{"id":105252,"date":"2009-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-29T14:20:05","modified_gmt":"2019-01-29T08:50:05","slug":"o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 14415 of 2009(V)\n\n\n1. O.M.SEBANNIZA BEEVI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.FIROZ\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :22\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                  T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.\n                  ==========================\n                      W.P.(C). No.14415\/2009-V\n                  ==========================\n                Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the proceedings by which<\/p>\n
the disciplinary action against her stands finalized as per Ext.P9 order.<\/p>\n
As per Ext.P9 a liability to the tune of Rs. 27,000\/- is fixed along with<\/p>\n
interest @ 12 .5% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of<\/p>\n
remittance.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.     The petitioner at the time of filing of the Writ Petition was<\/p>\n
the  Principal   of   the   Government     Higher     Secondary    School,<\/p>\n
Sreekandapuram. Earlier she was the principal of the Tagore<\/p>\n
Government Higher Secondary School, Thaliparamba.<\/p>\n
      3.     There was an allegation of misappropriation of fund in<\/p>\n
purchasing the Laboratory equipments from the funds allotted to the<\/p>\n
School. This was informed to her by Ext.P1 to which an explanation<\/p>\n
was submitted as per Ext.P2. Thereafter by Ext.P3 she was ordered to<\/p>\n
be transferred. Ext.P5 is the copy of the memo of charges and Ext.P6 is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                      -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
an inquiry report relied upon in the memo of charges.   The main charges<\/p>\n
raised against her in Ext.P5 are that:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      i.     While holding the charges of Principal she has failed to see that<\/p>\n
the purchase of laboratory equipments were made strictly in accordance<\/p>\n
with the Rules,<\/p>\n
      ii. That she has purchased laboratory equipments at exorbitant rates<\/p>\n
leading to monetary loss to Government,<\/p>\n
      iii . That she has fabricated documents to cover up the lapse, and<\/p>\n
      iv. That she had tampered with the minutes of the Parent Teachers<\/p>\n
Association meeting to cover up the malpractices committed in the purchase<\/p>\n
of laboratory equipments using public funds.\n<\/p>\n
These were denied by her in Ext.P7 explanation. It is explained that the<\/p>\n
purchase is made as per the decision of the expert committee.<\/p>\n
      4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 report there is no finding that the petitioner misappropriated any<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                     -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
amount or has caused any loss to the Government by her involvement. A<\/p>\n
reading of the inquiry report Ext.P6 shows that the inquiry was conducted<\/p>\n
on a complaint lodged by P.T.A Vice President and 4 members of the<\/p>\n
P.T.A. regarding misappropriation of fund by the principal. The findings<\/p>\n
on those are separately entered into in Ext.P6. As regards Item No.1-<\/p>\n
misappropriation of public funds, the finding is that on verification of the<\/p>\n
available documents produced at the time of inspection, it is found that the<\/p>\n
Principal failed to observe Store Purchase Rule and to ensure financial<\/p>\n
propriety and the prescribed standard and quality while making the<\/p>\n
purchases. There was no proper action from the part of the principal to see<\/p>\n
that the purchases were made strictly in accordance with rules and by<\/p>\n
avoiding any kind of financial loss to the Government. There is no finding<\/p>\n
regarding any misappropriation of funds or that she has caused as financial<\/p>\n
loss to the Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5. Against allegation No.2 also, that she had purchased laboratory<\/p>\n
equipments at higher rate by indulging into corrupt practice, no separate<\/p>\n
finding is rendered to the effect of causing any loss to the Government. An<\/p>\n
observation is made to the effect that the selected firm supplied all the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                      -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
items at an exorbitant rate. The crucial allegation on which the present order<\/p>\n
is passed appears to be Item No. 5 in Ext.P6, that she had confessed before<\/p>\n
the P.T.A meeting that she had actually received Rs. 27,000\/- as<\/p>\n
commission in this dealing. The relevant portion of the minutes of the<\/p>\n
meeting is to the effect that the commission which could be obtained on<\/p>\n
purchase of the articles of the lab is set apart for the purchase of office<\/p>\n
articles. The finding is that the said portion of the minutes is scored and<\/p>\n
being the custodian of the document the principal has violated the direction<\/p>\n
of the Government in this regard, by tampering the minutes. Ultimately, it is<\/p>\n
recorded that, “hence the said allegation cannot be neglected”. The opinion<\/p>\n
formed in to the effect that the Principal not acted in accordance with the<\/p>\n
orders issued by the Government from time to time and also in accordance<\/p>\n
with the stores Purchase Rules. The recommendation made in the report is<\/p>\n
that disciplinary action has to be initiated against the Principal for financial<\/p>\n
misappropriation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from<\/p>\n
the Principal, there were other members in the purchase committee and<\/p>\n
therefore since the    decisions have been taken by the members of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                     -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
committee along with the petitioner, there is no merit in the disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated by singling out her in the matter. It is submitted that<\/p>\n
she had not accepted any personal gifts from the tenderers. Reliance is<\/p>\n
placed on Ext.P2 wherein the only statement made by her is that when<\/p>\n
purchase order was issued they were requested to donate certain furnitures<\/p>\n
and lab articles to the school and the tenderers had supplied furnitures and<\/p>\n
lab equipments to the school which were accepted. It is therefore pointed<\/p>\n
out that as far as the allegation of misappropriation of funds is concerned<\/p>\n
there is no evidence at all. She had not misappropriated any amounts set<\/p>\n
apart for the purchase of the required articles. It is also submitted that no<\/p>\n
loss has been caused to the Government in the matter. In Ext.P9 the finding<\/p>\n
in that misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 27,000\/- is established in the<\/p>\n
purchase. Accordingly it is fixed as a liability against the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      7.     A reading of the memo of charges along with the statement of<\/p>\n
allegations shows that there is no specific allegation that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
