{"id":211682,"date":"2010-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-10-30T23:41:48","modified_gmt":"2016-10-30T18:11:48","slug":"p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 7187 of 2008(E)\n\n\n1. P.A.MATHEW, AGED 85,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :30\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.\n                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n                  W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008-E\n                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n           Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    In this writ petition, the challenge is against the<\/p>\n
orders Exts.P14 and P15 which are the orders refusing<\/p>\n
Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension and the communication of<\/p>\n
the State Government refusing to recommend the application<\/p>\n
for pension respectively.\n<\/p>\n
    2.   The second petitioner is the widow of late Shri<\/p>\n
P.A.Mathew who had filed this writ petition and who died<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the writ petition.  It is averred in<\/p>\n
the writ petition that late Shri P.A. Mathew was an active<\/p>\n
participant of Punnapra-Vayalar Struggle and, hence, the<\/p>\n
police  arrayed  him  as  an  accused  before  the  Special<\/p>\n
Magistrate  Court,  Alappuzha in  P.E.7\/1122(M.E)  and  the<\/p>\n
Court issued   a  non-bailable warrant  against  the  first<\/p>\n
petitioner and then in order to evade arrest, he had gone<\/p>\n
underground for more than six months from October 1946 to<\/p>\n
July 1947 and consequently was declared as a proclaimed<\/p>\n
offender.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the application for grant<\/p>\n
of S.S.S. Pension.     Ext.P2 is the copy of the order<\/p>\n
granting pension under the Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension<\/p>\n
Rules.   It is pointed out that at present no official<\/p>\n
documents are available in respect of P.E.7\/1122 and Ext.P3<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                 -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
is the copy of the copy application and the order in case<\/p>\n
No.PE.7\/1122.        Therein, the C.J.M. Court, Alappuzha has<\/p>\n
certified that the records of the year 1122 have already<\/p>\n
been destroyed and, accordingly, the copy application was<\/p>\n
rejected.      This was also placed by the petitioner before<\/p>\n
the Government.\n<\/p>\n
     3.      The copy of the Personal Knowledge Certificate<\/p>\n
produced by the petitioner from Shri Kunjan Sukumaran is<\/p>\n
Ext.P4.     Ext.P5 is the copy of the extract of the convict<\/p>\n
register in respect of the said certifier and Ext.P6 is the<\/p>\n
order granting S.S.S. Pension to him.           On receipt of a<\/p>\n
further direction by the District Collector to produce<\/p>\n
other    records,     the   petitioner   produced  the   Personal<\/p>\n
Knowledge Certificate of Shri Narayanan Ramankutty a copy<\/p>\n
of which is available as Ext.P7 and, Ext.P8 is the copy of<\/p>\n
the order granting Central Pension to the said certifier<\/p>\n
and Ext.P9 is the true copy of the extract of the convict<\/p>\n
register     of    the  Central  Prison,   Thiruvananthapuram  in<\/p>\n
relation to the said certifier.        The State Government again<\/p>\n
did not recommend the application which is evident from<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 communication of the District Collector which led<\/p>\n
to    the     deceased     freedom    fighter   filing   W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
No.1138\/2006.        During  the    pendency of  the   said  writ<\/p>\n
petition,     the    late  husband    of the  second   petitioner<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                 -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
produced the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by Shri<\/p>\n
H.K.Chakrapani a copy of which is produced as Ext.P11.<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 is a true copy of the order granting S.S.S Pension<\/p>\n
to the said certifier and Ext.P13 is the true copy of the<\/p>\n
convict register relating to Shri H.K.Chakrapani.         In W.P.<\/p>\n
(C).No.1138\/2006, this Court directed the Government to<\/p>\n
dispose of the matter again.          Ext.P14 is the order passed<\/p>\n
by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
     4.      In Ext.P15, the State Government has chosen not to<\/p>\n
recommend     the    application  but   to  forward  the  pension<\/p>\n
application along with the enclosures.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and<\/p>\n
the learned Government Pleader.         The learned counsel   for<\/p>\n
the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P15 to contend<\/p>\n
that none of the relevant aspects have been considered by<\/p>\n
the State Government.        In paragraph (1) of Ext.P15, after<\/p>\n
referring to the Personal Knowledge Certificates issued by<\/p>\n
Shri Kunjan Sukumaran and Shri Narayanan Ramankutty and a<\/p>\n
certificate from Shri P.K.Chandranandan Ex-MLA and N.A.R.C<\/p>\n
from    Chief    Judicial  Magistrate    Court, Alappuzha  it  is<\/p>\n
specifically       mentioned  that     “the  District  Collector,<\/p>\n
Alappuzha has reported that no case records related to the<\/p>\n
case are available in the concerned Court, Police Station<\/p>\n
and Collectorate also”.        It is further mentioned that the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
first petitioner did not produce any additional documents.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the<\/p>\n
