{"id":155502,"date":"2010-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2"},"modified":"2019-02-17T09:43:23","modified_gmt":"2019-02-17T04:13:23","slug":"p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 17116 of 2010(L)\n\n\n1. P.T.GEORGE, S\/O.P.U.THOMAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. T.A.SEBASTIAN, S\/O.T.D.ANTHAPPAN,\n3. M.X.JOSLINE, S\/O.M.J.XAVIER,\n4. GEORGE VARGHESE.M., S\/O.J.VARKEY\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,\n\n3. CHIEF ENGINEER (TRANSMISSION-SOUTH)\n\n4. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,\n\n5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n\n6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n\n7. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (A.D.M.)\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :08\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                           C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                       ---------------------------------------\n                       W.P(C)No.17116 of 2010\n                       ----------------------------------------\n                        Dated 8th October, 2010\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            The question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the<\/p>\n
drawing of electric line as proposed as per Ext.R6(b) is liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered with on account of the fact that it is in deviation from the<\/p>\n
original proposal as per Ext.P6. The petitioners who are joint owners of<\/p>\n
property covered by Ext.P1 filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the proposal on the part of the respondents to draw the 220 KV Multi<\/p>\n
Circuit Transmission Line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram for evacuation<\/p>\n
of power from the 400 KV substation being constructed by M\/s.Power Grid<\/p>\n
Corporation of India Ltd., in terms of Ext.R6(b) to the extent it proposes<\/p>\n
to deviate at points `I’ and `J’.         According to the petitioners, in the<\/p>\n
approved alignments as per Ext.P6 the points in question were shown as<\/p>\n
`I’ and `J’ and as per Ext.R6(b), after its approval, it has now been<\/p>\n
decided to draw the line through the points `I1′ and `J1′ as is obvious<\/p>\n
from Ext.P8.   In short, the question is whether the proposal on the part<\/p>\n
of the respondents to draw the line in deviation from Ext.P6 approved<\/p>\n
plan in terms of Ext.R6(b) calls for any interference.           Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
drawal of the above line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram was for the<\/p>\n
purpose of getting the alloting Central share to the State. In essence, the<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
objection raised by the petitioners is against the drawal of 220KV Multi<\/p>\n
Circuit Transmission Line from Pallikkara to Brahmapuram through<\/p>\n
their properties. The total length of the proposed route is 6.5 Kms.<\/p>\n
and going by the proposed plan in Ext.R6(b) necessarily it has to pass<\/p>\n
through the property belonging to the petitioners covered by Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioners, it is a dry land. However, relying on the<\/p>\n
revenue records the respondents contended that the route in between<\/p>\n
the angle points `I1′ and `J1′ passes through paddy fields belonging to<\/p>\n
the petitioners.    In fact, Ext.P1 also supports that contention.<\/p>\n
Admittedly,   the present proposal to draw the line is for a public<\/p>\n
purpose. Earlier, the petitioners raised their objections against the<\/p>\n
drawal of line through their property as proposed as per Ext.R6(b).<\/p>\n
Taking into account the objections raised by them, the matter was<\/p>\n
referred under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with<\/p>\n
Section 164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2008. After issuing notice to<\/p>\n
all concerned parties including the petitioners a decision was taken on<\/p>\n
the said objections, by the 7th respondent. Ext.P14 is the order. It is<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P14 order that this writ petition has been filed.<\/p>\n
           2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 6.     According to them, a preliminary survey of<\/p>\n
construction of the line was conducted in October, 2009. The route<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
was selected in such a way ensuring that it passes through paddy<\/p>\n
fields to the maximum extent possible so as to avoid public protest. In<\/p>\n
other words, according to them, maximum care has been taken for the<\/p>\n
purpose of avoiding drawing of electric line over dwelling houses and<\/p>\n
busy junctions. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it has been<\/p>\n
stated that with a view to draw the line through paddy fields and to<\/p>\n
avoid its entry over dry lands changes in location at certain angle<\/p>\n
points became necessary and therefore such changes are done at<\/p>\n
certain angle points such as C, F, G, H, I and J.           According to<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 6, such changes were necessitated only to avoid<\/p>\n
drawing of lines through dry lands.       It is the contention of the<\/p>\n
respondents that based on the objection raised by the petitioners the<\/p>\n
issue was referred to the 7th respondent in accordance with the<\/p>\n
provisions under the Indian Telegraph Act and the 7th respondent after<\/p>\n
