{"id":118260,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-13T16:49:11","modified_gmt":"2015-02-13T11:19:11","slug":"r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.MC.No. 2892 of 2008()\n\n\n1. R. KARUNAKARAN ,S\/O.RAMAN,AGED 68 YEARS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. M.SOMAN, AGED 61 YEARS\n3. MATHEW CHACKO, S\/O.MATHEW, AGED 69 YEARS\n4. V.T.DEVASIA, S\/O.THOMAS\n5. K.PANKAJAKSHAN, S\/O.KESAVAN,AGED 65\n6. A.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS\n7. T.K.GOPI, S\/O.KUNJAN, AGED 58 YEARS\n8. M.G.MATHEW, S\/O. GEEVARGESE,\n9. A.V.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :24\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Crl.M.C. No. 2892 of 2008\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010.\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
           in this petition filed under Section 482 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek to have<\/p>\n
all further proceedings pursuant to Annexures A8 to A16<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
           2.    The petitioners were working in Village<\/p>\n
offices of various Panchayats in Alappuzha District during<\/p>\n
1994 July. They had engaged in rescue operations in an<\/p>\n
unprecedented flood that occurred in that year.                          The<\/p>\n
second respondent issued orders to take immediate<\/p>\n
steps to ameliorate the agonies of the victims. The copy<\/p>\n
of the order is produced as Annexure 1. The Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
as per the orders of the District Collector sought to<\/p>\n
implement the directions through the Village Officers<\/p>\n
including the petitioners. About 2000 families had to be<\/p>\n
evacuated and they had to be provided shelters and<\/p>\n
food had also to be made available to them. All this<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.               2<\/span><\/p>\n
were implemented under the supervision of the District<\/p>\n
Collector as well as the Tahsildar.        Copy of the report<\/p>\n
submitted to the District Collector is produced as Annexure<\/p>\n
2. It seems that later complaints were raised from several<\/p>\n
quarters regarding the misappropriation of the funds allotted<\/p>\n
for relief operation and misutilization. Papers flashed the<\/p>\n
news. It appears that a vigilance case as Case No.1 of 1998<\/p>\n
under Sections 468, 471 and 477A read with Section 120 IPC<\/p>\n
and Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption<\/p>\n
Act was registered by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.<\/p>\n
The copy of the FIR is produced as Annexure 3.<\/p>\n
             3.    Petitioners point out that prior to the<\/p>\n
registration of the FIR, one P.N. Venugopal of Alappuzha had<\/p>\n
filed a writ petition as O.P.10393 of 1996 complaining about<\/p>\n
the    illegalities  and    irregularities committed  in  the<\/p>\n
distribution of relief etc to the flood affected victims. This<\/p>\n
court by Annexure 4 judgment directed the State to conduct<\/p>\n
an enquiry into the matter and to consider whether a<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry is necessary. Petitioners point out that a<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.              3<\/span><\/p>\n
detail enquiry was conducted by the RDO, Alappuzha as per<\/p>\n
the direction issued by the District Collector and Annexure 5<\/p>\n
report was filed. In the said report, it is observed as follows:<\/p>\n
                  “After careful consideration     of  the<\/p>\n
      evidences produced before me, I find that the<\/p>\n
      allegations made out in the Desabhimani Daily in<\/p>\n
      the article published on 23.8.1995, 24.8.1995 and<\/p>\n
      25.8.1995 and in the O.P.10393\/96 filed before<\/p>\n
      the Hon’ble High Court have not been proved. I<\/p>\n
      do not consider it necessary to have a further<\/p>\n
      detailed departmental or vigilance enquiry in the<\/p>\n
      matter. ”\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent on receipt of the relevant report has<\/p>\n
issued Annexure 6 communication. In the meanwhile, the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Department went on with its enquiry and as a<\/p>\n
result of which, the FIR was registered.          The Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department without giving heed to the decision of the<\/p>\n
Government to drop the proceedings went on with the<\/p>\n
investigation and submitted a final report, which is marked<\/p>\n
as Annexure 7. Charge sheet was framed and the offences<\/p>\n
were taken cognizance of by the Enquiry Commissioner and<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.             4<\/span><\/p>\n
special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and a single charge has<\/p>\n
been framed against petitioners 1 to 9, which are marked as<\/p>\n
Annexures 8 to 16.\n<\/p>\n
             4.   The complaint of the petitioners is that the<\/p>\n
enquiry and investigation by the Vigilance department in the<\/p>\n
light of the fact that the Government has decided to drop<\/p>\n
the proceedings is without sanction and non-est.         They<\/p>\n
would point out that it was the Government, who had to<\/p>\n
decide whether vigilance enquiry is necessary. A detailed<\/p>\n
enquiry      was    conducted  and  it was    thereafter   the<\/p>\n
Government had come to the conclusion that it was<\/p>\n
unnecessary to have the vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department, which is the limb of the Government has no<\/p>\n
right thereafter to go on with the investigation and enquiry<\/p>\n
and     they      should have   dropped    the   proceedings.<\/p>\n
Consequently, it is pointed out that the filing of the final<\/p>\n
report and consequent taking of cognizance are all bad in<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.              5<\/span><\/p>\n
             5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
first respondent supported the vigilance enquiry.     It was<\/p>\n
pointed out by him that departmental enquiry and vigilance<\/p>\n
