{"id":108599,"date":"2010-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-12T09:53:03","modified_gmt":"2015-08-12T04:23:03","slug":"secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ganguly<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly<\/div>\n
                                                                   REPORTABLE\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO.4346 OF 2010\n      (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15730 of 2008)\n\n\n\nSecretary, Cannanore District Muslim\nEducational Association, Kanpur                  ..Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n\n\nState of Kerala and others                       ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
GANGULY, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.   The appellant is the Secretary of Cannanore District<\/p>\n
     Muslim     Educational          Association,          Karimbam<\/p>\n
     (hereinafter referred to as the `Appellant’), which<\/p>\n
     is   a   Society    registered      under    the     Societies<\/p>\n
     Registration     Act     (Central    Act     21\/1860).     The<\/p>\n
     Appellant had established Sir Syed College in 1967<\/p>\n
                                1<\/span>
\n     and it was imparting degree courses along with some<\/p>\n
     pre-degree courses in various streams constituting<\/p>\n
     11 batches of a total of 80 students in each batch.<\/p>\n
3.   The Respondents, took a policy decision to abolish<\/p>\n
     the Pre-degree Courses conducted in the colleges and<\/p>\n
     enacted    the      Pre-degree       Courses      (Abolition)      Act,<\/p>\n
     1997.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.   Subsequently,        the    respondents     decided     that       those<\/p>\n
     colleges      which      were    running   classes     up    to     High<\/p>\n
     School may be allowed to add classes up to the 12th<\/p>\n
     standard      in    place       of   pre-degree     courses.       Those<\/p>\n
     colleges which did not have any classes till the<\/p>\n
     High school level were to be allowed to run High<\/p>\n
     Schools and were also to be allowed Higher Secondary<\/p>\n
     courses.      Notice       inviting     applications        from     the<\/p>\n
     management of schools, both government as well as<\/p>\n
     private, and from colleges were issued for the first<\/p>\n
     time    for        the     academic      year      1997-1998        vide<\/p>\n
     notification dated 2.04.97.\n<\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
5.   The policy decision of the Government in this regard<\/p>\n
     was   upheld    by     the   High           Court    by   judgment    dated<\/p>\n
     29.8.2002 in W.A.No.2716\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   The mode of implementation of this policy was the<\/p>\n
     subject matter of a series of litigations where the<\/p>\n
     Respondents      were    accused             of     discrimination.      The<\/p>\n
     Appellant before us has a similar grievance.<\/p>\n
7.   Writ Petition(C) No. 11167 OF 2006 was filed by the<\/p>\n
     appellant      challenging            the    non-sanctioning        of    the<\/p>\n
     Higher secondary courses to its school. The other<\/p>\n
     connected Writ Petitions which were disposed of by<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment were filed by the management<\/p>\n
     or    the   teachers         of       the        neighbouring      schools,<\/p>\n
     challenging      the    grant          of    a    High    school    to    the<\/p>\n
     Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   The Appellant had been applying for Higher Secondary<\/p>\n
     courses ever since 1996. However, its applications<\/p>\n
     were not considered by the respondents in light of<\/p>\n
     the policy that the Government was allowing only<\/p>\n
     those   applicants       who          already       had   existing       High<\/p>\n
     Schools. Since many of the managements did not have<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span>
\n      High Schools to start higher secondary courses, the<\/p>\n
      Government     issued       a    preliminary             notification      on<\/p>\n
      25.06.1998 for starting High Schools at a certain<\/p>\n
      number   of   designated             places         as    per    Chapter     V<\/p>\n
      Rule(2) Sub-rule(2)of the Kerela Education Rules,<\/p>\n
      1959. The ward to which the Appellant belonged i.e.<\/p>\n
      ward No. 15 of Taliparamba Municipality was also<\/p>\n
      included      in     the        earlier            notification          dated<\/p>\n
      13.06.2000 but it was excluded subsequently as the<\/p>\n
      Government    received          some    objections.         An    O.P.     No.<\/p>\n
      29989\/99 was filed by the Government wherein the<\/p>\n
      High Court directed that the case of the Appellant<\/p>\n
      be   considered.         Pursuant       to     this       direction,       the<\/p>\n
      Appellants were given an assurance that they will be<\/p>\n
      given the High School as and when the financial<\/p>\n
      position of the Government improves.<\/p>\n
