{"id":8093,"date":"2011-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-08T12:59:10","modified_gmt":"2018-07-08T07:29:10","slug":"whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Kundan Singh,<\/div>\n
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n\n\n\n     SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5948 of 1991\n\n\n\n\n     For Approval and Signature:\n\n\n\n              Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH\n\n\n     ============================================================\n<\/pre>\n
    1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed      : NO
\n       to see the judgements?\n<\/p>\n
    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  : NO<\/p>\n
    3. Whether Their Lordships     wish to see the fair copy   : NO
\n       of the judgement?\n<\/p>\n
    4. Whether this case involves a substantial question       : NO
\n       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
\n       of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?\n<\/p>\n
    5. Whether   it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?    : NO<\/p>\n
     ———————————————————\n<\/p>\n
     KARAMCHAND T SHAHDADPURI
\nVersus
\n     KANDLA PORT TRUST\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–
\n     Appearance:\n<\/p>\n
          MR KETAN A DAVE for Petitioner No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
          MR SR BRAHMBHATT for Respondent<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
              CORAM : MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH<\/p>\n
     Date of decision: 11\/01\/2002<\/p>\n
ORAL JUDGEMENT
\n     By means of this petition, the petitioner has
\n     challenged vires of Regulation 4 (b) of the Kandla Port
\n     Employees’ (Retirement) Regulation, 1978      read   with
\n     Regulation 3 (e) and Annexure-A of the Regulations framed
\n by the Board of the Trustees in exercise of power
\nconferred u\/s 28 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 as
\nillegal and ultra virus and for a direction that all the
\nemployees who are workmen as defined in the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 and artisans as defined in Fundamental
\nRules. 56 (o) – Note, or who belongs to category similar
\nto those enumerated in Schedule-A, including the category
\nof Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic are entitled to continue in
\nservice, subject to superannuation upon attainment of
\nsixty years of age and for quashing and setting aside the
\norder dated 3\/4-1-1990 in respect of entry no. 8 made in
\nthe letter regarding the date of retirement as 31-8-1991
\nand for a direction to the Post Trust to allow the
\npetitioner to continue in service upto 31-8-1993 and that
\nthe petitioner would retire at the age of 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
2.The petitioner was initially appointed as a Pump
\nDriver in September, 1957 and thereafter he was promoted
\nto the post of Driver-cum-Mechanic by the order dated
\n17-3-1973. In the year 1977, the petitioner was promoted
\nas Chargeman (Water Supply) and then he was reverted as
\nPump Driver-cum-Mechanic with effect from 17-3-1986. In
\nthe year 1986, the Water Supply Work in respect of
\nGandhidham\/Adipur area of Kandla Port was transferred to
\nGujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, and surplus
\nstaff of Water Supply Section of Kandla Port Trust was
\nposted\/accommodated in other sections\/posts in Kandla
\nPort Trust.    The petitioner was given option to be
\naccommodated in other section under this Kandla Port
\nTrust.   The petitioner opted and he was posted as Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic by the order dated 17-3-1986. In the
\nyear 1978, Kandla Port Employees (Retirement) Regulations
\n1978 was framed and constituted and those Regulations
\nafter approval from the Central Government came into
\nforce on 7-9-1978.    Relevant Regulation of the said
\nRegulation, reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
 4.   Age of Retirement :\n<\/p>\n
 (a) Except as   otherwise provided in these
\n                 regulations, every employee of the Board
\n                 shall   retire from    service  on   the
\n                 afternoon of the last day of month in
\n                 which he attains the age of fifty-eight
\n                 years.\n<\/p>\n
 (b) An   employee who is a workman and who
\n                 entered the Board’s service before 11th
\n                 April, 1974, shall retire from service on
\n                 the afternoon of the last day of the
\n                 month in which he attains the age of 60
\n                   years.\n<\/p>\n
(c) An     employee in Class – IV service of
\n                  post, who was in the service of the Board
\n                  before 11th April, 1974, shall retire
\n                  from service on the afternoon of the last
\n                  day of the month in which he attains the
\n                  age of 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
(d) An employee to whom Sub-Regulation 4(a)
\n               applies   but    who is not a Head of
\n               Department may be granted extension of
\n               service after he attained the age of 58
\n               years with the Sanction of Chairman if
\n such extension is in public interest and
\n               the grounds thereof are recorded       in
\n               writing.   In the case of a Head of the
\n               Department, the power to grant       such
\n               extension of service shall be exercisable
\n               by    the     Central  Government   after
\n               consultation with the Chairman.        No
\n               extension under this Sub-Regulation shall
\n               be granted beyond the age of 60 years in
\n               very special circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation :    A person appointed to Class IV
\n       post before 11-4-1974 on his appointment after
\n       11-4-1974 to another Class IV post or to any
\n       category of post included in the list of workman
\n       at Annexure-A, shall retire at the age of 60
\n       years.   If he is appointed to a Class III
\n       category which is not one of the categories in
\n       the list of workmen at Annexure-An he shall
\n       retire at the age of 58 years.”\n<\/p>\n
It   is    stated that the category of Pump Driver
\n          (Diesel) appears in the said Schedule at Sr.   57.