deceased could not have produced any additional documents<\/p>\n
as no records are available in any of the offices concerned<\/p>\n
and, therefore, the view taken by the State Government<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted also.           I find force in the above<\/p>\n
submission.       When the District Collector reported that no<\/p>\n
case records relating to the case are available in the<\/p>\n
concerned court, Police Station and Collectorate, there is<\/p>\n
no   point    in    directing the    petitioner  to  produce  any<\/p>\n
additional      documents.    Evidently,    the  period  of   the<\/p>\n
struggle is between 1946 to 1947.        The application is filed<\/p>\n
only in 1998.        Therefore, the late petitioner could not<\/p>\n
have been expected to maintain contemporaneous records.        He<\/p>\n
could have produced the records only if available from the<\/p>\n
Criminal     Court,    Police Station    and   the  Collectorate.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the adverse comment made in Ext.P15 on the<\/p>\n
conduct of the late petitioner in not producing additional<\/p>\n
documents cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      In Ext.P15, no reference is made to the Personal<\/p>\n
Knowledge Certificate issued by Shri H.K.Chakrapani.         But,<\/p>\n
in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government, in<\/p>\n
paragraph     (5),   it  is  stated   that  “the  certifier  Shri<\/p>\n
H.K.Chakrapani       was  granted    Swatantrata  Sainik   Samman<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                               -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pension in 2003 by giving him the benefit of doubt.    Hence,<\/p>\n
the Personal Knowledge Certificate issued by him cannot be<\/p>\n
relied upon”.        The grant of S.S.S. Pension to the said<\/p>\n
certifier is evident from Ext.P12.      It is clear that the<\/p>\n
various certificates produced by the said certifier were<\/p>\n
examined by the Central Government and pension was granted.<\/p>\n
Apart from that, this certifier is a well known freedom<\/p>\n
fighter whose certificates have been produced by other<\/p>\n
applicants also and this Court had occasion to consider the<\/p>\n
adequacy of such certificates in various writ petitions and<\/p>\n
at no point of time the State Government had a case that he<\/p>\n
is not a competent certifier.        Therefore, it is really<\/p>\n
unfortunate as to how in paragraph (5) such a comment has<\/p>\n
been made that his certificate cannot be relied upon.    His<\/p>\n
period of imprisonment, as evident from Ext.P13, is from<\/p>\n
21\/03\/1952 to 27\/01\/1955, that means, nearly 3 years.     The<\/p>\n
qualification of the certifier is only that he should<\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment for a minimum period of 2 years.<\/p>\n
Really, he is a competent certifier.    Apart from that, once<\/p>\n
he was granted pension by the Central Government, the State<\/p>\n
Government cannot sit in appeal on the same and comment<\/p>\n
upon the qualification of the said certifier, that too<\/p>\n
without any justification.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.      Therefore,   the  attitude   taken  here  is  not<\/p>\n
justifiable. Evidently, in Ext.P15, only the certificates<\/p>\n
of other certifiers have been considered and they have also<\/p>\n
been rejected, for want of supporting official documents.<\/p>\n
When    it   is    evident from  the  report  of  the  District<\/p>\n
Collector     which    is  made mention   in  Ext.P15 that  no<\/p>\n
documents are available, those certificates could not have<\/p>\n
been rejected for want of said official documents.<\/p>\n
     8.      The learned Government Pleader pointed out that<\/p>\n
normally N.A.R.C’s are produced from the concerned courts,<\/p>\n
but the Central Government requires a proper certificate<\/p>\n
issued by the State Government itself.      Evidently, the said<\/p>\n
stand cannot be accepted.       In so many cases, even though<\/p>\n
the Central Government has been taking such a stand, as far<\/p>\n
as this State is concerned, the State Government has not<\/p>\n
been issuing any certificates by way of NARC by any of the<\/p>\n
Departments.       Therefore, the parties can only produce the<\/p>\n
certificate from the concerned jail, where the applicant<\/p>\n
has undergone conviction or from the authorities of the<\/p>\n
police or      from   the  concerned  courts, in  other  cases.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it cannot be said that the NARC produced by the<\/p>\n
first petitioner from the C.J.M. Court is in any way<\/p>\n
defective for want of a further certificate from the State<\/p>\n
Government.      Herein, as rightly pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P15 evidences the fact<\/p>\n
that the State Government has considered the report of the<\/p>\n
District Collector wherein he has reported that no records<\/p>\n
are available.        Therefore, actually, Ext.P15 itself has<\/p>\n
recorded the non-availability of records.<\/p>\n
     9.      This Court in Judgment in W.P.(C).No.10843\/2010<\/p>\n
had occasion to consider the insistence of the certificate<\/p>\n
in the following form:-\n<\/p>\n
                   “All concerned authorities of the State<\/p>\n
             Government who could have relevant records<\/p>\n
             in respect of the claim of the applicant<\/p>\n
             have been consulted and it is confirmed that<\/p>\n
             the official records of the relevant time<\/p>\n
