{"id":7477,"date":"2011-05-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"modified":"2019-01-17T02:03:59","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T20:33:59","slug":"whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/4505\/2011\t 9\/ 9\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. 4505 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 4744 of 2011\n \n\nIn\n \n\n\nSPECIAL CIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 4505 of 2011\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nAJITSINH\nRAMUBHA JADEJA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - THROUGH SECRETARY &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nDM THAKKAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMS. M.O. NARSINGHANI, AGP for Respondent(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR RR TRIVEDI\nfor Respondent(s) : 3, \nMR BHAVESH P TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) :\n3, \nMR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) :\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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/05\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the<br \/>\npetitioner who is President of Jetpur Navagadh Municipality<br \/>\nhas prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and<br \/>\nsetting aside the order\/direction issued by the District Collector,<br \/>\nRajkot dated 6.4.2011 at Annexure A to the petition by which he has<br \/>\ndirected the Chief Officer of the Jetpur Navagadh Nagar Palika to<br \/>\ncall \/ convene the meeting to consider no confidence motion against<br \/>\nthe petitioner as per the notice moving no confidence motion against<br \/>\nthe petitioner dated 23.3.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIt<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that petitioner is councilor and<br \/>\nPresident of Jetpur Navagadh Municipality. That the members of the<br \/>\nmunicipality submitted motion for no confidence against the<br \/>\npetitioner on three issues mentioned therein in their notice dated<br \/>\n24.1.2011. That apropos to the above notice meeting was called by the<br \/>\npetitioner on 28.1.2011. However, in the said meeting, an application<br \/>\nfor adjournment of the meeting was submitted by 19 members of the<br \/>\nmunicipality on the ground that 8 members of Municipality are<br \/>\ndisqualified for defection by the competent authority and as they<br \/>\nhave challenged the order of competent authority by filing a writ<br \/>\npetition, which was kept for hearing and therefore, till the final<br \/>\ndisposal of the said petition, special general meeting called by the<br \/>\npetitioner in respect of no confidence motion should be adjourned. It<br \/>\nis the case of the petitioner that therefore, the said Special<br \/>\nGeneral Meeting for no confidence motion was adjourned. It is the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioner that however, the Vice President of the<br \/>\nMunicipality made a noting that in view of Section 51(11) of the Act,<br \/>\nnow meeting be called on 5.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioner<br \/>\nthat on 5.2.2011, again 20 members of the municipality submitted an<br \/>\napplication with a request to call the meeting on<br \/>\n15.2.2011. It is the case of the petitioner that on 15.02.2011 Chief<br \/>\nOfficer of the municipality informed the aforesaid 20 members as the<br \/>\nspecial general meeting on 28.1.2011 was adjourned at their request<br \/>\ntill the final disposal of the writ petition filed by the 8 members<br \/>\nof their party against their disqualification, now again the meeting<br \/>\ncannot be called on 15.2.2011 as per their request. It appears that<br \/>\nVice President and other members of the municipality moved a Special<br \/>\nCivil Application  No.3037 of 2011 before this Court making grievance<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner for not calling special general meeting as per<br \/>\ntheir request and the said petition came to be disposed of by this<br \/>\ncourt vide order dated 10.3.2011 with a direction to the District<br \/>\nCollector, Rajkot to call the special general meeting. It is the case<br \/>\nof the petitioner that thereafter as per the direction of this Court,<br \/>\nthe Deputy Collector, Gondal vide notice dated 14.3.2011 called<br \/>\nspecial general meeting on 21.3.2011 and for want of majority support<br \/>\nfor passing the motion for no confidence, the motion for no<br \/>\nconfidence against the petitioner was rejected. It appears that<br \/>\nthereafter another motion for no confidence was moved against the<br \/>\npetitioner by notice dated 23.3.2011 and neither the President nor<br \/>\nthe Vice President directed to convene the meeting to discuss the no<br \/>\nconfidence motion against petitioner pursuant to the notice of no<br \/>\nconfidence dated 23.3.2011, after obtaining necessary legal opinion,<br \/>\nthe Collector, Rajkot, by impugned communication dated 6.4.2011 has<br \/>\ndirected the Chief Officer to call the special general meeting to<br \/>\ndiscuss the no confidence motion against the petitioner pursuant to<br \/>\nthe notice of no confidence dated 23.3.2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.1.\tBeing<br \/>\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication<br \/>\ndated 23.3.2011, the petitioner has preferred present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.2.\tIt<br \/>\nappears that during the pendency of the present petition meeting was<br \/>\nalready convened by the Vide President of the Jetpur Navagadh Nagar<br \/>\nPalika on 15.4.2011, the petitioner has preferred Civil Application<br \/>\nNo.4744 of 2011 restraining the respondents from convening the<br \/>\nspecial general meeting scheduled on 15.4.2011 and in the said<br \/>\napplication this Court by way of ad-interim relief directed that any<br \/>\ndecision in the meeting to be convened on 15.4.2011 to discuss the no<br \/>\nconfidence motion against the President, shall be subject to the<br \/>\nultimate outcome of present Special Civil Application and subject to<br \/>\nfurther order that may be passed in the present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication. It is reported that as such in the meeting held on<br \/>\n15.4.2011 no confidence motion has been passed against the petitioner<br \/>\nby 24 votes in favour of motion and one vote (of the petitioner<br \/>\nhimself) against the motion of no confidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.0.