{"id":76527,"date":"2008-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-12-27T19:00:10","modified_gmt":"2018-12-27T13:30:10","slug":"kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Naresh H. Patil<\/div>\n
                              (1)\n\n\n\n\n          IN   THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                 Writ Petition No.2574 Of 2008\n\n\n     *    Kathalu S\/o Maroti Hatagale         ]\n          Age 32 Yeas,                        ]\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n          Occupation agriculture              ]\n          R\/o. Sawargaon, Taluka Manwat,      ]\n          District Parbhani.                  ]     ..     Petitioner.\n\n               Versus\n\n\n\n\n                              \n     1)   The State of Maharashtra         ]\n          Through Tahsildar Manwat.        ]\n\n     2)\n                   \n          The Additional Collector,\n          Parbhani.\n                                           ]\n                                           ]\n                                           ]\n                                           ]\n                  \n     3)   Divisional Commissioner,         ]\n          Aurangabad.                      ]\n                                           ]\n     4)   Ranjana W\/o Manikrao Jadhav,     ]\n          Age Major,                       ]\n          Occupation Household             ]\n      \n\n\n                                           ]\n     5)   Chandrakala Vaijanathrao Ghatul, ]\n   \n\n\n\n          Age Major,                       ]\n          Occupation Household,            ]\n                                           ]\n     6)   Munjabhau s\/o Bhanudasrao Jadhav,]\n          Age Major,                       ]\n\n\n\n\n\n          Occupation Agriculture           ]\n                                           ]\n     7)   Laxman S\/o Gangaram Tarpale      ]\n          Age Major,                       ]\n          Occupation Agriculture.          ]\n                                           ]\n     8)   Sundar S\/o Sitaram Sakhare,      ]\n\n\n\n\n\n          Age Major,                       ]\n          Occupation agriculture.          ]\n                                           ]\n     9)   Chandatai w\/o Manikrao Sonnekar, ]\n          Age Major,                       ]\n          Occupation Agriculture           ]\n          All Residents of Sawargaon,      ]\n          Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani ]        ..     Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::\n                                (2)\n\n\n\n\n     ...\n\n     Shri.   R.J.   Nirmal, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     Shri. S.P. Daund, Assistant Government Pleader, for\n     respondents Nos.1 to 3.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n     Shri.   V.D.   Salunke, Advocate, for respondents Nos.4 and\n     5.\n\n     Shri.   P.P.   More, Advocate, for respondents Nos.6 to 9.\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     ...\n\n\n                             With\n\n\n\n\n                               \n               Writ Petition No.2743 Of 2008\n\n\n\n     *\n                    \n           Laxman S\/o Gangaram Tarpale         ]\n           Age Major,                          ]\n                   \n           Occupation agriculture              ]\n           R\/o. Sawargaon, Taluka Manwat,      ]\n           District Parbhani.                  ]     ..     Petitioner.\n\n              Versus\n      \n\n\n     1)    The State of Maharashtra         ]\n           Through Tahsildar Manwat.        ]\n   \n\n\n\n                                            ]\n     2)    The Additional Collector,        ]\n           Parbhani.                        ]\n                                            ]\n     3)    Divisional Commissioner,         ]\n\n\n\n\n\n           Aurangabad.                      ]\n                                            ]\n     4)    Ranjana W\/o Manikrao Jadhav,     ]\n           Age Major,                       ]\n           Occupation Household             ]\n                                            ]\n     5)    Chandrakala Vaijanathrao Ghatul, ]\n\n\n\n\n\n           Age Major,                       ]\n           Occupation Household,            ]\n                                            ]\n     6)    Munjabhau s\/o Bhanudasrao Jadhav,]\n           Age Major,                       ]\n           Occupation Agriculture           ]\n                                            ]\n     7)    Kathalu S\/o Maroti Hatagale      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::\n                                     (3)\n\n\n\n\n             Age Major,                                  ]\n             Occupation Agriculture.                     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n     8)      Sundar S\/o Sitaram Sakhare,      ]\n             Age Major,                       ]\n             Occupation agriculture.          ]\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                                              ]\n     9)      Chandatai w\/o Manikrao Sonnekar, ]\n             Age Major,                       ]\n             Occupation Agriculture           ]\n             All Residents of Sawargaon,      ]\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n             Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani ]                ..     Respondents.\n\n\n\n     ...\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n     Shri.     R.J.   Nirmal, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n                      \n     Shri. S.P. Daund, Assistant Government Pleader, for\n     respondents Nos.1 to 3.\n\n     Shri.     V.D.   Salunke, Advocate, for respondents Nos.4 and\n                     \n     5.\n\n     Shri.     P.P.   More, Advocate, for respondents Nos.6,8 & 9.\n\n     ...\n      \n   \n\n\n\n                                          CORAM:      NARESH H. PATIL, J.\n\n                           Judgment reserved on :              16th June 2008\n\n\n\n\n\n                           Judgment pronounced on: 09th July 2008.\n\n\n     JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     1)        Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     2)        As     in   both   these     writ        petitions            identical<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                          (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     questions of law are involved the petitions are decided by<\/p>\n
