{"id":210310,"date":"2007-07-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007"},"modified":"2014-07-22T20:17:08","modified_gmt":"2014-07-22T14:47:08","slug":"k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 411 of 1994(G)\n\n\n\n1. K.S.E.B.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.VIDYADHARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC. KSEB\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.PRAKASH THOMAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :17\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                     S.A.No. 411              OF 1994\n                    ............................................\n          DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JULY, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Second defendant Kerala State Electricity Board is the<\/p>\n
appellant. First respondent is plaintiff and other respondents,<\/p>\n
other defendants in the suit. First respondent instituted the suit<\/p>\n
seeking a decree for mandatory injunction directing the<\/p>\n
appellant Board to shift the 11 KV line which was drawn above<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property belonging to him, contending that it<\/p>\n
was drawn without his consent or permission.                      According to<\/p>\n
appellant, the Board has shifted the reallignment from its<\/p>\n
original place and drawn above the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
without seeking consent of first respondent and without<\/p>\n
complying with the provisions of Electricity Act. In the suit, first<\/p>\n
respondent impleaded apart from the Board, the Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer, K.S.E.B, Kundara and the District Collector as<\/p>\n
defendants.   Appellant resisted the suit contending that 3rd<\/p>\n
defendant Executive Engineer of Kundara has nothing to do with<\/p>\n
the KSEB Transmission Division, Adoor and the suit is bad for<\/p>\n
his mis-joinder. It was not contended that suit was bad for non-<\/p>\n
joinder of Executive Officer, Adoor Division.                     It was also<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that 11 KV line connecting Mavelikkara and Punalur<\/p>\n
sub-stations is passing through the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
the    11 KV line was drawn long back even before first<\/p>\n
respondent purchased the property and it was not drawn<\/p>\n
recently as alleged by first respondent and the allignment was<\/p>\n
not shifted and therefore first respondent is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree for mandatory injunction sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of Pws 1 to4, DW1<\/p>\n
and Exts.A1 to A10, Exts.B1 to B5 and Exts.C1 and C2 held that<\/p>\n
the suit is not bad for mis-joinder of 3rd defendant and case of<\/p>\n
appellant that the line was drawn long back and there was no<\/p>\n
reallignment is not correct and evidence of Pws 1 to 4 with DW1<\/p>\n
establish that the original of 11 KV line was shifted which was<\/p>\n
existing after widening of M.C.Road and as a result it is now<\/p>\n
drawn above the plaint schedule property and it was so drawn<\/p>\n
without getting the consent or permission of first respondent and<\/p>\n
therefore first respondent is entitled to the decree for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction sought for.     The suit was decreed.         Appellant<\/p>\n
challenged the decree and judgment before District Court,<\/p>\n
Pathanamthitta in A.S.33 of 1989. Before the first appellate court<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
it was contended that as the Executive Engineer of Adoor<\/p>\n
Division was not impleaded, suit is bad for his non-joinder. First<\/p>\n
appellate court rejected the contention holding that there was no<\/p>\n
plea of non-joinder and therefore it cannot be raised before the<\/p>\n
appellate court.     Learned District Judge also found that as<\/p>\n
appellant Board is the second defendant, suit is even otherwise<\/p>\n
not bad for non-joinder. Though it was contended that suit is<\/p>\n
barred under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, learned District<\/p>\n
Judge did not accept the said plea also.        Appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence, learned District Judge upheld the findings of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The second appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
1)Whether the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n
2)Whether the Section 56 of Indian Electricity Act is a bar to the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
3)Whether a suit notice issued in 1981 will give rise to a cause<\/p>\n
of action to institute a suit in 1985.\n<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and first<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
     5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that as<\/p>\n
the Executive Engineer, Adoor Division within whose jurisdiction<\/p>\n
the disputed 11 KV line is drawn was not impleaded, the suit is<\/p>\n
bad for his non-joinder and the finding of first appellate court is<\/p>\n
not correct. Learned counsel further argued that the suit should<\/p>\n
have been dismissed as barred under Section 56 of the<\/p>\n
Electricity Act as the line was drawn bonafide. Finally, it was<\/p>\n
argued that notice was sent in 1981 and therefore cause of<\/p>\n
action for the suit could only be of 1981 and the suit instituted<\/p>\n
in 1985 is not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for first<\/p>\n
respondent argued that as there was no plea of non-joinder<\/p>\n
before the trial court, appellant is precluded from raising that<\/p>\n
plea in the second appeal and as the Board is a party to the suit<\/p>\n
the suit is not bad for non-joinder and in any case it is not a<\/p>\n
substantial question of law. Relying on the decision of Apex<\/p>\n
Court in M.P Electricity Board V. Vijaya Timber Company<\/a><\/p>\n
(1997(1) SCC 68) learned counsel argued that when the line was<\/p>\n
drawn without complying with the provisions of Electricity Act,<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
