{"id":93789,"date":"2011-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011"},"modified":"2015-07-21T17:27:58","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T11:57:58","slug":"appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: V. M. G.B.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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/2124\/2005\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2124 of 2005\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI            Sd\/- \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH               \nSd\/-<\/a> \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\t                                                         Yes\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\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?                         Yes\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\t                                                             No\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 ?                                        No\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 ?          No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n \n\nDADAMBEN\nWD\/O M.D.NEPALI \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUNION\nOF INDIA AND OTHERS \n\n \n\n=========================================Appearance\n: \nMR CHINMAY\nGANDHI for MR MB GANDHI for the Petitioner \nMR ANSHIN H DESAI for\nthe Respondents \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 V. M. SAHAI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate<\/a>\n: 28\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)<\/p>\n
1.\tWe
\nhave heard learned counsel Mr.Chinmay Gandhi for the petitioner and
\nMr. Anshin H. Desai for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tManbahadur
\nDhaniram Nepali was dismissed from service along with 28 persons on
\n18.12.1985. 28 persons filed a writ petition, being Special
\nCivil Application No.7516 of 1992, which was allowed on
\n2.8.2004. 28 petitioners who filed  the writ petition were granted
\nrelief and their dismissal order was set aside and they were directed
\nto be reinstated on the posts which they were holding prior to their
\ndismissal. It was further directed that  they shall be deemed to be
\nin continuous service throughout and entitled to all consequential
\nbenefits, including salary and allowances revised from time to time
\nand promotions and occupation of quarters in which they are residing
\nshall not be treated to be unauthorised. The judgment of the Division
\nBench of this Court was challenged by the respondents by filing
\nSpecial Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24650 of 2004, which was summarily
\ndismissed on 10.12.2004. All the 28 employees (petitioners in Special
\nCivil Application No.7516 of 1992) were taken back in service
\nand accordingly, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was
\ncomplied.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npetitioner was also dismissed on the same ground as of 28 employees.
\nSaid  Manbahadur Dhaniram Nepali  filed the present  writ petition
\nbefore this Court, for quashing of the dismissal order at
\nAnnexure-‘C’, dated 30.11.1995. Order at Annexure-‘C’ dated
\n30.11.1995 is not the order by which the petitioner was dismissed
\nfrom service but it is an order by which one Naik R.R. Pawaskar was
\ndismissed from service. Whether the date of dismissal is correct or
\nnot, we are not concerned with that. This petition is filed initially
\nby  late Manbahadur Dhaniram Nepali. His dismissal order dated
\n18.12.1985 has been filed by the respondents at Annexure-‘V’ to the
\naffidavit-in-reply.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tIn
\nthe writ petition, in para 16, it has been stated that when the writ
\npetition was filed by 28 petitioners, petitioner-Manbahadur Dhaniram
\nNepali also joined them. But by mistake, his name was not mentioned
\nas ‘petitioner’ and the said writ petition was only on behalf of 28
\npetitioners and they were granted relief by the Division Bench, which
\nwas affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\ncase of the petitioner is that since the relief has been granted to
\n28 similarly employees, the petitioner, being similarly situated, is
\nalso entitled for the same. The petitioner was dismissed from service
\nin 1985. Other petitioners of Special
\nCivil Application No.7516 of 1992,  have been granted relief
\nin the year 2004. This petition has been filed by the petitioner in
\nthe year 2005 after the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
\nThe learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the writ
\npetition filed by the petitioner would be maintainable and the
\npetitioner is also entitled for the same relief which has been
\ngranted to other similarly situated petitioners of Special
\nCivil Application No.7516 of 1992.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner has urged that it is not necessary
\nfor every person to approach the Court for relief and it is the duty
\nof the authority to extend the benefit of a concluded decision in all
\nsimilar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek
\nrelief. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has
\nbeen considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat
\nSanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Ghanshyam Dass and others\u00a0reported
\nin 2011(2) SCALE 479,
\nwherein it has been in para 13, as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“13.\tThe
\nprinciple laid down in K.I.\n<\/p>\n
Shephard
\n(supra) that it is not necessary for every person to approach the
\ncourt for relief and it is the duty of the authority to extend the
\nbenefit of a concluded decision in all similar cases without driving
\nevery affected person to court to seek relief  would apply only in
\nthe following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n
a)\twhere
\nthe order is made in a petition filed in a representative capacity on
\nbehalf of all similarly situated employees;\n<\/p>\n
b)\twhere
\nthe relief granted by the court is a declaratory relief  which is
\nintended to apply to all employees in a particular category,
\nirrespective of whether they are parties to the litigation or not;\n<\/p>\n
c)\twhere
\nan order or rule of general application to employees is quashed
\nwithout any condition or reservation that the relief is restricted to
\nthe petitioners before the court; and <\/p>\n
d)\twhere
\nthe court expressly directs that the relief granted should be
