{"id":201994,"date":"2006-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006"},"modified":"2014-11-03T00:11:00","modified_gmt":"2014-11-02T18:41:00","slug":"p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 19073 of 2006(U)\n\n\n1. P.V.THAMPAN, HEAD CLERK,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PROJECT OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN\n\n Dated :21\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                        K.K. DENESAN, J.\n\n\n\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n                 W.P.(C)No. 19073 OF 2006 U\n\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n             Dated this the 21st December, 2006\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The   challenge   is   to   Ext.   P1   order   of   the   1st<\/p>\n
respondent placing the petitioner under suspension from<\/p>\n
the   post   of   Head   Clerk,   District   Rural   Development<\/p>\n
Agency   (DRDA),  Kasaragod.    Ext.  P1  was  passed  pursuant<\/p>\n
to   Government   letter   dated   8-6-2006   which   is   referred<\/p>\n
to therein.  It is stated that the petitioner was found<\/p>\n
responsible   for   the   irregularities   pointed   out   by   the<\/p>\n
Finance   Inspection  Wing.    The  order  of  suspension  came<\/p>\n
into effect immediately.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   Respondent   No.   1   is   the   Commissioner   for   Rural<\/p>\n
Development,   Thiruvananthapuram.     Respondent   No.   2   is<\/p>\n
the   Project   Officer,   DRDA,   Kasaragod.           During   the<\/p>\n
pendency   of   the   writ   petition,   Government   of   Kerala<\/p>\n
represented   by   the   Chief   Secretary   was   impleaded   as<\/p>\n
additional 3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   It   is   contended   that   the   impugned   order   was<\/p>\n
passed   without   application   of   mind,   that   it   is   a<\/p>\n
colourable exercise of power and that it is vitiated by<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
extraneous   considerations   and   malafide   exercise   of<\/p>\n
power   besides   being   discriminatory   and   arbitrary.     The<\/p>\n
respondent   entered   appearance   pursuant   to   notice<\/p>\n
ordered on 24-8-2006.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Having regard to the contention seriously urged<\/p>\n
by   the   petitioner   that   the   impugned   order   is<\/p>\n
discriminatory   and   the   department   is   shielding   the<\/p>\n
Project   Officer   despite   the   report   of   the   Financial<\/p>\n
Inspection Wing, this Court, on   1-8-2006, passed   the<\/p>\n
following interim order:\n<\/p>\n
                 “Counsel for the petitioner submits that<\/p>\n
      statutory remedy will be invoked and time may<\/p>\n
      be         granted         to         produce         copy         of         the<\/p>\n
      representation  or   appeal   as   the   case   may   be.<\/p>\n
      Govt. Pleader is directed to ascertain in the<\/p>\n
      meantime   what   action   has   been   taken   against<\/p>\n
      the   Project   Officer   against   whom   findings<\/p>\n
      have   been   entered   in   the   inspection   report<\/p>\n
      regarding   the   very   serious   lapses   and<\/p>\n
      misconduct.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 Post on 7-8-2006.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.   The   1st  respondent   was   not   able   to   furnish   the<\/p>\n
above information despite repeated adjournments granted<\/p>\n
by   this   Court.            In   the   meantime,   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
produced   Ext.   P2   representation   filed   before   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent   requesting   to   revoke   Ext.   P1   and   to<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
reinstate him in service.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   Since   neither   the   information       sought     for   on<\/p>\n
1-8-2006   nor   counter   affidavit   in   answer   to   the<\/p>\n
averments   and   allegations   contained   in   the   writ<\/p>\n
petition   was   filed   by   the   respondents,   this   Court<\/p>\n
directed   the   1st           respondent   on   11-12-2006   to   make<\/p>\n
available   the   files   leading   to   Ext.   P1   and   subsequent<\/p>\n
proceedings, if any, taken in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     7. When the writ petition came up for consideration<\/p>\n
on   18-12-2006,   the   Govt.   Pleader   made   available   the<\/p>\n
relevant files for the perusal of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   I   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner         and         the         learned         Govt.         Pleader         for<\/p>\n
respondents 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
     9. A perusal of the file leading to Ext. P1 and the<\/p>\n
subsequent   action   taken   reveals   that   action   has   been<\/p>\n