     this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     3)           Rule.      By consent of the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
     for     the     parties       Rule is made returnable               forthwith          and<\/p>\n
     taken up for final hearing.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     4)           The      petitioner    in Writ Petition No.2574 of                      2008\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     challenges         the judgment and order dated 14-3-2008                        passed\n\n     by     the\n                           \n                   Divisional        Commissioner\n\n<\/pre>\n
     No.2007\/DB\/Desk-2\/ZPVP\/Appeal-CR-143
\n                                                          Aurangabad           in<\/p>\n
                                                             while the petitioner
\n                                                                                      Appeal<\/p>\n
     in     Writ Petition No.2743 of 2008 challenges the                           judgment<\/p>\n
     and     order       dated     14-3-2008     passed        by       the    Divisional<\/p>\n
     Commissioner           Aurangabad      in Appeal       No.         2007\/DB\/Desk-2\/<\/p>\n
     ZPVP\/ Appeal-CR-144.\n<\/p>\n
     5)           The      petitioners      contend     that       they       issued        two<\/p>\n
     separate           notices    dated     18-10-2007           for     carrying           no<\/p>\n
     confidence         motion     against respondents Nos.4 and 5 –                        the<\/p>\n
     Sarpanch        and     Upa-Sarpanch respectively of                 Village         Gram<\/p>\n
     Panchayat Sawargaon, Taluka Manwat, District Parbhani.                                  In<\/p>\n
     a     special       meeting    held on 23-10-2007 the motion                     of     no<\/p>\n
     confidence            was     passed    against         the         Sarpanch           and<\/p>\n
     Upa-Sarpanch by two-thirds majority.                    Out of seven members<\/p>\n
     of     the    Gram Panchayat five members attended the                         special<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     meeting.\n<\/p>\n
     6)         Respondents Nos.4 and 5 challenged the said motion<\/p>\n
     of no confidence by separate appeals under Section 35-C of<\/p>\n
     the     Bombay        Village      Panchayats        Act,      1958      before         the<\/p>\n
     Additional        Collector Parbhani.             By orders dated 5-12-2007<\/p>\n
     the Additional Collector Parbhani dismissed these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Being     aggrieved          by    the    judgments      and      orders        of      the<\/p>\n
     Additional        Collector        Parbhani       respondents Nos.4               and      5<\/p>\n
     preferred        two       separate      appeals     before       the      Divisional<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
     Commissioner Aurangabad.                 Both the appeals were allowed by<\/p>\n
             Divisional Commissioner and the no confidence                             motion<\/p>\n
     which     was passed against respondents Nos.4 and 5 was                                set<\/p>\n
     aside as illegal and invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     7)         The        learned counsel appearing for the petitioners<\/p>\n
     submitted        that the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch lost the<\/p>\n
     confidence        and       by two-thirds majority the no                  confidence<\/p>\n
     motion was passed.             The notice of no confidence motion was<\/p>\n
     forwarded        to        the Tahsildar in accordance with law.                        The<\/p>\n
     Commissioner           erred in declaring the no confidence                       motion<\/p>\n
     as     illegal        on     the   ground    of    non      compliance          of      the<\/p>\n
     mandatory        provisions        of     the Bombay       Village         Panchayats<\/p>\n
     Sarpanch     and           Upa-Sarpanch (No Confidence Motion)                    Rules,<\/p>\n
     1975     (hereinafter          referred      to as      “the      Rules,        1975”).<\/p>\n
\n\n     Reliance     is placed on the reported judgment -                          Prabhawati\n\n\n\n\n                                                        ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>\n                                          (6)<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n     Vijaykumar       Khivsara     v.     State of Maharashtra,<\/a>               2008       (2)\n\n     Mh.L.J.      274.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n     8)         The   learned      counsel       appearing        for     respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     Nos.4    and 5 has placed reliance on the reported judgments\n\n     - B.K.     Garad v.        Nasik Merchants Co-op.            Bank.       Ltd., AIR<\/a>\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n     1984    SC   192     and    Secretary,       State       of     Karnataka           Vs.\n\n     Umadevi,     2008     ALL SCR 134 in support of               the      contention\n\n     that    the provisions of law must receive such construction\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n<\/pre>\n
     as would advance the purpose and intendment underlying the<\/p>\n
     provisions.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore,<\/p>\n
                         The<\/p>\n
                         its
\n                                Rules,<\/p>\n
                                 violation
\n                                          1975     have<\/p>\n
                                                   would
\n                                                              statutory<\/p>\n