9.    Then by an order dated 31.05.2003, ten schools were<\/p>\n
      given the sanction to open aided High Schools but<\/p>\n
      the appellant was denied the same facility.<\/p>\n
10.   After      repeated         representations                 before         the<\/p>\n
      respondents,       the    appellant          was    sanctioned       a    High<\/p>\n
      School and a Higher Secondary School in ward No. 15<\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span>
\n      of Taliparamba Municipality after a decision to that<\/p>\n
      effect was taken in a meeting dated 08.10.03 of the<\/p>\n
      Council of Ministers, as a special case.<\/p>\n
11.   But   the    said     decision      for   sanction       of    Higher<\/p>\n
      Secondary classes was not implemented in the light<\/p>\n
      of the decision of the High Court in W.P.(C). No.<\/p>\n
      29124\/03 wherein the High Court had directed the<\/p>\n
      Respondents that newer Higher Secondary schools were<\/p>\n
      not to be sanctioned by them without further orders<\/p>\n
      from the Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   Subsequently, in partial implementation of the order<\/p>\n
      of 08.10.03, it started a High School from 9.8.2004<\/p>\n
      pursuant to the said order and the classes commenced<\/p>\n
      during    the     academic   year     2004-05    and     the   School<\/p>\n
      became a complete High School during the academic<\/p>\n
      year 2006-07.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   In view of repeated representations of the appellant<\/p>\n
      Association, the State Cabinet on 13.10.2005 decided<\/p>\n
      to grant three batches of Higher Secondary courses<\/p>\n
      to the appellant in the aided sector, subject to<\/p>\n
      getting     the    permission    of    this     Court.    For    this<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span>
\n      purpose,    the     Government      filed      I.A.    No.1816\/06    in<\/p>\n
      W.P.(C) No.22532\/04 and connected cases. But, High<\/p>\n
      Court dismissed the said application, on the ground<\/p>\n
      that the aggrieved persons may approach the Court.<\/p>\n
14.   Thereupon a Writ Petition was filed by the appellant<\/p>\n
      seeking mainly the relief that the High Court may<\/p>\n
      issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other<\/p>\n
      appropriate writ, order or direction directing the<\/p>\n
      respondents to sanction an aided Higher Secondary<\/p>\n
      school to the appellant herein, as was done in the<\/p>\n
      case of other aided college managements, so that the<\/p>\n
      higher    secondary     school      can     commence     functioning<\/p>\n
      during the academic year 2006-07 itself.<\/p>\n
15.   Alleging       discrimination       in    general,      it   was    the<\/p>\n
      specific contention of the Appellant in the Writ<\/p>\n
      Petition    that     while    other      managements      were     being<\/p>\n
      granted High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools<\/p>\n
      simultaneously or immediately, one after the other,<\/p>\n
      the     appellant    herein       was    not    sanctioned       Higher<\/p>\n
      Secondary      School   after      the    sanction      of   the   High<\/p>\n
      School. It also prayed that the order of 08.10.03 by<\/p>\n
      which    the    Government        had    already      granted    Higher<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span>
\n      Secondary       courses       to     the     appellant      may      be<\/p>\n
      implemented.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.   The question before the High Court was whether the<\/p>\n
      Higher Secondary school was to be sanctioned to the<\/p>\n
      Appellant as per the old policy and the subsequent<\/p>\n
      orders or in view of the new policy as per the<\/p>\n
      G.O.(P)No.107\/07\/G.Edn             dated   13.6.2007,     which    was<\/p>\n
      produced by the Respondents before the High Court<\/p>\n
      along    with    a     memo,       containing      the    norms    for<\/p>\n
      sanctioning new schools, courses etc. Respondents in<\/p>\n
      their    Counter      Affidavit      had   contended      before   the<\/p>\n
      High Court that in view of the various allegations<\/p>\n
      of discriminations against it, it is planning to<\/p>\n
      review    the   entire    matter       afresh      by   appointing   a<\/p>\n
      Committee. It was urged before the High Court in its<\/p>\n
      affidavit that vide the order dated 19.8.2006, it<\/p>\n
      had formed a Committee to look into the allegations<\/p>\n
      of irregularities in the sanctioning of the High<\/p>\n
      Schools and Higher secondary schools. It was also<\/p>\n
      urged    that    by     the    order       dated    22.8.2006,     the<\/p>\n
      Government was to set up a Committee to review the<\/p>\n
      irregularity in the sanctioning or the upgradation<\/p>\n
      of several schools in the aided sector in violation<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span>
\n      of the procedure prescribed in the Kerela Education<\/p>\n
