{"id":149049,"date":"2010-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-09-17T22:31:08","modified_gmt":"2015-09-17T17:01:08","slug":"k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1405 of 2008()\n\n\n1. K.P.PADMANABHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. C.KUMARAN, S\/O.RAMAN, VAISAKHAM,\n3. APPU.P., S\/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOLAKAL HOUSE\n4. P.K.VALSALA, PALATHARA MUTHU MAHAL\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :11\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                         J.Chelameswar, C.J.,\n                           Thomas P. Joseph\n                                       &\n                    P.R.Ramachandra Menon, JJ.\n                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         W.A.No.1405 of 2008\n                                      and\n                       W.P.(C) No.34618 of 2006\n                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
J.Chelameswar, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
           W.A.No.1405 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.34618 of 2006<\/p>\n
came to be placed before this Full Bench pursuant to an order of<\/p>\n
reference dated 28.01.2010.\n<\/p>\n
           2.    Three communities, Mannan, Perumannan and<\/p>\n
Vannan, in the State of Kerala are recognised by an order of the<\/p>\n
President issued pursuant to the power entrusted to the President<\/p>\n
under Article 341 of the Constitution of India to be the ‘Scheduled<\/p>\n
Caste’ in relation to the State of Kerala. There is another community<\/p>\n
known as “Peruvannan” in the State of Kerala.                  The members of<\/p>\n
the said community claim that the name “Peruvannan” is a synonym<\/p>\n
of the name “Vannan”, a community which is already recognised as<\/p>\n
Scheduled Caste.\n<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                         -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            3.   The first appellant in          W.A.No.1405        of    2008, one<\/p>\n
K.Padmanabhan, produced a certificate as Ext.P2 in the writ petition,<\/p>\n
issued by the Head Master of Government School, Mangada,<\/p>\n
Pallipuram, Malappuram District dated 14.02.2008 which purports to<\/p>\n
certify that the abovementioned Padmanabhan belongs to a caste<\/p>\n
known as “Vannan”. However, another certificate dated 24.03.1962<\/p>\n
issued by the head of the Higher Secondary School, Tirur showing the<\/p>\n
caste of the abovementioned Padmanabhan as “Peruvannan”.<\/p>\n
            4. The question whether Peruvannan and Vannan are<\/p>\n
synonym has been troubling the State of Kerala for quite some time.<\/p>\n
The Government of Kerala issued an order, G.O. No.1090 dated<\/p>\n
13.09.1958    (Ext.P1) by the Labour and Local Administration<\/p>\n
Department (Harijan Welfare B). The relevant portion of it reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   “For   the    purpose    of  educational concessions     the<\/p>\n
            communities known as Mannan, Pathiyan and Vannan are treated<\/p>\n
            at present as Scheduled Castes throughout the State except in the<\/p>\n
            erstwhile Malabar area.      The Director of Harijan Welfare has<\/p>\n
            reported that the Social Educational and Economic Conditions as<\/p>\n
            well as the traditional occupations of the communities and also the<\/p>\n
            Varnavar community are identical to those of the Peruvannan<\/p>\n
            community which is treated as Scheduled Caste throughout the<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                      -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            State.    He has therefore recommended that all the four<\/p>\n
            communities    mentioned   above    may    be   bracketed   with<\/p>\n
            Peruvannans. So the Government are pleased to order that the<\/p>\n
            above mentioned communities are bracketed with Peruvannan.<\/p>\n
            However, in the meantime Government are pleased to extend to<\/p>\n
            the four communities mentioned above throughout the State all the<\/p>\n
            Educational and other concessions granted to Scheduled Castes by<\/p>\n
            the Harijan Welfare Department.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In other words, by the said order the State of Kerala wanted to treat the<\/p>\n
community Peruvannan also as a Scheduled Caste through out the<\/p>\n
State of Kerala, an exercise which is not permissible under the scheme<\/p>\n
of the Constitution, having regard to the language of Article 341 which<\/p>\n
mandates that the identification of Scheduled Caste to be done by the<\/p>\n
President at the first instance by a public notification and any change<\/p>\n
subsequent to the said initial identification can be made either by way<\/p>\n
of an addition to or exclusion from the list only by the Parliament. The<\/p>\n
fact that such an identification made by the President cannot be altered<\/p>\n
by any other body or organ of the State except the Parliament is<\/p>\n
repeatedly held by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions [see<\/p>\n
State of Maharashtra v. Milind<\/a> (2001) 1 SCC 4 and E.V.Chinnayya<\/p>\n
