{"id":180571,"date":"2009-05-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-20T22:15:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T16:45:48","slug":"k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 7669 of 2008(K)\n\n\n1. K.C.MOHAMMED IQBAL, 'KAPPACHALIL HOUSE,'\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,\n\n3. THE DEPOT OFFICER, CHETTIKULAM DEPOT,\n\n4. THE DEPOT OFFICER, MUDIKKAL DEPOT,\n\n5. THE DEPOT OFFICER, VARAPPUZHA DEPOT,\n\n6. THE DEPOT OFFICER, VEETTUR DEPOT,\n\n7. THE DEPOT OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY DEPOT,\n\n8. THE DEPOT OFFICER, CHALIYAM DEPOT,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :29\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                              S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                  W. P (C) Nos. 7669 &amp; 7682 of 2008\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                   Dated this, the 29th May, 2009.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The petitioner is the same in both these writ petitions. He is an<\/p>\n<p>A Class contractor      registered with the Forest Department.        He<\/p>\n<p>entered into agreements with the 1st respondent to work down timber<\/p>\n<p>and firewood from certain teak plantations belonging to the Forest<\/p>\n<p>Department. As per clause 11 of the conditions of the agreement, the<\/p>\n<p>contractor is to deliver all timber, billets\/firewood obtained from the<\/p>\n<p>marked trees      at the depots and in case of billets\/firewood, the<\/p>\n<p>contractor has to stack them at the depots in the manner as directed<\/p>\n<p>by the Depot Officer. The Depot Officer is to give       a receipt in the<\/p>\n<p>prescribed form (depot receipt) to the contractor within 24 hours of<\/p>\n<p>delivering the produce. As per clause 19 of the agreement, the<\/p>\n<p>contractor is entitled to receive the payment at the rate mentioned in<\/p>\n<p>the schedule to the agreement, which is inclusive of all incidental<\/p>\n<p>charges. Clause 19 also stipulates that the payment shall be made on<\/p>\n<p>production of depot receipt or       acknowledgment of receipt of the<\/p>\n<p>produce from the Depot Officer. The petitioner&#8217;s grievance in this<\/p>\n<p>writ petition is that although the petitioner has stacked timber<\/p>\n<p>amounting to      131.947 cubic metres       delivered by the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>between     15-5-2007 to 21-12-2007, respondents 2 to 8 are<\/p>\n<p>withholding the       issue of depot receipts illegally on extraneous<\/p>\n<p>considerations.    In W.P(C) No. 7669\/2008,s the petitioner claims<\/p>\n<p>payment for 131.947 cubic meters of timber delivered at the depots.<\/p>\n<p>In W.P(C) No. 7682\/2008, the petitioner claims payment for 272.807<\/p>\n<p>cubic meters of     timber delivered at the depots.        Therefore, the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 7669 &amp; 7682\/08.           -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>W.P(C) No. 7660\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;i)    Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,<br \/>\n      direction or order commanding respondents 3 to 8 to issue to the<br \/>\n      petitioner forthwith receipts in the prescribed form (Depot<br \/>\n      receipts) for 131.947 cubic metres of timber delivered by the<br \/>\n      petitioner at the Depots.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>W.P(C) No. 7682\/2008<\/p>\n<p>      ii)    Direct the 2nd respondent to pay the bill number 29\/2007<br \/>\n      dated 17-9-2007 for an amount of Rs.1,09,940\/- (Rupees one lakh<br \/>\n      nine thousand, nine hundred and forty) to the petitioner forthwith,<br \/>\n      pending disposal of the above writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>      iii)   Direct respondents 3 to 8 to issue to the petitioner forthwith<br \/>\n      receipts in the prescribed form (Depot Receipts) for 272.807 cubic<br \/>\n      metres of timber delivered by the petitioner at the Depots,<br \/>\n      pending disposal of the above writ petition.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      2. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent in which it<\/p>\n<p>is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             3. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has received the<br \/>\n      Deport Receipts, as regards the timber, delivered by the petitioner<br \/>\n      to the respective depots except from one depot, as alleged in the<br \/>\n      writ petition. A copy of the receipt is also usually issued to the<br \/>\n      petitioner by the concerned Depot Officers.          Any how, this<br \/>\n      respondent has received depot receipt except from one depot.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             4.  The further allegation that amounts are due to the<br \/>\n      petitioner on the basis of the depot receipts is not correct and is<br \/>\n      disputed by the Department.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             5. It is submitted that petitioner was a successful bidder in<br \/>\n      tenders for working down timber, billets and firewood from a total<br \/>\n      number of five teak plantations to various depots from Chalakudy<br \/>\n      Forest Division. Out of this five teak plantations, three plantations<br \/>\n      namely 1925 Teak Plantation Kannattupadam, 1926 Teak<br \/>\n      Plantation Kannattupadam and 1935 Teak Plantation Kuttenchira<br \/>\n      were confirmed in the name of the petitioner by the Chief<br \/>\n      Conservator of Forests (NR), Kozhikode and the petitioner also<br \/>\n      have executed agreement with the 2nd respondent on 22.1.2007. In<br \/>\n      accordance with the agreement, the petitioner was to work down<br \/>\n      the timber billets and firewood within four months from the date of<br \/>\n      agreement. This was not done by the petitioner and he committed<br \/>\n      default. He has partly carried out the works in 1925 and 1935<br \/>\n      Teak Plantations and not commenced the work in 1926 Teak<br \/>\n      Plantation.   Thereafter, the time was further extended by four<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 7669 &amp; 7682\/08.            -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     counts up to 21.12.2007 by the appropriate authority as requested<br \/>\n     by the petitioner and in spite of the extension so granted, the<br \/>\n     petitioner failed to comply with the agreement. It is submitted<br \/>\n     that as regards the 1925 Kannattupadam Teak Plantation and 1935<br \/>\n     Teak Plantation at Kuttanchira, the petitioner has executed<br \/>\n     approximately 47 percent and 57 percent of the work respectively.