{"id":173487,"date":"2010-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-09T02:30:02","modified_gmt":"2018-10-08T21:00:02","slug":"s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 25051 of 1998(G)\n\n\n\n1. S.K.THAHIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :21\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                  -------------------------\n                    O.P. No.25051 of 1998 (G)\n            ---------------------------------\n              Dated, this the 21st day of July, 2010\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>     According to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P13 minutes of<\/p>\n<p>the executive committee meeting of the 1st respondent held on<\/p>\n<p>06\/08\/1994, the then Secretary issued Ext.P2 order appointing him<\/p>\n<p>as the Assistant Manager with effect from 01\/09\/1994. It is stated<\/p>\n<p>that after the 4th respondent assumed charge as the Secretary,<\/p>\n<p>proceedings were initiated against the petitioner culminating in<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P4 memo, where allegations of misconducts were levelled<\/p>\n<p>against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he filed Ext.P5<\/p>\n<p>reply denying the allegations.     However, by Ext.P6 order dated<\/p>\n<p>04\/07\/1998, describing the designation of the petitioner as<\/p>\n<p>Accountant (Office), the petitioner was placed under suspension. To<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P6, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7. The petitioner submits that<\/p>\n<p>without any opportunity or other proceedings, he was issued Ext.P8<\/p>\n<p>memo dated 24\/08\/1998 calling upon him to show cause why<\/p>\n<p>penalty of severe warning shall not be imposed.       To Ext.P8, he<\/p>\n<p>O.P. No.25051\/1998<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>submitted Ext.P9 explanation.       Finally, Ext.P11 proceedings was<\/p>\n<p>issued imposing warning as proposed in Ext.P8 and directing the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner to work as Accountant (Office). The petitioner declined to<\/p>\n<p>resume duty as Accountant and made representation in the matter.<\/p>\n<p>These did not result in any order allowing him to work as Assistant<\/p>\n<p>Manager as claimed by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.    In the meanwhile, on identical allegations, he was also<\/p>\n<p>called upon to appear before the District Planning Officer as per<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P14, to which he submitted Ext.P15 explanation. It is thereafter<\/p>\n<p>that this original petition was filed challenging Exts.P6, P8, P11 &amp;<\/p>\n<p>P14 and also for a direction to the respondents to permit him to<\/p>\n<p>rejoin duty as Assistant Manager.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    In this original petition, this Court passed interim order<\/p>\n<p>dated 16\/03\/1999 in CMP No.6910\/1999 directing that he will be<\/p>\n<p>reinstated as Assistant Manager.         Against that order, the 4th<\/p>\n<p>respondent filed W.A.No.857\/1999, which was disposed of by<\/p>\n<p>judgment dated 06\/04\/1999. By this judgment, the petitioner was<\/p>\n<p>directed to report for duty and the issue as to whether he was<\/p>\n<p>appointed as Assistant Manager as claimed by him or as Accountant<\/p>\n<p>O.P. No.25051\/1998<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>as claimed by the respondents was left open to be decided in the<\/p>\n<p>original petition. According to the petitioner, though he resumed<\/p>\n<p>duty again, he was again placed under suspension by Ext.R1(A)<\/p>\n<p>order dated 04\/06\/1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.    Insofar as this original petition is concerned, all that this<\/p>\n<p>Court is concerned, is the validity of Exts.P8, P11 &amp; P14 and the<\/p>\n<p>question as to whether the petitioner was appointed as Assistant<\/p>\n<p>Manager as claimed by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.    As far as the disciplinary action which culminated in<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P8 and P11 orders are concerned, in my view, the punishment<\/p>\n<p>has been imposed in violation of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n<p>This is for the reason that a perusal of Ext.P8 shows that an enquiry<\/p>\n<p>was conducted by the District Planning Officer and that the District<\/p>\n<p>Planning Officer reported that the charges levelled against the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner in Ext.P6 were proved beyond doubt. The respondents<\/p>\n<p>have no case that the enquiry, report of which is relied on in Ext.P8,<\/p>\n<p>was with notice to the petitioner or with opportunity to him. Even<\/p>\n<p>the report of enquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. It is relying<\/p>\n<p>on the report and other undisclosed materials that punishment of<\/p>\n<p>O.P. No.25051\/1998<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                  -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>warning was proposed and confirmed against the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, Exts.P8 &amp; P11 cannot be sustained and are accordingly<\/p>\n<p>quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.    Insofar as the challenge against Ext.P14 is concerned,<\/p>\n<p>that proceedings did not result in any order against the petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>nor have the respondents communicated any order to the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, no prejudicial action<\/p>\n<p>has been taken on the basis of Ext.P14 and therefore, the challenge<\/p>\n<p>against Ext.P14 is unnecessary, at least at this stage.<\/p>\n<p>      7.    Now what remains is whether the petitioner was an<\/p>\n<p>Assistant Manager as claimed by him or Accountant (Office) as<\/p>\n<p>claimed by the respondents.       The petitioner claims this status<\/p>\n<p>relying on Ext.P2 order of appointment, Ext.P3 allocation of duties,<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P10 letter allegedly issued by the Secretary and Ext.P13 minutes<\/p>\n<p>of the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent.<\/p>\n<p>      On the other hand, respondents submit that these documents<\/p>\n<p>cannot be relied on. According to the respondents, out of these<\/p>\n<p>documents, Exts.P2 and original of Ext.P13 were fabricated by the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner to suit his convenience. Insofar as Exts.P3 &amp; P10 are<\/p>\n<p>O.P. No.25051\/1998<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>concerned, it is stated that the Secretary issued the same without<\/p>\n<p>realising the consequences. The respondents also relied on Exts.P4,<\/p>\n<p>P6 &amp; P11 in support of the contention that the petitioner was only<\/p>\n<p>an Accountant.    It is also their case that they have set criminal law<\/p>\n<p>in motion against the petitioner on these allegations. From these, it<\/p>\n<p>is obvious that the question whether the petitioner was appointed as<\/p>\n<p>an Assistant Manager or as an Accountant is a question of fact,<\/p>\n<p>which is seriously disputed by the parties. Such a disputed question<\/p>\n<p>of fact, cannot be decided in a proceedings under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n<p>Constitution of India.    Therefore, I refrain from considering this<\/p>\n<p>question and leave it open to the parties to be agitated in<\/p>\n<p>appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>      This original petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n<p>                                    (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)<br \/>\njg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 25051 of 1998(G) 1. S.K.THAHIR &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :21\/07\/2010 O R D E R [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-173487","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-08T21:00:02+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T21:00:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":907,\"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\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\",\"name\":\"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-08T21:00:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 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":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-08T21:00:02+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T21:00:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010"},"wordCount":907,"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\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010","name":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-08T21:00:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-thahir-vs-state-of-kerala-on-21-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.K.Thahir vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 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\/173487","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=173487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/173487\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=173487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=173487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=173487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}