{"id":114510,"date":"2011-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-08-12T23:22:42","modified_gmt":"2017-08-12T17:52:42","slug":"abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 33381 of 2010(W)\n\n\n1. ABDUL BASIL NALAKATHU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KRISHNA KIRAN P., ROLL NO.B.090120 AR,\n3. MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN K.A.,\n4. SHEREEF T.P.,\n5. B.MANIDEEP REDDY,\n6. ANEESH S.MANTHANATHU,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SENETE OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE\n\n3. THE ENQUIRY COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED VIDE\n\n4. DR.M.A.NAZEER, HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,\n\n5. ANJUM NAVEED, ROLL NO.B.100436 AR,\n\n6. AJU NIVAS, ROLL NO.B.100483 AR,\n\n7. ARAVIND P.MOHAN,\n\n8. FEBIN SEBY, ROLL NO.B.100374 AR,\n\n9. RAJEEV RAMAKRISHNAN,\n\n10. P.A.DILEEP KUMAR,\n\n11. SABIR KARYAT,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :18\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n             --------------------------------------------------\n                W.P.(C) NO.33381 OF 2010(W)\n             --------------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioners who were 3rd semester B. Arch students at the<\/p>\n
National Institute of Technology, Calicut are seeking to quash<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 and P6, by which the petitioners were placed under<\/p>\n
suspension and punished by suspending them for the               period<\/p>\n
mentioned in Ext.P6 order.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Brief facts of the case are that Ext.P9 in the writ petition<\/p>\n
is the students’ Conduct and Disciplinary Code 2007 framed by<\/p>\n
the first respondent, which regulates conduct of the students.<\/p>\n
Section 6 enumerates the misconducts and section 7 provides<\/p>\n
the disciplinary sanctions. In so far as it is relevant, for the<\/p>\n
purpose of this case on 9.8.2010, the Chief Warden of the hostel<\/p>\n
of the first respondent received Ext.R1(a) series of complaints<\/p>\n
submitted by respondents 5 to 11 who are Ist year students. In<\/p>\n
these complaints respondents alleged various acts of misconducts<\/p>\n
on the part of the petitioners and certain other students. On<\/p>\n
receipt of the complaints,         on 10.8.2010, the Chief Warden<\/p>\n
constituted a Committee of 7 members from the staff to conduct<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                 :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
an enquiry into the allegations of misconducts. Accordingly, the<\/p>\n
committee enquired into the allegations, questioned the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the alleged victims and other students and submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.R1(b) report. In the report, they found that 13 students were<\/p>\n
ragged in the college hostel and that the complaints filed by<\/p>\n
respondents 5 to 11 were genuine. Thereafter the committee<\/p>\n
recommended suspension of the delinquents           for a minimum<\/p>\n
period of one semester and to expel them from the hostels. It is<\/p>\n
to be noted that       this report was made after questioning<\/p>\n
respondents 5 to 11, who reiterated their allegations before the<\/p>\n
Enquiry    Committee. Accepting      Ext.R1(b)    report, the  first<\/p>\n
respondent issued Ext.P1 order dated 11th August, 2010,<\/p>\n
suspending 11 students including the petitioners herein for       a<\/p>\n
minimum period of one year. It was also ordered that case shall<\/p>\n
be referred to the police for further action.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Counter affidavit filed by the first respondent shows that<\/p>\n
on the issuance of Ext.P1 order of suspension, Exts.P2 and P3<\/p>\n
representations were made by the students and their parents on<\/p>\n
16.8.2010 where they requested for a re-enquiry. It is stated<\/p>\n
that on receipt of Exts.P2 and P3, first respondent constituted a<\/p>\n
committee of two Professors and two Assistant Professors to<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                 :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
conduct a re-enquiry into the matter. After due deliberations, the<\/p>\n
committee       issued Ext.P4 series of memo of charges to the<\/p>\n
petitioners in which various allegations of misconducts which also<\/p>\n
amounted to ragging as defined under the Act, are incorporated.<\/p>\n
On receipt of Ext.P4 series of memo of charges the petitioners<\/p>\n
submitted their explanations, a specimen copy of which is Ext.P5.<\/p>\n
In the explanation submitted, they denied the allegations and<\/p>\n
requested that they be exonerated of the charges and that the<\/p>\n
suspension may be cancelled with retrospective effect. Ext.R1(c)<\/p>\n
is the report submitted by the Committee. This report also shows<\/p>\n
that notice was issued not only to the complainants but also to<\/p>\n
the petitioners and that after recording their statements, verifying<\/p>\n
all previous documents, the Committee submitted the report with<\/p>\n
its findings and recommendations. The report was considered by<\/p>\n
the first respondent, the disciplinary authority, and the<\/p>\n
disciplinary authority thereafter issued Ext.P6 dated 14th<\/p>\n
September, 2010, which shows that petitioners 1,2,4,5 and 6<\/p>\n
were imposed punishment of suspension up to 14.9.2010 and the<\/p>\n
3rd petitioner was suspended for the period up to 24.9.2010. On<\/p>\n
the issuance of Ext.P6 order of punishment, Ext.P7 representation<\/p>\n
was made by the parent of one of the petitioners requesting that<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
he be permitted to appear for the 3rd and 4th semesters, if he has<\/p>\n
80% attendance excluding the suspension period. It is stated that<\/p>\n
thereafter they also submitted Ext.P8 appeal against Ext.P6 order<\/p>\n