<br \/>\n     This is the situation, even after the expiry of the extended period<br \/>\n     of seven months and grace period of four months (total 11<br \/>\n     months). In view of the fact that the petitioner had committed<br \/>\n     default of the terms of the agreement, the 2nd respondent has<br \/>\n     exercised his authority under Clause 45 of the Agreement and<br \/>\n     have made arrangement for completing the work at the risk and<br \/>\n     cost of the petitioner. It is submitted that the proceedings for<br \/>\n     completion of the work by making alternate arrangements is being<br \/>\n     done and the loss caused to the Government can be finalized only<br \/>\n     after finalizing the alternate arrangements for completing the<br \/>\n     works. The loss sustained to the Government in completing the<br \/>\n     defaulted work has to be realized from the petitioner in view of<br \/>\n     Clause 45 of the Agreement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            6. Moreover, the delay in executing the work has caused<br \/>\n     heavy loss to the Government on several accounts, namely, the<br \/>\n     trees cut are lying in the plantation exposed to sun and rain<br \/>\n     resulting in lowering the quality of the same. Moreover, the re-<br \/>\n     planting regime, of the department has been delayed for more than<br \/>\n     one year resulting in lapse of funds, increase in cost of raising the<br \/>\n     new plantation as well as delay in realizing the revenue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             7. This being the actual facts, until finalization of the loss<br \/>\n      sustained to Government, the petitioner is not entitled to get any<br \/>\n      amount for the part work as he is a defaulter of contract.<br \/>\n      Moreover, as regards working down timber from 1926 Chettikulam<br \/>\n      Teak Plantation and 1935 Rama Varma Teak Plantation is<br \/>\n      concerned, petitioner had placed tenders and was the lowest<br \/>\n      tenderer. In view of the tender conditions, after awarding the<br \/>\n      work if default is committed by the lowest tenderer it would have<br \/>\n      to retender at the risk and cost of the lowest tenderer.         The<br \/>\n      petitioner had, after placing the tender and after the Department<br \/>\n      accepting the tender, defaulted in executing the agreement. For<br \/>\n      this default also huge losses occurred to the Government. This<br \/>\n      also has to be realized from the petitioner. In respect of 1926<br \/>\n      Teak Plantation Kannettupadom, he has not commenced any work<br \/>\n      though executed the agreement. This being the actual facts, the<br \/>\n      petitioner is not entitled to any payment or any amount as claimed<br \/>\n      in the writ petition at present. The issuance of depot receipt does<br \/>\n      not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the said<br \/>\n      amount.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      3. I have heard both sides in detail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      4. From the pleadings, it is evident that the liability to pay for<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.C. No. 7669 &amp; 7682\/08.         -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the work done by the petitioner is seriously disputed by the<\/p>\n<p>respondents. They have specifically contended that the petitioner has<\/p>\n<p>committed breach of contract and therefore unless and until the<\/p>\n<p>damages due to the respondents on account of the said breach of<\/p>\n<p>contract are quantified, no payment can be made to the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>Essentially what the petitioner seeks is issue of depot receipts and<\/p>\n<p>payment based on the same.         In other words, the petitioner seeks<\/p>\n<p>enforcement of the term of contract.       The liability to comply with<\/p>\n<p>such term of contract is disputed by the respondents. Both parties<\/p>\n<p>allege breach of contract on the other side. Therefore, for considering<\/p>\n<p>the issues involved       the truth of these disputed facts has to be<\/p>\n<p>ascertained on evidence. When the facts necessary for disposal of<\/p>\n<p>these writ petitions,      the ascertainment of which would require<\/p>\n<p>evidence, are disputed, such questions of fact cannot be decided in a<\/p>\n<p>writ petition. The petitioner&#8217;s remedy lies in filing a suit for the<\/p>\n<p>reliefs prayed for, where both parties can adduce evidence in support<\/p>\n<p>of their respective cases to prove the disputed questions of fact.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, without prejudice to that right, these writ petitions are<\/p>\n<p>dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      I make it clear that I have not accepted the contention of the<\/p>\n<p>respondents that the petitioner has committed breach of contract.<\/p>\n<p>                                           S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 7669 of 2008(K) 1. K.C.MOHAMMED IQBAL, &#8216;KAPPACHALIL HOUSE,&#8217; &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE &#8230; Respondent 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, 3. THE DEPOT OFFICER, CHETTIKULAM DEPOT, [&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-180571","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>K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - 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\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-20T16:45:48+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T16:45:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1376,\"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\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\",\"name\":\"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-20T16:45:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 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":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - 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\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-20T16:45:48+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T16:45:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009"},"wordCount":1376,"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\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009","name":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-20T16:45:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-mohammed-iqbal-vs-the-state-of-kerala-on-29-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.C.Mohammed Iqbal vs The State Of Kerala on 29 May, 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\/180571","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=180571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180571\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}