{"id":149358,"date":"2009-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009"},"modified":"2015-09-02T00:29:30","modified_gmt":"2015-09-01T18:59:30","slug":"smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19437 of 2009(Y)\n\n\n1. SMT.ANNIE MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE CHIEF MANAGER(TLC),POWER GRID\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY\n\n3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :30\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                    ================\n                 W.P.(C) NO. 19437 OF 2009 (Y)\n                 =====================\n\n             Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, the order<\/p>\n
passed by the 3rd respondent exercising his powers under Section<\/p>\n
16 of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Section 164 of Indian<\/p>\n
Electricity Act, 2003 .\n<\/p>\n
     2.     Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner<\/p>\n
of 3.15 Ares of land in Sy.No.997\/1 of Mukundapuram Taluk. The<\/p>\n
2nd respondent Panchayat also purchased an adjacent plot of 50<\/p>\n
cents vide Document No.1148\/82 dated 30.3.1982. A 220 KV line<\/p>\n
from Edomon to Trichur, is passing through the aforesaid plot of<\/p>\n
land belonging to the Panchayat. 1st respondent is proposing to<\/p>\n
construct a 400 KVA line as part of the national grid and the<\/p>\n
proposal was to draw the line through the existing corridor of the<\/p>\n
220 KV line mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     The 2nd respondent objected to the proposal on the<\/p>\n
ground that if 400 KV line is drawn, they will not be able to<\/p>\n
construct a gas crematorium in their plot of land and requested to<\/p>\n
shift the alignment.    Thereupon the 1st respondent made an<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
application to the 3rd respondent requesting for removing the<\/p>\n
obstruction offered by the 2nd respondent. 1st respondent issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 notice to the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the objection filed<\/p>\n
contending that if the alignment of the line is shifted to her<\/p>\n
property, several yielding rubber trees will have to be cut and<\/p>\n
removed and that she will not be in a position to enjoy the whole<\/p>\n
land. Thereafter parties were issued Ext.P3 notice of hearing and<\/p>\n
were heard on 23\/12\/2008. During the course of the proceedings<\/p>\n
before the 3rd respondent, in order to save her agricultural land,<\/p>\n
petitioner filed Ext.P4, where she offered 50 cents of land<\/p>\n
belonging to her to the Panchayat in exchange of the 50 cents<\/p>\n
already purchased by the Panchayat, so that the line could be<\/p>\n
drawn through the existing corridor avoiding her property and the<\/p>\n
Panchayat can also construct its gas crematorium. The proposal<\/p>\n
made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 reads as under.<\/p>\n
       I have agreed to the exchange of equal extent of land,
\n       adjoining to their existing plot, to Meloor Grama
\n       Panchayat for construction of the cemetery, so that the
\n       gas pipe of 30 mtr height can fall outside the coverage
\n       area of the electric line between tower no.57\/0 and
\n       tower no.58\/0. During the discussion, they have agreed
\n       to the exchange of property, as it facilitates the
\n       construction of the cemetery, and for drawing the
\n       electric line through the existing route as and when
\n       required. In the circumstance, there is no need of a<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                   :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
       deviation of power line between tower 57\/0 and tower
\n       58\/0. Large scale cutting of trees can be avoided if line
\n       is drawn as per the existing route.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Along with Ext.P5, petitioner also submitted a sketch.<\/p>\n
The matter was considered by the Additional District Magistrate<\/p>\n
and Ext.P7 order was passed.            It must be stated that the<\/p>\n
suitability of this plot offered by the petitioner was not disputed<\/p>\n
by the 1st respondent. In Ext.P7, the aforesaid suggestion made<\/p>\n
by the petitioner was also considered, but the ADM noted that the<\/p>\n
Panchayat had not expressed their willingness to accept the offer<\/p>\n
made by the petitioner. Thereafter taking into account that offer<\/p>\n
also, the ADM passed the following order, which reads as under:<\/p>\n
         Out of the two options and three alternatives
\n         discussed above, option 1 is seen most feasible as the
\n         proposed gas crematorium can be avoided from the
\n         line alignment. It is less inconvenient to respondent
\n         No.1 as the tower and line will be through the western
\n         side of her pineapple garden. Regarding the mutual
\n         exchange of land, Panchayat had not expressed their
\n         willingness. Moreover, it cannot be considered until it
\n         is materialized or Panchayat make a request before
