{"id":199702,"date":"2009-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-12T13:39:17","modified_gmt":"2018-10-12T08:09:17","slug":"k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 4598 of 2009(V)\n\n\n\n1. K.MOHAMMED HAJI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :18\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                    -------------------------\n                W.P.(C.) Nos.4598 & 4935 of 2009\n             ---------------------------------\n            Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
WP(C) No.4598\/2008<\/p>\n
      The petitioner is a PWD contractor with A class registration.<\/p>\n
The respondent issued Ext.P1 tender notice. The first work notified<\/p>\n
is the construction of break waters at the RKVY-Kasaragod Fishery<\/p>\n
Harbour.    The Probable Amount of Contract is specified to be<\/p>\n
Rs.1870 lakhs and the work is to be completed within 24 months. It<\/p>\n
is stated in Ext.P1 that the     tender documents will be issued to<\/p>\n
contractors, who have A class registration and have completed “a<\/p>\n
similar” single civil work of the value of 40% of the Probable Amount<\/p>\n
of Contract within a period of five years previous to the date of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Enclosing Ext.P2(b) joint venture agreement that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had entered into with one Mr.T.Asokan, another A class<\/p>\n
contractor, and Ext.P2(c) certificate regarding a work executed by<\/p>\n
Mr.T.Asokan, the petitioner applied for tender documents as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P2(a) application. That was rejected by Ext.P3 for the reason that<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
the work certified by Ext.P2(c) does not satisfy the condition<\/p>\n
specified in Ext.P1. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P3 and for a direction to the respondent to issue<\/p>\n
tender schedule with respect to the work at Item No.1of Ext.P1,<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.P2 application. At the admission stage an interim<\/p>\n
order was passed and tender schedule has been issued to the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2311\/2009 and<\/p>\n
got the writ petition amended incorporating a challenge against the<\/p>\n
condition in Ext.P1, that the tenderer should have executed “similar<\/p>\n
work” of the volume specified therein.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The contention raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that, the said prescription has no nexus with the object<\/p>\n
that sought to be achieved. It is also stated that the “similar work”<\/p>\n
that is prescribed in Ext.P2 is only civil work, and Ext.P2(c)<\/p>\n
certificate shows that the joint venture partner of the petitioner has<\/p>\n
executed a civil work of the volume specified in Ext.P1. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that by Ext.P4, similar work of construction of break<\/p>\n
waters has been awarded to the petitioner in November, 2008, and<\/p>\n
therefore there is no substance in the contention now raised in<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                   -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P3 that the petitioner is inexperienced. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner also contended that similarity does not mean<\/p>\n
similarity in all respects. On these grounds it is argued that Ext.P3<\/p>\n
is illegal and hence, his tender is liable to be accepted.<\/p>\n
       4.   The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According<\/p>\n
to the respondent, the nature of the work tendered is supplying<\/p>\n
granite stones varying from 5 Kg. to 5000 Kg. and dumping and<\/p>\n
placing it in sea in lines and levels as per the drawings and it<\/p>\n
requires heavy machineries and skill. It is stated that as per Ext.P2<\/p>\n
(c) certificate furnished by the petitioner, Shri.T.Asokan, the joint<\/p>\n
venture partner of the petitioner, has executed the work of a bridge<\/p>\n
across the Kadalundi River, which cannot be considered as a work<\/p>\n
“similar” to what was tendered in Ext.P1. It is stated that what was<\/p>\n
intended by Ext.P1 was expertise in the field of construction of<\/p>\n
break waters and not construction of bridge across a river. It is<\/p>\n
therefore, stated that since the petitioner did not have the<\/p>\n
experience prescribed in Ext.P1 tender notice, rejection of the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s application for tender document is legal and is proper.<\/p>\n
       5.   The first issue that is to be considered is whether Ext.P2<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
(c) certificate produced by the petitioner satisfies the requirements<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1 tender notice. In so far as the conditions specified in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 tender notice is concerned, in my view, it is always for the<\/p>\n
awarder to specify conditions, which are required to be satisfied for<\/p>\n
getting the work executed in the best manner possible. In that<\/p>\n
process, if the awarder has specified a condition requiring that only<\/p>\n
tenderers, who has experience in similar work alone will be qualified<\/p>\n
or issued tender documents, no objection whatsoever can be taken<\/p>\n
to such a restrictive condition. Therefore, I see no merit in the<\/p>\n
challenge to the tender condition.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     In this case, Ext.P1 shows that the applicant should have<\/p>\n
executed a single similar work of the volume of 40% of the Probable<\/p>\n
Amount of Contract and the work notified is construction of break<\/p>\n
waters. Ext.P2(c) experience certificate of the joint venture partner<\/p>\n
of the petitioner certifies execution of the work of construction of a<\/p>\n
bridge across the Kadalundi river. It does not need elaboration that<\/p>\n
the work executed as certified in Ext.P2(c) is not a work similar to<\/p>\n
the construction of break waters tendered in Ext.P1. If that be so,<\/p>\n
the view taken by the respondent that Ext.P2(c) does not answer the<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
requirements of Ext.P1, is only to be upheld and I do so.<\/p>\n
      7.    The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the<\/p>\n
experience prescribed requiring execution of similar work does not<\/p>\n
mean that similarity should be there in all respects.          He also<\/p>\n
contended that if a restrictive view is taken, that will result in the<\/p>\n
availability of very few contractors, which will lead into formation of<\/p>\n