affording opportunities of being heard to all concerned and after<\/p>\n
conducting a site inspection passed Ext.P14 order. According to them,<\/p>\n
the revised route plan of Pallikkara – Brahmapuram has been made<\/p>\n
available before the 7th respondent during the site inspection.<\/p>\n
            3. The petitioners contend that Ext.P14 is a cryptic order<\/p>\n
and none of the contentions raised by them have been adverted to<\/p>\n
therein. It is their further contention that being the authority clothed<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
with power under Section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, the 7th<\/p>\n
respondent was bound to consider all the objections raised by the<\/p>\n
parties before taking a decision.        According to them, Ext.P14 is<\/p>\n
unsustainable because it reflects absolute non-application of mind. It<\/p>\n
is in the said circumstances that they contend that Ext.P14 is liable to<\/p>\n
be set aside and also pray for a direction to the respondents to draw<\/p>\n
the line as originally proposed.\n<\/p>\n
            4. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position<\/p>\n
that in respect of drawing of electric lines the reports of technical<\/p>\n
experts could not be ignored while examining the feasibility of routes<\/p>\n
suggested by the parties.        In this case, as already noticed, the<\/p>\n
suggestion on the part of the petitioners is that the line should be<\/p>\n
drawn as originally proposed. However, according to the respondents,<\/p>\n
after Ext.P6 they have revised the plan with a view to draw the line as<\/p>\n
far as possible only over paddy fields and it was in the said<\/p>\n
circumstances that resurvey was conducted and pursuant to which a<\/p>\n
revised plan was drawn with approval in January, 2010. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners in the said context contended that, in fact,<\/p>\n
there was absolutely no objection from any quarters as against the<\/p>\n
original plan, i.e., Ext.P6. But, in the counter affidavit itself it has been<\/p>\n
specifically stated that at the time of preparing the original plan the<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
paddy fields were submerged in water and that is why they were<\/p>\n
constrained to conduct a resurvey and prepare a revised plan.<\/p>\n
            5. Admittedly, the petitioners were afforded opportunity by<\/p>\n
the District Magistrate and a site inspection was also conducted.<\/p>\n
Admittedly,    drawing of 220 KV line is for a public purpose as<\/p>\n
mentioned above. For the purpose of enabling evacuation of power<\/p>\n
from the 400 KV substation M\/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.<\/p>\n
has to construct a 220 KV power bay and it is from there that it has to<\/p>\n
be evacuated. Admittedly, it is only for the purpose of getting the<\/p>\n
alloted State’s share from the Centre that from the 400 KV line the<\/p>\n
220 KV line is being drawn from Pallickara           to Brahmapuram.<\/p>\n
Essentially, it is for public interest. Relying on the decision of this<\/p>\n
Court in Ajith K.N. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others<\/a><\/p>\n
(2010 (2) KHC 895) the learned standing counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
submitted that in a matter wherein public interest involves the private<\/p>\n
interest should give way to public interest.       In ground `Q’ the<\/p>\n
petitioners have contended that the change in the alignment is<\/p>\n
proposed only for saving the lands of some interested persons. Barring<\/p>\n
the said vague averments there is no specific averment with respect to<\/p>\n
malafides. It is settled position that malafides have to be specifically<\/p>\n
pleaded and proved.      Since the allegation is too vague this Court<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot look into those aspects. Considering the facts thus obtained in<\/p>\n
this case in the light of the decision in Ajith K.N. and Others v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala and Others<\/a> (supra) compels me to come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the private interest of the petitioners has to give way<\/p>\n
to the larger public interest. However, the question is whether while<\/p>\n
passing Ext.P14 order all the contentions raised by the petitioners<\/p>\n
were taken into consideration by the 7th respondent and on account of<\/p>\n
the failure on the part of the 7th respondent in not adverting to such<\/p>\n
contentions whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioners, a deviation as proposed as per Ext.R6(b)<\/p>\n
would render their land purposeless and useless.       In terms of the<\/p>\n
present proposal, the line will be drawn through the centre of their<\/p>\n
property and if line is drawn in tune with the present proposed<\/p>\n
alignment, it will divide their property into two and make it unworthy<\/p>\n
and useless. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners drawn my<\/p>\n
attention to the fact that even respondents did not have a case that<\/p>\n
such a deviation from Ext.P6 approved plan was proposed not based<\/p>\n
on any objection raised by any aggrieved party. However, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents submitted that the circumstances that<\/p>\n
constrained the authorities to take such a deviation have been<\/p>\n
sufficiently explained in the counter affidavit and additional affidavit.<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
According to them, the competent engineers after conducting a survey<\/p>\n