\n         the Power Grid corporation to draw the 400 KV electric
\n         line through the existing 220 KV alignment, on the
\n         ground that they intend to exchange land with
\n         respondent No.1. Then the request is to be honoured
\n         and line drawn accordingly. Otherwise, the line is to
\n         be drawn as per Option No.1<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      5.    A reading of this order shows that if the offer made by<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                 :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner was acceptable to the Panchayat, line was to be<\/p>\n
drawn through the land offered by the petitioner. Once Ext.P7<\/p>\n
order was passed by the ADM, petitioner submitted Exts.P8, P9<\/p>\n
and P10 representations to the Panchayat, to the Minister and to<\/p>\n
the Collector himself, requesting that the offer made by her in<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 be considered and a decision be taken. While there was no<\/p>\n
response from any one of the aforesaid parties, attempt was<\/p>\n
made to construct the tower in the petitioner’s property and<\/p>\n
thereupon    this writ petition was filed seeking the prayers<\/p>\n
mentioned above.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.    In this writ petition, Panchayat has filed an affidavit<\/p>\n
stating that the offer made by the petitioner was considered in<\/p>\n
the Panchayat meeting held on 22\/7\/2009 and that the<\/p>\n
Committee decided to reject the offer.        Proceedings of the<\/p>\n
meeting held on 22\/7\/09 has been produced as Ext.R2(a).<\/p>\n
     7.    In Ext.R2(a), three reasons are stated to reject the<\/p>\n
offer made by the petitioner.      The first reason is that if any<\/p>\n
change in the alignment is to be made, that will involve huge<\/p>\n
expenditure to the Panchayat. Apart from stating that change in<\/p>\n
alignment will result in expenditure, in what manner expenditure<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
will fall on the Panchayat is not mentioned in the resolution. As<\/p>\n
already stated, the tower is to be constructed and the line is to be<\/p>\n
drawn by the 1st respondent and if the alignment is to be shifted,<\/p>\n
it cannot result in any added expenditure to the Panchayat and<\/p>\n
even the 1st respondent does not have a case to that effect.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the first reason stated in Ext.R2(a) does not appeal to<\/p>\n
me at all.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Counsel for the Panchayat raised a contention that the<\/p>\n
land was acquired for the purpose of constructing a gas<\/p>\n
crematorium and therefore, exchange was not possible. I do not<\/p>\n
think that the said submission is factually correct. This is for the<\/p>\n
reason that in para 2 of this writ petition, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
specifically averred that the land in question was purchased by<\/p>\n
the Panchayat on 30\/3\/82 by document No.1148\/82. This<\/p>\n
averment is not denied. If so the theory of acquisition does not<\/p>\n
seem to be factually correct.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    The second reason stated in Ext.R2(a) resolution is that<\/p>\n
the land in question was purchased by the Panchayat with the<\/p>\n
specific purpose of constructing a crematorium. It is stated that<\/p>\n
the land offered by the petitioner is situated in closer proximity to<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                  :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
residential areas and there is possibility of complaints from the<\/p>\n
general public. In so far as the contention that there is possibility<\/p>\n
of objection from the general public is concerned, this concern of<\/p>\n
the Panchayat certainly needs to be addressed. The location of<\/p>\n
the crematorium can only be in terms of Kerala Panchayat Raj<\/p>\n
(Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998. Therefore, the land<\/p>\n
offered by the petitioner can be accepted only if it satisfies the<\/p>\n
prescriptions in the said rule. When this contention was raised,<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the plot of land<\/p>\n
presently offered by the petitioner is not suitable as per rules<\/p>\n
referred to above, the petitioner is willing to offer alternate<\/p>\n
suitable plot of land, which will satisfy the requirement of the<\/p>\n
rules and also the requirements of the 1st respondent in all<\/p>\n
respects. In the light of this offer made by the petitioner, the fact<\/p>\n
that the land offered by the petitioner lies close to residential area<\/p>\n
and the likelihood of being objected need not stand in the way of<\/p>\n
the Panchayat in accepting the offer made by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      10. The third objection raised in Ext.R2(a) is that<\/p>\n
permission of the Government is necessary for exchange of land.<\/p>\n
When projects such as this are executed, it is the duty of all<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                 :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