                                                                  entail
\n                                                                                   force.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                 adverse<\/p>\n
     consequences.       As two separate notices were not given, the<\/p>\n
     no confidence motion itself was vitiated, according to the<\/p>\n
     counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     9)         The Divisional Commissioner allowed the appeals on<\/p>\n
     the ground of non compliance of Rule 2 of the Rules, 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Rule 2 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
            “2.(1) The members of a panchayat who desire
\n            to move a motion of no-confidence against<\/p>\n
            the Sarpanch or the Upa-Sarpanch shall give
\n            notice thereof in the form appended hereto
\n            to the Tahsildar of the taluka in which such
\n            panchayat is functioning. Where the members
\n            desire to move the motion of no-confidence
\n            against   the Sarpanch as     well as    the
\n            Upa-Sarpanch, they shall give two separate
\n            notices.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (7)<\/span><\/p>\n
           (2) . . .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (3) . . .”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The   Form    of    notice    of motion of         no     confidence           is<\/p>\n
     prescribed under the Rules, 1975 which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                                     Place     ..............\n                        \n                                     Date      ..............\n                       \n           To\n\n\n\n           The Tahsildar,\n      \n   \n\n\n\n           ..............\n\n\n\n\n\n           Sir,\n\n\n\n           We,    the undersigned members of the                 village\n\n\n\n\n\n           panchayat     of ............      give you            notice\n\n           that     we   propose     to     move      a      motion      of\n\n           no-confidence          against      the             Sarpanch\n\n           Upa-Sarpanch     ...........      in the meeting of\n\n\n\n\n                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>\n                                            (8)<\/span>\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           the panchayat for the following reasons :–\n<\/p>\n
           ……………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
           ……………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
           ……………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
           ……………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
           We     declare that the facts stated above                       are<\/p>\n
           true       to       the     best of our    information           and<\/p>\n
           knowledge.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n           Name of member\n                            ig                          Signature\n                          \n           1.................                1 .................\n\n           2.................                2 .................\n      \n\n\n           3.................                3 .................\n   \n\n\n\n           4.................                4 .................\n\n           5.................                5 .................\"\n\n\n\n\n\n     10)        It        is    true    that rule 2     provides          that      when\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     members desire to move no confidence motion against the<\/p>\n
     Sarpanch        as        well as Upa-Sarpanch they shall give                   two<\/p>\n
     separate notices.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                         (9)<\/span><\/p>\n
     11)       In the present matter the petitioners and other<\/p>\n
     members     had given two notices on 18-10-2007                   addressed<\/p>\n
     to the Tahsildar.          The first notice was received by the<\/p>\n
     Tahsildar on 18-10-2007 and another notice was received<\/p>\n
     on     19-10-2007.      Two separate endorsements were made by<\/p>\n
     the     Tahsildar     on    these two different notices                of     no<\/p>\n
     confidence      motion.        The    meeting was      called         by    the<\/p>\n
     Tahsildar       to discuss these motions on 23-10-2007                     and,<\/p>\n
     according       to the Divisional Commissioner, out of seven<\/p>\n
     members     five     members       of the panchayat        attended         the<\/p>\n
     special<\/p>\n
     the<\/p>\n
                 meeting held on 23-10-2007 and participated in<\/p>\n
             deliberation.        The     motion of no      confidence           was<\/p>\n
     passed     by two-thirds majority.         Certainly the Sarpanch<\/p>\n
     and Upa-Sarpanch lost confidence of the majority of the<\/p>\n
     members which is essential in a democratic set up.                          The<\/p>\n
     issue     raised     by the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch                     is<\/p>\n
     that     the procedure as laid down under the Rules,                       1975<\/p>\n
     was     not followed, therefore, the no confidence                     motion<\/p>\n
     would     become     ineffective and inoperative.               The      Rules<\/p>\n
     1975     prescribe that in case no confidence motion is to<\/p>\n
     be     tabled two separate notices have to be given.                        The<\/p>\n
     petitioners        and other members had forwarded                identical<\/p>\n
     texts     of motion of no confidence twice which they were<\/p>\n
     to institute against the Sarpanch and the Upa-Sarpanch.\n<\/p>\n
     The     communication of motion of no confidence bears the<\/p>\n
     same     date    i.e.      18-10-2007 but they were received                  by<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                        (10)<\/span><\/p>\n
     the     authority     on    different       dates.         Merely       having<\/p>\n
