{"id":144637,"date":"2006-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006"},"modified":"2018-11-02T06:30:11","modified_gmt":"2018-11-02T01:00:11","slug":"karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3726 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nKarnataka Power Corporation\tLtd Through its Chairman &amp; Managing Director and Anr\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. Thangappan &amp; Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/04\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; TARUN CHATTERJEE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment<br \/>\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court<br \/>\nupholding the view of the learned Single Judge directing the<br \/>\nappellants to appoint respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas the &#8216;workman&#8217;) in an appropriate vacancy in terms of<br \/>\nClause 4 of the Settlement dated 29.1.1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFactual position in a nutshell is as under:<br \/>\n\tRespondent No.1 was working as a nominal muster roll<br \/>\nworkman with the appellant No.1- Karnataka Power<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd. (In short &#8220;Corporation&#8221;). On 29.1.1979 a<br \/>\nsettlement was arrived at in terms of Section 12(3) of the<br \/>\nIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;). Clause 4 of<br \/>\nthe Settlement which is relevant reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Casual Labour- Casual workmen who have<br \/>\nworked for a period of not less than 240 days<br \/>\nduring a period of 12 calendar months are<br \/>\nagreed to be brought on monthly<br \/>\nestablishment from the first of the following<br \/>\nmonth effective from 1.10.1978, subject to<br \/>\navailability of vacancies. The surplus<br \/>\nworkmen, if any, will be kept on the waiting<br \/>\nlist and appointed as and when vacancies<br \/>\noccur. In the case of workmen who are not<br \/>\nprovided with work during monsoon period,<br \/>\nthe number of days worked in two consecutive<br \/>\nseasons will be counted to determine their<br \/>\neligibility&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAccording to the appellants, the respondent did not<br \/>\nreport for duty since February, 1979 and accordingly his name<br \/>\nwas removed from the nominal muster roll. In October 1997,<br \/>\nrespondent No.1-workman addressed a letter to the<br \/>\nCorporation and sought employment as a Mason. The request<br \/>\nwas repeated on 17.1.1998 and thereafter in June, 1998. In<br \/>\nreply, the appellant-Corporation stated that since respondent<br \/>\nNo.1 was not working with the Corporation at the time of<br \/>\nconfirmation of other nominal muster roll employees and the<br \/>\nmatter was 20 years old, it would not be possible to consider<br \/>\nthe request for providing employment. On 18.8.1998 a writ<br \/>\napplication was filed before the Karnataka High Court praying,<br \/>\ninter- alia, for a direction to consider the writ petitioner for the<br \/>\npost of Ist Class Mason. Corporation filed its reply pointing out<br \/>\nthat the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the<br \/>\ngrounds of delay and laches. However, by order dated<br \/>\n18.8.1999 the writ petition was allowed by a learned Single<br \/>\nJudge holding that it would be too much to expect a writ<br \/>\npetitioner to retain copies of the communications that he had<br \/>\nsent to the Corporation. Since the alleged acknowledgments<br \/>\nproduced had shown that some officers of the Corporation<br \/>\nreceived the communications it would be desirable to accept<br \/>\nthe stand that representations were made and it would not be<br \/>\ncorrect to say that the writ petitioner had slept over the matter<br \/>\nfor 18 years, as he was agitating the matter. The Writ Appeal<br \/>\nfiled by the Corporation was dismissed on the ground that<br \/>\nClause (4) of the Settlement clearly provided that as and when<br \/>\nvacancy would arise, the workman would be appointed. That<br \/>\nbeing the position, there was no scope for interference with the<br \/>\norder of the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and its<br \/>\nfunctionaries submitted that there was no evidence produced<br \/>\nby the respondent to show that in 1982 and\/or 1989 he<br \/>\napproached the Corporation for employment. Even if it is<br \/>\naccepted for the sake of argument that he sent representations<br \/>\nit is clear that one was filed after three years and the other<br \/>\nafter 10 years. Significantly, in the representations sent in<br \/>\n1997 and 1998 there was no reference to so-called earlier<br \/>\nrepresentation, if any.  This itself shows that there was no<br \/>\nsubstance in the plea of respondent No.1 that he had been<br \/>\nagitating the matter. In any event, making a representation is<br \/>\nnot sufficient for filing a belated writ petition. In response,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for respondent No.1-workman submitted that<br \/>\nthe High Court had proceeded on equitable premises and no<br \/>\ninterference was called for.\n<\/p>\n<p>The factual position as noted above clearly shows that for<br \/>\nnearly 2 decades the respondent No.1-workman had remained<br \/>\nsilent.  As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants even in the representations made in 1997 and 1998<br \/>\nthere was no reference to the representations claimed to have<br \/>\nbeen made in 1982 and\/or 1989. Even if that would have been<br \/>\nmade, there was considerable delay even in making the<br \/>\nrepresentations. There is no dispute that mere making of<br \/>\nrepresentations cannot justify a belated approach.\n<\/p>\n<p>Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne<br \/>\nin mind by the High Court when they exercise their<br \/>\ndiscretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In<br \/>\nan appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its<br \/>\nextraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission<br \/>\non the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in<br \/>\nconjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances,<br \/>\ncauses prejudice to the opposite party. Even where<br \/>\nfundamental right is involved the matter is still within the<br \/>\ndiscretion of the Court as pointed out in <a href=\"\/doc\/124778\/\">Durga Prasad v. Chief<br \/>\nController of Imports and Exports (AIR<\/a> 1970 SC 769). Of<br \/>\ncourse, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and<br \/>\nreasonably.\n<\/p>\n<p>What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in<br \/>\nLindsay Petroleum Company v. Prosper Armstrong  Hurd etc.