{"id":175505,"date":"2009-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-21T16:42:09","modified_gmt":"2018-03-21T11:12:09","slug":"shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 31846 of 2006(N)\n\n\n1. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 31 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,\n\n3. DIVISIONAL FORST OFFICER,\n\n4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :24\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n          ----------------------------------------\n               WPC . No.31846 OF 2006\n          ----------------------------------------\n           Dated, the 24th day of July, 2009\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The    petitioner, who participated in the auction<\/p>\n
conducted on 18.11.2004 connected with sale of timber<\/p>\n
(under section 64 of the Sale of Goods Act), approached<\/p>\n
this Court praying    inter alia to call  for   the records<\/p>\n
leading to Ext.P10 and quash the same by issuing a writ<\/p>\n
of certiorari.  It is also   prayed    to issue a writ of<\/p>\n
mandamus directing the Ist respondent to release the<\/p>\n
timber purchased by the petitioner in the auction held<\/p>\n
on 18.11.2004 which was confirmed as per Ext.P2.<\/p>\n
     2.   The specific case of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.P1 auction notice dated 8.10.2004, he<\/p>\n
had participated in the auction. Though in Ext.P1, the<\/p>\n
first date fixed for the auction was on 21.10.2004, the<\/p>\n
same was adjourned as nobody was prepared to offer<\/p>\n
the upset price fixed as per the notification. Thus re-<\/p>\n
auction   was conducted        on    18.11.2004 and the<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                              -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner  offered   a sum of Rs.4,83,000\/-      as the<\/p>\n
maximum price of the timber and the same was accepted<\/p>\n
and, accordingly, the petitioner remitted the amount on<\/p>\n
19.11.2004 as per the terms contained in Ext.P1 notice.<\/p>\n
Subsequent to that, the first    respondent issued Ext.P2<\/p>\n
order dated 4.12.2004 by which the sale was confirmed.<\/p>\n
As the sale was confirmed, the petitioner approached the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent seeking transit pass for transporting the<\/p>\n
soft wood, and thus, Ext.P3 permit dated 16.12.2004<\/p>\n
was issued, on the basis of which, he had removed the<\/p>\n
soft wood.   Thereafter, the petitioner  preferred Ext.P4<\/p>\n
application dated 17.2.2005 for the transit pass for<\/p>\n
removing the Rose wood. The Village Officer, Kannavam,<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P5 report dated 18.2.2005, recommended that<\/p>\n
the pass can be issued as     sought   for.  But the   3rd<\/p>\n
respondent D.F.O. was reluctant in issuing the requisite<\/p>\n
transit pass   on the ground that      the timber    was<\/p>\n
undervalued and, according to him, the timber auctioned<\/p>\n
would fetch the value more than Rs.10 lakhs. As there<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                                -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
was no favourable      action from the 3rd respondent, the<\/p>\n
petitioner preferred Ext.P6 petition dated 3.3.2005 before<\/p>\n
the    District Collector, Kannur-first respondent herein.<\/p>\n
However, the Ist respondent issued Ext.P7 order stating<\/p>\n
that the matter has been referred to the Government and<\/p>\n
the   auction sale in the name of the        petitioner was<\/p>\n
ordered to be kept in abeyance until further          orders.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner approached the<\/p>\n
this Court     by    filing  WPC No. 20275\/2005 which<\/p>\n
culminated in Ext.P9 judgment dated 16.2.2006 by which<\/p>\n
this  court directed the District    collector  to pass final<\/p>\n
orders in the matter after affording an opportunity of being<\/p>\n
heard to the petitioner and         taking into account his<\/p>\n
contentions,    and also directed to pass order within one<\/p>\n
month    from the date of production of a copy of that<\/p>\n
judgment. It appears that in the light of Ext.P9 judgment,<\/p>\n
the District Collector passed Ext.P10 order which is now<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
      3.  Controverting    the    contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner, 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit,  there is no dispute regarding the<\/p>\n
facts asserted by the petitioner up to the stage of issuing<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 transit pass and Ext.P5 report of the Village Officer.<\/p>\n
According to the    respondents,    District Collector issued<\/p>\n
the confirmation order under the belief that value of the<\/p>\n
timber was correct. It is also stated that against auction<\/p>\n
sale of trees,    the Secretary, Adivasi Kshema Samithi,<\/p>\n
Kuthuparamba Area Committee filed a petition before the<\/p>\n
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thalassery, and the DFO<\/p>\n
Kannur, conducted a suo motu        valuation     and filed a<\/p>\n
report on 28.2.2005 informing that the       value of    Rose<\/p>\n
wood    trees alone would fetch more than Rs.10 lakhs.<\/p>\n
According to     the counter affidavit,   upon    the   above<\/p>\n
report, the District Collector passed Ext.P7 order. It is<\/p>\n
also   stated in the counter affidavit that           the Ist<\/p>\n
respondent Collector was satisfied that the value of the<\/p>\n
timber was much higher than            the amount remitted<\/p>\n
