exception and exclusion, it
\nhas to be inferred that whichever co-operative society is dispensing
\nagricultural credit in the market area is intended to be included in
\nthe constituency.  That  proposition finds indirect support from
\nperusal of the definition of  co-operative marketing society
\ninsofar as it is defined to be a society registered or deemed to be
\nregistered as such under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and
\nengaged in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce or
\nof possessing agricultural produce and holding a licence. The words
\n as such  in the definition are of special significance because
\nco-operative marketing society, even if it were having various
\nobjects and activities including extending agricultural credit, it
\nwould be distinguished by its birth-mark of having been registered as
\na co-operative marketing society. Instead of defining another class
\nof co-operative societies by such birth-mark or some other essential
\nindicator, the legislature has left the phrase  milk produce
\nco-operative societies  undefined and left their identification to
\nthe authorities and the courts in case of dispute.  Thus, the only
\nlegislative guidance provided in the provision is by indicating the
\nsociety’s activity of dispensing agricultural credit in the market
\narea. Under such circumstances, the authorised officers were
\njustified in holding a factual enquiry into the actual activities of
\nthe co-operative societies in question and they have found that such
\nsocieties were genuinely dispensing agricultural credit in the market
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
9.1\t\tLooking
\nat the controversy from the different angle suggested by learned
\ncounsel Mr.Vaghela and Mr.Vijay Patel, it clearly appears that there
\nis a different set up and structure for milk producers’ co-operative
\nsocieties, whereas the respondent-societies are not even alleged to
\nbe falling into those categories of societies which were primarily or
\nexclusively dealing with production, collection and supply of milk.
\nUnder such circumstances, exclusion of animal husbandry produce from
\nthe definition of  agricultural produce  and exclusion of
\n animal husbandry products  from the Schedule have no relevance
\nfor resolving the present controversy. Exclusion of animal husbandry
\nproducts from the operation of the Act has nothing to do with
\ncontinuing the representation in the APMC of co-operative societies
\nextending agricultural credit. Unfortunately, neither the phrase
\n milk produce co-operative societies  nor  agricultural credit
\nis defined in the Act and otherwise also their application in a
\nparticular case calls for factual enquiry which the Authorized
\nOfficer undertakes in case of dispute, under Rule 28 of the Rules.
\nNow, as and when voters’ lists are prepared afresh for the election
\nof APMCs concerned,  factual disputes could be raised by the
\nobjectors and the decision of the Authorized Officer in that regard
\ncould as well be challenged in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIn
\nthe facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, Special Civil
\nApplications No.13689 of 2009  and 1548 of 2010 are dismissed.
\nSpecial Civil Applications No.5007 of 2010 and 5170 of 2010  are
\nallowed, with the direction that the orders dated 19.4.2010 and
\n15.4.2010 impugned therein are set aside.  Interim relief operating
\nin all the petitions are vacated. Rule issued in the first two
\npetitions is discharged and<\/p>\n
Rule
\nissued in the other two petitions is made absolute accordingly. It is
\nclarified that the parties in all the petitions shall be at liberty
\nto raise such objections as may be available to them when the
\nelection programme for fresh elections is declared, and such
\nobjections are to be decided on their own merits in accordance with
\nlaw declared hereinabove. Before parting with the judgment, it is
\npertinent to observe that while amending the Act by the Amending Act
\nNo.21 of 2006, the legislature could have defined the phrase  milk
\nproduce co-operative society  and even now it can be done by a
\nsuitable amendment to avoid multiple litigations and complications in
\nthe matter of elections to the APMCs in the Gujarat State.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(
\nD.H.Waghela, J.)<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(
\nS.R.Brahmbhatt, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\tUpon
\npronouncement of the judgment today, learned counsel Mr.Dipen Desai
\nrequested to grant stay against operation of this judgment and order
\nfor a period of four weeks. Learned counsel for the respondents
\nsubmitted that elections for the institutions of local
\nself-government being underway, the elections in the APMCs concerned
\nare not likely to take place till the first week of November, 2010.
\nEven otherwise, there is no justification for granting stay against
\noperation of the present judgment and order. Therefore, the request
\nis rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(
\nD.H.Waghela, J.)<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
(
\nS.R.Brahmbhatt, J.)<\/p>\n
(KMG
\nThilake)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 Author: D.H.Waghela,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/13689\/2009 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13689 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1548 of 2010 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5007 of […]<\/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-71006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4090,\"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\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - 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\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010"},"wordCount":4090,"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\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010","name":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-06T06:30:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshbhai-vs-state-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshbhai vs State on 6 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:\/\/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\/71006","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=71006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}