v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394].\n<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                   -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
             5. However, it is the averment of the appellants that in view<\/p>\n
of the abovementioned Government Order (G.O.No.1090)                 large<\/p>\n
number of cases of the people belonging to Peruvannan community<\/p>\n
were treated as people belonging to Scheduled Caste eversince the<\/p>\n
abovementioned Government Order in the State of Kerala.<\/p>\n
             6. The State of Kerala made an enactment known as “The<\/p>\n
Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue<\/p>\n
of Community Certificates Act, 1996(for short Act 11 of 1996)”. Section<\/p>\n
3 of the said Act postulates that any person claiming the benefit of any<\/p>\n
reservation, protection, concession or exemption granted by law in<\/p>\n
favour of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe<\/p>\n
shall prove his claim by producing a certificate issued under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act indicating the caste status of the claimant. The<\/p>\n
other provisions of the Act stipulate the procedure for securing such a<\/p>\n
certificate including the nature of the enquiry that is to be conducted<\/p>\n
before a certificate is granted etc., (the further details of the said Act<\/p>\n
may not be necessary for the present purpose).<\/p>\n
             7. However, a Division Bench of this Court in a judgment<\/p>\n
reported in Madhavi v. Scrutiny Committee<\/a> [2004(3) KLT 967]<\/p>\n
declared as follows:\n<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                     -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
              “The question as to whether third respondent in fact<\/p>\n
        belongs to Mannan community is always a matter to be<\/p>\n
        examined by KIRTADS or the Scrutiny Committee, but the<\/p>\n
        reasoning that both Mannan and Peruvannan are the same and<\/p>\n
        consequently Peruvannan has to be treated as scheduled caste<\/p>\n
        cannot be sustained unless the Presidential order is amended<\/p>\n
        accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            8. Consequent upon the said decision, the State of Kerala<\/p>\n
issued another order, G.O.(MS) No.37\/06\/SCSTDD dated 28.07.2006,<\/p>\n
in substance      declaring that the Peruvannan is not synonym of<\/p>\n
Vannan\/Mannan\/Perumannan and hence no correction of caste name<\/p>\n
from  Peruvannan        to  either   Vannan\/Mannan\/          Perumannan    is<\/p>\n
permissible. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:<\/p>\n
              “3. In obedience to the observations of the Hon’ble High<\/p>\n
       Court and in modification of the existing orders\/guidelines on the<\/p>\n
       subject, Government are pleased to clarify that Peruvannan is not a<\/p>\n
       synonym of Vannan\/Mannan\/Perumannan communities shown in<\/p>\n
       serial number 37 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders<\/p>\n
       (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 61 of 2002) and that<\/p>\n
       ‘Peruvannan’ cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste and hence no<\/p>\n
       correction of caste name from Peruvannan (included in the list of<\/p>\n
       OBC and OEC) to Vannan\/Mannan\/ Perumannan (Scheduled<\/p>\n
       Caste) Communities be made on this count.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                  -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            9.   Challenging the abovementioned Government Order<\/p>\n
dated 28.07.2006, the abovementioned Padmanabhan and three<\/p>\n
others approached this Court by way of a writ petition. By judgment<\/p>\n
dated 29.05.2008 the said writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the same, the petitioners carried the matter by way of W.A.No. 1405<\/p>\n
of 2008. When the writ appeal was taken up for hearing by a Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this court, by the referral order dated 28.01.2010 thought it fit<\/p>\n
that the issue involved in the appeal be examined by a larger Bench,<\/p>\n
more particularly, the Division Bench doubted the correctness of the<\/p>\n
earlier judgment in Madhavi’s case (supra) for the following reasons:<\/p>\n
(1) that the State of Kerala had steadily followed the practice of<\/p>\n
recognising the community named Peruvannan as synonym with<\/p>\n
Vannan\/Mannan\/ Perumannan from the date of the Government Order<\/p>\n
dated 13.09.1958 (2) a confession made by the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader who appeared in the matter and (3) that there is a study<\/p>\n
conducted by an agency by name “KIRTADS”, which is constituted<\/p>\n
under Section 9 of Act 11 of 1996 mentioned above and the study<\/p>\n
revealed that the names of     Vannan and Mannan are synonyms and<\/p>\n
Peruvannan and Perumannan are honorific titles of the ‘Vannan’ and<\/p>\n
‘Mannan’ community and therefore all the communities are required to<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                       -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
be recognised as Scheduled Castes. In the referral order the Division<\/p>\n
Bench also recorded that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of Act<\/p>\n