and, therefore, Ext.P10 order was issued. According to the<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents, if the rosewood is released in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  in the light of   Ext.P2 and other     auction<\/p>\n
proceedings, the Government has to sustain huge loss and<\/p>\n
in order to save the interest of the Government, Ext.P10<\/p>\n
was issued. It is also stated that the writ petition is not<\/p>\n
maintainable. It is also pointed out that consequent to<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 order,    the RDO, Thalassery issued     orders    to<\/p>\n
refund   to the petitioner 60.7% of the bid amount with<\/p>\n
taxes plus the proportionate cutting cost of the trees as<\/p>\n
valued by the RDO Thalassery. Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) are<\/p>\n
the orders thus issued by the RDO.         According to the<\/p>\n
respondents, in view of Clauses 11, 12 and 13 of Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
the respondents have       authority to cancel the bid,<\/p>\n
especially, when the action of the respondents is to save<\/p>\n
the interest of the State.\n<\/p>\n
      4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
as well as      Sri P.M.Poulose, the Special Government<\/p>\n
Pleader (Forests) and also perused the materials on record.<\/p>\n
      5.  From the    facts which   are beyond dispute, it<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
appears that the petitioner    participated in the    auction<\/p>\n
which conducted on the basis of Ext.P1 auction notice<\/p>\n
wherein, a list of the trees to be auctioned and the<\/p>\n
terms   and conditions    regarding the    auction and    the<\/p>\n
value to be remitted are given. It is also a fact that on the<\/p>\n
first auction date fixed as per Ext.P1 notice, there was<\/p>\n
no bidder to offer the upset price as notified in Ext.P1. It<\/p>\n
was under the above circumstances, auction date was re-<\/p>\n
scheduled as to     18.11.2004.    The petitioner being the<\/p>\n
highest bidder,    the sale proceedings    was finalised   in<\/p>\n
favour of him and        he had made the payment of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,83,000\/- on 19.11.2004, in fully compliance with the<\/p>\n
terms of    the conditions contained in Ext.P1.       As the<\/p>\n
petitioner    performed his part of the agreement          of<\/p>\n
contract, the first respondent Collector by issuing Ext.P2<\/p>\n
order dated 4.12.2004, confirmed the auction sale. In<\/p>\n
pursuance of the confirmation of sale, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
also removed the soft wood and the above fact is also<\/p>\n
not under dispute.        Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) documents<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
produced by the respondents are disputed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     Though the petitioner preferred Ext.P4<\/p>\n
application on 17.2.2005 for transit pass for transporting<\/p>\n
the rose wood, though the      auction was on 18.11.2004<\/p>\n
and the same was confirmed on 4.12.2004, in the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, there was no objection from any corner.<\/p>\n
      6.   In this juncture, it is also relevant to consider<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 confirmation order. In Ext.P2 order, it is specifically<\/p>\n
stated about the report of the RDO, which says that, there<\/p>\n
is no possibility to get more amount even if the auction is<\/p>\n
postponed or cancelled. So, at the time of the issuance of<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 order, the Ist respondent, who is the competent<\/p>\n
authority, came into a definite conclusion that there is no<\/p>\n
scope for cancellation or postponement of the auction.<\/p>\n
It was   under the     above   circumstances, the sale was<\/p>\n
confirmed in favour of the petitioner.          The above<\/p>\n
observation and finding     of the Ist respondent is after<\/p>\n
consideration of Clauses 13 and 5 of Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
      7. The       learned   Special Government Pleader<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                              -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
emphatically submitted that in view of clause 13 and 5 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1, the Government\/Department is fully justified in<\/p>\n
issuing Ext.P10 order because the amount fixed in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
as upset price and the amount tendered by the petitioner<\/p>\n
are comparatively very low from the actual price which<\/p>\n
would have been fetched for the timber in auction.<\/p>\n
      8. On a close perusal of Ext.P1 notice and the terms<\/p>\n
and conditions contained therein, I am of the view that the<\/p>\n
Government      or the Departmental authorities    or   the<\/p>\n
District Collector has got ample power either to postpone<\/p>\n
or cancel    the auction   for  any reason, including the<\/p>\n
reasons that mentioned in Clause 13. But those clauses<\/p>\n
applicable and the powers vested     with the respondents<\/p>\n
as per those    Clauses,  can be exercised    only   before<\/p>\n
confirmation of the sale. If any defect or illegality with<\/p>\n
respect   to the auction    or any incidental proceedings<\/p>\n
connected therewith, if     brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
concerned authorities, certainly the auction can be     set<\/p>\n