taken against the petitioner only, though the report on<\/p>\n
inspection   conducted   in   the   DRDA,   Kasaragod   by   the<\/p>\n
Finance   Inspection   Wing,   based   on   the   irregularities<\/p>\n
noticed, the Project Officer (respondent No. 2) and the<\/p>\n
Head Clerk (petitioner) may be suspended with immediate<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
effect   pending   detailed   enquiry.     The   irregularities<\/p>\n
that  came   to  the   notice  of   the  inspection   team  consist<\/p>\n
of obtaining quotations from M\/s. Smitha Printers, M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Varnam   Graphics   and   M\/s.   Varnamudra   Printers   which   are<\/p>\n
alleged   to   be   not   in   existence.     A   sum   of   Rs.63,200\/-\n<\/p>\n
was sanctioned towards printing charges payable to M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
Varnamudra   Printers.     The     amount     was     paid     to   the<\/p>\n
firm   by   cheque   dated   26-12-2005.     The   Inspection   Wing<\/p>\n
observed   that   Stores   Purchase   Rules   were   not   observed,<\/p>\n
Stock   Register   was   not   maintained,   competitive   tenders<\/p>\n
were   not   invited   giving   wide   publicity,   etc.     Since   a<\/p>\n
sum   of   Rs.58,500\/-   was   seen   spent   towards   printing<\/p>\n
charges  and   the  amount   paid  to   M\/s.  Smitha   Printers  by<\/p>\n
cheque   dated   29-12-2005,   the   Inspection   Wing   made<\/p>\n
efforts   to   locate   the   printing   press   in   the   address<\/p>\n
shown, but no such institution could be found out.   As<\/p>\n
regards   payment   of   Rs.92,000\/-     to   M\/s.   Varnamudra<\/p>\n
Printers   and   debiting   the   expenditure   to   DRDA   account,<\/p>\n
the   Inspection   Wing   found   on   verification   that   no<\/p>\n
entries   were   made   in   the   relevant   registers   and   that<\/p>\n
the   Project   Officer   could   not   produce   even   a   single<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
copy   of   the   loan   register.         As   regards   cheque   for<\/p>\n
Rs.97,000\/-   issued   towards   printing   charges   for   SGSY<\/p>\n
membership   register,   the   Inspection   Wing   observed   that<\/p>\n
the   printing   work   was   carried   out   by   M\/s.   Varnam<\/p>\n
Graphics   which   is   a   non-existing   firm   in   Kasaragod   and<\/p>\n
that   the   Project   Officer   had   no   answer   about   the   non-\n<\/p>\n
availability of the bills except stating that the bills<\/p>\n
were  in   the  custody   of  the   Head  Clerk.    Irregularities<\/p>\n
were found in the matter of payment of Rs.1,63,000\/- by<\/p>\n
two   cheques           dated   8-2-2006.        Irregularities   were<\/p>\n
noticed   in   the   maintenance   of   cheque   book,   store<\/p>\n
register,   etc.            In   the   above   circumstances,   the<\/p>\n
Inspection Wing opined that the quotations and bills in<\/p>\n
the   name   of   non-existing   firms   were   bogus   and<\/p>\n
fabricated.     The   Inspection   Wing   noticed   that   before<\/p>\n
printing   orders   were   given   the   Project   Officer   did   not<\/p>\n
care   to   sign   any   agreement   with   the   firm   which   quoted<\/p>\n
the   lowest   rate.     Though   the   DRDA   purchased   a   new   car<\/p>\n
in   the   place   of   the   old   car,   no   action   was   taken   to<\/p>\n
sell   away   the   old   car   in   public   auction,   despite   the<\/p>\n
Accountant General (Audit) Kerala in its report for the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                  -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
year   2004-2005   had   directed   to   take   early   action   to<\/p>\n
dispose   of   the   car.     The   road   rollers   were   found   idle<\/p>\n
causing   pecuniary   loss   to   the   department.                    On<\/p>\n
verification   of   the   telephone   charges   incurred   on   the<\/p>\n
official\/residential   telephone   of   the   Project   Officer<\/p>\n
for   the   year   2005   it   was   found   that   he   had   made   calls<\/p>\n
in   excess   of   the   limit.     It   was   also   alleged   by   the<\/p>\n
inspection   party   that   almost   all   the   officers   had<\/p>\n
performed   number   of   journeys   from   Kasaragod   to<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram   throughout   the   year   without   any<\/p>\n
prior   sanction   or   advance   tour   programme   and   had<\/p>\n
committed serious irregularities.   Hence, the Principal<\/p>\n
Secretary to Finance in his report forwarded to the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent   as   per   letter   dated   8-6-2006   recommended<\/p>\n
appropriate   action   to   be   taken.     Suspension   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   and   the   2nd  respondent   from   service   was   the<\/p>\n
foremost recommendation made by the Principal Secretary<\/p>\n
to Finance.\n<\/p>\n
             10.   It   is   not   understood   why   the   order   of<\/p>\n
