{"id":175872,"date":"2007-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-30T18:42:53","modified_gmt":"2017-11-30T13:12:53","slug":"state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 2422 of 2007()\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERA;A RE[RESENTED BY THE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MALABAR EDUCATIONAL AND\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :26\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                              H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.\n\n                             ----------------------------------------------------\n\n                                      W.A. NO.  2422 OF 2007  &\n\n                                    C.M.APPL. NO. 1102 OF 2007\n\n                             ----------------------------------------------------\n\n                              Dated this the 26th October,  2007\n\n\n                                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.DATTU, C.J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         The   State   has   presented   this   Writ   Appeal   being   aggrieved   by   the   order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12098 of 2006, dated 28th April,<\/p>\n
2006 and the order passed in R.P.No.871 of 2007, dated 1st October, 2007.<\/p>\n
         2.   There is a delay of nearly 497 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
State  has   filed   an  application  to   condone  the   delay     in   filing   the   appeal.     In   the<\/p>\n
normal   course,   we   would   not   have   taken   a   very   strict   view   of   the   pleadings<\/p>\n
pleaded   in   the   application   for   condonation   of   delay.     In   fact,   this  Court   in  many<\/p>\n
number   of   cases   has   condoned   the   delay   in   filing   the   appeal   by   the   State<\/p>\n
Government, keeping in view the dicta laid down by the Apex Court.  In this case,<\/p>\n
we   do   not   intend   to   condone   the   delay   for   the   reason   which   we   will   presently<\/p>\n
advert   by   referring   to   what   had   transpired   in   the   writ   petition   and   the   contempt<\/p>\n
petition filed by the petitioner and the  undertaking  given by the authorities of the<\/p>\n
State Government.  We would like to refer those matters in extenso to sustain our<\/p>\n
reasoning  for rejecting the application filed by the State Government to condone<\/p>\n
the delay in filing the writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3.     The   Malabar   Educational   &   Charitable     Trust   (‘Trust’   for   short)   was<\/p>\n
before   this   Court   in   W.P.(C)   No.12098   of   2006.     The   prayer   made   in   the   writ<\/p>\n
petition   was   to   direct   the   State   Government   and   its   authorities   to   issue   orders<\/p>\n
sanctioning   the   school   in   favour   of   the   petitioner   on   the   basis   of   Ext.P5<\/p>\n
Government   Order   following   Ext.P9   decision.     The   consequential  relief   that   was<\/p>\n
sought in the writ petition was to declare  that the petitioner cannot be bypassed<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  2  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nwhile granting  High  School  in the  aided  sector  in Padiyoor Grama  Panchayat  in<\/p>\n
the light of Ext.P5 when Ext.P9 decision is given effect.<\/p>\n
       4.     This   Court,   while   entertaining   the   writ   petition   has   passed   an   interim<\/p>\n
order, dated 28th April, 2006.  The interim order so passed reads as under:<\/p>\n
                “Admit.  Issue notice.  Post on 23.5.2006.  In the meanwhile,<\/p>\n
       there will be an interim direction to the respondents not to consider<\/p>\n
       any other application for sanctioning of schools within the limits of<\/p>\n
       Padiyoor   Grama   Panchayat   till   then.     In   the   meanwhile,   the<\/p>\n
       applications   submitted   by   the   petitioner   will   be   considered   at   the<\/p>\n
       earliest   in   the   light   of   Exts.P5   and   P9,   if   possible   before   the<\/p>\n
       commencement of the next academic year itself.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       5.   After   receipt   of   the   interim   order   passed   by   this   Court,   the   State<\/p>\n
Government has passed the order dated 9th May, 2006.  The order passed by the<\/p>\n
State Government reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “General   Education   –   WP(C)   No.12098\/06   –   (M)   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
       Malabar   Educational   and   Charitable   Trust   –   Court   Orders   –<\/p>\n
       Complied with – Orders issued.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       —————————————————————————————-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      GENERAL EDUCATION (F) DEPARTMENT<\/p>\n