the suit is maintainable and as there is no exclusion of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction the suit is not barred under Section 56 of the<\/p>\n
Electricity Act. It was further argued that the cause of action<\/p>\n
for the suit was the failure of the appellant Board to shift the 11<\/p>\n
KV line drawn illegally without obtaining consent of the<\/p>\n
appellant in spite of Ext.A2 notice sent on 23.8.1985 and the<\/p>\n
cause of action is not that of 1981       as stated in the appeal<\/p>\n
memorandum and therefore none of the questions formulated<\/p>\n
are substantial questions of law involved in the appeal.<\/p>\n
      6.   Though the appeal was admitted and substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law were formulated, as provided under sub-section<\/p>\n
5 of Section 100, when the appeal is heard on the questions of<\/p>\n
law formulated under sub-section 4 of Section 100, respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to argue that the case does not involve the substantial<\/p>\n
questions formulated.      Therefore the fact that substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law were formulated will not preclude first<\/p>\n
respondent from contending that none of those questions are<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law involved in the appeal.<\/p>\n
      7. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
first respondent, in the absence of a plea before the trial court<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, appellant is<\/p>\n
not entitled to raise it in the second appeal. Even if it was<\/p>\n
raised before the trial it cannot be a substantial question of law<\/p>\n
involved in the appeal. Even otherwise when the Kerala State<\/p>\n
Electricity Board itself is a defendant in the suit, the fact that the<\/p>\n
concerned Executive Engineer was not impleaded in the suit will<\/p>\n
not make the suit bad for non-joinder.\n<\/p>\n
     8. Section 56(1) of the Electricity Act 1910 reads:<\/p>\n
          ” No suit, prosecution or other proceedings<\/p>\n
          shall lie against any public officer, or any<\/p>\n
          servant of a local authority, for anything<\/p>\n
          done, or in good faith purporting to be done,<\/p>\n
          under the Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  Sub-section 2 provides that :\n<\/p>\n
          “No court shall take cognizance of an<\/p>\n
          offence under the Act, by a public officer<\/p>\n
          except with the sanction-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          a) in the case of a person employed in<\/p>\n
          connection with the affairs of the Union, of<\/p>\n
          the Central Government; and<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                     7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          b) in any other case, of the (State<\/p>\n
          Government).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Section 56 is a usual section inserted in similar enactments for<\/p>\n
the protection of public servants, administrative     or judicial<\/p>\n
officers and is based upon the principle of public policy that an<\/p>\n
officer entrusted with the responsibility of discharging certain<\/p>\n
duties should be able to do so untramelled by the consideration<\/p>\n
of his acts being called in question in a Court of law, or his<\/p>\n
being liable to be sued for damages, should his action be legally<\/p>\n
or technically erroneous.    Section 56 confers immunity to a<\/p>\n
public officer from a suit, prosecution or other proceedings not<\/p>\n
only in respect of anything done in good faith but also where<\/p>\n
they were done purporting to be in good faith. The protection<\/p>\n
provided under Section 56 is to the public officer from personal<\/p>\n
liability. It has nothing to do with a suit of this nature. The<\/p>\n
Apex Court in        M.P Electricity Board’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
considered the plea of bar raised by the Board against a suit<\/p>\n
directing the removal of electric line with poles situated in the<\/p>\n
land belonging to a private party, on the allegation that it was<\/p>\n
drawn against the provisions of the Act. The Apex Court held<\/p>\n
SA 411\/1994                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
that the remedy of the plaintiff was not taken away expressly or<\/p>\n
impliedly and therefore the suit is maintainable. That exactly is<\/p>\n
the position herein also.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The trial court and first appellate court on appreciating<\/p>\n
the evidence, entered a factual finding that appellant Board had<\/p>\n
shifted 11 KV line from its original position and drawn the line<\/p>\n
over the property of respondent without the consent or<\/p>\n
permission of first respondent and that too without complying<\/p>\n
with the provisions of the Act. That factual finding cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered in exercise of the powers of this court under Section<\/p>\n
100 of Code of Civil Procedure. Courts below found that when<\/p>\n
appellant contended that there was no shifting evidence of DW1<\/p>\n
establish that there was a shifting of the allignment after<\/p>\n
widening of M.C road and construction of a bridge.        In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 411 of 1994(G) 1. K.S.E.B. … Petitioner Vs 1. K.VIDYADHARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC. KSEB For Respondent :SRI.PRAKASH THOMAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :17\/07\/2007 O R D E R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1482,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\",\"name\":\"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007"},"wordCount":1482,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007","name":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-22T14:47:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-s-e-b-vs-k-vidyadharan-on-17-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.S.E.B vs K.Vidyadharan on 17 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/210310","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=210310"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210310\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}