aside or postponed. But that should be done before the<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                                  -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
confirmation.\n<\/p>\n
      9.  It is in this context, the points raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner under section 64 of the<\/p>\n
Sale of Goods Act 1930 assumes importance. Section 64<\/p>\n
of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 declared that sale      in an<\/p>\n
auction sale is complete, when the auctioneer announces<\/p>\n
its completion by the fall        of   hammer or any other<\/p>\n
customary manner.        In this case, as evidenced by Ext.P2,<\/p>\n
the sale is complete and by the removal of soft wood, the<\/p>\n
contract itself is materialised except the removal of rose<\/p>\n
wood. If that be so, such legal impediments cannot be<\/p>\n
circumvent    by the issuance of Ext.P10 order under the<\/p>\n
guise of exercising     the power contained clause 13 of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 contract.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    If the contention of the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader is   accepted that even after confirmation,       the<\/p>\n
powers vested under the above clauses can be exercised,<\/p>\n
there will not be any finality for the contract of sale. In<\/p>\n
this juncture, it is also relevant to note that Ext.P1 notice<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
was issued after assessment of the value of the timber to<\/p>\n
be auctioned and it is also a fact that at the first date of<\/p>\n
auction, nobody came forward to bid the timber on the<\/p>\n
basis of the upset price fixed in Ext.P1 notice. If that be<\/p>\n
so, the reason given in Ext.P10 cannot be taken as a<\/p>\n
ground so as to invoke Clause 13 of Ext.P1, especially,<\/p>\n
when the RDO, a competent authority, reported that there<\/p>\n
is no scope for getting higher price for the timber. It is<\/p>\n
also relevant to note that pursuant to the finalisation of<\/p>\n
the auction sale in favour of the petitioner and       after<\/p>\n
confirmation of the auction by Ext.P2, the petitioner has<\/p>\n
also removed the soft wood and thus the latter part of<\/p>\n
the contract   has already been worked out to a certain<\/p>\n
extent which is sufficient to hold that performance of the<\/p>\n
contract is materialised. In such a situation, at a belated<\/p>\n
stage, the respondents cannot cancel the auction held on<\/p>\n
18.11.2004, that too, after Ext.P2 confirmation. Therefore<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 is not legally sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, Ext.P10 is quashed.        The first<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                               -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent is directed to release the timber purchased by<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the auction sale held on 18.11.2004 as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P1 and the 3rd respondent is directed to issue<\/p>\n
necessary pass    to transport the timber including    rose<\/p>\n
wood. In the light of the above orders, no further order is<\/p>\n
required in terms of prayer No.4 in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent.<\/p>\n
                               V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
WPC 31846\/06
\n                -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                          V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                O.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
                              JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                   Dated:..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 31846 of 2006(N) 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 31 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. … Respondent 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 3. DIVISIONAL FORST OFFICER, 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY […]<\/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-175505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 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\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-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=\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-21T11:12:09+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-21T11:12:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1841,\"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\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-21T11:12:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 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":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 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\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-21T11:12:09+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-21T11:12:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009"},"wordCount":1841,"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\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009","name":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-21T11:12:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shahul-hameed-vs-the-district-collector-on-24-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shahul Hameed vs The District Collector on 24 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\/175505","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=175505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}