{"id":171450,"date":"2008-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-05-06T16:21:59","modified_gmt":"2015-05-06T10:51:59","slug":"a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 3562 of 2008(Y)\n\n\n1. A.B. SURENDRAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :18\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                              ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n                ------------------------------------\n\n                            W.P.(C)  3562 of  2008\n\n               -------------------------------------\n\n                          Dated: February 18, 2008\n\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The   challenge  in   this   writ  petition   is   against   Ext.P6   by   which<\/p>\n
fresh   tenders   were   invited   by   the   1st  respondent   cancelling   the<\/p>\n
tenders   that   were   received   in   response   to   Ext.P1   tender   notice..\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner also seeks a direction requiring respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
to award the work notified in Ext.P1 to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      2.  The facts of the case are:-\n<\/p>\n
      The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 tender notice inviting tenders<\/p>\n
for   the   civil   works   for   the   construction   of   the     model   livestock<\/p>\n
village, Mattupatty, Munnar.   Petitioner was one of the bidders and<\/p>\n
by Ext.P2 he was requested to attend the office of the respondents<\/p>\n
for   a   negotiation   and   it   is   stated   that   during   the   negotiation,<\/p>\n
petitioner   was   requested   to   reduce   the   rates   quoted   by   him.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner   submits   that   in   response,   he   has   submitted   Ext.P3<\/p>\n
reducing the rate by 0.5%.  He was thereafter called for a meeting by<\/p>\n
Ext.P4   and   eventually   the   respondents   passed   Ext.P9   resolution<\/p>\n
WP(C) 3562\/08<\/p>\n
                                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
resolving   to   accord   sanction   to   award   the   civil   works   notified   by<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 to the lowest tenderer, the petitioner herein, for 7.25% below<\/p>\n
PAC   subject to the approval of the Government of Kerala.       There<\/p>\n
was   a   further   resolution   to   invite   fresh   tenders   from   public   sector<\/p>\n
undertakings     and   other   Government   agencies     for   supervision,<\/p>\n
quality control and timely execution of the work.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     It   is   stated   that   the   matter   was   forwarded   to   the<\/p>\n
Government for fresh approval and in the meantime the cost of the<\/p>\n
work was also revised applying the revised rates.   After considering<\/p>\n
the   proposal   made   by   the   1st  respondent,   the   Government   issued<\/p>\n
Et.P11 on 22.1.2008, requiring the 1st  respondent to re-tender the<\/p>\n
civil   works   of   the   first   phase   of   the   project   which   was   originally<\/p>\n
notified by Ext.P1.  Petitioner submits that Ext.P11 dated 22.1.2008<\/p>\n
was received by the 1st  respondent on 23.1.2008 and Ext.P6 notice<\/p>\n
inviting   fresh   tenders           was   published   on   22.1.2008   itself.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner   takes   exception   to   Ext.P6   in   so   far   as   the   eligibility   is<\/p>\n
restricted   to   State     and   Central   Public   Sector   Undertakings   having<\/p>\n
valid   licence\/approval   for   undertaking   such   works.     It   is   also<\/p>\n
contended   that   no   reasons   are   given   in   Ext.P6   for   taking   such   a<\/p>\n
WP(C) 3562\/08<\/p>\n
                                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
decision.   According to the petitioner, the Board of Directors of the<\/p>\n
1st respondent  had not resolved to limit the field of choice to public<\/p>\n
sector   undertakings   and   therefore   the   unilateral   decision   of   the<\/p>\n
Managing Director as reflected in Ext.P6 is arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
      4.       The   1st  respondent has   filed  a   counter  affidavit  in   which<\/p>\n
the   facts   stated   by   the   petitioner   upto   the   passing   of   Ext.P9<\/p>\n
resolution is not disputed.   It is stated by the 1st respondent that in<\/p>\n
terms   of   the   Articles   of   Association,   for   execution   of   any   work<\/p>\n
beyond Rs.10 lakhs, they have to obtain approval of the Government<\/p>\n
of Kerala.    It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid provision, the<\/p>\n
decision taken by Ext.P9 was forwarded to the Government seeking<\/p>\n
approval.   It is stated that in the meantime the cost of the work was<\/p>\n
also   revised   taking   into   account   the   revised   rates   that   came   into<\/p>\n
force from 1.4.2007.     According to the respondent it is in view of<\/p>\n
this,   the   Government   issued   Ext.P11   directing   invitation   of   fresh<\/p>\n
tenders.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  On receipt of Ext.P11 the matter was considered by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent and it was decided that since for execution of work and<\/p>\n
its   supervision,     engagement   of   two   agencies   would   have   been<\/p>\n
WP(C) 3562\/08<\/p>\n
                                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
necessary   and   that   this   would   have   caused   practical   difficulties.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore     it   was   decided   to     get   the   work   executed   by   a   single<\/p>\n
agency which has the   capability of both execution of the work and<\/p>\n