\n          However, the Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic is       not
\n          included in the said Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
3.The workman has been defined under clause 3 (e)
\nof the Kandla Port Employees (Retirement) Regulations
\n1978 and as per that clause “workman” means an employee
\nof one of the categories shown in Annexure-A to those
\nregulations.   Category of Pump–Driver (Diesel) appears
\nin the said Schedule at Sr. No. 57.    Mechanic appears
\nin the said schedule at Sr. No. 6. However, Cadre of
\nhowever, Pump Driver–Mechanic is not included in the
\nsaid Schedule.    The employees who are workmen in the
\ncategories included in the Annexure-A of the aforesaid
\n Regulations, are entitled to work upto the age of 60
\nyears. While the employees who are not included list of
\nemployees are required to retire upon attaining the age
\nof 58    years.     As    the    petitioner    is    Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic is not included in the Annexure-A,
\nthe authority concerned directed the petitioner to retire
\nat the superannuation age of 58 years and accordingly he
\nwas retired     on 31-8-1991.    The petitioner made a
\nrepresentation to the Kandla Port Trust authority to
\npermit him to work upto the age of 60 years. The
\nrepresentation made by the petitioner was turned down by
\nthe respondent authority vide letter dated 13-5-1991. It
\nis also stated that several categories higher in pay
\nscale have been included in the Annexure-A to the
\nSchedule    of the Regulations while the petitioner’s
\ncategory Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic has not been included
\nin the Schedule of the aforesaid Regulations.         The
\nChargeman (Mechanical) and Chargeman (Electrical) are
\nincluded in the Schedule. The petitioner’s category is
\nlower than the aforesaid category of chargeman.       The
\ncategory of mechanic is also included in the schedule
\ndefining workman. The category of Pump Driver (Diesel)
\nwhich is equivalent to category of Pump Drivers (without
\nthe qualifying word ‘Diesel’), is also included in the
\nschedule. The petitioner’s work which combines in itself
\nthe functions of Pump Driver and Mechanic but pump driver
\ncum mechanic is not included in the said Schedule. It is
\nalso stated that there is no justification for treating
\nPump Driver-cum-Mechanic differently in the matter of
\nretirement age as compared to Pump Drivers simpliciter,
\nMechanic simpliciter Chargeman of different Branches and
\nseveral other categories.\n<\/p>\n
4.This petition has been filed on the ground that
\nRegulation 48 of the Kandla Port        Trust   Employees
\n(Retirement) Regulations, 1978 read with Regulation 3 (e)
\nand Annexure-A thereto is ultra vires to Articles 14 & 16
\nof the Constitution of India insofar as it purports to
\nconfine to the application of the provision regarding the
\nage of retirement at the age of 60 years, to the
\nemployees covered by the category shown in Annexure-A.