      Rules    after      the    period          of     1.1.2003.      It      further<\/p>\n
      contended     that        in    view        of    the     above,       the    old<\/p>\n
      sanction for a Higher Secondary school given to the<\/p>\n
      appellant     did     not           hold       good      anymore       and   the<\/p>\n
      respondents       contended             that     the     appellant’s         case<\/p>\n
      would be considered afresh after it would formulate<\/p>\n
      new norms as per the findings of the above appointed<\/p>\n
      Committees.       Thus,        it    subsequently          passed      the    new<\/p>\n
      G.O. dated 13.6.2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
17.   The     Hon’ble      High           Court        while     dismissing         the<\/p>\n
      appellants’       Writ     Petition             held     that    the     earlier<\/p>\n
      orders governing grant of Higher Secondary Schools<\/p>\n
      was no longer valid and has been replaced by the new<\/p>\n
      order G.O.(P) No.107\/07\/G.Edn dated 13.6.2007 and<\/p>\n
      the Appellant does not have any statutory right to<\/p>\n
      get the sanction of running Higher Secondary classes<\/p>\n
18.   It    also   held    that       the      Government        did     not    owe   a<\/p>\n
      corresponding duty to the appellant to sanction the<\/p>\n
      school as per the previous order and that “…the<\/p>\n
      Government       cannot         be       tied      down     to     a      policy<\/p>\n
                                          8<\/span>
\n      permanently. It should be conceded freedom to change<\/p>\n
      it from time to time”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.   The High Court shared the apprehension that if it<\/p>\n
      orders the Government to sanction a Higher Secondary<\/p>\n
      School to the appellant herein, it may impinge upon<\/p>\n
      the budgetary allotment of Government funds. This,<\/p>\n
      it     held   that   sanction       of   this   course,     was     a<\/p>\n
      Government function on which a Court cannot step in.<\/p>\n
      In coming to this finding the Hon’ble High Court<\/p>\n
      relied on a decision of the Court of Appeal in R. v.<\/p>\n
      Cambridge Health Authority, ex p B [(1995)2 All ER<\/p>\n
      129] where the Court of Appeal refused to interfere<\/p>\n
      with    the    validity    of   a   decision    of    the   Health<\/p>\n
      Authority of not alloting funds for the treatment of<\/p>\n
      a child.       High Court also referred to the decision<\/p>\n
      in the case of State of H.P. and another v. Umed Ram<\/p>\n
      Sharma [(1986) 2 SCC 68].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
20.   The    respondent No. 4 before this Court moved an<\/p>\n
      application for impleadment as a necessary party in<\/p>\n
      the W.P.(C) No. 11167 OF 2006 before the High Court<\/p>\n
      and which was allowed by the High Court. In its<\/p>\n
      Counter       Affidavit,    the     Respondent       No.    4     had<\/p>\n
                                  9<\/span>
\n      challenged the Writ Petition on the ground that the<\/p>\n
      sanctioning     of    the   High         School      to   the    Appellant<\/p>\n
      itself is illegal and has been made in violation of<\/p>\n
      the   Rules   in     Chapter        V    of    the   Kerela      Education<\/p>\n
      Rules. It was also contended that the sanction of<\/p>\n
      the Higher Secondary school to the Appellant would<\/p>\n
      prejudice other schools in the nearby area and would<\/p>\n
      also not be necessary as the number of existing<\/p>\n
      schools are enough for that area. This issue was<\/p>\n
      heard with the other connected Writ Petitions.<\/p>\n
21.   In the connected writ petitions, the main challenge<\/p>\n
      was with respect to the sanction of a High School to<\/p>\n
      the Appellant on the ground that it was done in<\/p>\n
      violation of the Rule 2A of Chapter V of the Kerela<\/p>\n
      Education     Rules.    These           writ   petitions        were   filed<\/p>\n
      either   by    the     managers          or    the   teachers      of    the<\/p>\n
      schools. They contended that in case of an already<\/p>\n
      existing statutory provision governing a particular<\/p>\n
      field, the implementation of a new scheme under the<\/p>\n
      provision can only be done by amending the existing<\/p>\n
      provision; in this case, Rule 2, Chapter V of the<\/p>\n
      Kerela Education Rules.\n<\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
22.   The High Court while rejecting the Writ Petition<\/p>\n
      upheld the government’s right to change its policy<\/p>\n
      and also opined that the government cannot be tied<\/p>\n
      to any policy. After coming to this conclusion, the<\/p>\n
      High Court held that in the context of the changed<\/p>\n
      policy of the government, it is not proper for the<\/p>\n
      Court to interfere.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.   This Court is of the opinion that so far as the<\/p>\n
      right of the government to change its policy is<\/p>\n
      concerned, the High Court’s conclusion is correct.<\/p>\n
