{"id":202393,"date":"2010-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-04T11:30:21","modified_gmt":"2016-11-04T06:00:21","slug":"monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 14398 of 2006(L)\n\n\n1. MONSON JOB @ MANOJ,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PROJECT OFFICER,\n\n3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :05\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      W.P.(C) No. 14398 of 2006-L\n                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n               Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Aggrieved by the termination of contract at the risk and cost of the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The impugned order<\/p>\n
has been produced as Ext.P16.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The petitioner was awarded with the contract under the scheme<\/p>\n
framed by the Central Government, viz. Central Government Rural Roads<\/p>\n
Connectivity Scheme in Erattupettah Block. Ext.P1 is the copy of the<\/p>\n
agreement. The work involved is the construction of two roads. The<\/p>\n
agreement is dated 16.5.2002 and the time stipulated for completing the<\/p>\n
work was 24.1.2003. The site was formally handed over on 23.5.2002, but<\/p>\n
the petitioner contends that the initial levels were reported for sanction of<\/p>\n
the Superintending Engineer only on 7.9.2002 as evidenced by Ext.P2. By<\/p>\n
Ext.P3, the Superintending Engineer approved the initial levels on<\/p>\n
20.11.2002. The work was started accordingly and the various part bills<\/p>\n
have been sanctioned to him as evidenced by Exts.P4 to P6.<\/p>\n
      3. There was an inspection by the Joint Director, NRRDA (National<\/p>\n
Rural Roads Development Agency) and the inspection report has been<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
produced as Ext.P7.       The inspection report showed that there was a<\/p>\n
suggestion for changing the alignment with reduced gradient and to prepare<\/p>\n
a revised estimate.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Thereafter, the Project Officer, the second respondent herein,<\/p>\n
who is a party to Ext.P1 agreement, requested the first respondent for<\/p>\n
sanction to complete the road as per the estimate already sanctioned and<\/p>\n
approved. The above proposal was made stating that the land owners are<\/p>\n
not willing to surrender more agricultural land for the construction of the<\/p>\n
road and 80% of the works have been completed. The petitioner submits<\/p>\n
that in the light of these developments, the work had to be stopped awaiting<\/p>\n
further orders.      The first respondent addressed the third respondent,<\/p>\n
Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, in the matter for<\/p>\n
giving sanction to complete the road as per the already sanctioned estimate.<\/p>\n
This was followed by another inspection and the same is evident from<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 letter issued by the Director addressed to the Prof. of Engineering,<\/p>\n
College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram, who was directed to conduct<\/p>\n
the site inspection.    On the basis of the inspection, Ext.P11 report was<\/p>\n
forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent.<\/p>\n
      5. As no further action was being taken in the matter, the petitioner,<\/p>\n
by Ext.P12 representation addressed to the second respondent requested to<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
take a decision without delay to complete the work after providing a hike<\/p>\n
in the rates also.       He approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.32624\/2005 which was disposed of by Ext.P13 judgment dated 5.1.2006<\/p>\n
directing the first respondent herein to take a decision in the matter in<\/p>\n
accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner was served with Ext.P14 notice by<\/p>\n
the second respondent informing him that the work has not been completed<\/p>\n
and unless it is completed within 15 days, the agreement will be cancelled.<\/p>\n
Ext.P15 is the communication by the Commissioner of Rural Development<\/p>\n
in answer to his representation stating that no hike in the rates is allowable.<\/p>\n
Finally, by Ext.P16, the work was terminated at his risk and cost and further<\/p>\n
it was proposed to recover the same by appropriate legal action.<\/p>\n
      6. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit justifying the order.<\/p>\n
      7. Heard Shri S.A. Razak, learned counsel for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
learned Govt. Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Shri S.A. Razak, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that<\/p>\n
the view taken in Ext.P16 cannot be supported.           The petitioner was<\/p>\n
proceeding with the work in the right earnest and 80% of the work was<\/p>\n
completed to the satisfaction of all and there was no default on his part at<\/p>\n
all. At the time an inspection was conducted by the Central agency, viz. the<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
Joint Director who suggested a realignment, and thereafter he was asked to<\/p>\n
stop the work which is evident from Ext.P8 also. It is not a case where the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in violation of the obligations under the contract, had stopped the<\/p>\n
work. It is only at the instance of the concerned officials, the work had to<\/p>\n
be stopped. It is evident from the various communications that respondents<\/p>\n
2 and 3 were also seeking for the sanction of the Central agency to continue<\/p>\n
the work as per the sanctioned estimate without any modification, in view<\/p>\n
of the difficulty to get surrender of required land by the land owners and<\/p>\n
the said action was finalized only by Ext.P11 dated 8.3.2004. It is therefore<\/p>\n
submitted that the decision to terminate the contract at his risk and cost is<\/p>\n
clearly arbitrary. It is further pointed out that only after this Court directed<\/p>\n
the respondents to consider the representation filed as Ext.P12 as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P13 judgment, immediately Ext.P14 notice was issued even before the<\/p>\n
first respondent communicated their decision as per Ext.P15. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that the department is trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities in the<\/p>\n
