{"id":82225,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-25T21:43:36","modified_gmt":"2018-10-25T16:13:36","slug":"liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCR.A\/311\/2008\t 8\/ 8\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\nCRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 311 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nLIYAKATHUSEN\n@ MASTER KHUDABAX SHAIKH THRO SHAKILAHMED K.SEK - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nADMINISTRATIVE\nOFFICER & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nH.S.MULIA for\nApplicant. \nMr.U.R.Bhatt, APP for the respondents.\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 MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nMr. H.S.Muli for the petitioner and Mr.U.R.Bhatt, learned A.P.P. for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Learned A.P.P. Mr.U.R.Bhatt waives service of rule on behalf of the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBy
\nmeans of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nof India and under the provisions of the Bombay Parole and Furlough
\nRules, 1959, the petitioner who is undergoing life imprisonment
\nimposed on him by the learned Special Designated Court(TADA) in Case
\nno.8\/1993 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307.120(B),
\n34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms
\nAct and Section 3,5 of the TADA Act on 21-10-2002, the appeal against
\nwhich is pending has approached this Court with a prayer to quash and
\nset aside the order dated 5-2-2008 passed by the respondent no.2 at
\nAnnexure ‘C’ to the petition as also for a direction releasing the
\npetitioner on furlough leave for a period of three weeks.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIt
\nis the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been denied the
\nfurlough leave in the year 2006 by the competent authority  by
\nimposing Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the
\npetitioner, he therefore preferred Spl.Cri.Application no.887 of 2006
\nbefore this High Court and by order dated 28-12-2006 the respondents
\nwere directed to consider the case of the petitioner for furlough
\nwithout considering Section 268 Cr.P.C.and accordingly the case of
\nthe petitioner for furlough was considered and granted vide
\ncommunication dated 2-3-2007. It is further the case of the
\npetitioner that on completion of the furlough he had surrendered and
\nagain appied for furlough leave in November, 2007 which came to be
\nrejected by the competent authority on the ground that Section 268
\nCr.P.C. is applicable. The petitioner then preferred Special Criminal
\nApplication no.2199 of 2007 before this High Court wherein a
\ndirection was given to the respondent-competent authority vide order
\ndated 16-11-2007 that the furlough leave application of the
\npetitioner be decided within a period of two weeks from the date of
\nreceipt of the writ. However the respondent-competent authority vide
\norder dated 5-2-2008 rejected the furlough leave application of the
\npetitioner on the ground that Section 268 Cr.P.C. is applicable
\nagainst the petitioner. It is against this order that the present
\npetitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Special
\nCriminal Application.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIt
\nis submitted by learned Advocate Mr.H.S.Mulia that the competent
\nauthority has rejected  the furlough leave application of the
\npetitioner on the guise that Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure
\nCode is applicable against him. He submitted that furlough leave is a
\nstatutory right of the petitioner which cannot be curtailed.
\nAccording to the learned Counsel once furlough leave is granted to
\nthe petitioner by revoking  the order under Section 268, then even
\nthe subsequent applications for furlough leave cannot be rejected by
\nthe authority on the ground that Section 268 Cr.P.C. is applicable.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAs
\nagainst that learned A.P.P. Mr. U.R.Bhatt submitted that the order
\nrejecting the furlough leave application of the petitioner  by
\napplying  Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the
\npetitioner is quite legal and proper which does not call for any
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThis
\nCourt has gone through the record of the present petitioner. There is
\nadverse police opinion against the present petitioner which is based
\non authentic information. It cannot be disputed that while granting
\nfurlough leave, it is required to consider the gravity and
\nseriousness of the offence for which the  present petitioner has been
\nconvicted. In the present case, it is a hard fact that the present
\npetitioner has been convicted in  the said case for offence
\npunishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) , 34 of the  the Indian
\nPenal Code read with Section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act and Sections
\n3,5 of the TADA Act . Apart from this, it has been specifically
\nstated in the affidavit-in -reply tendered on behalf of the
\nrespondent no.2 that there were 20 offences registered against the
\npetitioner and at present there are 5 cases registered against the
\npetitioner pending for trial at various Courts and that he has also
\nbeen convicted in some other cases.  The remarks against the
\npetitioner are that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal belonging to
\nthe notorious Latif Gang and that he is involved in grave offences
\naffecting public order.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt
\nis in this background that I am now required to consider whether or
\nnot the petitioner is entitled to the furlough leave as also
\nexemption from the operation of the order under Section 268(1) of the
\nCr.P.C. For this purpose, it is necessary to invite reference to
\nthe decision rendered in the case of Motisingh Kesirisinh v. State of
\nGujarat reported in 1994(2) G.L.R.1145 wherein at para-5 of the
\njudgment  wherein it has been observed that:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S The discretion of the High
\nCourt by virtue of extraordinary \tpowers under Art.226 of the
\nConstitution of India cannot be \tlightly exercised in matters where
\nthe authorities have quite \tjustly and properly exercised its
\ndiscretion. How to manage and \tregulate the Jail administration is
\nessentially and entirely a \tconcern and look out of the Jail
\nauthorities and as long as the \torders passed by them are just, fair
\nand proper, this Court has \tno right or business to meddle with the
\nsame and thereby in the \tinternal affairs of the Prison
\nadministration??.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tRule 4(4)(5)(6) and 10) of
\nthe Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules ,1959 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S4.\tWhen prisoners shall not
\nbe granted furlough.-\n<\/p>\n
The following categories of
\nprisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:-\n<\/p>\n
\txxx xxxx xxxx<\/p>\n
\txxx xxx xxxx<\/p>\n
\txxx xxx  xxxx<\/p>\n
\tPrisoners whose release is not
\n\trecommended in Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and
\n\telsewhere, by the District Magistrate o n the ground of public peace
\n\tand tranquility.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrisoners, who, in the opinion
\n\tof the Superintendent of the prison show a tendency towards crime.\n<\/p>\n
\tPrisoners whose conduct is in
\n\tthe opinion of the Superintendentof the Prison, not satisfactory
\n\tenough.\n<\/p>\n
\t xxx xxx xxx  xxx<\/p>\n
\txxx xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
\txxx xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
\tPrisoners who have at any time
\n\tescaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted
\n\tin any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after
\n\trelease on parole on furlough.??\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tKeeping the aforesaid
\nprinciples in mind this Court has examined the case of the petitioner
\nfor grant of furlough leave  and it is found that there is a concrete
\ninformation with the police department that the present petitioner is
\na habitual offender and hardened criminal and there is every
\nlikelihood of his absconding and also of engaging himself in
\nantisocial activities if his furlough leave application is granted.