its   supervision.       According   to   the   respondents,   it   was   keeping   in<\/p>\n
mind   this   object,   they   have   decided   to   invite   tenders   from   public<\/p>\n
sector undertakings who had the capability for both the works and<\/p>\n
that Ext.P6 was issued in pursuance to the aforesaid decision.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     In   so   far   as   the   contention   of   the   petitioner   that   the<\/p>\n
decision as reflected in Ext.P6 lacks any bona fides, counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents invited  my attention to the pleadings and argued that<\/p>\n
it   was   only   for   administrative   convenience   and   for   ensuring   the<\/p>\n
quality   of   work   that   they   have   decided   to   go   in   for   a   single   fresh<\/p>\n
tender involving a single agency.\n<\/p>\n
       7.       I have no reason to doubt this explanation given by the<\/p>\n
2nd  respondent.       In   so   far   as   the   allegation   of   the   petitioner   that<\/p>\n
Ext.P11   was   issued   on   22.1.08   and   was   received   by   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent on 23.1.2008 when Ext.P6 was also published, counsel<\/p>\n
for   the   respondents   would   submit   that   Ext.P11   was   received   on<\/p>\n
22.1.2008 in the office of the 1st respondent at Trivandrum and that<\/p>\n
WP(C) 3562\/08<\/p>\n
                                   Page numbers<\/p>\n
the same was forwarded to the press on 23.1.2008.     According to<\/p>\n
the counsel, Ext.P6 was published in the newspapers on 24.1.2008<\/p>\n
and  this fact is evident from Ext.P6 itself.\n<\/p>\n
       8.     Having   heard   the   arguments   of   the   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner and also the respondents, I do not think that this is a case<\/p>\n
warranting   interference   of   this   court.       In   the   mater   of   tender,<\/p>\n
irrespective of whether it is invited by an authority under Art.12 of<\/p>\n
the   Constitution,   decisions   are   essentially   guided   by   commercial<\/p>\n
considerations   and   administrative   convenience.       Of   course,   if   a<\/p>\n
decision taken in the process is vitiated by mala fides, certainly the<\/p>\n
court   is   justified   in   interfering   with   the   same.     In   this   case,   the<\/p>\n
respondent has explained  that if Ext.P1 was  to be proceeded with,<\/p>\n
that would have necessitated the involvement of two agencies, one<\/p>\n
for executing the civil work and the other for supervision purposes.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent in its wisdom has decided that it was advantageous<\/p>\n
to get both the works done by a single agency.   If such a decision is<\/p>\n
taken   for   bona   fide   reasons,   this   court   has   no   reason   to   interfere<\/p>\n
with the same.    I have also no material at all on record to doubt the<\/p>\n
bona fides of this decision.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) 3562\/08<\/p>\n
                                   Page numbers<\/p>\n
        9.   The argument of the petitioner  that  Ext.P11 was received<\/p>\n
by   the   respondents   on   23.1.2008   only   and   that   the   same   was<\/p>\n
published in the newspapers on the same date, does not appear to<\/p>\n
be factually correct.   It has been explained by the respondents that<\/p>\n
they have received Ext.P11 on 22.1.2008 in their Trivandrum office<\/p>\n
and that it was given to the press on the next day.   This does not<\/p>\n
reflect any hurried action on the side of the respondents to defeat<\/p>\n
any   rights   of   the   petitioner.     It   may   be   true,   that   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
would   have   got   the   work,   had   Ext.P1   been   proceeded   with.\n<\/p>\n
However,   having   regard   to   the   fact   that   there   are   no   vitiating<\/p>\n
circumstance  warranting  interference  with  Ext.P6,   I  have  to  uphold<\/p>\n
the said decision and dismiss the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        Writ petition fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<\/p>\n
mt\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 3562 of 2008(Y) 1. A.B. SURENDRAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD LTD., … Respondent 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. STATE OF KERALA, 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, For Petitioner […]<\/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-171450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - 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\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-06T10:51:59+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T10:51:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1148,\"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\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\",\"name\":\"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-06T10:51:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - 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\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-06T10:51:59+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T10:51:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008"},"wordCount":1148,"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\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008","name":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development ... on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-06T10:51:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-b-surendran-vs-kerala-livestock-development-on-18-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.B. Surendran vs Kerala Livestock Development … on 18 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/171450","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=171450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}