\nThe workman defined and enumerated under the category is
\nnot based on any scientific classification or on rational
\nbasis.   The category of Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic is not
\nenumerated in the Annexure while two categories of
\nChargeman (in pay scale higher than the petitioner’s
\ncategory besides being identical to the category of
\nChargeman (Water Supply) which is a cadre of promotion
\nfrom the petitioner’s post), are not mentioned in the
\nlist.   There does not appear to be any justifying reason
\nto treat the enumerated categories under the heading of
\n workman.   Classification of only artificial having no
\nrational nexus with the object of providing higher
\nretirement age for workmen or artisans.        The second
\nground is mentioned that all the employees who are
\nworkmen as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, 1947 or who are artisans as defined in
\nFundamental Rules.    56 (b) – Note must be considered to
\nbe entitled to have the benefits of the provision
\nregarding retirement at the age of 60 years.          The
\npetitioner being workman as defined in the Industrial
\nDisputes Act, an artisan as defined in the Fundamental
\nRules and the employee belonging to a category quite
\nsimilar to those covered by Schedule-A to the regulation
\nis entitled to continue in service upto the age of 60
\nyears.   the order dated 3\/4-1-1990 of the respondent
\nauthorities requiring the petitioner to       retire    on
\n31-8-1991 upon attaining the age of 58 years is ultra
\nvires to Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
5.The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the
\nAssistant Secretary of Kandla Port Trust, stating therein
\nthat the petitioner is not a workman under the category
\nas enumerated in Annexure-A of Kandla Port Employees
\n(Retirement) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to
\nas Regulations, 1978).       Regulation 4.      (b) of the
\nRegulations, 1978 is clear to the effect that an employee
\nwho is a workman and who entered the Board service before
\n11-4-1974 shall retire from the service at the age of 60
\nyears.   The workman is defined in Regulation 3 (e) of
\nRegulations, 1978.       The    petitioner     being    Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic does not come within the meaning of
\nworkman as defined in Regulation         3    (e)    of  the
\nRegulations, 1978.    The retirement age of the petitioner
\nis 58 years. The petitioner was appointed as Pump Driver
\nwith effect from 1-9-1957 and he was promoted to the post
\nof Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic with effect from 14-4-1973
\nand thereafter he was promoted as Chargeman (Water
\nSupply) with effect from 1-2-1977 and he was transferred
\nand posted as Pump Driver-cum-Mechanic on administrative
\nground with effect from 15-3-1986.         The Kandla Port
\nEmployees (Retirement Regulations 1978 came into force
\nwith effect from 7-9-1978.      Under the Regulation the
\npetitioner    is   not a workman within the aforesaid
\ndefinition. The employees should be workman within the
\ncontemplation of the Regulations, 1978 on the day on
\nwhich the question of his retirement arises. As per the
\njudgment   of    this Court rendered in Special Civil
\nApplication No.    2919 of 1983, the employee has to
\nestablish is that (i) he is a workman and (ii) he was in
\nservice of the respondent Trust before April 11, 1974.
\nIf these two conditions are satisfied the employee is
\n entitled to the benefit of retirement age of 60 years and
\nthe employee who is workman has to be decided on the date
\non which the question of his retirement arises.          The
\npetitioner retires on 31-8-1991 and at that time he was
\nPump Driver-cum-Mechanic which does not come within the
\ncategory mentioned in Annexure-A to the Regulations,
\n1978.    Hence, the petitioner is        not   governed   by
\nRegulation 4 (b) of the Regulations and he is not
\nworkman. Thus, the retirement age of the petitioner is
\n58 years.     It is admitted that the category of Pump
\nDriver (Diesel) appears in the said Schedule at Sr.       57
\nand the Mechanic at Sr. 6. But the petitioner is not a
\nworkman as mentioned in Annexure-A. In the year 1986,
\nWater Supply Work in respect of Gandhidham\/Adipur area of
\nKandla Port Trust was transferred to Gujarat Water Supply
\nand Sewerage Board and surplus staff of Water Supply
\nSection of Kandla Port Trust was posted accommodating in
\nother sections\/posts in Kandla Port Trust. Therefore,
\nthe petitioner was transferred and posted as            Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic with effect from 15-3-1986.          The
\ncategory of Chargeman (Water Supply) is a non-workman
\ncategory. Had the Water Supply work not been transferred
\nGujarat    Water   Supply   and Sewerage Board and the
\npetitioner would have continued on the post of Chargeman
\n(Water Supply) which is a non-workman category and he was
\nrequired to retire at the age of 58 years. The pay scale
\nor designation of post is not a criteria for determining
\nthe workman category for the purpose of retirement.      The
\ncategories of the Chargeman (M) and Chargeman (E) are
\nincluded in the list but         the    category    of  Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic is not included as workman in the
\nlist.    Electrician in the scale of 1320-2220 is a
\n“Workman” Auto Electrician in the same scale of pay is
\nnot included as “Workman” Assistant Foreman (M) and
\nAssistant Foreman (E) carry the same scale of pay but
\nformer category is enumerated in the list of workmen but
\nthe later category i.e.       Assistant Foreman (E) is not
\nincluded in the workman.       In the same manner, the
\ncategory of Driller is included in the workman category.
\nBut the Moulder carrying identical pay scale of Driller
\nis not a workman as per Annexure-A. Chargeman (E) and
\nChargeman (M) are workmen category.        Chargeman (Water
\nsupply) is not a workman category. The definition of the
\nworkman was arrived at by the respondent Board after
\nanalysing all     the   relevant     aspects,    duties  and
\nresponsibilities attached to each and every category. As
\nneither nomenclature of the post nor the pay scale is the
\ncriteria    for   determining    the    posts    as workman.