\nIt is also pertinent to note that  he was involved in several other
\ncases which are pending trial and in some other cases also he has
\nbeen convicted.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t Reference in this
\nconnection, may be had to the decision in the  case of State of
\nMaharashtra & Anr. v. Suresh Pandurang Darvakar<\/a> reported in 2006
\nAIR SCW 3222. wherein it has been  held by the Honourable Supreme
\nCourt in Para 9 of the judgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S9. Unfortunately, the High
\nCourt does not appear to have addressed itself to  these relevant
\naspects. It took note of the fact that nobody was willing to stand
\nsurety for release of the respondent. The High Court directed that he
\ncan be released on furnishing surety of amount lying in deposit with
\nthe jail authoritties. That is not the only condition for  release on
\nfurlough. There is another requirement. Even if it is held for the
\nsake of argument that furnishing of surety  of any amount lying in
\ndeposit with the jail authorities can be construed to be in
\ncompliance with the requirements of Rule 6, Rule 4(4) mandates
\nthat the prisoner who seeks to be released cannot be released if not
\nrecommended by the concerned authority on the ground of public peace
\nand tranquility. The High Court has not recorded any finding that
\nthe  report of the District Magistrate and\/or Superintendent of
\nPolice had not objected to the release on furlough on the ground of
\npublic peace and tranquility.??\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe stand taken by the
\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner that once the order under Section
\n268(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is revoked and furlough leave
\nis granted, the competent authority cannot reject the subsequent
\nfurlough leave of the petitioner also cannot be accepeted for the
\nsimple reason that at that point of time  the relief of furlough was
\nconsidered for that particular period for which it was applied  may
\nbe under certain special circumstances prevailing at that time,and
\nnot for all times to come. In my view, convicts against whom appeals
\nare pending can  be released on bail  only by the Appellate Court
\nunder Sec.389(1) of the Cr.P.C. and not by the administration.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t In view of the above, it
\nis  clear that  a prisoner who  seeks to be released cannot be
\nreleased if not recommended by the concerned authority on the ground
\nof public peace and tranquility. In the present case  there is
\nabsence of recommendation by the concerned authority for the release
\nof the present petitioner, police opinion is adverse and taking into
\nconsideration his past record and history, the order passed by the
\njail authority is legal and proper  and does not call for any
\ninteference.  Reference may also be had to the Full Bench
\ndecision rendered  by this High Court in the case of  LATIF
\nCHHOTUMIYA SHAIKH V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2000(3) 4 G.L.R p.
\n2363 wherein it has been held as under at paras -32 and 33 of the
\njudgment.:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S32. \tThus, powers under the
\nprovisions contained in the Bombay (Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959
\ncannot be exercised by the executive in favour of a convict
\nundergoing sentence whose appeal is pending before the Court. The
\nDivision Bench in the case of  State of Gujarat v. Jayantilal M.
\nPatel<\/a> (1995 (2) GLH 260 examined the scheme of the Bombay(Furlough
\nand Parole) Rules, 1959 and Sec.389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.
\nThe Division Bench following the decision of the Apex Court in case
\nof K.M.Nanavati(supra) and agree with the views of Division Bench of
\nBombay High Court in case of Jayanti Veerappa Shetty v. State of
\nMaharashtra (1985 Cr.LR (Maharashtra)598) held that the power of
\ngrant of parole cannot be exercised by the administration where the
\nappeals of convicts concerned are pending and such persons can be
\nreleased on bail only by the Appellate Court under Sec.389(1) of the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure??and not by the administration.??\n<\/p>\n
\t?S33.\tIn our opinion, a
\nconvict undergoing sentence imposed by the competent authority cannot
\nbe released on parole or furlough by High Court when an appeal
\narising out of the said judgment of conviction and sentence is
\npending.??\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tConsidering all these
\naspects, this application deserves to be rejected, and is accordingly
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
(M.D.Shah,J.)<\/p>\n
lee.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008 Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A\/311\/2008 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 311 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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-82225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLiyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 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\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-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=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1834,\"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\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 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\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":1834,"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\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008","name":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-25T16:13:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/liyakathusen-vs-administrative-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Liyakathusen vs Administrative on 30 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/82225","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=82225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}