      The High Court is equally right in holding that the<\/p>\n
      government cannot be tied down to any policy. But<\/p>\n
      unfortunately, the High Court did not examine the<\/p>\n
      impact    of   the     government        policy    on    the          admitted<\/p>\n
      facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is<\/p>\n
      of the opinion that High Court especially the Writ<\/p>\n
      Court    cannot    take    a     mechanical       or    strait         jacket<\/p>\n
      approach in this matter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
24.   It   appears      that     the        appellant    is        a    religious<\/p>\n
      minority.         As   a   religious        minority,            it    has   a<\/p>\n
      fundamental       right     to        establish        and       administer<\/p>\n
      educational institutions of its choice in view of<\/p>\n
                                       11<\/span>
\n      the    clear mandate of Article 30. Apart from the<\/p>\n
      fundamental right of the appellant to establish and<\/p>\n
      administer an educational institution, the right of<\/p>\n
      the appellant to get the sanction of running a Class<\/p>\n
      XII School was also accepted by the government to<\/p>\n
      the extent that the government applied to the High<\/p>\n
      Court    for     its   permission            to     seek    an   order     for<\/p>\n
      implementation of its decisions dated 08.10.03 and<\/p>\n
      13.10.05 whereby sanction was given to the appellant<\/p>\n
      to run Higher Secondary Courses. Those decisions of<\/p>\n
      the government to sanction higher secondary courses<\/p>\n
      in favour of the appellant could not be implemented<\/p>\n
      in    view     of   the    order        of    the    High     Court      dated<\/p>\n
      05.04.06 to the effect that the High Court wanted<\/p>\n
      the aggrieved persons to approach the Court. In the<\/p>\n
      background of these facts, the writ petition was<\/p>\n
      filed and during the pendency of the writ petition<\/p>\n
      came the revised policy of the government. In that<\/p>\n
      policy, it has been made very clear that there is no<\/p>\n
      need    to     sanction    or     upgrade         government      or     aided<\/p>\n
      schools in the normal course.\n<\/p>\n
25.   The High Court should have appreciated the facts of<\/p>\n
      the     case    and    come     to      the       conclusion      that     the<\/p>\n
      appellant’s         case   does        not   come     under      the   normal<\/p>\n
                                        12<\/span>
\n      course. But the High Court refused to do so and<\/p>\n
      took, as noted above, a mechanical approach.<\/p>\n
26.   The High Court in support of its decision relied on<\/p>\n
      the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Cambridge<\/p>\n
      Health Authority (supra). That was a case of refusal<\/p>\n
      to allocate funds for the treatment of a minor girl<\/p>\n
      who was 10= years old. The child was suffering from<\/p>\n
      non-Hodgkins     Lynphona            with        common         acute<\/p>\n
      Lymphoblastic   Leukaenia.         It   was    thought       that   no<\/p>\n
      further   treatment   was        possible     except    giving      the<\/p>\n
      child palliative drugs. The child’s father sought<\/p>\n
      further medical opinion and experts advised a second<\/p>\n
      bone   marrow   transplant,          which      could        only   be<\/p>\n
      administered privately and not in a National Health<\/p>\n
      Service   hospital,   and        that   too    with     10    to    20%<\/p>\n
      chances of success. In the background of these facts<\/p>\n
      the child’s father requested the health authority to<\/p>\n
      allocate funds amounting to #75,000 for the proposed<\/p>\n
      treatment which the health authority refused. The<\/p>\n
      father of the child applied for a judicial review of<\/p>\n
      the decision of the health authorities. The question<\/p>\n
      was what the Court should do in such a situation?<\/p>\n
                                  13<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
27.   The learned single judge quashed the decision of the<\/p>\n
      health authority and directed it to reconsider its<\/p>\n
      decision. Then on appeal against the decision of the<\/p>\n
      learned single judge, the Court of Appeal allowed<\/p>\n
      the   appeal.    Sir    Thomas     Bingham,        Master   of   Roll,<\/p>\n
      presiding over the Court of Appeal held that the<\/p>\n
      learned     Single      judge      failed     to     recognize     the<\/p>\n
      realities       of     the    situation.       Considering         the<\/p>\n
      constraints of budget on the health authority, the<\/p>\n
      Master of Roll held:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Difficult and agonising judgments have to be
\n      made as to how a limited budget is best
\n      allocated to the maximum advantage of the
\n      maximum number of patients. That is not a
\n      judgment which the court can make. In my
\n      judgment, it is not something that a health