       GO(Rt)NO.1904\/06\/G.Edn. Dated,Thiruvananthapuram,09-05-2006<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       —————————————————————————————-<\/p>\n
       Read:-1. Interim Order dated 28-04-2006 in W.P.(C) No.12098\/06<\/p>\n
                    (M) of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  2. GO(Rt) No.3895\/05\/G.Edn. Dated 06-08-2005.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  3. GO(MS)No.08\/06\/G.Edn. Dated 05-01-2006.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  4. GO(MS)No.65\/06\/G.Edn. Dated 14-02-2006.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  5. Notification No.NS3\/3120\/06\/DPIs dated 10-02-2006.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  6. Judgment dated 03-03-2006 in WP(C)No.36115 of 2005-<\/p>\n
                    Y of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                            O R D E R<\/p>\n
                The Hon’ble High court of Kerala in its interim order read as<\/p>\n
       1st paper above directed the respondents not to consider any other<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  3  ::\n<\/p>\n
\n      application  for   sanctioning  of  schools within the  limits   of  Padiyoor<\/p>\n
      Grama Panchayath till the next posting date i.e. 23-05-2006.  It has<\/p>\n
      also   been   directed   to   consider   the   application   submitted   by   the<\/p>\n
      petitioner   at   the   earliest   in   the   light   of   Ext.P5   and   P9   if   possible<\/p>\n
      before the commencement of the next academic year.<\/p>\n
               2.  Government – vide Government Order read as 2nd paper<\/p>\n
      above (Ext.P5) have recognised the eligibility of the petitioner for a<\/p>\n
      High School in the Padiyoor Grama Panchayath and have given an<\/p>\n
      assurance   that   the   request   would   be   considered   on   top   most<\/p>\n
      priority   when   Government   take   a   policy   decision   to   sanction   any<\/p>\n
      more aided High School in the State.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               3.     Government   –   vide   order   read   as   3rd  paper   above<\/p>\n
      (Ext.P9)   have   sanctioned   new  High   Schools   in   four   Panchayaths<\/p>\n
      where   there   are   no   High   Schools.     Padiyoor   in   Kannur   is   one<\/p>\n
      among   the   four   Panchayaths   where   new   High   School   have   been<\/p>\n
      sanctioned.     In   the   light   of  the   above   Government   order   sanction<\/p>\n
      was   also   accorded   to   upgrade   a   school   each   in   Panayam<\/p>\n
      Panchayath   in   Kollam   and   Ponmundam   Panchayath   in<\/p>\n
      Malappuram in  the Government  sector as per  the  GO read as 4th<\/p>\n
      paper above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               4.   For sanctioning new schools in Padiyoor Panchayath in<\/p>\n
      Kannur District and Perumanna Panchayath in Kozhikode, Director<\/p>\n
      of Public Instruction had been directed to issue area notification as<\/p>\n
      per   the   Kerala   Education   Rules   provisions.     Accordingly   the<\/p>\n
      Director   of   Public   Instruction   vide   notification   read   as   5th  paper<\/p>\n
      above   notified   Ward   12   in   Perumanna   Panchayath   in   Kozhikode<\/p>\n
      District and Ward  13 in Padiyoor Panchayath in Kannur District as<\/p>\n
      areas where new High School are to be opened and also called for<\/p>\n
      objection\/representation if any against the decision.<\/p>\n
               5.  In the meantime Government on 08-03-2006 decided not<\/p>\n
      to sanction new aided schools in the State and decided to cancel<\/p>\n
      the notification read as 5th paper above in the light of declaration of<\/p>\n
      election.   The petitioner filed WP(C)  No.36115 of  2005-Y read as<\/p>\n
      6th  paper   above   in   which   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   directed   the<\/p>\n
      respondent to take appropriate action on the application submitted<\/p>\n
      by the  petitioner   trust  without any further delay.    It  has  also been<\/p>\n
      directed   to   ensure   due   weightage   and   consideration   as   per   the<\/p>\n
      order issued in favour of the petitioner (GO (Rt) No.3895\/05\/G.Edn.<\/p>\n
      Dated 06-08-2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               6.  In the light of the judgment read as 6th paper above and<\/p>\n
      in   the   interim   order   dated   28-04-2006   of   the   Hon’ble   High   Court<\/p>\n
      Government   examined   the   request   of   the   petitioner.     Since   the<\/p>\n
      notification read as 4th paper stands cancelled Government is not a<\/p>\n
      position to entertain the application of the petitioner to sanction the<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                  ::  4  ::\n<\/p>\n
\n         school in the Padiyoor Panchayath as requested for.  The direction<\/p>\n