matter by merely blaming the petitioner for the delay.            It is further<\/p>\n
contended that the stand taken in the counter affidavit that there was no<\/p>\n
direction to stop the work, is not correct and the same is belied by the<\/p>\n
contents of Ext.P8 and other documents.\n<\/p>\n
       9. What is pointed out in the counter affidavit and argued by the<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Govt. Pleader is that there was no written communication to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to stop the work or to deviate from the programme and he was<\/p>\n
bound to complete the work and the communication between respondents<\/p>\n
1 and 2 and the Central agency are only routine communications and he<\/p>\n
ought to have completed the work.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Herein, some of the relevant aspects have to be discussed That<\/p>\n
the work was being earnestly performed by the petitioner is clear from<\/p>\n
Exts.P4 to P6 part bills evidencing payment for a total amount of nearly<\/p>\n
Rs.57 lakhs. Ext.P8 is the copy of the report forwarded by the second<\/p>\n
respondent to the first respondent after the Joint Director of the Central<\/p>\n
agency inspected the sites. In relation to Melukavumattom – Kalluvettam<\/p>\n
Road, it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 “Work of the above road is in good progress. 80% of the<\/p>\n
          formation of the road and protection work completed. Out of 10<\/p>\n
          culverts 6 Nos have been completed. Approximately Rs.30 lakhs<\/p>\n
          have been spent for the construction of the road. Most of the<\/p>\n
          inhabitants of this road are Scheduled Tribes. Work of the above<\/p>\n
          road is stopped as per the above note. Considering these facts,<\/p>\n
          gradient given to this road may be admitted and sanction may be<\/p>\n
          given to complete the road at the earliest as per the already<\/p>\n
          sanctioned and approved estimate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        6<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In regard to the second road, viz. Ottayeetti – Thazhathukattupara Road, the<\/p>\n
following are the contents of Ext.P8:\n<\/p>\n
        “As per the above referred inspection note, gradient between 0.90m<\/p>\n
          and 800-1020m is steep and Joint Director has directed to re align<\/p>\n
          the portion. Land owners in the chainages of road are willing to<\/p>\n
          surrender the extra land free of cost for the construction of this<\/p>\n
          road. Instructions have already been given to Assistant Engineer,<\/p>\n
          Erattupetta Block for preparing the topographical survey and<\/p>\n
          revised estimate of this road. Construction has completed 80% of<\/p>\n
          th formation of the road. The construction of the road is in good<\/p>\n
          progress and formation of the road is nearing completion.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The above position may please be informed to Government of India and<\/p>\n
sanction may please be obtained to complete the work as suggested above.”<\/p>\n
      11.    Therefore, the following important aspects are clear from<\/p>\n
Ext.P8. It is based on the letter of the Joint Director, NRRDA and the<\/p>\n
inspection report. It is clear that in respect of these two roads, the Joint<\/p>\n
Director had directed to realign the work. Ext.P7 is the inspection report<\/p>\n
by the Central agency which will reveal that he had found that the gradient<\/p>\n
is too steep and therefore the topographical survey has to be conducted by<\/p>\n
the Project Implementing Unit to facilitate the realignment. Preparation of<\/p>\n
revised estimate has also been suggested. Therefore, the entire thing was<\/p>\n
dependent upon the preparation of revised estimate         after fixing the<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
realignment in respect of both the roads which is evident from a combined<\/p>\n
reading of Exts.P7 and P8. That is why in Ext.P8 it is specifically requested<\/p>\n
that approval may be granted for the estimate prepared, as difficulties<\/p>\n
arose with regard to the surrender of land by the land owners for<\/p>\n
construction of the roads as proposed by the Central agency. What is<\/p>\n
suggested in Ext.P8 is to obtain a sanction from the Central agency itself for<\/p>\n
completing the work in respect of these two roads as per the approved<\/p>\n
estimate. It is clear from Ext.P8 itself that the work has been stopped as per<\/p>\n
the note issued by the Central agency. It cannot therefore be said that<\/p>\n
stopping of the work is a unilateral act on the part of the petitioner. True<\/p>\n
that written communications have not been served on the petitioner to stop<\/p>\n
the work, but in the light of the inspection report of the Central agency it is<\/p>\n
clear that the work had to be stopped as the realignment had to be<\/p>\n
undertaken, if sanctioned.      This is further reinforced by the letter<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 from the first respondent to the Ministry of Rural Development,<\/p>\n
Government of India, viz. the third respondent herein.          This is dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2003. In respect of both these works, after referring to the inspection<\/p>\n
reports, sanction has been sought to complete the roads at the earliest, as<\/p>\n
already sanctioned and as per the approved estimate.          Therefore, it is<\/p>\n
ununderstandable as to how respondents 1 and 2 could have turned round<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
later to put the entire blame on the petitioner for stopping the work.<\/p>\n
       12. It is evident from Exts.P10 and P11 that the Central Agency<\/p>\n
wanted to conduct another inspection and deputed Dr. K.P. Isaac, Professor<\/p>\n
in Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram to<\/p>\n
inspect the site and to furnish a detailed report regarding the existing<\/p>\n
conditions and guidance given by him in this regard. That the work has<\/p>\n
already been delayed, is clearly stated in Ext.P10 itself and actually the<\/p>\n
Central agency wanted to depute him so as to complete the execution of<\/p>\n
the work after assessing the various local conditions. Again, the second<\/p>\n
respondent after the visit by the said Professor, addressed the first<\/p>\n
respondent by Ext.P1 stating that even after meetings of the land owners<\/p>\n
