{"id":144415,"date":"2007-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-29T08:26:46","modified_gmt":"2017-07-29T02:56:46","slug":"mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 27504 of 2006(Y)\n\n\n1. MOHIDEEN, S\/O.K.MUHAMMAD,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR KERALA LOCAL SELF\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SECRETARY,\n\n3. K. ABDUL NAZAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :15\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                            PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                           W.P.(C)No.27504 of 2006\n\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                           Dated: 15th January, 2006\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Ext.P10   order   passed   by   the   1st    respondent,   the   Tribunal   for<\/p>\n
Local Self Government Institutions, Trivandrum is under challenge by<\/p>\n
the petitioner who was the appellant in Appeal No.205\/06 upon which<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 order was passed. The third respondent in this Writ Petition is<\/p>\n
the   petitioner’s   own   brother   and   he   was   the   2nd  respondent   in   the<\/p>\n
appeal before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent is the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Feroke Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner,  as per  Ext.P1<\/p>\n
partition deed executed in the year 1985 he obtained a total extent of<\/p>\n
18 cents of land consisting of two plots, one having an extent of 15<\/p>\n
cents   and   the   other   three   cents.   His   brother,   the   third   respondent<\/p>\n
obtained   27   cents   of   land   described   in   schedule   C   of   the   partition<\/p>\n
deed. The petitioner states that there exists an old latrine in his plot<\/p>\n
having extent of 3 cents. The latrine was constructed during the time<\/p>\n
of his father for use by workers. Presently the latrine is used by the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s   office   staff.   But   during   November,   2004   certain<\/p>\n
maintenance   works   were  done  to   the   latrine   by  the  petitioner.   It   is<\/p>\n
claimed that the damaged roof sheet was replaced by a new tin sheet<\/p>\n
and that the damages on the walls were also repaired. The petitioner<\/p>\n
submits   that   on   the   basis   of   a   complaint   submitted   by   the   third<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  2  –<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent   who   is   on   inimical   terms   with   him   the   2nd  respondent<\/p>\n
issued   a   provisional   order   under   Section   406(2)   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Municipality  Act   directing  demolition   of   the   latrine   and  the   shed.  To<\/p>\n
that order  the petitioner submitted reply. But ignoring the reply the<\/p>\n
2nd  respondent passed final order  directing demolition of the latrine.<\/p>\n
Against   the   provisional   order   and   the   confirmation   order   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   preferred   appeal   Nos.54\/04   and   55\/04   before   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent-Tribunal.   The   Tribunal   set   aside   both   the   orders   and<\/p>\n
directed   the   2nd  respondent   to  evaluate   the   construction   afresh   and<\/p>\n
proceed   against   the   petitioner   under   Section   235   W   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj Act if it is found that the construction was in violation<\/p>\n
of   any   provision   of   law   having   application   within   his   jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
Ext.P2   is   copy   of   that   order.   Pursuant   to   Ext.P2,   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
received a notice from the 2nd respondent under Section 235 W of the<\/p>\n
Kerala   Panchayat   Raj   Act.   To   that   notice   the   petitioner   submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 reply. Thereafter the petitioner received a notice from the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent stating that an Overseer is conducting local inspection on<\/p>\n
3.3.2005.   The   petitioner   alleges   that   without   conducting   a   proper<\/p>\n
inspection   the   Overseer   returned   from   the   site.   Pursuant   to   that<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 notice dated 22.4.2005 commanding the petitioner to remove<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  3  –<\/span><\/p>\n
the   latrine     within   seven   days   was   issued   to   him.   To   Ext.P4   the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply. Thereafter the petitioner was called<\/p>\n
for  a personal hearing. During the hearing the 2nd  respondent orally<\/p>\n
instructed   the   petitioner   to   submit   an   application   for   regularisation.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to that oral direction the petitioner submitted an application<\/p>\n