\n      authority such as this authority can be fairly
\n      criticised for not advancing before the court”
\n      (See at page 137, placitum `F’)<\/p>\n
28.   But the facts of this case do not have even a remote<\/p>\n
      resemblance      to     the     facts    in    Cambridge         Health<\/p>\n
      Authority (supra). In this case the government was<\/p>\n
      willing to sanction the higher secondary classes to<\/p>\n
      the appellant-institution and to the effect applied<\/p>\n
      to    the   High      Court     for     getting      the    necessary<\/p>\n
      permission and that application of the government<\/p>\n
                                    14<\/span>
\n      was disposed of by the Court in the manner indicated<\/p>\n
      above. In between came the change of policy but<\/p>\n
      financial crunch was never the reason for denying<\/p>\n
      the    prayer    of   the     appellant    to     run    the    higher<\/p>\n
      secondary course.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
29.   While dismissing the Writ Petition, the High Court<\/p>\n
      also relied on the decision of this Court in the<\/p>\n
      case of Umed Ram (supra).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
30.    In Umed Ram (supra), the Respondents, who were poor<\/p>\n
      harijans in the State of Himachal Pradesh wrote a<\/p>\n
      letter    to    the    High     Court     of     Himachal      Pradesh<\/p>\n
      complaining about the incomplete construction of the<\/p>\n
      road   and     also   complained    of     the    fact       that   such<\/p>\n
      construction has been stopped in collusion with the<\/p>\n
      authorities      causing    immense      hardship       to    the   poor<\/p>\n
      people and that is why the Court’s intervention was<\/p>\n
      prayed for. The Court treated the said letter as a<\/p>\n
      writ     petition     and     directed     the      superintending<\/p>\n
      engineer of PWD to complete the work in the course<\/p>\n
      of the financial year.\n<\/p>\n
                                    15<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
31.   The superintending engineer before the High Court<\/p>\n
      gave    an    estimate     that        for    the    purposes       of    the<\/p>\n
      widening of the road, Rs. 95,000\/- was required but<\/p>\n
      only Rs. 40,000\/- was available in the course of the<\/p>\n
      current       financial     year.              Before      this     Court,<\/p>\n
      Government challenged those directions of the High<\/p>\n
      Court     questioning      the        High     Court’s      jurisdiction<\/p>\n
      under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the<\/p>\n
      State     Government      to     allot        particular        funds     for<\/p>\n
      expenditure        in    addition        to     the       funds    already<\/p>\n
      allotted and thus regulate the residual financial<\/p>\n
      matters of the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
32.   The    Government       raised        questions      on   the     basis   of<\/p>\n
      Articles 202-207 of the Constitution pointing out<\/p>\n
      the     Government’s       exclusive          domain       in     financial<\/p>\n
      matters as indicated in those articles. The three<\/p>\n
      judge bench of this court considered the matter in<\/p>\n
      detail       and   ultimately          upheld       the    High    Court’s<\/p>\n
      directions as not transgressing the limit, in view<\/p>\n
      of the provisions of Articles 38, 19 and 21 of the<\/p>\n
      Constitution. [See para 39, pg. 82-83]<\/p>\n
                                       16<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
33.   Therefore,      this    decision       does    not     support     the<\/p>\n
      conclusion reached by the High Court in this case.<\/p>\n
      On the other hand, the decision in Umed Ram (supra)<\/p>\n
      upheld    the   power   of    the     Court    to   act    in   public<\/p>\n
      interest in order to advance the constitutional goal<\/p>\n
      of ushering a new social order in which justice,<\/p>\n
      social,    economic     and        political    must      inform   all<\/p>\n
      institutions of public life as contemplated under<\/p>\n
      Article 38 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
34.   Paragraph 21 of the judgment in Umed Ram (supra)<\/p>\n
      which has been quoted by the High Court does not<\/p>\n
      constitute its ratio.              The High Court, therefore,<\/p>\n
      with great respect, failed to appreciate the ratio<\/p>\n
      in Umed Ram (supra) in its correct perspective.<\/p>\n
35.   While dismissing the writ petition the Hon’ble High<\/p>\n
      Court with respect, had taken a rather restricted<\/p>\n
      view of the writ of Mandamus. The writ of Mandamus<\/p>\n
      was originally a common law remedy, based on Royal<\/p>\n
      Authority. In England, the writ is widely used in<\/p>\n
      public law to prevent failure of justice in a wide<\/p>\n
      variety of cases.\n<\/p>\n
                                    17<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