11 of 1996 that the report of an ‘Expert Agency’, which is a defined<\/p>\n
expression under Section 2(g) of the Act, is conclusive proof of the<\/p>\n
status of a community. Hence the reference.<\/p>\n
             10. W.P.(C) No.34618 of 2006 came to be tagged on to the<\/p>\n
appeal in view of the fact that the question of law raised in the said writ<\/p>\n
petition is identical with the question of law involved in the writ appeal.<\/p>\n
             11. The issue is whether the decision of the Division Bench<\/p>\n
reported in Madhavi’s case (supra) requires any reconsideration.<\/p>\n
             12.    The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are<\/p>\n
defined under Article 366 (24) and (25) as follows:<\/p>\n
             “366. Definitions.- In this Constitution, unless the context<\/p>\n
      otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings<\/p>\n
      hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say–<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             xxxx                xxxx<\/p>\n
             (24) “Scheduled Castes” means such castes, races or tribes<\/p>\n
      or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are<\/p>\n
      deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purpose<\/p>\n
      of this Constitution;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (25) “Scheduled Tribes” means such tribes or tribal<\/p>\n
      communities     or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal<\/p>\n
      communities as are deemed under article 342 to be Scheduled<\/p>\n
      Tribes for the purpose of this Constitution.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                               -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
              13.     Articles 341* and 342** of the Constitution of India<\/p>\n
stipulate that the President shall identify the Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
        ———————————————————————————-<\/p>\n
       *341. Scheduled Castes.- (1) The President may with respect to any<\/p>\n
      State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with<\/p>\n
      the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races<\/p>\n
      or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall<\/p>\n
      for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled<\/p>\n
      Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.<\/p>\n
              (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of<\/p>\n
      Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1)<\/p>\n
      any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or<\/p>\n
      tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause<\/p>\n
      shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.<\/p>\n
       **342. Scheduled Tribes.- (1) The President may with respect to any<\/p>\n
      State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with<\/p>\n
      the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal<\/p>\n
      communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities<\/p>\n
      which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be<\/p>\n
      Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the<\/p>\n
      case may be.\n<\/p>\n
              (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of<\/p>\n
      Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1)<\/p>\n
      any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or<\/p>\n
      tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the<\/p>\n
      said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                 -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or a Union Territory as the<\/p>\n
case may be, in consultation with the Governor in the context of<\/p>\n
State.   Sub Article (2) of each of the abovementioned Articles<\/p>\n
authorises the Parliament by law either to include in or exclude<\/p>\n
from the list so prepared of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribe under the abovementioned two Articles.          Both the sub<\/p>\n
Articles expressly declare that “save as aforesaid”, i.e., by law<\/p>\n
made by the Parliament, a notification issued under Clause (1)<\/p>\n
shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. In other words,<\/p>\n
once the identification under sub Article (2) of either Article 341 or<\/p>\n
342 is made by the President and notified the same is not<\/p>\n
amenable to variation by any subsequent notification. But, for such<\/p>\n
a declaration under sub Article (2), the power to issue a<\/p>\n
notification as the one contemplated under Articles 341 and 342,<\/p>\n
necessarily takes within its purview the power to vary or amend<\/p>\n
the said notification by virtue of the operation of Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act, 1897 which is expressly made applicable to<\/p>\n
the Constitution by virtue of a declaration under Article 367.<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                  -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            14. The principle that the notification once issued under<\/p>\n
Article 341 (2) or 342(2) is not amenable to any variation process<\/p>\n
by a body other than the Parliament is too well settled by various<\/p>\n
decisions of the Supreme Court [see State of Maharashtra v.<\/p>\n