concerned to ensure that the damage caused to a citizen is the<\/p>\n
minimum. For this purpose, if any practical decisions are to be<\/p>\n
taken and compromises are to be made, the authorities are<\/p>\n
deemed to be competent for the same and their decisions, so<\/p>\n
long as it is bonafide and reasonable, will be upheld. Having<\/p>\n
regard to the fact that, in this case, this Court is satisfied that if<\/p>\n
the offer made by the petitioner is accepted, it will help the<\/p>\n
petitioner to save about three acres of agricultural land, and at<\/p>\n
the same time the purposes of respondents 1 and 2 can be<\/p>\n
satisfied, I do not think this technical requirement again should<\/p>\n
stand in the way of the Panchayat, provided the land offered is<\/p>\n
suitable for the purposes of respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, this<\/p>\n
reason in Ext.R2(a) for rejecting the offer made by the petitioner<\/p>\n
is also unsustainable .\n<\/p>\n
      11. In the light of the above, I dispose of this writ petition<\/p>\n
with the following directions.\n<\/p>\n
      (1)   That the Panchayat and the 1st respondent shall<\/p>\n
inspect the land offered by the petitioner and if it is found that the<\/p>\n
land in question satisfies the requirements of the             Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Grounds) Rules, 1998 and the<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                   :8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
requirements of the 1st respondent,       the land offered by the<\/p>\n
petitioner will be accepted and the 1st respondent shall draw the<\/p>\n
line through the land offered by the petitioner and accepted by<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)   If for some reason, the plot now offered by the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not suitable, it will be open to the petitioner to offer<\/p>\n
another suitable plot of land, which offer shall be made<\/p>\n
immediately on being notified of the same. Once such an offer is<\/p>\n
made, respondents 1 and 2 will inspect the said land and if it<\/p>\n
meets their requirements, accepting the offer, the line shall be<\/p>\n
drawn through such alignment.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)   It is made clear that once the aforesaid process is<\/p>\n
completed and it is found that the land presently offered or plots<\/p>\n
of land likely to be offered are not suitable for the requirements of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2, it will be open to the 1st respondent to draw<\/p>\n
the line through the alignment as allowed in Ext.P7 order of the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      (4)   It is directed that the offer, inspection and the<\/p>\n
finalisation of the alternative plots should be expedited and the<\/p>\n
whole process should be completed at any rate within 3 weeks<\/p>\n
WPC 19437\/09
\n                                 :9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, so that the<\/p>\n
1st respondent can draw the line without any further delay.<\/p>\n
      Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                       ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
\nRp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19437 of 2009(Y) 1. SMT.ANNIE MATHEW, AGED 57 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER(TLC),POWER GRID … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY For Respondent :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED […]<\/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-149358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - 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\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-01T18:59:30+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-01T18:59:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1768,\"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\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-01T18:59:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - 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\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-01T18:59:30+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-01T18:59:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009"},"wordCount":1768,"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\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009","name":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-01T18:59:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-annie-mathew-vs-the-chief-managertlc-on-30-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Annie Mathew vs The Chief Manager(Tlc) on 30 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/149358","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=149358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/149358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=149358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=149358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=149358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}