         contained  in the  interim   order   read  as  1st  paper   above and in the<\/p>\n
         judgment read as 6th paper above are thus complied with.”<\/p>\n
        6.     The   petitioner,   being   of   the   view   that   by   passing   the   order   dated<\/p>\n
9.5.2006,   the   Secretary   to   the   Government,   Department   of   General   Education,<\/p>\n
has   committed   an   act   of   contempt   which   would   fall   within   the   meaning   of   the<\/p>\n
definition   “civil  contempt”  as  defined   in  Section  2(b)  of   The   Contempt   of  Courts<\/p>\n
Act, 1971, had filed the Contempt Petition, C.C.C. No.619 of  2006, wherein it was<\/p>\n
alleged that the respondent in the Contempt Petition has wilfully and deliberately<\/p>\n
disobeyed the interim directions issued by this Court and requested this Court to<\/p>\n
initiate appropriate contempt proceedings as envisaged under Sections 11 and 12<\/p>\n
of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
        7.     When   the   Contempt   Petition   was   posted   before   the   learned   single<\/p>\n
Judge, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a<\/p>\n
prima facie case for initiation of the contempt proceedings.  Accordingly, in view of<\/p>\n
the Contempt of Courts Rules prevailing in the State,  the matter was referred to a<\/p>\n
Division   Bench   of   this   Court   for   framing   of   appropriate   charges   against   the<\/p>\n
respondent for the disobedience of the orders and directions issued by this Court.<\/p>\n
        8.     The   contempt   proceedings   had  been  posted   before   Court  on  several<\/p>\n
occasions.   The respondent  had filed its counter  affidavit.    Since this Court was<\/p>\n
not prepared to accept the explanation offered by the respondent in the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit filed, had directed the respondent to be present before the Court for the<\/p>\n
purpose of framing of charges.  It is at that stage the learned Advocate General of<\/p>\n
the State had appeared for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        9.  The matter had been posted before the Court on 6.9.2007.  Arguments<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                     ::  5  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nin length   was advanced by both the sides.    Thereafter,  the respondent gave  an<\/p>\n
undertaking before this Court stating that he would withdraw the order passed on<\/p>\n
9.5.2006 and pass a fresh order within a month’s time from the date of disposal of<\/p>\n
the contempt petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.  The Court, after placing on record the affidavit of undertaking filed by<\/p>\n
the   respondent,   was   pleased   to   dispose   of   the   contempt   petition.     The   order<\/p>\n
passed by this Court reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “Learned   Advocate   General   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
        respondent\/contemnor,   after   arguing   the   matter   for   quite<\/p>\n
        sometime, has thought it fit to file an affidavit of the respondent\/<\/p>\n
        contemnor.     In   that   affidavit,   it   is   stated   that   the   respondent   will<\/p>\n
        now   withdraw   the   order   passed   on   09.05.2006   and   then   pass<\/p>\n
        fresh orders as directed by this Court on 28th April, 2006.  Further,<\/p>\n
        the   respondent\/contemnor   has   offered   his\/her   unconditional<\/p>\n
        apology for  the inconvenience caused to the complainant  and to<\/p>\n
        this court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 In   our   view,   by   accepting   the   affidavit   and   permitting   the<\/p>\n
        respondent\/contemnor   to   withdraw   the   order   passed   on<\/p>\n
        09.05.2006  and  further   by permitting   them  to  pass  fresh  orders,<\/p>\n
        as directed  by this  court  on 28th  April, 2006,  no prejudice will be<\/p>\n
        caused to the complainant.   Therefore, we are inclined to accept<\/p>\n
        the   affidavit   filed   by   the   respondent\/contemnor   and   accordingly<\/p>\n
        we intend to grant the request made in the affidavit.  In view of the<\/p>\n
        above, the following:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                                             O R D E R<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 i)  The affidavit filed by the respondent\/contemnor is taken<\/p>\n
        on record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 ii)  The respondent\/contemnor is permitted to withdraw his\/<\/p>\n
        her earlier order dated 09.05.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 iii)     The   respondent\/contemnor   shall   pass   fresh   orders   in<\/p>\n
        accordance with the interim order passed by this court in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