\nRegulation 6 of the said Regulations 1978 abundantly
\nmakes it clear that F.R.         56 as applicable to the
\nemployees of the respondent Board immediately before
\n commencement of the said regulations, will no longer
\napply to the employees of the Board. Thus, the petition
\nis liable to be dismissed and the petitioner is not
\nentitled to any relief claimed in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
6.Additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the
\nrespondents for a limited purpose showing justification
\nfor noninclusion. As such, as defined in the impugned
\nRegulation. F.R.      56 as well as Rule 48 of the
\nRegulations 1978 which were adopted by the Board have
\nbeen   replaced   by the Kandla Port Trust Employees
\n(Retirement) Regulations, 1978 and those Regulations were
\nsubmitted to the Board in it meeting held on 29-3-1978.
\nThe issue could not be decided due to certain reasons.
\nThe draft resolution was accordingly discussed and the
\nsuggestions made by Mr.     A.K. Shah were also recorded
\nand with other trustees discussion was made after giving
\nopportunity to the Labour Representatives under item no.
\n14.2. Shri A.K. Shah (Labour Trustee) stated that the
\npoints which have been made by him were aimed at ensuring
\nthat once the employee has the age of superannuation of
\n60 years it should remain the same irrespective of
\nwhether he gets promotion to higher post. Under item No.
\n14.8 Shri Manohar Kotwal stated that all the employees
\nare workman and therefore there should be no difficulty
\nin making addition to the list of workman annexed to the
\nregulations. Under Item No.14.4., it was Chairman’s
\nclarification which has elaborately stated as to why
\nother categories are not included. The Chairman pointed
\nout that as per the recommendations of the Wage Board,
\nthe age of 60 years as retirement age, what had been done
\nwas to keep for those persons so long as they remain in
\nthe same category the age by 60 years, for all others the
\nage of retirement is 58 years. The Chairman also stated
\nthat the special provision of 60 years for certain
\ncategory has been made for employees who were in service
\nprior to 11-4-1974. There was no ground for adding any
\nmore categories in the list. Under item No. 14.5 which
\nis set out as whether Shri Manohar Kotwal stated that the
\nitem might be approved but the Chairman might give
\nconsideration to new categories, if any, which might be
\nsuggested by the Union for inclusion in the annexure to
\nthe regulations.    Under Item No.      14.6, the Board
\napproved the proposal and resolution 60 resolved to make
\nthe retirement regulations for the employees of the Board
\nas   per notification at Annexure-VI subject to the
\napproval of the Union Government. It was provided under
\nthe aforesaid Regulations that every employee of the
\nBoard was to retire from the service on attaining the age
\nof 58 years.     Exception has been made      under   the
\nRegulations that the employee who is workman and who
\n entered the Board’s service before 11-4-1974 will retire
\non attaining the age of 60 years. Under Explanation, a
\nperson appointed to a Class IV post before 11-4-1974 on
\nhis   appointment and transferred after 11-4-1974 to
\nanother Class – IV post or to any category of post
\nincluded in the list of workmen at Annexure-A shall
\nretire at the age of 60 years. If he is appointed to a
\nClass III category which is not one of the categories in
\nthe list of workman at Annexure A, he shall retire at the
\nage of 58 years. As per clarification given by the
\nChairman in the Board meeting, the exception was required
\nto be carved out from the retirement age of 58 years only
\nfor those employees who were under the categories already
\nenjoying the age of 60 years as retirement age. Thus,
\nany other category and \/ or employee who are not
\nfulfilling these two categories were to retire at the age
\nof 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
7.Rejoinder    affidavit    has already been filed
\nstating therein that the Pump Driver is not included in
\nthe list to be termed termed as “Workmen” for the purpose
\nof   Regulation 3 (e) of the Kandla Port Employees
\n(Recruitment) Regulations. At the same time category of
\nPump Driver (Diesel) has been included in the list of
\nWorkman at Sr. No. 57. There were 40 Pump Drivers (Not
\nPump Drivers (Diesel).      All these Pump Drivers were
\nallowed to retire at attaining age of 60 years. Keshaji
\nand Atu Shamji were working in Kandla Port Trust as Pump
\nDrivers and they were not Pump Drivers (Diesel). They
\nwere allowed to retire at 60 years.     Pump Driver is a
\ncategory of workman.       Mechanic is also a category of
\nworkman. Therefore, clubbing of these two categories and
\nre-designating into    one     category    viz.      Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic, would not render it into a category
\nof non-workman.    Category of Driver (Motor) and the
\ncategory of Pump Operator were clubbed together and
\nredesignated as Pump Operator-cum-Driver and they are
\nunder category    of   workman.       However,  the  Pump
\nOperator-cum-Driver was not included in the list of
\nworkman.    The Board has corrected the mistake and
\nsubsequently, in the year 1979, the category of Pump
\nOperator-cum-Driver has been included in the list of
\nworkmen by way of amendment.      Categories of Winchman,
\nQuarter Master and higher categories within prefix of
\nsenior were added in the list of work in the year 1986.