and the Panchayath members were called several times, the land owners are<\/p>\n
not willing to surrender land for additional length as suggested. It is<\/p>\n
evident from Ext.P11 that the State Technical Authority for PMGSY,<\/p>\n
during the visit, directed to demarcate additional length for easing the<\/p>\n
gradient.    Evidently, therefore, the same was under contemplation and<\/p>\n
therefore the petitioner could not have completed the work as per the<\/p>\n
original alignments.\n<\/p>\n
       13. These facts were pointed by the petitioner in Ext.P12 wherein he<\/p>\n
has stated that because of the delay there had been hike in the cost of diesel,<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
steel, cement, sand, rubble and metal.\n<\/p>\n
       14. Therefore, the stand taken in Exts.P14 and P15 by the respondents<\/p>\n
herein that there was no hurdle from any corner to complete the work in the<\/p>\n
stipulated time, cannot be accepted at its face value. This is clearly a<\/p>\n
distorted attempt to pass the buck to the petitioner for the delay occurred<\/p>\n
which was not because of any inaction on his part and 80% of the work was<\/p>\n
already over also. In fact, a reading of Ext.P16 shows that the notices have<\/p>\n
been issued to him only from 31.10.2005 onwards which is even after<\/p>\n
receipt of Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner. They were issued long<\/p>\n
period after Exts.P10 and P11 were addressed to the respective parties.<\/p>\n
This also justifies the conclusion that the work was stopped after the<\/p>\n
period of inspection by the Joint Director, NRRDA and as sanction was<\/p>\n
sought for by the first respondent from the Central Government to complete<\/p>\n
the work as per the original estimate. In fact, the Ministry agreed to<\/p>\n
proceed with the work only by Ext.R2(a) letter.         Para 2 of Ext.R2(a)<\/p>\n
evidences the decision of the Ministry in the following words:<\/p>\n
        “……this Ministry hereby agrees to allow the Executing Agency to<\/p>\n
          complete the road with gradients marginally more than the<\/p>\n
          exceptional gradient on limited stretches with necessary<\/p>\n
          cautionary boards indicating the steep gradient.    However, the<\/p>\n
          State Government may ensure that such instances of providing<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
          steep gradients beyond the permissible values should not get<\/p>\n
          repeated and the State Executing Agency has to prepare a<\/p>\n
          comprehensive DPR and make sure that all geometric parameters<\/p>\n
          are as per Rural Roads Manual for any project submitted for<\/p>\n
          consideration in future.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Finally, it is requested that “further necessary action to complete the road<\/p>\n
work may please be taken accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
      15. These are documents in support of the plea of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
he cannot be blamed at all for the stoppage of work and there was actually a<\/p>\n
proposal for realignment and to revise the estimate. What is attempted in<\/p>\n
the counter affidavit is to show that no written communications were issued<\/p>\n
to the petitioner to stop the work or deviate from the programme. The<\/p>\n
evidence, as above, shows the other way, especially Ext.P8 which records<\/p>\n
that the work remained stopped already, in view of the intervening<\/p>\n
developments.\n<\/p>\n
      16. In that view of the matter, the termination of the work at the risk<\/p>\n
and cost of the petitioner is clearly arbitrary and is without any application<\/p>\n
of mind and also without considering the relevant aspects.               Any<\/p>\n
administrative decision in such circumstances cannot survive.<\/p>\n
      17. The termination of the work at the risk and cost of the petitioner,<\/p>\n
wpc 14398\/2006                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot therefore be upheld and the petitioner cannot be saddled with any<\/p>\n
liability for the loss and damages as indicated in Ext.P16. Hence, Ext.P16 is<\/p>\n
quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that various<\/p>\n
amounts towards bank guarantee, performance guarantee, redemption<\/p>\n
amount, security and balance payment are due to the petitoner. There will<\/p>\n
be a direction to the respondents to release the various amounts due to the<\/p>\n
petitioner towards bank guarantee,      performance guarantee, redemption<\/p>\n
amount, security and the balance payment, if any, for the work already<\/p>\n
done. The same will be quantified and disbursed within a period of three<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
       The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 14398 of 2006(L) 1. MONSON JOB @ MANOJ, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER, … Respondent 2. THE PROJECT OFFICER, 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, For Petitioner :SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR […]<\/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-202393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMonson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - 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\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-04T06:00:21+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T06:00:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2438,\"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\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-04T06:00:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - 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\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-04T06:00:21+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T06:00:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010"},"wordCount":2438,"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\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010","name":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-04T06:00:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/monson-job-manoj-vs-the-commissioner-on-5-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Monson Job @ Manoj vs The Commissioner on 5 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/202393","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=202393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}