     reference     to Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch in one and                        the<\/p>\n
     same     notice should not provide a ground to get the                         no<\/p>\n
     confidence     motion       set    aside which       was     passed        with<\/p>\n
     sufficient     majority.          The    will of     majority         in     the<\/p>\n
     democratic     set-up       is    required to be        given       its      due<\/p>\n
     weightage.         Obviously,      there   is no      doubt        that      the<\/p>\n
     Sarpanch     and     the Upa-Sarpanch had lost              majority.            I<\/p>\n
     place     reliance     on    the observations of            the     Division<\/p>\n
     Bench of this Court in Nimba Rajaram Mali vs.Collector,<\/p>\n
     Jalgaon, 1998 (3) Mh.L.J.           204 in para 13 :\n<\/p>\n
            “13.   In a democratic       society what is
\n            important is he will of the majority and the
\n            elected representatives must honour the will
\n            of the majority.      It    is immaterial to<\/p>\n
            analyse and debate on the reasons behind the
\n            will of he majority or the specific reasons<\/p>\n
            for such will being expressed. The will of
\n            the majority is of paramount importance and
\n            it   must be respected       by all      elected
\n            representatives     responsible       for    the
\n            governance of such democratic institutions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            As observed by the Apex Court in the case of
\n            Babubhai   (supra),      resolution      of   No
\n            Confidence Motion is different from Censure
\n            Motion and such a resolution cannot be
\n            faulted on the ground that there were no
\n            reasons or reasons were vague and lacked
\n            detailed    specifications.         Once     the<\/p>\n
            resolution of No Confidence Motion is passed
\n            by a clear majority and in keeping with the
\n            requirements of the       concerned statutory
\n            provisions, the person against whom such a
\n            resolution is passed, must honour the will
\n            of the majority and make way for the new
\n            election of his successor. Unless it is
\n            shown that while passing such a resolution<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                       (11)<\/span><\/p>\n
             of No Confidence Motion, there was flagrant
\n             violation of any of mandatory procedure laid
\n             down, such a resolution cannot be inferred
\n             with by the Court or statutory authorities<\/p>\n
             adjudicating such disputes. ……”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     12)        I do not find that there was flagrant violation<\/p>\n
     of     mandatory procedure for declaring the no confidence<\/p>\n
     motion to be bad in law.           The Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch<\/p>\n
     who     lost majority ought to have respected the mandate.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n     I     do not find any prejudice caused to the                 respondents\n\n     Nos.4\n\n     adopted\n               and    5\n                          \n                           in   the facts of this       case.\n\n<\/pre>\n
                 by the Divisional Commissioner based on rule 2
\n                                                                       The       view<\/p>\n
     of     the Rules, 1975, in the facts of this case, is                       not<\/p>\n
     sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     13)        The   writ      petitions    therefore require              to     be<\/p>\n
     allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     14)        The       impugned    judgments      and      orders          dated<\/p>\n
     14-3-2008        passed     by    the   Divisional          Commissioner<\/p>\n
     Aurangabad       in Appeal No.2007\/DB\/Desk-2\/ZPVP\/Appeal-CR-\n<\/p>\n
     143 and Appeal No.2007\/DB\/Desk-2\/ZPVP\/Appeal-CR-144 are<\/p>\n
     quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     15)        It    is declared that the no confidence                  motions<\/p>\n
     were     validly passed in the meeting held on                  23-10-2007<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     against    the   Sarpanch and Upa-Sarpanch       –    respondents<\/p>\n
     Nos.4 and 5 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
     16)       Rule   is made absolute in the above terms              with<\/p>\n
     no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                           (NARESH H.           PATIL, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                \n     rsl\/ wp.2574.08\n                      \n                     \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                          ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:34:53 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court * Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 Bench: Naresh H. Patil (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.2574 Of 2008 * Kathalu S\/o Maroti Hatagale ] Age 32 Yeas, ] Occupation agriculture ] R\/o. Sawargaon, Taluka Manwat, ] District Parbhani. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1232,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\",\"name\":\"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - 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\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008"},"wordCount":1232,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008","name":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-27T13:30:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kathalu-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-9-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"* Kathalu vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/76527","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=76527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76527\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}