        No.12098    of   2006  dated   28th  April,  2006  within  a  period  of   one<\/p>\n
        month from today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 iv)   The un-conditional apology offered by the respondent\/<\/p>\n
        contemnor is accepted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  6  ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  v)       Further   proceedings   in   this   Contempt   Case   are\n\n         dropped.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
                  vi)  Liberty is reserved to the complainant to approach this<\/p>\n
         court, if need arises in future. ”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         11.  After disposal of the Contempt Petition, for the reasons best known to<\/p>\n
the respondent, they have filed a Review Petition, R.P.No.871 of 2007 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.12098 of 2006, before the learned single Judge, inter alia, requesting the court<\/p>\n
to review the order passed on 28.4.2006.  The learned single Judge, after hearing<\/p>\n
the parties to the lis, by its order dated 1.10.2007, has rejected the review petition<\/p>\n
primarily in view of the  order  passed by this Court  in Contempt Case No.619 of<\/p>\n
2006.  Further the Court has observed that if it had been brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
the Court the subsequent decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of Kerala<\/p>\n
v. Prasad (2007 (3) KLT 531), the Court might not have passed the interim order<\/p>\n
on 28.4.2006.   It is difficult for  us to accept the reasoning of  the learned Judge.<\/p>\n
Be that as it may.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         12.  After rejection of the review petition so filed, the State Government, for<\/p>\n
the first time, has presented this writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         13.     As   we   have   already   noticed,   the   relief   sought   for   by   the   State<\/p>\n
Government   in   this   writ  appeal   is  to   set   aside   the   order   passed   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12098 of 2006, dated 28th April, 2006.<\/p>\n
         14.     The   order   passed   on   28.4.2006   is   an   interim   order   directing   the<\/p>\n
respondent to pass an  appropriate  order keeping  in view Ext.P5 and P9 orders.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the respondent has already passed<\/p>\n
an   order,   dated   9.5.2006.     Since   the   respondent   has   already   acted   upon   the<\/p>\n
interim order passed by this Court, at this stage, it may not be necessary for this<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                    ::  7  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nCourt  to   set   aside   the   order   which   has   already   been   implemented   by  the   State<\/p>\n
Government.     Therefore,   the   first   relief   cannot   be   granted   by   this   Court   at   this<\/p>\n
stage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          15.   In so far as the order passed in R.P.No.871 of 2007 filed in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.12098   of   2006   to   review   the   order   passed   on   28.4.2006   is   concerned,   we<\/p>\n
intend   to   notice   that   when   this   Court   was   about   to   frame   charges   against   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/contemnor in the contempt petition, an undertaking was given by the<\/p>\n
respondent\/contemnor,   firstly,   offering   an   unconditional   apology   for   the<\/p>\n
inconvenience  caused  to the  petitioner  and further   giving   an undertaking  before<\/p>\n
this Court that he would withdraw the order passed on 9.5.2006 and would pass a<\/p>\n
fresh order in accordance with law.   What was expected from the respondent by<\/p>\n
this   Court   was   that,   as   undertaken   before   this   Court,   he   should   have   passed<\/p>\n
appropriate orders  in accordance  with  law.   Instead of doing  so, the respondent<\/p>\n
has thought it fit to file a review petition and in our view,  the said review petition is<\/p>\n
rightly rejected by the learned single Judge.   It is relevant   at this stage to notice<\/p>\n
certain   observation   made   by   the   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  T.N.Godavarman<\/p>\n
Thirumulpad   vs.   Ashok Khot,<\/a> (2006) 5 SCC 1.   The Court observed: –<\/p>\n
                        “Disobedience of this Court’s order strikes at the<\/p>\n
               very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system<\/p>\n
               rests.  The rule of law is the foundation of a  democratic<\/p>\n
               society.     Judiciary   is   the   guardian   of   the   rule   of   law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central<\/p>\n
               pillar   of   the   democratic   State.     If   the   judiciary   is   to<\/p>\n