misappropriated the amount of Rs. 27,000\/- or that she had caused loss to<\/p>\n
the tune of Rs.27,000\/-. The memo of charges is too vague in this regard.<\/p>\n
The approach appears to be that the petitioner had violated certain<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                     -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
procedures in relation to the acceptance of tenders as prescribed by the<\/p>\n
relevant orders and as a result of the combined effect of those omissions,<\/p>\n
loss has been caused to the Government. Evidently the respondent have<\/p>\n
proceeded against the petitioner in terms of Kerala Civil Services<\/p>\n
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. When a disciplinary<\/p>\n
action against person is sought to be proceeded with, it is well settled that<\/p>\n
the charges should be specific and cannot be vague. The petitioner can<\/p>\n
submit explanation only in terms of specific charges raised against her.<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 lacks in details of the amount allegedly misappropriated or described<\/p>\n
as financial loss.   The Government Pleader submitted that the amount<\/p>\n
represents cost of the articles which was gifted to the school by the tenderer<\/p>\n
and accepted by the petitioner. As regards this also there is no specific<\/p>\n
allegation in the memo of charges. Further going by the explanation Ext.P2<\/p>\n
the petitioner had only stated that she had not personally received any<\/p>\n
articles from the tenderer and the articles like furnitures and lab equipments<\/p>\n
were donated to the school itself. There is no contra evidence to find<\/p>\n
whether the actual recipient is the petitioner and not the school. In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner is the<\/p>\n
recipient of furniture and lab equipments, the value of which could be<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                     -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
reckoned as Rs. 27,000\/-. Therefore the said contention cannot also be<\/p>\n
accepted. It is not a case where the finding is rendered to the effect that by<\/p>\n
giving the contract to the highest tenderer loss has been caused to the<\/p>\n
Government or the value of the articles supplied is not in tune with the<\/p>\n
award amount of the contract. No attempt has been made in the inquiry<\/p>\n
report to find out whether any actual loss has been caused to the<\/p>\n
Government by the tender. The decision to accept the particular tender in<\/p>\n
by the expert committee consisting of different members. It is not a case<\/p>\n
where any action has been taken against other members of the purchase<\/p>\n
committee also. It is clear that the petitioner has been acting as the member<\/p>\n
and convenor of the purchase committee. The copy of the minutes produced<\/p>\n
as Exts.P8 and P10 show that the different members of the committee were<\/p>\n
also present in the meeting. Ext.P8 will show that in the crucial meeting<\/p>\n
which was held on 14.06.2007, which contained a decision regarding the<\/p>\n
commission, which is seen struck off, the petitioner was not present also.<\/p>\n
      8.     Therefore it is a case where there is no evidence which<\/p>\n
conclusively pin points the guilt of the petitioner, either in regard to the<\/p>\n
misappropriation of fund or in relation in regard to the allegation of causing<\/p>\n
loss to the Government. The penalty that could be imposed under Rule 11<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                      -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
(iv) (a) of K.C.S (C.C.&A) Rules, especially is :\n<\/p>\n
             ” Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any<\/p>\n
             pecuniary loss caused to a State Government or the<\/p>\n
             Central Government or to a local authority by negligence<\/p>\n
             or breach of orders”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       9. Here the crucial finding is that the petitioner had misappropriated<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs. 27,000\/-. In the absence of any evidence to prove this<\/p>\n
allegation, the finding in the report Ext.P6 or in Ext.P9 that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
answerable for misappropriation of the funds to the tune of Rs. 27,000\/-<\/p>\n
cannot stand scrutiny. It is arrived at only on the basis of conjunctures and<\/p>\n
surmises. Ext.P6 is based on a surprise inspection, in which the opinion in<\/p>\n
that Stores Purchase Rules have not been followed even in respect of Para 5<\/p>\n
in Ext.P6 regarding the receipt of commission, the observation is only that<\/p>\n
the “said allegation cannot be neglected”. This will not substitute for a<\/p>\n
proof of guilt in a disciplinary inquiry.    Therefore, the very basis of the<\/p>\n
order by which liability to the tune of Rs. 27,000\/- is imposed against the<\/p>\n
petitioner falls to the ground. In that view of the matter Ext.P9 cannot be<\/p>\n
supported. Hence Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed.<\/p>\n
       10. The learned Government pleader then submitted that permission<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No. 14415\/2009
\n                                    -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
may be accorded to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh<\/p>\n
in the matter. Since the disciplinary action itself was initiated based on the<\/p>\n
memo of charges which concluded in the order Ext.P9 and the entire action<\/p>\n
cannot be supported for want of proper evidence and materials, said request<\/p>\n
cannot be entertained, and hence rejected. There were other members in the<\/p>\n
Expert Committee which decided to accept the tender. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                      (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
ln<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 14415 of 2009(V) 1. O.M.SEBANNIZA BEEVI, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.FIROZ For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nO.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - 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\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-29T08:50:05+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T08:50:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1802,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\",\"name\":\"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-29T08:50:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - 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\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-29T08:50:05+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T08:50:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009"},"wordCount":1802,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009","name":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-29T08:50:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/o-m-sebanniza-beevi-vs-state-of-kerala-on-22-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"O.M.Sebanniza Beevi vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/105252","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=105252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}