with   a   plan   for   regularisation.   But   the   2nd  respondent   surprised   the<\/p>\n
petitioner by rejecting the petitioner’s application. Thereafter the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent   issued   Ext.P6   order   on   27.6.2005   commanding   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   to   demolish   the   latrine   within   three   days.   Aggrieved   by<\/p>\n
Ext.P6,   the   petitioner   submitted   a   petition   before   the   Government.<\/p>\n
The Secretary to the Government forwarded a copy of the petition to<\/p>\n
the Deputy Director of Panchayats seeking a report. In that letter the<\/p>\n
Secretary   also   proposed   to   give   sufficient   time   to   the   petitioner   for<\/p>\n
taking up the matter before the Tribunal. However on 5.2.2006, the<\/p>\n
Secretary   of   the   Panchayat   issued   Ext.P7   notice   commanding   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   to   remove   the   latrine   within   seven   days.   Against   Ext.P7<\/p>\n
also   the   petitioner   submitted   a   petition   before   the   Government.   On<\/p>\n
that   petition   the   Secretary   to   the   Government   instructed   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat to stop further action pursuant to the said notice. Ext.P8 is<\/p>\n
the   letter   of   the   Government   in   this   regard.   Thereafter   the   third<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  4  –<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent filed W.P.C.No.3412\/06 before this court with a prayer to<\/p>\n
quash   Ext.P8   letter   and   issue   a   writ   of   mandamus   directing   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat to proceed with the order of demolition. This court passed<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 judgment quashing Ext.P8. This court however adjourned the<\/p>\n
enforcement   of   Ext.P7   for   three   weeks   and   two   weeks   time   was<\/p>\n
granted to the petitioner for approaching the 1st respondent-Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the petitioner preferred Appeal Petition No.205\/06 before<\/p>\n
the   1st  respondent-Tribunal   challenging   both   Exts.P6   and   P7.   The<\/p>\n
Tribunal has by Ext.P10 order dismissed the appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The petitioner submits that after Ext.P10 order was passed<\/p>\n
by   the   Tribunal   the   third   respondent   tried   to   trespass   into   the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  property and the petitioner  became constrained to file a<\/p>\n
suit   (O.S.No.441\/2006)   for   injunction   against   the   third   respondent<\/p>\n
before   the   Munsiff’s   Court,   Kozhikode.   In   this   Writ   Petition   the<\/p>\n
petitioner impugns Ext.P10 order on various grounds and prays that<\/p>\n
Exts.P6, P7 and P10 be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         2. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It<\/p>\n
is contended therein that Ext.P10 is a well reasoned order warrant no<\/p>\n
interference  by this court under Article  226  of the Constitution. The<\/p>\n
counter   affidavit   denies   the   averments   and   allegations   in   the   Writ<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  5  –<\/span><\/p>\n
Petition. Inter alia it is contended that the petitioner’s claim that he<\/p>\n
obtained   18   cents   of   land   under   Ext.P1   partition   deed   is   incorrect.<\/p>\n
Even going by the recitals in Ext.P1 document it will be seen that the<\/p>\n
triangular   portion   upon   which   the   petitioner   claims   that   the   latrine<\/p>\n
was   in   existence   as   to   negligible   an   extent   to   permit   any   such<\/p>\n
construction. The contention that the latrine  was constructed during<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s father’s time is stoutly denied. Ext.R3(a) photograph<\/p>\n
is relied on in this context to show that it is a new construction. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the latrine is a new and illegal construction put up by<\/p>\n
the petitioner after trespassing into the only way leading to the third<\/p>\n
respondent’s   house.   This   way   is   provided   to   the   third   respondent<\/p>\n
under   Ext.P1   document   itself.   The   latrine   was   constructed   without<\/p>\n
obtaining   prior   permission   from   the   Panchayat.   The   Panchayat   was<\/p>\n
convinced   that   the   latrine   construction   is   illegal   and   thereafter   only<\/p>\n
demolition order was issued. The Panchayat has not shown any haste<\/p>\n
in the matter. Sufficient time was afforded by the Panchayat to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to pursue his remedies. The counter affidavit submits that<\/p>\n
when the petitioner understood that in the light of Ext.P10 the latrine<\/p>\n
will be demolished, he filed a suit O.S.No.441\/06 before the Munsiff’s<\/p>\n