<br \/>\n(1874 (5) P.C. 221 at page 239) was approved by this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/96294865\/\">Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts (AIR<\/a> 1967 SC 1450) and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/95685\/\">Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Balwant<br \/>\nRegular Motor Service (AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 329). Sir Barnes had<br \/>\nstated:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Now, the doctrine of laches in Courts of<br \/>\nEquity is not an arbitrary or technical<br \/>\ndoctrine. Where it would be practically<br \/>\nunjust to give a remedy either because<br \/>\nthe party has, by his conduct done that<br \/>\nwhich might fairly be regarded as<br \/>\nequivalent to a waiver of it, or where by<br \/>\nhis conduct and neglect he has though<br \/>\nperhaps not waiving that remedy, yet put<br \/>\nthe other party in a situation in which it<br \/>\nwould not be reasonable to place him if<br \/>\nthe remedy were afterwards to be<br \/>\nasserted, in either of these cases, lapse of<br \/>\ntime and delay are most material. But in<br \/>\nevery case, if an argument against relief,<br \/>\nwhich otherwise would be just, if founded<br \/>\nupon mere delay, that delay of course not<br \/>\namounting to a bar by any statute of<br \/>\nlimitation, the validity of that defence<br \/>\nmust be tried upon principles<br \/>\nsubstantially equitable. Two<br \/>\ncircumstances always important in such<br \/>\ncases are, the length of the delay and the<br \/>\nnature of the acts done during the<br \/>\ninterval which might affect either party<br \/>\nand cause a balance of justice or injustice<br \/>\nin taking the one course or the other, so<br \/>\nfar as relates to the remedy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It would be appropriate to note certain decisions of this<br \/>\nCourt in which this aspect has been dealt with in relation with<br \/>\nArticle 32 of the Constitution. It is apparent that what has<br \/>\nbeen stated as regards that Article would apply, a fortiori, to<br \/>\nArticle 226. It was observed in R.N. Bose v. Union of India (AIR<br \/>\n1970 SC 470) that no relief can be given to the petitioner who<br \/>\nwithout any reasonable explanation approaches this Court<br \/>\nunder Article 32 after inordinate delay. It was stated that<br \/>\nthough Article 32 is itself a guaranteed right, it does not follow<br \/>\nfrom this that it was the intention of the Constitution makers<br \/>\nthat this Court should disregard all principles and grant relief<br \/>\nin petitions filed after inordinate delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>It was stated in <a href=\"\/doc\/393823\/\">State of M.P. v. Nandlal (AIR<\/a> 1987 SC\n<\/p>\n<p>251), that the High Court in exercise of its discretion does not<br \/>\nordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent<br \/>\nand the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the<br \/>\npetitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the<br \/>\nHigh Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in<br \/>\nexercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this rule is<br \/>\npremised on a number of factors. The High Court does not<br \/>\nordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy<br \/>\nbecause it is likely to cause confusion and public<br \/>\ninconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ<br \/>\njurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have<br \/>\nthe effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but<br \/>\nalso injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when<br \/>\nwrit jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with<br \/>\nthe creation of third party rights in the meantime is an<br \/>\nimportant factor which also weighs with the High Court in<br \/>\ndeciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>It has been pointed out by this Court in a number of<br \/>\ncases that representations would not be adequate explanation<br \/>\nto take care of delay. This was first stated in K.V. Raja<br \/>\nLakshmiah v. State of Mysore (AIR 1967 SC 973). This was re-<br \/>\niterated in R.N. Bose&#8217;s case (supra) by stating that there is a<br \/>\nlimit to the time which can be considered reasonable for<br \/>\nmaking representations and if the Government had turned<br \/>\ndown one representation the making of another representation<br \/>\non similar lines will not explain the delay. In State of Orissa v.<br \/>\nP. Samantaraj (AIR 1976 SC 1617) making of repeated<br \/>\nrepresentations was not regarded as satisfactory explanation<br \/>\nof the delay. In that case the petition had been dismissed for<br \/>\ndelay alone. (See State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar (AIR 1976 SC<br \/>\n1639 also).\n<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, whether Clause (4) of the Settlement was<br \/>\napplicable to respondent No.1-workman could not have been<br \/>\nadjudicated in a writ petition.  In fact, the High Court has not<br \/>\neven given any finding in that regard. As has been observed by<br \/>\nthis Court in ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v. Shyamal Chandra<br \/>\nBhowmik (2006 (1) SCC 337) in cases of this nature a writ<br \/>\npetition is not the proper remedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>Looked at from any angle, respondent No.1-workman was<br \/>\nnot entitled to any relief. The orders of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge and the Division Bench cannot be maintained and are<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is allowed but in the circumstances with no<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3726 of 2000 PETITIONER: Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd Through its Chairman &amp; Managing Director and Anr RESPONDENT: K. Thangappan &amp; Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/04\/2006 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144637","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-02T01:00:11+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=\"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\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T01:00:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1676,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-02T01:00:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-02T01:00:11+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T01:00:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006"},"wordCount":1676,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006","name":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-02T01:00:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karnataka-power-corporation-ltd-vs-k-thangappan-anr-on-4-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd &#8230; vs K. Thangappan &amp; Anr on 4 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/144637","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=144637"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144637\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144637"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144637"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144637"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}