               perform   its  duties   and   functions   effectively  and   remain<\/p>\n
               true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted<\/p>\n
               to it,  the dignity and authority  of  the courts  have to be<\/p>\n
               respected   and   protected   at   all   costs.     Otherwise,   the<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                       ::  8  ::\n<\/p>\n
\n               very  cornerstone   of   our   constitutional   scheme   will  give<\/p>\n
               way   and   with   it   will   disappear   the   rule   of   law   and   the<\/p>\n
               civilised life  in the society.   That  is why it is imperative<\/p>\n
               and invariable that courts’  orders are to be followed and<\/p>\n
               complied with”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        16.     Learned   Advocate   General   would   contend   before   us   that   merely<\/p>\n
because   an   undertaking   was   given   by   the   respondent\/contemnor   it   does   not<\/p>\n
prevent him from approaching this Court by filing an appropriate appeal, if, for any<\/p>\n
reason,  he is aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned single Judge.<\/p>\n
In  support   of   that   contention,   the   learned  Advocate   General   has  brought   to   our<\/p>\n
notice the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of P.R.Deshpande v.<\/p>\n
Maruti Balaram Haibatti<\/a> ((1998) 6 SCC 507).  That was a case where in the rent<\/p>\n
control proceedings  a tenant had given an undertaking  before  the Court  that  he<\/p>\n
would vacate  and deliver vacant possession of the premises in his occupation to<\/p>\n
the landlord.   In that regard, an affidavit of undertaking was also filed before the<\/p>\n
Court.  The question that was posed and answered by the Apex Court is whether<\/p>\n
the   tenant   can   still   maintain   an   appeal   or   revision   after   giving   such   an<\/p>\n
undertaking.     While   holding   that   the   tenant   still   can   maintain   an   appeal   or   a<\/p>\n
revision, the Apex Court was pleased to state as under:<\/p>\n
                  “11.  A party to a lis can be asked to give an undertaking to<\/p>\n
         the   court   if   he   requires   stay   of   operation   of   the   judgment.     It   is<\/p>\n
         done on the supposition that the order would remain unchanged.<\/p>\n
         By  directing  the  party to   give  such  an  undertaking,   no   court   can<\/p>\n
         scuttle or foreclose a statutory remedy of appeal or revision, much<\/p>\n
         less a constitutional remedy.   If the order is reversed or modified<\/p>\n
         by   the   superior   court   or   even   the   same   court   on   a   review,   the<\/p>\n
         undertaking given by the party will automatically cease to operate.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Merely because a party has complied with the directions to give an<\/p>\n
         undertaking   as   a   condition   for   obtaining   stay,   he   cannot   be<\/p>\n
         presumed   to   communicate   to   the   other   party   that   he   is   thereby<\/p>\n
         giving up his statutory remedies to challenge the order.  No doubt<\/p>\n
         he is bound to comply with his undertaking  so long  as the order<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                          ::  9  ::\n<\/p>\n
\n          remains alive and operative.  However, it is open to such superior<\/p>\n
          court to consider whether the operation of the order or judgment<\/p>\n
          challenged before it need be stayed or suspended having regard<\/p>\n
          to the fact that the party concerned has given undertaking  in the<\/p>\n
          lower court to abide by the decree or order within the time fixed by<\/p>\n
          that court.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          17.   The decision on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General,  in our  opinion,  would not  assist him in any manner   whatsoever.  In the<\/p>\n
instant case, the Secretary to Government, Department of General Education was<\/p>\n
the contemnor in Contempt Petition No.619 of 2006.  He had appeared in person<\/p>\n
before  the Court  pursuant to  the  directions issued  by this Court.    After   realising<\/p>\n
that it may not be possible for him to sustain his defence\/explanation, he had not<\/p>\n
only   offered   unconditional   apology   to   the   Court   but   also   filed   an   affidavit   of<\/p>\n
undertaking   only   to     escape   from   the   contempt   proceedings.     This   Court   did<\/p>\n
believe a senior officer of the department, that too, when he was represented by<\/p>\n
learned  Advocate General.    In all fairness, the respondent  should have stuck  to<\/p>\n
his   undertaking;   That   is   what   this   Court   would   expect   from   a   very   senior   and<\/p>\n