have taken such a decision. That apart, prior to the passing of Ext.P14<\/p>\n
the 7th respondent has conducted site inspection. I do not think it<\/p>\n
proper for this Court in the said circumstances to interfere with the<\/p>\n
proposal especially when for its accomplishment constructions have<\/p>\n
already been started.    However, evidently, there is absence of any<\/p>\n
objection from any quarters with respect to the original plan. The<\/p>\n
tenor of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit would suggest<\/p>\n
that the respondents were compelled to take a decision to draw line<\/p>\n
through the land belonging to the petitioners on account of the fact<\/p>\n
that village records describe the property of the petitioners as paddy<\/p>\n
field. However, according to the petitioners, long ago it was converted<\/p>\n
to dry land and presently it is dry land and the present proposal would<\/p>\n
render their land unworthy and useless. As already noticed, the stand<\/p>\n
of the respondents is that the deviation was sought to be effected only<\/p>\n
to avoid drawal of line over dry lands as far as possible. In the said<\/p>\n
circumstances, it requires consideration.      Even according to the<\/p>\n
respondents, the construction on the point `J1′ is yet to be started.<\/p>\n
But, according to the petitioners, they have already started the<\/p>\n
construction of the base of the tower at the angle `I1′. Therefore, a<\/p>\n
consideration, before starting construction at angle `J1′ as to whether<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
it is feasible to take a deviation to minimise the hardship and<\/p>\n
inconvenience to the petitioners would not hamper the propspects of<\/p>\n
the present project. In fact, going through Ext.P14 order, evidently,<\/p>\n
the 7th respondent had not adverted to any such contentions or looked<\/p>\n
into prospects for such a deviation while passing the order. In the said<\/p>\n
circumstances, it is essential to look into those aspects before starting<\/p>\n
construction of tower for the purpose of drawing line from Pallikkara to<\/p>\n
Brahmapuram at the point `J1′. Having found that those aspects were<\/p>\n
not taken into consideration by the 7th respondent while passing<\/p>\n
Ext.P14 order, I am of the view that Ext.P14 is liable to be interfered<\/p>\n
to that extent. Therefore, the 7th respondent is directed to afford an<\/p>\n
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and 6th respondent for the<\/p>\n
aforesaid purpose. In view of the urgency involved in this matter and<\/p>\n
also the fact that the present project is one having public interest, the<\/p>\n
7th respondent shall fix the date for the aforesaid purpose between 5th<\/p>\n
and 15th of November, 2010 and shall intimate the date fixed for such<\/p>\n
hearing to the petitioners and the 6th respondent at least three days in<\/p>\n
advance. Any further construction at the point `J1′ for the purpose of<\/p>\n
drawing lines in accordance with Ext.R6(b) shall be taken only after<\/p>\n
such a decision by the 7th respondent. It is made clear that this<\/p>\n
decision would enable the 7th respondent only to take a decision with<\/p>\n
WP(C).No.17116\/2010                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
respect to the drawing of line in between the points `I’ and `J’ i.e., to<\/p>\n
decide whether it should be through `I’ and `J’ or through `I1′ and<\/p>\n
`J1′.\n<\/p>\n
            The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              C.T.RAVIKUMAR
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
TKS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 17116 of 2010(L) 1. P.T.GEORGE, S\/O.P.U.THOMAS, … Petitioner 2. T.A.SEBASTIAN, S\/O.T.D.ANTHAPPAN, 3. M.X.JOSLINE, S\/O.M.J.XAVIER, 4. GEORGE VARGHESE.M., S\/O.J.VARKEY Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, 3. CHIEF […]<\/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-155502","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 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\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-17T04:13:23+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T04:13:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":2004,\"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\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\",\"name\":\"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-17T04:13:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 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\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-17T04:13:23+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T04:13:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2"},"wordCount":2004,"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\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2","name":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-17T04:13:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-t-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-october-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.T.George vs State Of Kerala on 8 October, 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:\/\/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\/155502","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=155502"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155502\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155502"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155502"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155502"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}