{"id":119273,"date":"2007-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-01T19:31:58","modified_gmt":"2017-01-01T14:01:58","slug":"bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 36159 of 2003(D)\n\n\n1. BINDU GANESH, \"KRISHNAPRIYA\",\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY.\n\n3. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR\n\n4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :18\/08\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.\n                  -------------------------------------------\n       W.P(C).No.36159 OF 2003, O.P.Nos.17231 OF 2000,\n                 8516 OF 2001, 3058 OF 2002,\n          W.P(C).Nos. 37584 OF 2003 & 2001 OF 2004\n                  -------------------------------------------\n             Dated this the 18th day of August, 2007\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                                               “C.R.”\n<\/p>\n
\n      These writ petitions are filed challenging G.O(NC)No.<\/p>\n
77\/98\/SCSTDC dated 10.8.1998, whereby, the Government acted<\/p>\n
on the advice tendered to it by the Kerala State Commission for<\/p>\n
Backward Classes, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’,<\/p>\n
on the question of inclusion of the ‘Chakkala Nair’ community in<\/p>\n
the State list for Other Backward Classes, for reservation<\/p>\n
purpose.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     The thrust of the contentions advanced in these               writ<\/p>\n
petitions, at the time of final hearing can be encapsulated as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (i) The   Commission erred in relying on the opinion of<\/p>\n
      the  Ananthakrishna           Iyer      International    Centre for<\/p>\n
      Anthropological Studies, hereinafter referred to as ‘AICAS’,<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
     and ignoring the report of the Kerala Institute of Research,<\/p>\n
     Training and Development Studies on Scheduled Castes<\/p>\n
     and Tribes(KIRTADS).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) The reliance placed on the report of AICAS and the<\/p>\n
     prominence given to Dr.P.R.Govindankutty Mathur as a<\/p>\n
     special invitee to assist the Commission are wholly<\/p>\n
     unfounded and against public interest because, Dr.Mathur<\/p>\n
     was      earlier     held by    the   Government   to  have<\/p>\n
     misrepresented facts in relation to an issue of caste status<\/p>\n
     of ‘Thandans’ and as per G.O.(MS) 6\/91\/SCSTDD dated<\/p>\n
     11.2.1991, the Government had reduced his pension after<\/p>\n
     he retired as Special Officer of KIRTADS.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) ‘Chakkala Nair’ is a community which ought to be<\/p>\n
     treated as ‘Chakkala’ and the advice to the contrary,<\/p>\n
     tendered by the Commission and            the consequential<\/p>\n
     Government Order are contrary to law and the materials on<\/p>\n
     record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
3.    In support of the impugned decisions, the learned Special<\/p>\n
Government Pleader argued that on the basis of the materials<\/p>\n
on record, the impugned decisions cannot be found fault with<\/p>\n
and that a reading of the advice of the Commission would show<\/p>\n
that the report of KIRTADS as well as AICAS and the other<\/p>\n
different materials produced before the Commission were taken<\/p>\n
into consideration in making the advice.<\/p>\n
4.    Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service<\/p>\n
Commission pointed out that no challenge having been<\/p>\n
specifically pleaded and urged regarding the findings in para 33<\/p>\n
of the impugned advice that the representation of the employees<\/p>\n
belonging to the community in question would show that the rate<\/p>\n
of representation is indeed very high, the impugned decision<\/p>\n
cannot be found fault with because, adequacy of representation<\/p>\n
in different services is the criterion to make a reservation.<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
5.   Before entering on to adjudicate on the basis of the<\/p>\n
contentions advanced, it needs to be noticed that the<\/p>\n
Commission is constituted under the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993, to examine<\/p>\n
the request for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward<\/p>\n
class in the list, to hear the complaints of over-inclusion of any<\/p>\n
backward class in such list and to tender such advice to the<\/p>\n
Government, if it deems appropriate. Section 10 provides<\/p>\n
different powers of the Commission          while performing its<\/p>\n
functions. It shall have all the powers of a civil court in trying a<\/p>\n
suit and in particular, in respect of the matters enumerated<\/p>\n
therein. Sub-section 2 of Section 9 of that Act provides that the<\/p>\n
views and findings of the Commission shall ordinarily be binding<\/p>\n
upon the Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.   Section 11 of the Act, of which specific note has to be<\/p>\n
taken, provides that the Government may, at any time, and shall<\/p>\n
at the expiry of 10 years from the coming into force of the Act<\/p>\n