\tShri<br \/>\nD.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has only made one<br \/>\nsubmission relying upon Rule 24 of Jetpur Navagadh Municipality<br \/>\nregarding the meeting of general board and  continues, their powers<br \/>\nand function and rules of Chief Officer that once motion of no<br \/>\nconfidence was rejected for want of majority in special general<br \/>\nmeeting convened on 21.3.2011, second motion for no confidence<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner is not maintainable within a period<br \/>\nof three months from the date of voting of such motion. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that the aforesaid rules are framed by the Municipality<br \/>\nunder Section 271 (a) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is submitted that the second motion for no confidence<br \/>\nas per the notice dated 23.3.2011, which is within a period of three<br \/>\nmonths is not maintainable and therefore, the Collector has<br \/>\nmaterially erred in directing to convene the special general meeting<br \/>\nof the municipality to discuss no confidence motion against the<br \/>\npetitioner pursuant to the notice of no confidence motion dated<br \/>\n23.3.2011. Shri Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has<br \/>\nheavily relying upon Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules, which reads as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;When<br \/>\na motion has been moved and voted upon in the meeting with whatever<br \/>\nthe outcome, no motion raising substantially the same question in any<br \/>\nother manner shall be allowed, admitted or taken up within three<br \/>\nmonths from the date of voting of such motion&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.1.\tBy making<br \/>\nabove submission, it is requested to allow the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.0.\tPetition<br \/>\nis opposed by Shri Bhavesh Trivedi, learned advocate for the<br \/>\nrespondent no.3, Shri Dagli, learned advocate for newly added<br \/>\nrespondent no.4 and Ms. Narshinghani, learned AGP for the respondent<br \/>\nState. Shri Trivedi, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 and<br \/>\nShri Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 have submitted<br \/>\nthat Rule 24 of the Rules upon which reliance has been placed by the<br \/>\npetitioner will not be applicable with respect to special<br \/>\ngeneral meeting to discuss no confidence motion. It is submitted that<br \/>\nthe said Rule 24 is with respect to other motion of business and<br \/>\ntransaction of the municipality and general meeting and not with<br \/>\nrespect to motion to discuss no confidence motion. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat as such there is no such provision in the Gujarat Municipalities<br \/>\nAct that once motion of no confidence has failed another motion for<br \/>\nno confidence again brought within a period of three months is not<br \/>\nmaintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that the contention on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner that once the motion of no confidence has<br \/>\nfailed there cannot be another motion of no confidence within a<br \/>\nperiod of three months shall be contrary to the provision of Gujarat<br \/>\nMunicipalities Act and\/ or same shall be inconsistent with the<br \/>\nprovision of the Ac. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the<br \/>\npresent Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.0.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the<br \/>\noutset, it is required to be noted that the only contention on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner in the present Special Civil Application  is that<br \/>\nonce the motion of no confidence was rejected in the meeting convened<br \/>\non 21.1.2011, within a period of three months thereafter there cannot<br \/>\nbe any fresh motion for no confidence within a period of three<br \/>\nmonths. In support of the above contention and submission, the<br \/>\nlearned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Rule 24<br \/>\nof the Rules, which are framed under Section 271(a) of the Gujarat<br \/>\nMunicipalities Act, which is referred to hereinabove. Therefore, the<br \/>\nshort question which is posed for consideration of this Court is<br \/>\nwhether the aforesaid Rule 24 shall be applicable to the special<br \/>\ngeneral meeting and\/ or motion for no confidence<br \/>\n? Now considering the aforesaid rules as a whole, it appears that<br \/>\nwhenever the word &#8220;motion&#8221; is used the same is referable<br \/>\nto motion moved by a councilor to discuss the particular question in<br \/>\nthe meeting and it does not refer to the motion for no confidence for<br \/>\nwhich special general meeting is required to be convened. For that<br \/>\npurpose, Rule 5, 19, 20, 21, 22,23 and 28 are required to be read<br \/>\nconjointly and as a whole. The word &#8220;motion&#8221; referred to<br \/>\nin the aforesaid provision is with respect to a motion by the<br \/>\ncouncilor and the rules provided for procedure of conducting the<br \/>\nmeeting of the general board which is as per Section 271(a) of the<br \/>\nGujarat Municipalities Act. Therefore, the reliance placed upon Rule<br \/>\n24 of the Rules regarding meeting of the general board referred to<br \/>\nhereinabove shall not be applicable to the motion for no confidence<br \/>\nas sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioner. It appears to<br \/>\nthe Court that Rule 24 shall be applicable with respect to