of punishment. It was at that stage the writ petition was filed<\/p>\n
seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P6 and to direct the first respondent<\/p>\n
to grant attendance to the petitioners from the date of Ext.P1 or<\/p>\n
to exclude the said period while calculating 80% attendance for<\/p>\n
the purpose of writing the 3rd semester examination.<\/p>\n
     4. According to the petitioners, they did not indulge in any<\/p>\n
act of ragging or committed any misconducts in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Ext.P9. It is further stated that when the<\/p>\n
matter was referred to the police, police summoned respondent 5<\/p>\n
to 11 and that in the statements given before the police<\/p>\n
respondents 5 to 11 denied the allegation that they          were<\/p>\n
subjected any act of ragging. It is stated that on that basis the<\/p>\n
case which was registered against them was referred by the<\/p>\n
police and therefore the case having lost its very foundation, the<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated against them is unsustainable. It is on that<\/p>\n
basis petitioners seeks to quash Exts.P1 and P6.<\/p>\n
     5. At the stage of admission this court passed an interim<\/p>\n
order dated 9.11.2010 directing respondents 1 to 3 to allow the<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners to appear in 3rd semester examination. On that basis<\/p>\n
petitioners appeared for the examination, but however their<\/p>\n
results are withheld.\n<\/p>\n
      6. At the outset, it should be stated that Ext.R1(b) is the<\/p>\n
enquiry report on the basis of which the petitioners were placed<\/p>\n
under    suspension.   Ext.R1(b)    enquiry report  shows    that<\/p>\n
misconducts as defined Ext.P9 conduct rules have been found<\/p>\n
against the petitioners. It is also to be stated that before<\/p>\n
submitting Ext.R1(c) report, the Committee had issued Ext.P4<\/p>\n
series of memo of charges to the delinquents. Thereafter notice<\/p>\n
was issued by the committee, not only to the petitioners but also<\/p>\n
to respondents 5 to 11, the victims. Although it is a fact that<\/p>\n
when the police questioned them, respondents 5 to 11<\/p>\n
contended that they were not ragged and that this contention<\/p>\n
was reiterated before this court also, before the enquiry<\/p>\n
committees on both occasions, the victims had reiterated their<\/p>\n
allegations as evidenced by Exts.R1(a) complaint made by them<\/p>\n
on 9.8.2010. It is based on those statements and deposition made<\/p>\n
and other evidence collected          and available before the<\/p>\n
Committee, that the Committee submitted Ext.R1(c) report.<\/p>\n
Having gone through the reports and the findings contained<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                  :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
therein, I am inclined to take the view that the Committee cannot<\/p>\n
be said to have committed any procedural irregularities nor can<\/p>\n
this court hold that the Committee has entered into any factual<\/p>\n
finding which can be criticized as perverse. If this be the situation,<\/p>\n
the findings will have to be upheld and further question that<\/p>\n
arises for consideration is whether the punishment imposed by<\/p>\n
the disciplinary authority, the first respondent, as per Ext.P6 can<\/p>\n
be said to be a disproportionate one warranting to be interfered<\/p>\n
with this court.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Ext.P9 is the rules governing the students. Section 7 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 lists out the disciplinary sanctions. Section 7(1) deals with<\/p>\n
the minor sanctions and Section 7(2) contains the major<\/p>\n
sanctions. The major sanctions provided are debarring from<\/p>\n
examinations, suspension, restitution, forfeiture and expulsion.<\/p>\n
Among the punishments enumerated under Section 7(11), there is<\/p>\n
no punishment which can be said to be lesser than what is<\/p>\n
imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
punishment imposed on the petitioners is a disproportionate one.<\/p>\n
True, petitioners relied on Ext.P16 judgment. In Ext.P16 judgment<\/p>\n
rendered, the Delhi High Court interfered with an order wherein<\/p>\n
the students were found to have committed ragging and were<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                  :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
expelled. First of all, in this case petitioners have not been found<\/p>\n
guilty of ragging but they have been found guilty of misconducts<\/p>\n
as defined in Ext.P9. More over a close reading of Ext.P16<\/p>\n
judgment shows that the petitioners in Ext.P16 were expelled<\/p>\n
from the college and on the ground that the punishment imposed<\/p>\n
was disproportionate the Court interfered with it. In this case the<\/p>\n
punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate and<\/p>\n
consequently, the principles laid down by the Delhi High Court<\/p>\n
cannot be of any application to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
     8. As far as the contention that the criminal case has been<\/p>\n
referred is concerned, that development would have had impact<\/p>\n
on the proceedings against the petitioners provided, they were<\/p>\n
punished on allegations of ragging as defined under the Act. On<\/p>\n
the other hand finding in Ext.R1(c) report is that petitioners have<\/p>\n
committed misconducts as defined in Ext.P9, the Conduct Rules<\/p>\n
that are applicable. Therefore, the fact that police referred the<\/p>\n
case    of ragging can have no significance in so far as the<\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings that are initiated against the petitioners<\/p>\n
are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
     9. It is true that the complainants, respondents 5 to 11 have<\/p>\n