             are not available.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold as follows:-<\/p>\n
             “I have held earlier in other similar cases<\/p>\n
             that no freedom fighter in this country can<\/p>\n
             furnish such an NARC.      The petitioner has<\/p>\n
             already produced an NARC from the concerned<\/p>\n
             Magistrate   Court  where   according  to the<\/p>\n
             petitioner the case against the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
             husband   during  the   freedom  struggle was<\/p>\n
             registered   pursuant    to  which   he  went<\/p>\n
             underground.    I am of opinion that, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
             petitioner   cannot  do  anything else  other<\/p>\n
             than producing such an NARC.   Even otherwise<\/p>\n
             as    far  as  the   Government  records  are<\/p>\n
             concerned the Supreme Court and this Court<\/p>\n
             has    again and  again   held that  wherever<\/p>\n
             records in respect of freedom fighters are<\/p>\n
             to be obtained from the Government offices<\/p>\n
             it is the duty of the Government to get the<\/p>\n
             same.     As such, I do not find any merit<\/p>\n
             whatsoever in the ground for rejection of<\/p>\n
             the    NARC  produced   by   the  petitioner.<\/p>\n
             Therefore, I hold that, the NARC (Ext.P8)<\/p>\n
             produced by the petitioner is sufficient for<\/p>\n
             the purpose of claiming pension under the<\/p>\n
             Scheme.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. Herein also evidently, in the light of the report<\/p>\n
of the District Collector made mention of in Ext.P15 the<\/p>\n
State Government can issue another N.A.R.C., if it is<\/p>\n
required.          Ext.P15  suffers   from  serious  infirmity,<\/p>\n
especially, in the light of the fact that the Personal<\/p>\n
Knowledge Certificate of Shri H.K.Chakrapani along with the<\/p>\n
certificates      of  the  certifier  have  not been  examined.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Ext.P15 and the order passed by the Central<\/p>\n
Government-Ext.P14 are quashed.       There will be a direction<\/p>\n
W.P.(C). No.7187\/2008
\n                                -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to the State Government to consider the Personal Knowledge<\/p>\n
Certificates      including  the   certificate  issued by   Shri<\/p>\n
H.K.Chakrapani       and  forward    a  fresh  Verification-cum-<\/p>\n
Entitlement      Report  showing    the  recommendation to   the<\/p>\n
Central Government in the light of the above findings along<\/p>\n
with proper NARC within a period of six weeks from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.         Ext.P15 evidences<\/p>\n
the fact that already the District Collector has reported<\/p>\n
that no records are available with the concerned court,<\/p>\n
Police Station and Collectorate and, therefore, the said<\/p>\n
report can be utilised for issuing a fresh NARC.              On<\/p>\n
receipt of the Verification-cum-Entitlement Report from the<\/p>\n
State Government along with other documents, the Central<\/p>\n
Government will reconsider the application within a further<\/p>\n
period of three months.      In the event of grant of pension,<\/p>\n
the entitlement of the second petitioner for pension from<\/p>\n
the date      of   receipt of  the    application will  also  be<\/p>\n
considered.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.<\/p>\n
                            (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
ms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 7187 of 2008(E) 1. P.A.MATHEW, AGED 85, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.J.OM PRAKASH For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, […]<\/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-211682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 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\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-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=\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-30T18:11:48+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-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-30T18:11:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1886,\"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-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\",\"name\":\"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-30T18:11:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 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":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 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\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-30T18:11:48+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-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-30T18:11:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010"},"wordCount":1886,"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-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010","name":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-30T18:11:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-a-mathew-vs-the-union-of-india-on-30-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.A.Mathew vs The Union Of India on 30 August, 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\/211682","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=211682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}