any motion<br \/>\nmoved by councilor with respect to general meeting and general motion<br \/>\nand the question to be incorporated in the agenda. It is to be noted<br \/>\nthat motion for no confidence is altogether different than that of<br \/>\nmotion moved by a councilor to be discussed in the general meeting or<br \/>\nmeeting of the general Board. Rule 19 provides about the motion and<br \/>\nit provides for how to move the motion and it provides no motion<br \/>\nshall be admissible, which is clearly and precisely not expressed;<br \/>\nwhich shall contain arguments, inference, ironical expression or<br \/>\ndefamatory statement; or which does not raise or show one definite<br \/>\nissue. Rule 20 provide how to move the motion. Rule 21 provides for<br \/>\nmoving of motion and Rule 22 provides for limitation as to discussion<br \/>\nand Rule 23 for seconding the motion. Considering the aforesaid<br \/>\nas such it does not refer to motion for no confidence. In the motion<br \/>\nfor no confidence as such there is no question of mentioning anything<br \/>\nin the motion as provided in Rule 19 or Rule 20 or Rule 21.  The<br \/>\nmotion for no confidence is governed by Section 51(11) of the Gujarat<br \/>\nMunicipalities Act and as such it does not provide that there cannot<br \/>\nbe any second and\/or fresh no confidence motion within a period of<br \/>\nthree months from the rejection of the earlier motion. At this stage,<br \/>\nit is to be noted that Section 271(a) of the Gujarat Municipalities<br \/>\nAct permits the municipalities to have prescribed their own rule in<br \/>\nconsistent with the Act and may frame the rules which shall be<br \/>\nconsistent with the Act and for the subject provided in Section 271.<br \/>\nThat provision for motion for no confidence is provided under sub<br \/>\nrule 51(2) only, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The<br \/>\npresident may, whenever he thinks fit and shall upon the written<br \/>\nrequest of not less than one third of the councilors in the case of a<br \/>\nmotion of no confidence against the president or vice president and<br \/>\none forth of the councilors in any other case and on a day not later<br \/>\nthan 15 days after the presentation of such request, call a special<br \/>\ngeneral meeting. If the president fails to call a special general<br \/>\nmeeting as provided in this clause the vice president shall call such<br \/>\nmeeting on a day not later than thirty days after the presentation of<br \/>\nsuch request&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.0.\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe above provisions of the Act, it does not provide anywhere that<br \/>\nfresh and \/ or second motion of no confidence is not permissible<br \/>\nwithin a period of three months from the earlier<br \/>\nmotion of no confidence. Under the circumstances, the contention on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner that in view of the earlier motion of no<br \/>\nconfidence failed \/ rejected in the meeting dated 21.3.2011<br \/>\nthereafter another fresh \/ second motion of no confidence within a<br \/>\nperiod of three months is not permissible cannot be accepted. In a<br \/>\ngiven case it may happen that in the particular meeting for no<br \/>\nconfidence motion may fail for whatever reasons, however subsequently<br \/>\nwithin few days only the act of the President \/ Vice President is as<br \/>\nsuch detrimental to the interest of the Municipality and\/ or Nagar<br \/>\nPalika, in that case certainly it is permissible to move another<br \/>\nfresh motion of no confidence. However, such an interpretation<br \/>\ncanvassed on the part of the petitioner is accepted in that case,<br \/>\nonce the motion of no confidence has failed, it will give free hand<br \/>\nto the President\/ Vice President to act arbitrarily and\/ or against<br \/>\nthe interest of the municipality\/ Nagar Palika, which cannot be the<br \/>\nintention of the legislature.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.0.\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances and in view of the above, the contention on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner cannot be accepted and therefore, the petition<br \/>\nfails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.0\tIn<br \/>\nview of dismissal of main Special Civil Application, ad-interim<br \/>\nrelief order passed by this Court passed in Civil Application is<br \/>\nhereby vacated and the said application is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/4505\/2011 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4505 of 2011 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4744 of 2011 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4505 of 2011 For [&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-7477","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>Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - 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\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-16T20:33:59+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T20:33:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2166,\"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\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T20:33:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - 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\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-16T20:33:59+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T20:33:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"},"wordCount":2166,"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\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011","name":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T20:33:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-vs-state-on-12-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether vs State on 12 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/7477","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=7477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}