Milind<\/a> (2001) 1 SCC 4]. At paragraph 12 of the said judgment the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “Plain language and clear terms of these articles show<\/p>\n
      (1) the President under clause (1) of the said articles may<\/p>\n
      with respect to any State or Union Territory and where it is a<\/p>\n
      State, after consultation with the Governor, by public<\/p>\n
      notification specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or<\/p>\n
      groups within the castes, races or tribes which shall for the<\/p>\n
      purposes of the Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled<\/p>\n
      Castes\/Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union<\/p>\n
      Territory as the case may be; (2) under clause (2) of the<\/p>\n
      said articles, a notification issued under clause (1) cannot<\/p>\n
      be varied by      any subsequent notification except by law<\/p>\n
      made by Parliament. In other words, Parliament alone is<\/p>\n
      competent by law to include in or exclude a caste\/tribe from<\/p>\n
      the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes specified<\/p>\n
      in notifications issued under clause (1) of the said articles”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            15. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
law declared in Madhavi’s case (supra) does not call for any<\/p>\n
further interference in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
            16. The reference is answered accordingly. However,<\/p>\n
the claim in the present cases is that the name of the community<\/p>\n
to which the appellants\/petitioners belonged is erroneously<\/p>\n
certified in a certificate issued by a competent authority under<\/p>\n
appropriate law (Act 11 of 1996) and the parties seeking the<\/p>\n
correction of the said entry after adducing appropriate evidence<\/p>\n
regarding the fact that the community to which the claimant<\/p>\n
belongs are debarred from seeking such relief in view of the<\/p>\n
subsequent proceedings. The fact that except the Parliament no<\/p>\n
other body is legally authorised to alter (either by addition or<\/p>\n
omission) the list prepared under Articles 341 or 342 does not<\/p>\n
mean that an enquiry in an individual case in to the complaint that<\/p>\n
an authority competent to issue a certificate evidencing the proof<\/p>\n
of the fact of the community committed a factual mistake in issuing<\/p>\n
such a certificate.\n<\/p>\n
WA No. 1405 of 2008
\nand W.P.(C) No. 34618 of 2006
\n                                 -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
            We are of the opinion that the cases of the parties to<\/p>\n
these proceedings fall under the above category. Therefore, in<\/p>\n
our opinion, neither Madhavi v. Scrutiny Committee<\/a> [2004(3)<\/p>\n
KLT 967] nor the Government Order G.O.(MS) No.37\/06\/SCSTDD<\/p>\n
dated 28.07.2006, can bar or do bar such an enquiry. Both the<\/p>\n
writ appeal and the writ petition are, accordingly, disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                                  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                            J.Chelameswar
\n                                              Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                           Thomas P.Joseph
\n                                                  Judge<\/p>\n
                                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        P.R.Ramachandra Menon
\n                                                  Judge<\/p>\n
ttb\/vku.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1405 of 2008() 1. K.P.PADMANABHAN, … Petitioner 2. C.KUMARAN, S\/O.RAMAN, VAISAKHAM, 3. APPU.P., S\/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOLAKAL HOUSE 4. P.K.VALSALA, PALATHARA MUTHU MAHAL Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BINDU […]<\/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-149049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 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\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-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=\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-17T17:01:08+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T17:01:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2408,\"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\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\",\"name\":\"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T17:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 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\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-17T17:01:08+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T17:01:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010"},"wordCount":2408,"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\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010","name":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T17:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-padmanabhan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala on 11 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/149049","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=149049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}