retracted      from Ext.R1(a) series of complaints when their<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                   :8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
statements were recorded by the investigating officer. They also<\/p>\n
reiterated this stand before this court. But however fact remains<\/p>\n
that both in Ext.R1(a) and when preliminary enquiry and final<\/p>\n
enquiry were held by the disciplinary committee, they stood by<\/p>\n
this statements. It was on that basis, Exts.R1(b) and R1(c) reports<\/p>\n
have been submitted by the Enquiry Committees. Therefore, even<\/p>\n
if it is assumed that       they have later retracted from their<\/p>\n
statements,      that cannot invalidate or upset the findings of the<\/p>\n
enquiry committees.\n<\/p>\n
       10. In the writ petition allegations have been raised against<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent and according to the petitioners it was at the<\/p>\n
instance of the 4th respondent, that the entire proceedings were<\/p>\n
initiated against them. First of all, counter affidavit has been filed<\/p>\n
by the first respondent, stating in clear terms that the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent had nothing to do with the disciplinary action initiated<\/p>\n
against the petitioners. When mala fides are alleged, the burden<\/p>\n
is heavily upon the person who makes the allegations to prove<\/p>\n
the same. Apart from making allegations, petitioners have not<\/p>\n
placed anything implicating the 4th respondent. Although it is true<\/p>\n
that the 4th respondent has not come forward and filed any<\/p>\n
affidavit, in the light of    dearth of materials supplied by the<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                 :9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners to support their contention and in the light of the<\/p>\n
categoric statement made by the first respondent, I am not<\/p>\n
satisfied that the 4th respondent is guilty of any mala fides.<\/p>\n
Therefore, I reject the plea of mala fides raised by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
       11. There is also a contention raised in the writ petition that<\/p>\n
the petitioners have filed Ext.P8 appeal against the order of<\/p>\n
punishment imposed on them. However, in the counter affidavit of<\/p>\n
the first respondent, the stand taken by the first respondent is<\/p>\n
that such an appeal has not been received by them. Apparently,<\/p>\n
in view of the statement so filed, in the reply affidavit filed<\/p>\n
petitioners have stated that they have filed another set of appeal<\/p>\n
which are pending before the first respondent. As per the terms<\/p>\n
of the Conduct Rules, if an appeal is filed, the appeal has to be<\/p>\n
considered by the Senate. If a fresh set of appeals have been<\/p>\n
filed before the respondents, it is incumbent on the part of the<\/p>\n
first respondent to place it before the Senate.<\/p>\n
       12. Now that I have upheld the order of punishment and<\/p>\n
since Ext.P12 regulation prescribes at least 80% attendance for<\/p>\n
attending the examination, it is obvious that the petitioners have<\/p>\n
dearth of attendance for writing the examination. Therefore I<\/p>\n
decline to issue any further directions to publish the result of the<\/p>\n
WPC.No. 33381\/2010
\n                                 :10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
3rd semester examination that the petitioners have      appeared<\/p>\n
based on the interim orders of this court. However, it is clarified<\/p>\n
that in case the appellate authority decides the appeals in favour<\/p>\n
of the petitioners, appropriate orders shall be passed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   Needless to say that the observations herein made<\/p>\n
about the misconducts committed by the petitioners or other<\/p>\n
matters, shall not influence the appellate authority which shall<\/p>\n
deal with the appeals submitted by the petitioners untramelled by<\/p>\n
any observations in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          (ANTONY DOMINIC)
\n                                                JUDGE
\nvi\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33381 of 2010(W) 1. ABDUL BASIL NALAKATHU, … Petitioner 2. KRISHNA KIRAN P., ROLL NO.B.090120 AR, 3. MUZAMMIL HUSSAIN K.A., 4. SHEREEF T.P., 5. B.MANIDEEP REDDY, 6. ANEESH S.MANTHANATHU, Vs 1. […]<\/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-114510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 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\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-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=\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-12T17:52:42+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T17:52:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1983,\"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\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-12T17:52:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 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":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 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\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-12T17:52:42+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T17:52:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011"},"wordCount":1983,"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\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011","name":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-12T17:52:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-basil-nalakathu-vs-national-institute-of-technology-on-18-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Basil Nalakathu vs National Institute Of Technology on 18 January, 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\/114510","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=114510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}