Court II A, Kozhikode. The intention in filing the suit is to prolong the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  6  –<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings.   The   suit   is   nothing   but   an   abuse   of     legal   process.<\/p>\n
Ext.R3(b)   is   copy   of   the   plaint.   In   Ext.R3(b)   the   Panchayat   is   not<\/p>\n
made a party at all. Ext.R3(c) is copy of the written statement filed in<\/p>\n
Ext.R3(b)   suit.   Correct   facts   have   been   disclosed   and   proper<\/p>\n
contentions have been raised in Ext.R3(c).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3. To the above counter affidavit, a detailed reply affidavit has<\/p>\n
been submitted by the petitioner reiterating his earlier stand. As an<\/p>\n
additional   document,   copy   of   the   Commissioner’s   report   in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.441\/06   is   produced   as   Ext.P11.   According   to   the   reply<\/p>\n
affidavit,   the   Panchayat   is   not   a   necessary   party   to   O.S.No.441\/06<\/p>\n
since the cause of action which led to that suit was the attempt of the<\/p>\n
third respondent to demolish the latrine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4.   Elaborate   submissions   were   addressed   before   me   by<\/p>\n
Mr.S.Rajasekharan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. He would<\/p>\n
refer   to   the   rival   pleadings   and   the   various   documents   placed   on<\/p>\n
record particularly Exts.P1, R3(a), R3(b), P10 and P11. On behalf of<\/p>\n
Mr.C.P.Mohammed   Nias,   counsel   for   the   third   respondent<\/p>\n
Adv.Mr.Narayanan   would   address   me.   Mr.Narayanan   would   refer   to<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 in extenso and submits that there is absolutely no warrant for<\/p>\n
interfering with Ext.P10.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.C.No.27504\/06                                       –  7  –<\/span><\/p>\n
         5. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar and<\/p>\n
having scanned Ext.P10 carefully, I am of the view that the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for third respondent is correct in his submission that Ext.P10<\/p>\n
order   of   the   Tribunal   is   not   liable   to   be   set   aside   by   this   court<\/p>\n
invoking   jurisdiction   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution.   I   notice<\/p>\n
from Ext.P10, that the Tribunal has Marshalled the facts correctly and<\/p>\n
on   appreciating   the   evidence   which   was   placed   on   record   by   the<\/p>\n
parties   come   to   the   right   conclusion   regarding   the   crux   question,<\/p>\n
whether   the   latrine   in   question   was   an   ancient   one   or   was   one<\/p>\n
brought into existence recently without obtaining permission from the<\/p>\n
Panchayat. This court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction for judicial review<\/p>\n
will   not   be   justified   in   interfering   with   Ext.P10   which   is   a   well<\/p>\n
reasoned  order. The  challenge  against Ext.P10 will fail and the Writ<\/p>\n
Petition   will   stand   dismissed,   but   in   the   circumstances   without   any<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                                                    PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 27504 of 2006(Y) 1. MOHIDEEN, S\/O.K.MUHAMMAD, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR KERALA LOCAL SELF … Respondent 2. SECRETARY, 3. K. ABDUL NAZAR, For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR For Respondent […]<\/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-144415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 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\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-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=\"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-29T02:56:46+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T02:56:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1526,\"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\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-29T02:56:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 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":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 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\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-29T02:56:46+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T02:56:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007"},"wordCount":1526,"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\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007","name":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-29T02:56:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohideen-vs-the-tribunal-for-kerala-local-self-on-15-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohideen vs The Tribunal For Kerala Local Self on 15 January, 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\/144415","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=144415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}