and every succeeding period of 10 years thereafter, undertake<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
revision of the lists with a view to exclude from such lists the<\/p>\n
particular classes who have ceased to be Backward Classes or<\/p>\n
for including any such class in the lists of Backward Classes.<\/p>\n
The Government are to consult the Commission for such<\/p>\n
purpose. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision, it has to be<\/p>\n
noticed that the over all intention is to assess and identify those<\/p>\n
classes which are to be treated as backward classes and the<\/p>\n
purview of the consideration is normally a span of 10 years. This<\/p>\n
is because, continued inclusion could be subjected to periodic<\/p>\n
revision every 10 years while necessity to inclusion is also a<\/p>\n
matter that could be considered. So much so, the consideration<\/p>\n
of the Commission while making an advice to the Government, is<\/p>\n
not merely to be an exercise of reading out of the entire history<\/p>\n
of a particular community and confining itself to an<\/p>\n
anthropological study. The result of the entire exercise has to be<\/p>\n
to reach at a conclusion whether a particular class is to be<\/p>\n
treated as a backward class for the purpose of being included in<\/p>\n
the list or for letting such a class to continue in the list, for<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                              Page numbers<\/p>\n
which, the representation that the said class has in public<\/p>\n
service, has also to be taken into consideration.<\/p>\n
7.   The advice made by the Commission in the case in hand<\/p>\n
was generated on the basis of seven associations claiming to be<\/p>\n
organisations       of   Chakkala  Nairs,  the   names   of   which<\/p>\n
organisations are enumerated in the opening paragraph of the<\/p>\n
impugned advice.         None of those organizations has challenged<\/p>\n
either the advice or the Government Order which runs contrary<\/p>\n
to the claims made by them. The advice contains the undisputed<\/p>\n
fact that due publicity was given to the scheduled hearing<\/p>\n
through the press, inviting objections to or comments on the<\/p>\n
inclusion of Chakkala Nair in the list of OBC for reservation in<\/p>\n
public service. None among the petitioners has a case that he<\/p>\n
participated in the proceedings before the Commission pursuant<\/p>\n
to such public notice. The provisions made in the Act are for the<\/p>\n
constitution of the Commission to take care of the responsibility<\/p>\n
of advising the Government after considering all aspects of a<\/p>\n
particular matter. So much so, when the Commission has made<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
the advice after considering the materials placed before it and<\/p>\n
after public notice, I do not deem it appropriate to let the advice<\/p>\n
to be subjected to judicial scrutiny at the instance of individuals,<\/p>\n
who had not chosen to participate in proceedings before the<\/p>\n
Commission, particularly when none among the organisations,<\/p>\n
seven in number in the case in hand, has chosen to challenge the<\/p>\n
advice made by the Commission to the Government or to<\/p>\n
challenge the Government decision that followed the advice of<\/p>\n
the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.   Be that as it may, adverting to the arguments raised, it has<\/p>\n
to be noticed at the outset that the report of KIRTADS has been<\/p>\n
taken note of by the Commission. The argument to the contrary<\/p>\n
is unsustainable. The KIRTADS’ report contained in letter dated<\/p>\n
22.3.1995, addressed by its Director to the Government, has<\/p>\n
been rightly treated by the Commission as a document which is<\/p>\n
not a report of any fact finding study, but a compilation of very<\/p>\n
useful extracts about the community in question, culled from<\/p>\n
the works of authors who have made special studies of that<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
caste group. The Commission specifically noticed that KIRTADS<\/p>\n
has not made any field study. The Commission, headed by a<\/p>\n
former Judge of this Court and by members in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act, has categorically stated that the<\/p>\n
Commission had made use of the report of KIRTADS also to<\/p>\n
arrive at a conclusion. I find no material to overrule that.<\/p>\n
9.   The criticism of Dr.Mathur that the Government had found<\/p>\n
that he had wrongly advised the Government on an earlier<\/p>\n
incident is correct. But the fact remains that he, at that time,<\/p>\n
was essentially heading KIRTADS.         He was made a special<\/p>\n
invitee by the Commission and the AICAS report was also<\/p>\n
considered by the Commission. It is not as if the Commission<\/p>\n
relied exclusively on the AICAS report or on the statement of<\/p>\n
Dr.Mathur. Even if any comment that Dr.Mathur had made is<\/p>\n
eschewed, it can be seen that the Commission acted on various<\/p>\n
materials, including the oral evidence of different witnesses and<\/p>\n
the views of the KIRTADS, along with AICAS survey report.<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
10. Incidentally, it has to be mentioned that it was attempted to<\/p>\n