suspension was confined to the petitioner alone and why<\/p>\n
the   2nd  respondent   was   spared.     In   the   nature   of   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
findings   and   observations   made   by   the   Finance<\/p>\n
Inspection   Wing,   there   is   hardly   any   scope   for   taking<\/p>\n
action against the petitioner alone.  The 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
is   the   superior   officer   and   the   head   of   the   office<\/p>\n
whereas   the   petitioner   is   a   subordinate   ministerial<\/p>\n
employee   under   the   supervisory   control   of   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent.     The   report   of   the   Finance   Inspection   Wing<\/p>\n
did not say that the irregularities occurred due to the<\/p>\n
actions   or   omissions   exclusively   attributable   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.     On  the   contrary  the   report  shows   that  the<\/p>\n
Finance   Inspection   Wing   indicted   the   2nd  respondent   as<\/p>\n
the   person   responsible   for   the   irregularities   in   more<\/p>\n
places than one.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   Though   the   fact   situation   is   as   above,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   alone   was   placed   under   suspension   and   still<\/p>\n
remains under suspension.  The above apparently illegal<\/p>\n
and  unjustified   attitude  of   respondents  1   and  3   led  to<\/p>\n
the   passing   of   interim   orders   by   this   Court   in   these<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     12.   The   attitude   of   the   respondents   in   not   taking<\/p>\n
action   against   the   2nd  respondent   while   keeping   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006               -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
subordinate   officer   under   suspension   for   months<\/p>\n
together   is   per   se   discriminatory   and   malafide   too.\n<\/p>\n
The   1st  respondent   took   up   the   contention   that   the<\/p>\n
authority   competent   to   take   action   against   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent   is   the   Government.     But   the   Government   did<\/p>\n
not   take   any   action   against   the   2nd  respondent   though<\/p>\n
direction was issued to the 1st  respondent to place the<\/p>\n
petitioner under suspension.\n<\/p>\n
     13. It would appear that one Gopalakrishnan Potti,<\/p>\n
Joint   Development   Commissioner   was   deputed   to   conduct<\/p>\n
an   enquiry   into   the   allegations   raised   by   the   Finance<\/p>\n
Inspection   Wing   about   the   functioning   of   DRDA,<\/p>\n
Kasaragod   and   the   said   officer   filed   his   report<\/p>\n
addressed   to   the   1st  respondent   on   25-8-2006   observing<\/p>\n
that   the   allegation   that   the   orders   for   printing   of<\/p>\n
forms and registers were given to bogus firms has been<\/p>\n
proved to be false.   He also stated that the bills for<\/p>\n
payment   of   printing   charges   are   not   bogus.     Nor   the<\/p>\n
quotation   by   the   presses   bogus.     He   reported   that   the<\/p>\n
only irregularity found by him was improper maintenance<\/p>\n
or absence of certain records and non-observance of the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Stores Purchase Rules.  He, therefore, recommended that<\/p>\n
the   suspension   of   the   petitioner   may   be   reviewed<\/p>\n
compassionately,   and   further,   that   the   disciplinary<\/p>\n
proceedings   for   imposing   minor   penalty   on   the<\/p>\n
petitioner            alone           was                 necessary.                He          also<\/p>\n
recommended   that   for   the   lapses   committed   by   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent   disciplinary   proceedings   for   the   imposition<\/p>\n
of minor penalty can be taken against him.   Evidently,<\/p>\n
the   2nd  respondent   can   safely   avoid   any   order   placing<\/p>\n
him   under   suspension,   in   the   light   of   the   subsequent<\/p>\n
enquiry made by Shri. Gopalakrishnan  Potti.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The   Principal   Secretary   to   Government,   Local<\/p>\n
Self Government Department sent letter dated 27-10-2006<\/p>\n
to the 1st  respondent requesting the said respondent to<\/p>\n
take         appropriate         steps              on         the         basis          of         the<\/p>\n
recommendation   of   Shri.   S.   Gopalakrishnan   Potti,   who<\/p>\n
conducted   the   enquiry.       A   specific   direction     to<\/p>\n
review   the   suspension   of   the   petitioner   also   was<\/p>\n
issued.             But   after   receiving   the   above   letter,   on<\/p>\n
4-11-2006,  the 1st respondent has not cared to take any<\/p>\n
effective   action   to   implement   the   order   of   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                   -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