\nThe list of workmen shown under the Regulations is not
\ncomplete and exhaustive. The respondent authority has
\nfrom time to time amended the said list and several
\ncategories of workmen are subsequently included in the
\nlist of workmen.\n<\/p>\n
 8.The petitioner worked as Pump Driver and used to
\noperate diesel as well as electric Pumps.     As a Pump
\nDriver-cum-Mechanic, the petitioner was attending the
\ndefects and\/or repairs and maintenance of machine.     As
\nsuch, the petitioner comes in the category of workman and
\nhence he is entitled to all the benefits including the
\nsalary and allowance etc. as if he retired on attaining
\nthe age of 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
9.I have carefully considered the contentions made
\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
\nrelevant papers on the record of this case.\n<\/p>\n
10.The draft recruitment regulations for Kandla Port
\nEmployees are to replace fundamental Rules 56 as well as
\nRule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules of
\nthe Central Government which were adopted by the Board
\nand the said regulations in draft were submitted to the
\nBoard in its meeting held on 20-3-1978.      However, that
\nissue was deferred as 2 Labour Trustees Shri Manohar
\nKotwal and Shri A.K.      Shah   suggested     that   these
\nregulations   first   be   discussed    with    the   Union
\nRepresentatives. Thereafter, the meeting was convened
\nand an opportunity of hearing was given to the union
\nrepresentative. Elaborate submissions were made at the
\ntime of hearing with the other labour trustees. Certain
\nitems were clarified and were deleted and certain items
\nwere included and the classification was made under
\ndifferent Articles. The conclusion was made having with
\nregard to the fact that certain categories already had
\nthe age of 60 years as retirement and that was made
\ncontinue till they remain in the same category and the
\nretirement age for them remained as 60 years but the age
\nfor all others the age of retirement is 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
11.As regard the age of retirement it was settled
\nthat except as otherwise provided in the regulations,
\nevery employee of the Board shall retire from service on
\nthe afternoon of the last day of the month in which he
\nattains the age of 58 years. Some exception was made to
\nthe aforesaid Rules to the extent that the employee who
\nis a workman within the definition of workman under the
\ncategory shown at Annexure-A to the Regulations and who
\nhad entered the Board’s service before 11-4-1974, to
\nretire from service at the age of 60 years. Annexure-A
\nto the Regulations has been framed by the Kandla Post
\nTrust Board after considering the material on record,
\nterms and conditions of the High Power         Committee,
\nirrespective of the pay scale or nature of the work or
\nduty and the Regulations stated above have been approved
\nby the Central.\n<\/p>\n
 12.The contention of the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner is that the Regulations do not provide any
\nreason for making classification of the employees or
\nworkmen mentioned in Annexure-A to the Regulations, is
\nnot tenable and sustainable in the eye of law in view of
\nthe fact that the High Power Committee after hearing the
\nmembers and affording an opportunity of hearing to the
\nrepresentatives of the Union and considering the nature
\nand duty of the workman, this Court does not find any
\nreason to pass and to mould definition of workman
\nmentioned in the Regulation only on the basis that no
\nclassification has been prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
13.Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed
\nthat there are various posts which have been included as
\nworkman after permission, they are not included as
\nworkman.   Only those the employees have been included in
\nAnnexure-A to the Regulation as workman for applicability
\nof the retirement age of 60 years. As the definition of
\nworkman has been given in the context of the employees
\nmentioned in Annexure-A to the Regulation that cannot be
\ncompared with the workman defined under the Indian
\nIndustrial Disputes Act or artisan in Fundamental Rules.\n<\/p>\n
14.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do
\nnot find any good ground calling for interference by this
\nCourt in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, this
\npetition deserves to be dismissed.      Accordingly, this
\npetition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order
\nas to costs.     Interim relief, if any, stands vacated
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
-0-0-0-0-0-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 Author: Kundan Singh, IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5948 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon’ble MR.JUSTICE KUNDAN SINGH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : […]<\/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-8093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-08T07:29:10+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=\"19 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-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T07:29:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3741,\"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-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-08T07:29:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 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 Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - 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\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-08T07:29:10+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T07:29:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011"},"wordCount":3741,"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-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011","name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-08T07:29:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-reporters-of-local-papers-vs-mr-sr-brahmbhatt-for-on-2-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr Sr Brahmbhatt For on 2 August, 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\/8093","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=8093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}