36.   In     England      this     writ      was     and      still       remains    a<\/p>\n
      prerogative writ.           In America it is a writ of right.<\/p>\n
      (Law    of   Mandamus        by    S.S.      Merrill,         Chicago,    T.H.<\/p>\n
      Flood and Company, 1892, para 62, page 71).<\/p>\n
37.   About this writ, SA de Smith in `Judicial Review of<\/p>\n
      Administrative Action’, 2nd edn., pp 378 & 379 said<\/p>\n
      that this writ was devised to prevent disorder from<\/p>\n
      a failure of justice and defect of police and was<\/p>\n
      used to compel the performance of a specific duty.<\/p>\n
38.   About this writ in 1762 Lord Mansfield observed that<\/p>\n
      `within      the    past     century         it     had   been       liberally<\/p>\n
      interposed         for     the    benefit          of   the     subject       and<\/p>\n
      advancement of justice’.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
39.   The exact observations of Lord Mansfield about this<\/p>\n
      writ has been quoted in Wade’s `Administrative Law,<\/p>\n
      Tenth    Edition’        and      those      observations           are   still<\/p>\n
      relevant     in     understanding            the    scope      of    Mandamus.<\/p>\n
      Those observations are quoted below:-<\/p>\n
      “It was introduced, to prevent disorder from a
\n      failure of justice, and defect of police.
\n      Therefore it ought to be used upon all
\n      occasions where the law has established no<\/p>\n
                                        18<\/span>
\n      specific remedy, and where in justice and good
\n      government there ought to be one…..The value
\n      of the matter, or the degree of its importance
\n      to the public police, is not scrupulously
\n      weighed. If there be a right, and no other
\n      specific remedy, this should not be denied.
\n      Writs of mandamus have been granted, to admit
\n      lecturers, clerks, sextons, and scavengers &
\n      c., to restore an alderman to precedency, an
\n      attorney to practice in an inferior court,&
\n      c.”    (H.W.R.    Wade     &     C.F.   Forsyth:\n<\/p>\n
      Administrative Law, 10  th
\n                                   Edition, page 522-\n<\/p>\n
      23).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
40.   De Smith in Judicial Review, Sixth Edition has also<\/p>\n
      acknowledged        the    contribution   of     Lord      Mansfield<\/p>\n
      which    led   to    the   development    of    law   on    Writ   of<\/p>\n
      Mandamus. The speech of Lord Mansfield in                     R Vs.<\/p>\n
      Blooer, (1760) 2 Burr, runs as under:<\/p>\n
      “a prerogative writ flowing from the King
\n      himself, sitting in his court, superintending
\n      the police and preserving the peace of this
\n      country”.(See De Smith’s Judicial Review 6th
\n      Edition, Sweet and Maxwell page 795 para 15-\n<\/p>\n
      036.<\/p>\n
41.   Almost    a    century       ago,    Darling     J    quoted       the<\/p>\n
      observations         in     Rex     Vs.   The        Justices      of<\/p>\n
      Denbighshire, (1803) 4 East, 142, in The King Vs.<\/p>\n
      The Revising Barrister etc. {(1912) 3 King’s Bench<\/p>\n
      518} which explains the wide sweep of Mandamus. The<\/p>\n
      relevant observations are:\n<\/p>\n
                                    19<\/span>
\n      “..Instead of being astute to discover reasons
\n      for not applying this great constitutional
\n      remedy for error and misgovernment, we think
\n      it our duty to be vigilant to apply it in
\n      every case to which, by any reasonable
\n      construction, it can be made applicable….”\n<\/p>\n
                                      (See page 529)<\/p>\n
42.   At page 531 of the report, Channell, J said about<\/p>\n
      Mandamus:\n<\/p>\n
\n      “It is most useful jurisdiction which enables
\n      this Court to set right mistakes”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
43.   In    Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer,              Special<\/p>\n
      Circle, D. Ward, Kanpur and another – AIR 1966 SC<\/p>\n
      81, a three-judge Bench of this Court commenting on<\/p>\n
      the    High   Court’s   jurisdiction      under   Article   226<\/p>\n
      opined that this Article is deliberately couched in<\/p>\n
      comprehensive language so that it confers wide power<\/p>\n
      on High Court to `reach injustice wherever it is<\/p>\n
      found’.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
44.   Delivering the judgment Justice Subba Rao (as His<\/p>\n
      Lordship      then   was)   held   that    the    Constitution<\/p>\n
      designedly used such wide language in describing the<\/p>\n
      nature of the power. The learned Judge further held<\/p>\n
      that the High court can issue writs in the nature of<\/p>\n
      prerogative writs as understood in England; but the<\/p>\n
                                  20<\/span>
\n      learned Judge added that the scope of these writs in<\/p>\n
      India has been widened by the use of the expression<\/p>\n
      “nature”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
45.   Learned   Judge   made   it    very    clear   that   the   said<\/p>\n