\nextended to those who have not approached the court.”\n<\/p>\n
From the
\naforesaid decision, it is clear that the argument of the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner could only be accepted if writ petition
\nwas filed in a representative capacity or where the relief which was
\ngranted by the Court was a declaratory relief, which was extended to
\nall other employees of a particular category or the impugned order
\nwas of general application to all employees or the Court had
\nexpressly directed to grant relief  even to those persons who have
\nnot approached the Court. None of the aforesaid conditions are
\nsatisfied in the instant case. Writ petition of 28 petitioners was
\ndecided by considering their cases. Neither general direction was
\nissued nor the writ petition was filed in a representative capacity
\nnor  the Court intended to apply this in general or to all similarly
\nsituated employees in a particular category. Therefore, the argument
\nof the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\nlearned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision
\nof the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiba
\nShankar Mohapatra and others Vs. State of Orissa and others\u00a0reported
\nin (2010) 12 SCC 471,\u00a0\u00a0wherein,
\n in para 29, it has been held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“29.\tIt
\nis settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the
\ndispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion.
\nNo party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the
\ngrounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the court
\nis guilty of delay and the laches. The court exercising public law
\njurisdiction does not encourage agitation of state claims where the
\nright of third parties crystallises in the interregnum (Vide Aflatoon
\nv. Lt. Governor of Delhi<\/a>; State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan<\/a>; Municipal
\nCouncil, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig; Inder Jit Gupta v. Union of
\nIndia<\/a>; Shiv Dass v. Union of India; A.P.SRTC v. N. Satyanarayana and
\nCity and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir
\nBhiwandiwala).”\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlearned counsel for the respondent also placed reliance on another
\njudgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State
\nof Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty
\nreported in (2011) 3 SCC 436,<\/p>\n
wherein in para 54,  it has been as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“54.\tThis
\nCourt has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should
\nbe considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner
\napproaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by
\nthe Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper
\nexplanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep
\nslumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some
\ndiligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time.
\n(See Rup Diamonds v. Union of India, State of Karnataka<\/a> v.
\nS.M. Kotrayya and Jagdish
\nLal v. State of Haryana.).”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\norder of dismissal was passed in the year 1985. The other petitioners
\napproached this Court in the year 1992 after exhausting their
\nalternative remedy. The petitioner could have also approached this
\nCourt in 1992, but he filed the petition in 2005 after seeing that
\nthe other petitioners were successful and the decision in their
\nfavour was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In our opinion, the
\nwrit petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the
\nground of delay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tFrom
\nthe aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner was guilty of
\ndelay and laches and therefore, he cannot be granted any relief as
\ngranted to 28 petitioners of Special
\nCivil Application
\nNo.7516 of 1992, as he was a fence-sitter. The petition is dismissed.
\nRule is discharged.  Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
(V.M.\n<\/p>\n
SAHAI, J.)<\/p>\n
(G.B.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.)<\/p>\n
omkar<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court =========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 2011 Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2124\/2005 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2124 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI Sd\/- HONOURABLE […]<\/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-93789","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 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\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-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=\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T11:57:58+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\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T11:57:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1383,\"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\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\",\"name\":\"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T11:57:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 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":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 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\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T11:57:58+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\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T11:57:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011"},"wordCount":1383,"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\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011","name":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others ... on 28 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T11:57:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appearance-vs-ghanshyam-dass-and-others-on-28-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"=========================================Appearance vs Ghanshyam Dass And Others … on 28 April, 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\/93789","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=93789"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93789\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93789"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93789"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93789"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}