enquiry are two different matters and merely because the<\/p>\n
departmental proceedings are dropped, it does not mean<\/p>\n
the vigilance enquiry has to come to an end. There is no<\/p>\n
communication from the State to the Vigilance Department<\/p>\n
to drop the proceedings. It was also pointed out that once<\/p>\n
the Vigilance department has taken a case on file, they are<\/p>\n
bound to investigate the same and proceed in accordance<\/p>\n
with law. None can interdict them in the course of action.<\/p>\n
That was precisely what has been done in the present case.<\/p>\n
It is also contended that it is not possible to accept the<\/p>\n
findings in departmental enquiry, because in the vigilance<\/p>\n
enquiry it was found to be otherwise.        Therefore, it is<\/p>\n
contended that no grounds are made out to interfere with<\/p>\n
Annexures A8 to A16.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.              6<\/span><\/p>\n
             6. It does not appear that the contentions now<\/p>\n
taken by the petitioners before this court have been urged<\/p>\n
before the court below. Annexures A8 to A16 are charges<\/p>\n
framed against the petitioners. Before going further, one<\/p>\n
aspect needs to be noticed. As far as the seventh petitioner<\/p>\n
is concerned, he is still in service and it is pointed out that it<\/p>\n
was the Commissioner of Revenue, who is the authority to<\/p>\n
grant sanction and the sanction given by the District<\/p>\n
Collector is non-est. This point also does not seem to have<\/p>\n
been urged before the court below. The present case of the<\/p>\n
petitioners is that once it was found by the Government that<\/p>\n
the enquiry was unnecessary, it was not within the powers of<\/p>\n
the Vigilance Department to go on with the investigation. It<\/p>\n
is contended that the Vigilance Department has no<\/p>\n
overriding powers of the State and it is bound by the<\/p>\n
decisions taken by the State.\n<\/p>\n
             7. As already noticed, none of these grounds seen<\/p>\n
to have been urged before the court below. The court below<\/p>\n
had no occasion to consider these aspects. There may be<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.            7<\/span><\/p>\n
some substance in the contention of the petitioners that<\/p>\n
since the Government had decided that there is no need to<\/p>\n
go on with the vigilance enquiry, the enquiry by the<\/p>\n
Vigilance Department ought not to have continued.            But<\/p>\n
powers and duties of the Vigilance Department vis a vis the<\/p>\n
State is a matter for consideration. How far the decision of<\/p>\n
the State Government to drop further proceedings against<\/p>\n
the petitioners in view of the detailed report submitted by<\/p>\n
the District Collector and also not to embark upon the<\/p>\n
vigilance enquiry can bind the Vigilance Department, which<\/p>\n
has already set the law in motion is a matter for<\/p>\n
determination. It is true that the charge has been framed.<\/p>\n
But these are certain fundamental aspects, which affect the<\/p>\n
case. So also the question as to whether the sanction given<\/p>\n
in relation to the seventh petitioner is valid or not can be<\/p>\n
raised at any time.     But it is a question regarding the<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the authority which granted sanction to take<\/p>\n
cognizance of the offence against that accused.              The<\/p>\n
petitioners also have a case that the filing of final report was<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.2892\/2008.                8<\/span><\/p>\n
deliberately delayed to avoid seeking sanction under Section<\/p>\n
19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The acts of Vigilance<\/p>\n
Department therefore lack credence.\n<\/p>\n
             8. It is therefore thought fit and proper that the<\/p>\n
whole issue be determined by the court which considers the<\/p>\n
matter, since none of the grounds had been urged before<\/p>\n
that court.\n<\/p>\n
             Therefore, this petition is disposed of giving liberty<\/p>\n
to the petitioners to agitate all their contentions before the<\/p>\n
court below in appropriate proceedings. If so agitated, the<\/p>\n
court below shall determine the issues in accordance with<\/p>\n
law and in the light of what has been stated above.<\/p>\n
                                              P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 2892 of 2008() 1. R. KARUNAKARAN ,S\/O.RAMAN,AGED 68 YEARS … Petitioner 2. M.SOMAN, AGED 61 YEARS 3. MATHEW CHACKO, S\/O.MATHEW, AGED 69 YEARS 4. V.T.DEVASIA, S\/O.THOMAS 5. K.PANKAJAKSHAN, S\/O.KESAVAN,AGED 65 6. […]<\/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-118260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 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\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-13T11:19:11+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T11:19:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1301,\"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\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-13T11:19:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 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":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 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\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-13T11:19:11+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T11:19:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":1301,"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\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010","name":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-13T11:19:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-karunakaran-vs-the-deputy-superintendent-of-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Karunakaran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of … on 24 February, 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\/118260","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=118260"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118260\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}