{"id":202652,"date":"2009-06-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-09-23T13:53:30","modified_gmt":"2014-09-23T08:23:30","slug":"lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 12551 of 2009(L)\n\n\n1. LT.COL.(RETD)K.G.RAMACHANDRAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER,\n\n3. SHRI MULLAKKARA RATNAKARAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :02\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n                   -----------------------------\n                      W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L\n                  ------------------------------\n                 Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009.\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard Sri.T.M.Mohammad Youseff, the learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n<p>appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned<\/p>\n<p>Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The petitioner is the Managing Director of Kerala State<\/p>\n<p>Warehousing Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Corporation&#8217; for<\/p>\n<p>short. He was appointed as the Managing Director of the Corporation by<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P1 Government order dated 5.10.2006.        In this writ petition the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner challenges Ext.P6 note whereby the Hon&#8217;ble Minister for<\/p>\n<p>Agriculture ordered that the petitioner&#8217;s service as Managing Director of<\/p>\n<p>the Corporation is terminated with immediate effect and the General<\/p>\n<p>Manager (Construction) is given full additional charge of the Managing<\/p>\n<p>Director, until further orders. The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 has<\/p>\n<p>been issued in violation of the stipulations in Section 22 of the<\/p>\n<p>Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>for short and that before Ext.P6 was issued, he was not put on notice or<\/p>\n<p>heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    This writ petition was presented on 20.4.2009 and it came up<\/p>\n<p>for admission on 21.4.2009.      On that day, while admitting the writ<\/p>\n<p>petition this Court stayed the termination of the service of the petitioner<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L            2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>pursuant to Ext.P6 and allowed him to continue as Managing Director of<\/p>\n<p>the Corporation for a period of six weeks. The respondents have filed<\/p>\n<p>I.A.No. 6381 of 2009 for vacating the interim order passed by this Court<\/p>\n<p>on 21.4.2009. Sri.T.M.Mohammad Youseff, the learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n<p>appearing for the petitioner contends that as the decision evidenced by<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P6 was taken without notice to the petitioner and without affording<\/p>\n<p>him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why he should not be<\/p>\n<p>removed from office, Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior<\/p>\n<p>Advocate for the petitioner relies on the stipulations in sub section (1) of<\/p>\n<p>Section 22 of the Act in support of the said contention. Per Contra the<\/p>\n<p>learned Additional Advocate General, relying on the decision of the<\/p>\n<p>Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/98066\/\">Bachhittar Singh, V. State of<\/p>\n<p>Punjab &amp;<\/a> another (AIR 1963 SC 395) and the averments in para 5 of the<\/p>\n<p>affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 6381 of 2009 contended that Ext.P6<\/p>\n<p>has no efficacy and that the note made by the Hon&#8217;ble Minister on the file<\/p>\n<p>which is likely to be altered or changed, cannot be said to be an order of<\/p>\n<p>the Government.         The learned Additional Advocate General contended<\/p>\n<p>that Ext.P6 has no efficacy and therefore the writ petition is premature.<\/p>\n<p>The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the<\/p>\n<p>Government will take a decision on the question whether the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>should be removed from office, only after complying with the stipulations<\/p>\n<p>in sub section (1) of Section 22 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       4.     I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.P6 reads as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                &#8220;The ServiceState Shri.K.G.Ramachandran, Managing<br \/>\n                              of<br \/>\n        Director,<br \/>\n        terminatedKerala immediate effect and Shri.A.Rajendra<br \/>\n                                    Ware   Housing   Corporation     is<br \/>\n                        with<br \/>\n        Panicker, General Manager (Construction) is given full<br \/>\n        additional charge of Managing Director, until further orders.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       The stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General is that<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P6 is only a note made by the Hon&#8217;ble Minister on the complaint filed<\/p>\n<p>by the Chairman of the Corporation and that as Ext.P6 is not an order of<\/p>\n<p>the State Government expressed in the name of the Governor as required<\/p>\n<p>by clause (1) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it cannot be said<\/p>\n<p>to be an order passed by the Government.           The learned Additional<\/p>\n<p>Advocate General further contended that as no Government order<\/p>\n<p>removing the petitioner from service has been issued and communicated<\/p>\n<p>to the petitioner, the writ petition is premature.     The Apex Court in<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/98066\/\">Bachhittar Singh, V. State of Punjab &amp;<\/a> another (AIR 1963 SC 395)<\/p>\n<p>considered an identical question and held as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;9.    The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact<br \/>\n       make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does<br \/>\n       not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order<br \/>\n       of the State Government two things are necessary. The order<br \/>\n       has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by<br \/>\n       cl. (1) of Art. 166 and then it has to be communicated. As<br \/>\n       already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the<br \/>\n       Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn<br \/>\n       up the State Government cannot in our opinion be regarded as<br \/>\n       bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L              4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his<br \/>\n       remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh once.