     15.   The   files   produced   for   the   perusal   of   this<\/p>\n
Court do not show anything, at least, to indicate that<\/p>\n
action   has   been   proposed   to   be   taken,   leave   alone<\/p>\n
taken,     against   the   2nd  respondent.     It   is   clear   that<\/p>\n
even   after   the   lapse   of   more   than   5   months,   the   only<\/p>\n
person who was taken to task is the petitioner, leaving<\/p>\n
the 2nd  respondent free from all troubles.   Ordinarily,<\/p>\n
any prudent person would expect some action against the<\/p>\n
2nd  respondent   also   if   not   a   much   more   serious   action,<\/p>\n
taking note of the superior and controlling position he<\/p>\n
held in the office.  Is disciplinary action a machinery<\/p>\n
to   trap   the   lesser   mortals   while   allowing   the   mighty<\/p>\n
and the influential to escape the clutches of law?  The<\/p>\n
rationale   and   logic   in   placing   the   petitioner   alone<\/p>\n
under   suspension   and   continuing   to   keep   him   under<\/p>\n
suspension         despite         the         report         of         Shri.         S.\n<\/p>\n
Gopalakrishnan   Potti   and   the   direction   of   the<\/p>\n
Government   to   review   the   order   of   suspension,   is<\/p>\n
ununderstandable.     The  1st  respondent  which   jumped  into<\/p>\n
action   as   soon   as   direction   was   received   from   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006                    -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
Government to place the petitioner under suspension has<\/p>\n
not taken any action worth mentioning pursuant to Govt.\n<\/p>\n
letter   dated   27-10-2006   which   was   received   in   the<\/p>\n
office   of   the   1st  respondent   on   4-11-2006.     This   Court<\/p>\n
directed the 1st  respondent to produce the files on 11-\n<\/p>\n
12-2006   and   the   same   has   been   produced   on   18-12-2006.\n<\/p>\n
Upto   that   date,   there   is   nothing   in   the   files   to   show<\/p>\n
that   the   1st  respondent   has   taken   any   action   to   review<\/p>\n
the order of suspension.\n<\/p>\n
     16.         The         respondents         have         not         denied         or<\/p>\n
controverted   the   averments   in   the   writ   petition.\n<\/p>\n
Nothing   has   been   stated   in   answer   to   the   apparently<\/p>\n
discriminatory   and   arbitrary   action   of   the   respondents<\/p>\n
in   singling   out   the   petitioner   alone   for   hostile<\/p>\n
treatment.     I   have   no   hesitation   to   hold   that   the<\/p>\n
action   of   the   respondents   is   patently   unjust   and   is<\/p>\n
tantamount to abuse of the statutory and administrative<\/p>\n
power   vested   in   them.     The   impugned   action   offends<\/p>\n
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being ex facie<\/p>\n
arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
     17.     Ext.   P1   is   liable   to   be   quashed   for   reasons<\/p>\n
WPC No.19073 \/2006               -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
stated   above.     It   is   essential   in   the   interest   of<\/p>\n
justice   to   direct   respondents   1   and   3   by   the   issuance<\/p>\n
of   a   writ   of   mandamus   to   reinstate   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
forthwith.     I   do   so.     The   period   during     which   the<\/p>\n
petitioner was kept out of service shall be regularised<\/p>\n
in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petition is allowed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   K.K. DENESAN<\/p>\n
                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
jan\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 19073 of 2006(U) 1. P.V.THAMPAN, HEAD CLERK, … Petitioner Vs 1. COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, … Respondent 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-201994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - 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\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1978,\"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\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\",\"name\":\"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - 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\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006"},"wordCount":1978,"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\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006","name":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural ... on 21 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-02T18:41:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-thampan-vs-commissioner-for-rural-on-21-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.V.Thampan vs Commissioner For Rural … on 21 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/201994","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=201994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}