cartels, which would be against public interest.<\/p>\n
      8.    At this stage, all that I need to consider is whether the<\/p>\n
prescription of experience of execution of similar work as contained<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1 is a valid one. In so far as other possibilities suggested by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I do not think<\/p>\n
that at this stage, I need to go into such assumptions and render a<\/p>\n
judgment on this basis. At best the contention raised suggests only<\/p>\n
that the tender condition is capable of being misused. Since the<\/p>\n
possibility of misuse will not render a tender condition or even a<\/p>\n
statutory provision invalid, I do not find any merit in the contention.<\/p>\n
As already stated, when a work is tendered, it is always open to the<\/p>\n
awarder to specify the conditions including the experience required.<\/p>\n
Further, where a work of this volume is tendered, it is always<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                    -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
necessary that conditions which are necessary to ensure that only<\/p>\n
contractors who are experienced and having financial capacity are<\/p>\n
awarded the work. In this case, this is precisely what has been done<\/p>\n
by the awarder, and I see absolutely no illegality or arbitrariness in<\/p>\n
the condition so specified.         Since the work executed by the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s joint venture partner is not similar in any respect to the<\/p>\n
work tendered, the contention that similarity does not mean<\/p>\n
similarity in all respects, is also without any substance.<\/p>\n
      9.    True, the learned counsel relied on Ext.P4 and contended<\/p>\n
that the work of construction of break waters has been awarded to<\/p>\n
him and therefore rejection of his request for tender schedule is<\/p>\n
illegal. In the absence of tender conditions that preceded Ext.P4, I<\/p>\n
am not in a position to assess whether a condition similar to the one<\/p>\n
as contained in Ext.P1, was there in the tender conditions that were<\/p>\n
then prescribed. In the absence of such a material, even if Ext.P4<\/p>\n
was issued, I will not be justified in judging on the validity of Ext.P3,<\/p>\n
accepting the contention now raised. That apart, it is also seen that<\/p>\n
the value of the work covered by Ext.P4 is much less than what was<\/p>\n
notified in Ext.P1.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                   -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
       10. Therefore, on the whole, I am satisfied that the petitioner<\/p>\n
does not satisfy the eligibility prescribed in Ext.P1, and therefore,<\/p>\n
the writ petition is only to be rejected and I do so.<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4935\/2009<\/p>\n
       11. In so far as the petitioner in WP(C) No.4935\/2009 is<\/p>\n
concerned, the petitioner herein too had applied for tender<\/p>\n
documents in response to Ext.P1.         In support of their claim of<\/p>\n
having completed similar work as prescribed in Ext.P1, the<\/p>\n
petitioner herein relied on Ext.P3 certificate. They complain that<\/p>\n
despite producing the certificate, they were not issued tender<\/p>\n
documents and on that basis this writ petition was filed. It was<\/p>\n
following an interim order that was passed in this writ petition that<\/p>\n
tender documents were issued to them.\n<\/p>\n
       12. From the counter affidavit filed, and also on a reading of<\/p>\n
the conditions of Ext.P1 tender, what emerges is that the experience<\/p>\n
should be that of a work which was completed by the respective<\/p>\n
applicant. Admittedly, the experience certificate produced as Ext.P3<\/p>\n
itself show that the work mentioned therein is an on going work and<\/p>\n
is not a completed one. It may be true that the volume certified in<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.4598 & 4935\/2009
\n                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P3 may satisfy the volume prescribed in Ext.P1. But, however,<\/p>\n
since Ext.P1 specifies that the work should be one which is<\/p>\n
completed, and Ext.P3 certifies an on going incomplete work, I am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
tender. In view of the fact, the petitioner is ineligible as per the<\/p>\n
conditions of Ext.P1, they are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in<\/p>\n
the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      These writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                        (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
\njg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 4598 of 2009(V) 1. K.MOHAMMED HAJI … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :18\/02\/2009 O R […]<\/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-199702","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 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\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-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=\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-12T08:09:17+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-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T08:09:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1590,\"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-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-12T08:09:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 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.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 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\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-12T08:09:17+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-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T08:09:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009"},"wordCount":1590,"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-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009","name":"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-12T08:09:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohammed-haji-vs-the-superintending-engineer-on-18-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Mohammed Haji vs The Superintending Engineer on 18 February, 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\/199702","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=199702"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199702\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199702"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199702"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199702"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}