experienced   officer   of   the   department.     But,   it   happened  otherwise.   In   fact,   this<\/p>\n
Court   after   accepting   the   affidavit   of   undertaking   filed   by   the   respondent\/<\/p>\n
contemnor,          dropped   the   contempt   proceedings   and   had   granted   time   to   the<\/p>\n
respondent to implement the interim order passed this Court.  Certainly it was not<\/p>\n
with   an   intention   either   to   permit   him   to   file   an   appeal   or   a   revision   or   to   file   a<\/p>\n
review   petition.     When   an   undertaking   is   given   to   this   Court,   it   is   the   solemn<\/p>\n
undertaking   and   a   party   cannot   withdraw   from   such   an   undertaking   given   in   a<\/p>\n
contempt proceedings.  Sometimes, this Court in order to facilitate the respondent<\/p>\n
to  purge   the   contempt,   would   accept   an   undertaking   from   them   and,   thereafter<\/p>\n
would drop the contempt proceedings.  In the instant case also that was done and<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  10  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthis   Court   disposed   of   the   Contempt   Case   N0.619   of   2006   by   its   order,   dated<\/p>\n
6.9.2007.  In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the decision on which reliance<\/p>\n
was placed by the learned Advocate General would not assist him in any manner.<\/p>\n
        18.     Learned   Advocate   General   would   further   contend   that   the   learned<\/p>\n
single   Judge   while   passing   the   interim   order,   could   not   have   granted   the   main<\/p>\n
relief itself.  In our opinion, what is canvassed by the learned Advocate General is<\/p>\n
accepted legal principles, but the learned Advocate General wants to support his<\/p>\n
submission by relying on the decision of  the Apex Court in the case of  Medical<\/p>\n
Council   of   India  v.  Rajiv   Gandhi   University   of   Health   Sciences   and   others<\/a><\/p>\n
((2004) 6 SCC 76).    In the said decision, the Court  has reiterated the principles<\/p>\n
laid down in the case of Union of India v. Era Educational Trust<\/a> ((2000) 5 SCC<\/p>\n
57).  While doing so, the Court has observed at paragraph 4 as under:<\/p>\n
                  “4.  We once again emphasis that the law declared by this<\/p>\n
         Court in Union of India v. Era Educational Trust<\/a> that interim order<\/p>\n
         should not be granted as a matter of course, particularly in relation<\/p>\n
         to   matter   where   standards   of   institutions   are   involved   and   the<\/p>\n
         permission to be granted  to such institutions is subject to certain<\/p>\n
         provisions  of   law  and   regulations   applicable  to  the  same,  unless<\/p>\n
         the same are complied with.  Even if the High Court gives certain<\/p>\n
         directions   in   relation   to   consideration   of   the   applications   filed   by<\/p>\n
         educational   institutions   concerned   for   grant   of   permission   or<\/p>\n
         manner in which the same should be processed should not form a<\/p>\n
         basis to direct the admission of students in these institutions which<\/p>\n
         are   yet   to   get   approval   from   the   authorities   concerned   or<\/p>\n
         permission has not been granted by the Council.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        19.  In our opinion, even the aforesaid submission of the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General   cannot   be   accepted   by   us.     In   the   instant   case,   as   we   have   already<\/p>\n
noticed, this Court while entertaining the writ petition has passed an interim order<\/p>\n
dated   28.4.2006.     That   interim   order   was   implemented   by   the   respondent   by<\/p>\n
passing the order, dated 9.5.2006.  Having implemented the order pursuant to the<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                     ::  11  ::\n<\/p>\n
\ninterim direction issued, now it does not lie in the mouth of the State Government<\/p>\n
to contend that the learned single Judge while passing the interim order could not<\/p>\n
have granted the main relief.   Therefore, even the second contention canvassed<\/p>\n
by the learned Advocate General would not impress us.<\/p>\n
         20.         We   have   narrated   all   these   facts   only   for   the   purpose   that   the<\/p>\n
appellant   was   fully   aware   of   the   order   passed   by  the   learned   Single   Judge.     In<\/p>\n
fact,   by   passing   an   order,   as   directed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   they   had<\/p>\n
passed an order, which according to us was nothing but deliberately flouting the<\/p>\n
orders   passed   by   this   Court.     At   their   instance   in   order   to   purge   the   contempt,<\/p>\n
some time was given to them in the contempt proceedings.   In stead of purging<\/p>\n
the contempt they tried to get an order from the learned Single Judge by filing the<\/p>\n