      expression does not equate the writs that can be<\/p>\n
      issued in India with those in England but only draws<\/p>\n
      an   analogy   from   them.      The   learned    Judge     then<\/p>\n
      clarifies the entire position as follows:<\/p>\n
      “..It enables the High Courts to mould the
\n      reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated
\n      requirements of this country. Any attempt to
\n      equate the scope of the power of the High
\n      Court under Article 226 of the Constituion
\n      with that of the English Courts to issue
\n      prerogative   writs   is  to   introduce     the
\n      unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over
\n      the years in a comparatively small country
\n      like England with a unitary form of Government
\n      to a vast country like India functioning under
\n      a federal structure. Such a construction
\n      defeats the purpose of the article itself….”<\/p>\n
                                     (See para 4, page 85)<\/p>\n
46.   Same view was also expressed subsequently by this<\/p>\n
      Court in J.R. Raghupathy etc. Vs. State of A.P. and<\/p>\n
      Ors. – AIR 1988 SC 1681. Speaking for the Bench,<\/p>\n
      Justice A.P. Sen, after an exhaustive analysis of<\/p>\n
      the trend of Administrative Law in England, gave His<\/p>\n
                                21<\/span>
\n      Lordship’s opinion in paragraph (29) at page 1697<\/p>\n
      thus:\n<\/p>\n
\n      “29. Much of the above discussion is of little
\n      or academic interest as the jurisdiction of
\n      the High Court to grant an appropriate writ,
\n      direction or order under Article 226 of the
\n      Constitution is not subject to the archaic
\n      constraints on which prerogative writs were
\n      issued in England. Most of the cases in which
\n      the English courts had earlier enunciated
\n      their limited power to pass on the legality of
\n      the exercise of the prerogative were decided
\n      at a time when the Courts took a generally
\n      rather circumscribed view of their ability to
\n      review Ministerial statutory discretion. The
\n      decision of the House of Lords in Padfield’s
\n      case (1968 AC 997) marks the emergence of the
\n      interventionist judicial attitude that has
\n      characterized many recent judgments.”<\/p>\n
47.   In the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in<\/p>\n
      Life    Insurance   Corporation     of     India   vs.    Escorts<\/p>\n
      Limited and others<\/a>, [(1986) 1 SCC 264], this Court<\/p>\n
      expressed the same opinion that in Constitution and<\/p>\n
      Administrative Law,       law in India forged ahead of<\/p>\n
      the law in England (para 101, page 344).<\/p>\n
48.   This Court has also taken a very broad view of the<\/p>\n
      writ of Mandamus in several decisions. In the case<\/p>\n
      of The Comptroller and Auditor General of India,<\/p>\n
      Gian    Prakash,    New   Delhi     and    another      Vs.   K.S.<\/p>\n
      Jagannathan   and    another    –   (AIR    1987   SC    537),   a<\/p>\n
                                 22<\/span>
\n      three-Judge   Bench   of        this   Court   referred   to<\/p>\n
      Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I<\/p>\n
      paragraph 89 to illustrate         the range of this remedy<\/p>\n
      and quoted with approval the following passage from<\/p>\n
      Halsbury about the efficacy of Mandamus:<\/p>\n
      “..is to remedy defects of justice and
\n      accordingly it will issue, to the end that
\n      justice may be done, in all cases where there
\n      is a specific legal right and no specific
\n      legal remedy for enforcing that right, and it
\n      may issue in cases where, although there is an
\n      alternative legal remedy yet that mode of
\n      redress is less convenient beneficial and
\n      effectual.” (See para 19, page 546 of the
\n      report)<\/p>\n
49.   In paragraph 20, in the same page of the report,<\/p>\n
      this Court further held:\n<\/p>\n
\n      “…and in a proper case, in order to prevent
\n      injustice resulting to the concerned parties,
\n      the Court may itself pass an order or give
\n      directions which the Government or the public
\n      authority should have passed or given had it
\n      property     and   lawfully   exercised   its
\n      discretion”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
50.   In a subsequent judgment also in Shri Anadi Mukta<\/p>\n
      Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti<\/p>\n
      Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors. Vs. V.R. Rudani and<\/p>\n
      Ors. – AIR 1989 SC 1607, this Court examined the<\/p>\n
      development of the law of              Mandamus and held as<\/p>\n
      under:\n<\/p>\n
                                 23<\/span>
\n“21. ……….mandamus cannot be denied on the
\nground that the duty to be enforced is not
\nimposed by the statute. Commenting on the
\ndevelopment of this law, Professor De Smith
\nstates: “To be enforceable by mandamus a
\npublic duty does not necessarily have to be
\none imposed by statute. It may be sufficient
\nfor the duty to have been imposed by charter
\ncommon        law,   custom   or  even   contract.”