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               10)   The business of State is a complicated one and has<br \/>\n       necessarily to be conducted through the agency of a large<br \/>\n       number of officials and authorities. The Constitution therefore<br \/>\n       requires and so did the Rules of Business framed by the<br \/>\n       Rajpramukh of Pepsu provide, that the action must be taken by<br \/>\n       the authority concerned in the name of the Rajpramukh. It is not<br \/>\n       till this formality is observed that the action can be regarded as<br \/>\n       that on the State or here, by the Rajpramukh. We may further<br \/>\n       observe that, constitutionally speaking, the Minister is no more<br \/>\n       than an adviser and that the head of the State, the Governor or<br \/>\n       Rajpramukh, is to act with the aid and advice of his Council of<br \/>\n       Ministers. Therefore until such advice is accepted by the<br \/>\n       Governor whatever the Minister or the Council of Ministers say in<br \/>\n       regard to a particular matter does not become the action of the<br \/>\n       State until the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or<br \/>\n       deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Indeed, it is<br \/>\n       possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular<br \/>\n       matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers<br \/>\n       may express quite a different opinion, one which may be<br \/>\n       completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be<br \/>\n       regarded as the &#8216;order&#8217; of the State Government? Therefore, to<br \/>\n       make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it<br \/>\n       must be communicated to the person concerned.              In this<br \/>\n       connection we may quote the following from the judgment of<br \/>\n       this Court in the <a href=\"\/doc\/1910029\/\">State of Punjab V. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, AIR<\/a><br \/>\n       1961 SC 493 at p.512.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Mr.Gopal Singh attempted to argue that before the final<br \/>\n       order was passed the Council of Ministers had decided to accept<br \/>\n       the respondent representation and to reinstate him, and that,<br \/>\n       according to him, the respondent seeks to prove by calling the<br \/>\n       two original orders. We are unable to understand this argument.<br \/>\n       Even if the Council of Ministers had provisionally decided to<br \/>\n       reinstate the respondent that would not prevent the Council from<br \/>\n       reconsidering the matter and coming to a contrary conclusion<br \/>\n       later on, until a final decision is reached by them and is<br \/>\n       communicated to the Rajpramukh in the form of advice and acted<br \/>\n       upon by him by issuing an order in that behalf to the<br \/>\n       respondent.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L            5<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be<br \/>\n       communicated to the person who would be affected by that order<br \/>\n       before the State and that person can be bound by that order.<br \/>\n       For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it,<br \/>\n       it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the<br \/>\n       matter<br \/>\n       communication the order canagainst regarded as anything more<br \/>\n                  over    and  over           and,  therefore,  till its<br \/>\n                                      not be<br \/>\n       than provisional in character.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                  5. The Apex Court held that before something amounts to<\/p>\n<p>an order of the State Government two things are necessary, (i) the order<\/p>\n<p>has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause<\/p>\n<p>(1) of Article 166 of the Constitution and (ii) it has to be communicated<\/p>\n<p>to the person who would be affected by that order. It was held until such<\/p>\n<p>an order is drawn up by the State Government, the notes made by the<\/p>\n<p>Hon&#8217;ble Minister on the file cannot be said to be an order of the State<\/p>\n<p>Government. The Apex Court also noticed that it is possible that after<\/p>\n<p>expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage, a<\/p>\n<p>Minister of the Council of Ministers may later express quite a different<\/p>\n<p>opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion and<\/p>\n<p>therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it<\/p>\n<p>must be a final decision communicated to the person concerned. Tested<\/p>\n<p>in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/98066\/\">Bachhittar<\/p>\n<p>Singh, V. State of Punjab &amp;<\/a> another (supra), I am pursuaded to agree<\/p>\n<p>with the learned Additional Advocate General that Ext.P6 cannot said to<\/p>\n<p>be an order of the State Government removing the petitioner from office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P(C) No. 12551of 2009 -L             6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The respondents have in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of<\/p>\n<p>I.A.No. 6381 of 2009 virtually conceded this position.<\/p>\n<p>       I accordingly hold that the challenge to Ext.P6 is misconceived and<\/p>\n<p>that the writ petition is premature. In the light of the undertaking made<\/p>\n<p>by the Government in paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.<\/p>\n<p>6381 of 2009, the petitioner cannot have any grievance that Ext.P6 note<\/p>\n<p>will affect his right to continue in office as Managing Director of the<\/p>\n<p>Corporation.       Such being situation, the writ petition is dismissed as<\/p>\n<p>premature, leaving open the contentions of both sides and reserving<\/p>\n<p>liberty with the Government to pass orders in terms of Section 22(1) of<\/p>\n<p>the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962, if the Government wish to<\/p>\n<p>proceed further in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                      P.N.RAVINDRAN<br \/>\n                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                \/\/True Copy\/\/<\/p>\n<p>                                            PA to Judge<br \/>\nab<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 12551 of 2009(L) 1. LT.COL.(RETD)K.G.RAMACHANDRAN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, 3. SHRI MULLAKKARA RATNAKARAN, For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. The Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-202652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-23T08:23:30+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-23T08:23:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1653,\"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\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-23T08:23:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-23T08:23:30+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-23T08:23:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"},"wordCount":1653,"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\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009","name":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-23T08:23:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lt-col-retdk-g-ramachandran-vs-state-of-kerala-on-2-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lt.Col.(Retd)K.G.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 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\/202652","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=202652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}