review petition, which as we have already stated is rightly rejected by the learned<\/p>\n
Single   Judge.     Now  the   State   has   filed   this   writ   appeal   to   set   aside   the   interim<\/p>\n
order  passed  by the  learned  Single  Judge  which  is already implemented   by the<\/p>\n
respondent by passing an order contrary to the directions issued by the court.  It is<\/p>\n
only  after   the   petitioner   filed   contempt   proceedings   against   the   respondent   and<\/p>\n
further   when   this   court   was   about   to   initiate   contempt   proceedings   by   framing<\/p>\n
charges,   the   respondent   after   giving   an   undertaking   before   this   court   that   he<\/p>\n
would purge  the contempt, has unsuccessfully   filed review petition.   After doing<\/p>\n
all this futile exercise, they  have now filed the present writ appeal for the reliefs<\/p>\n
indicated by us earlier and in filing  the appeal there  is  delay of nearly 497 days<\/p>\n
and to condone the delay an application and affidavit is filed.  In the affidavit filed<\/p>\n
they have only stated all the events that had taken place before this Court.  In the<\/p>\n
normal   course,   we   would   have   condoned   the   delay   in   filing   the   appeal   by   the<\/p>\n
State  Government,   if  the delay had  been satisfactorily explained,  but that   is not<\/p>\n
W.A. NO.2422 OF 2007<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  12  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe case in this appeal.   After going through the pleadings and after hearing the<\/p>\n
learned   Advocate   General   for   the   applicant   and   learned   counsel   Sri.George<\/p>\n
Poonthottam, we are of the view that,     the present appeal is filed is filed only to<\/p>\n
overcome the undertaking given by the applicant in the contempt proceedings.  In<\/p>\n
our  view, the parties  should not  be permitted  to adopt  these dubious  method to<\/p>\n
overcome the decision of this Court and if it is done, it would certainly affect the<\/p>\n
dignity of this Court, which we are not prepared  to  sacrifice.   Therefore,  we are<\/p>\n
not prepared to accept the explanation offered in the affidavit filed along with the<\/p>\n
application   for   condonation   of   delay     in   filing   the   appeal.     Therefore,   the<\/p>\n
application requires to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         20.     These  are  the   only two  submissions  made  by the  learned   Advocate<\/p>\n
General while hearing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.<\/p>\n
         21.   In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, this is not one of<\/p>\n
the   fit   cases   where   delay   in   filing   the   appeal   requires   to   be   condoned   by   us.<\/p>\n
Accordingly,   we   reject   the   application.     Consequently,   the   Writ   Appeal   is   also<\/p>\n
rejected.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                  (H.L.DATTU)<\/p>\n
                                                                                 Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                                               (K.T.SANKARAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                                       Judge<\/p>\n
ahz\/DK.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2422 of 2007() 1. STATE OF KERA;A RE[RESENTED BY THE … Petitioner 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Vs 1. MALABAR EDUCATIONAL AND … Respondent For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT […]<\/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-175872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - 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\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-30T13:12:53+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T13:12:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3872,\"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\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-30T13:12:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - 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\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-30T13:12:53+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T13:12:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007"},"wordCount":3872,"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\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007","name":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-30T13:12:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-keraa-reresented-by-the-vs-malabar-educational-and-on-26-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kera;A Re[Resented By The vs Malabar Educational And on 26 October, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/175872","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=175872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}