\n(Judicial Review of Administrative Act 4th Ed.
\nP. 540). We share this view. The judicial
\ncontrol over the fast expanding maze of bodies
\naffecting the rights of the people should not
\nbe put into water-tight compartment. It should
\nremain flexible to meet the requirements of
\nvariable circumstances. Mandamus is a very
\nwide remedy which must be easily available `to
\nreach      injustice     wherever  it  is   found’.
\nTechnicalities should not come in the way of
\ngranting that relief under Article 226. We,
\ntherefore, reject the contention urged for the
\nappellants on the maintainability of the writ
\npetition.” (See page 1613 para 21).\n<\/p>\n
                          24<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
51.   The facts of this case clearly show that appellant<\/p>\n
      is entitled to get the sanction of holding higher<\/p>\n
      secondary classes. In fact the Government committed<\/p>\n
      itself to give the appellant the said facility. The<\/p>\n
      Government’s said order could not be implemented in<\/p>\n
      view of the court proceedings. Before the procedural<\/p>\n
      wrangle in the court could be cleared, came the<\/p>\n
      change of policy. So it cannot be denied that the<\/p>\n
      appellant    has    a    right    or       at   least     a    legitimate<\/p>\n
      expectation to get the permission to hold Higher<\/p>\n
      Secondary classes.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
52.   The   appellant     is   a   minority           institution      and    its<\/p>\n
      fundamental        right     as        a        religious        minority<\/p>\n
      institution under Article 30 also has to be kept in<\/p>\n
      view.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
53.   It    is   therefore     really    a        case    of     issuance     of<\/p>\n
      mandamus    in     the   appellant’s            favour.       Merrill    on<\/p>\n
      Mandamus has observed that it would be a monstrous<\/p>\n
      absurdity     if   in    a   well-organized              government      no<\/p>\n
      remedy is provided to a person who has a clear and<\/p>\n
      undeniable right. It has been also observed where a<\/p>\n
                                   25<\/span>
\n      man has a jus ad rem (a right to a thing) it will be<\/p>\n
      `absurd, ridiculous and shame to the law, if Courts<\/p>\n
      have no remedy and the only remedy he can have is by<\/p>\n
      mandamus.’ [See para 11, pages 4-5]<\/p>\n
54.   For the reasons aforesaid this court cannot uphold<\/p>\n
      the judgment passed by High Court in W.P. No.11167<\/p>\n
      of 2006. The judgment is set aside and this court<\/p>\n
      directs   the    respondent     state   to   sanction   Higher<\/p>\n
      Secondary course in the appellant’s institution from<\/p>\n
      the next academic session with this rider that the<\/p>\n
      appellant       must   follow     the    extant    statutory<\/p>\n
      procedures for the appointment of teachers in the<\/p>\n
      Higher Secondary section.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
55.   The   appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear<\/p>\n
      their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                …………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                                …………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)<\/p>\n
                                26<\/span>
\nNew Delhi
\nMay 7, 2010<\/p>\n
              27<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 Author: Ganguly Bench: G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4346 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15730 of 2008) Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association, Kanpur ..Appellant(s) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSecretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - 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\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Secretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-12T04:23:03+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T04:23:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4487,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Secretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-12T04:23:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Secretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - 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\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Secretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-12T04:23:03+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T04:23:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010"},"wordCount":4487,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010","name":"Secretary,Muslim ... vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-12T04:23:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/secretarymuslim-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Secretary,Muslim … vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/108599","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=108599"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108599\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}