be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that the Accountant<\/p>\n
General has criticized the expenditure shown to have incurred by<\/p>\n
AICAS in conducting the survey and that the Government had<\/p>\n
explained about it to the Accountant General. Those matters are<\/p>\n
irrelevant and do not really go to the root of the reliability of the<\/p>\n
advice tendered by the Commission, which has been acted upon<\/p>\n
by the Government, particularly when no case of personal bias or<\/p>\n
malice is attributed to the members of the Commission. Nor is<\/p>\n
there any plea of ill-constitution or incompetence of the<\/p>\n
Commission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   The conclusion of the Commission was that Chakkala Nairs<\/p>\n
are educationally and economically poor, but that they had<\/p>\n
enjoyed the benefit by reaping the quota that was available to<\/p>\n
Chakkalas and that, as of now, the representation of Chakkala<\/p>\n
Nairs in the various services of the State Government reflects<\/p>\n
that their rate of representation is indeed very high.           The<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
following statement is made by the Commission in para 33 of the<\/p>\n
advice on the basis of the statistics collected by the Commission.<\/p>\n
            “Of        the  187     departments\/Autonomous
\n      Bodies\/Public Sector Undertaking in respect of which
\n      data are available, they had representation in 68. The
\n      total   number      of employees    belonging    to this
\n      community is 575, comprising top level (1), gazetted
\n      (40), middle level (2), non-gazetted (365), last grade
\n      (102) and workmen (65).”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.     The aforesaid factual findings of the Commission, on<\/p>\n
statistics, are not challenged by the petitioners. Therefore, even<\/p>\n
if Chakkala Nair has been identified as educationally and<\/p>\n
economically poor, the advice of the Commission to the<\/p>\n
Government that the community Chakkala Nair does not satisfy<\/p>\n
the requirements and the criteria involved to identify backward<\/p>\n
class of citizens, cannot be found fault with.         Equally, the<\/p>\n
impugned decision of the Government cannot also be interfered<\/p>\n
with.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
13. A further fact that is not in dispute is that the PSC, while<\/p>\n
issuing notification, included ‘Chakkala Nair’ within brackets<\/p>\n
along with ‘Chakkala’ in the list of Other Backward Classes and<\/p>\n
such action of the PSC was without the authority of the<\/p>\n
Government. So much so, any action of the PSC on the basis of<\/p>\n
which the ‘Chakkala Nair’ community had also enjoyed certain<\/p>\n
benefits that were extended to ‘Chakkala’, cannot be claimed as<\/p>\n
a matter of right and by the Government Order, the situation<\/p>\n
has been appropriately settled.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere<\/p>\n
either with the advice of the Commission or with the decision of<\/p>\n
the Government.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, these writ petitions fail and are hence<\/p>\n
dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                           THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                              Judge
\nkkb.\n<\/p>\n
WPC.36159\/03 & con. cases<\/p>\n
                             Page numbers<\/p>\n
                            =======================<\/p>\n
                            THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J<\/p>\n
                                         W.P(C).No.36159 OF 2003,
\n                                          O.P.Nos.17231 OF 2000,
\n                                    8516 OF 2001, 3058 OF 2002,
\n                                     W.P(C).Nos. 37584 OF 2003 &
\n                                                    2001 OF 2004<\/p>\n
                                              JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                             AUGUST, 2007.\n<\/p>\n
                            =======================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 36159 of 2003(D) 1. BINDU GANESH, “KRISHNAPRIYA”, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR 4. THE DISTRICT […]<\/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-119273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - 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\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1840,\"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\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - 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\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007"},"wordCount":1840,"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\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007","name":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-01T14:01:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bindu-ganesh-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bindu Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/119273","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=119273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}