{"id":218404,"date":"2004-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004"},"modified":"2016-12-28T20:44:51","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T15:14:51","slug":"shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 21123 of 2004(M)\n\n\n1. SHIBU.C.F., CHERAMANTHURUTHY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE PUTHENVELIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,\n\n3. C.V.ANTONY, CHERAMANTHURUTHY,\n\n4. K.K.CHITHRANGADHAN, KALAKKASSERY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.L.DEVADAS\nCoram\n\n Dated :     10\/09\/2004\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>.PL 58<br \/>\n.TM 3<br \/>\n.BM 3<br \/>\n&#8230;&#8230;..L&#8230;.T&#8230;..T&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;.J<br \/>\n          (M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)@@<br \/>\n         jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n<p>         &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-@@<br \/>\n        j<\/p>\n<p>         W.P.(C).NO.21123 OF 2004-M@@<br \/>\n        j<\/p>\n<p>         &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-@@<br \/>\n        j<br \/>\n         Dated this the 10th day of September, 2004@@<br \/>\n        jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<br \/>\n         @@<br \/>\n        j<br \/>\n         JUDGMENT@@<br \/>\n        jEEEEEEEE<br \/>\n((HDR 0<br \/>\n\t[WPC 21123\/2004]\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t-:#:-\n<\/p>\n<p>))<br \/>\n.HE 1<br \/>\n.SP 2<br \/>\n.JY<br \/>\n.JN<\/p>\n<p>        \t\tPuthenvelikkara     Grama    Panchayat    (2nd<br \/>\n        respondent herein), by notification dated 06-07-2004, had<br \/>\n        invited tenders for the  right  for  conducting  a  ferry<br \/>\n        service         on        the        Parangiyattukurisu&#8211;<br \/>\n        Cheriyapazhampallithuruthu by using mechanised  boat  for<br \/>\n.JY<br \/>\n        the period  from  01-08-2004 to 31-07-2005.  Auction also<br \/>\n        was proposed to be  held  on  the  notified  date.    The<br \/>\n        petitioner has filed this writ petition pointing out that<br \/>\n        the  special  conditions,  especially items 1 and 6, were<br \/>\n        unreasonable and illegal,  and  showed  the  mala  fides,<br \/>\n        which   were   attached  to  the  grant  of  such  right.<br \/>\n        Especially condition No.1, according to him,  was  loaded<br \/>\n        in  such  a  manner so as to confer advantage on a single<br \/>\n        earmarked individual to the exclusion of all others.   He<br \/>\n        is disabled  from participating.  The question is whether<br \/>\n        such  conditions  are  unreasonable  which  vitiates  the<br \/>\n        entire  transactions  and  therefore interference of this<br \/>\n        Court is warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t2.\tA request was made by the  petitioner  to  the<br \/>\n        Deputy  Director  of  Panchayat agitating over the matter<br \/>\n        but no follow up action has been taken  by  him  on  such<br \/>\n        complaint.  It was pointed out that he owed a public duty<br \/>\n        and   especially   to   inhabitants  of  the  island  and<br \/>\n        appropriate measures ought  to  have  been  taken,  which<br \/>\n        resulted in a fair deal by warding off monopoly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t3.\tThe  ferry,  referred  to  in  Ext.P1,  is  to<br \/>\n        connect    the    second    respondent&#8211;Panchayat    with<br \/>\n        Chendamangalam Panchayat.    The first special condition,<br \/>\n        which  was  pointed  out  as  objectionable,   could   be<br \/>\n        extracted herein below:\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t4.\tIt is contended by Mr.Dinesh R.Shenoy, counsel<br \/>\n        for the petitioner, that such a condition was to  benefit<br \/>\n        two individuals.    He  had  made  them  parties to these<br \/>\n        proceedings.    Petitioner   submits   that   the   third<br \/>\n        respondent is the owner of a boat and he had made certain<br \/>\n        agreements with  the  4th  respondent.   The advantageous<br \/>\n        geographical  position   of   the   4th   respondent   at<br \/>\n        Chendamangalam  was  that it would not have been possible<br \/>\n        for any other land  owner  to  offer  any  land  for  the<br \/>\n        conduct of ferry service other than him, and since he was<br \/>\n        hand  in gloves with the third respondent, no opportunity<br \/>\n        for anybody else was there to compete.  The condition, as<br \/>\n        above, is prescribed as a precondition  in  a  deliberate<br \/>\n        manner, though in all appearance innocuous.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t5.\tThe learned counsel also refers  to  the  past<br \/>\n        practice   which   had   been   followed  by  the  second<br \/>\n        respondent, namely that the rights were  proposed  to  be<br \/>\n        farmed  out  without  public  auction  and  by  a private<br \/>\n        arrangement and the 3rd and 4th respondents had been  the<br \/>\n        beneficiaries.   This  had been opposed and it was in the<br \/>\n        light of the above, the formality of notice by Ext.P2 had<br \/>\n        come to be passed.  This turned out as an eye-wash, since<br \/>\n        the successful  bidder  could  have  been  only  the  3rd<br \/>\n        respondent.   What  could not have been permissible to be<br \/>\n        done directly,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,  is<br \/>\n        attempted to be done indirectly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t6.\tWe have to understand the basic fact that  the<br \/>\n        second  respondent  does  not  own  any  property  within<br \/>\n        Chendamangalam Grama Panchayat.  It has no  control  over<br \/>\n        any  other  properties there and the Government also does<br \/>\n        not possess any land in  Chendamangalam  Grama  Panchayat<br \/>\n        which could  be  used  as  landing  for  the  ferry.  The<br \/>\n        argument of the petitioner is that in this situation,  as<br \/>\n        had  been done in other cases and in other Panchayats, at<br \/>\n        least  by  the intervention of the departmental officers,<br \/>\n        negotiation should have been made with the Chendamangalam<br \/>\n        Grama Panchayat for earmarking a  place  as  a  site  for<br \/>\n        landing, by whatever manner that was feasible, so that it<br \/>\n        would  not  have  been  possible for any single person to<br \/>\n        assert his presence  to  the  exclusion  of  any  others.<br \/>\n        However, it is easier said than done.  It is evident that<br \/>\n        the  second  respondent&#8211;Panchayat was not interested in<br \/>\n        exerting itself.  It is  clear  that  the  ferry  is  not<br \/>\n        likely  to generate any real funds, commensurate with the<br \/>\n        investment.  At the bar, it is pointed  out  that  during<br \/>\n        the  last time, when the ferry was being conducted in the<br \/>\n        late 1990&#8217;s, the bid amount was in<br \/>\n        the region of Rs.3000\/- per annum.  Though as a principle<br \/>\n        mooted, the petitioner can  be  considered  as  having  a<br \/>\n        grievance,  and  thereby could be reckoned as moving this<br \/>\n        Court in  public  interest,  nevertheless  the  realities<br \/>\n        cannot be   overlooked,  on  abstract  principles.    The<br \/>\n        respondents submit that Chendamangalam has a  vast  shore<br \/>\n        line,  and a tie up with the other land owners was not an<br \/>\n        impossibility as averred.  This Court cannot be  expected<br \/>\n        to  embark upon an enquiry for finding a landing site, or<br \/>\n        identifying a willing land owner.  That might be the case<br \/>\n        with the 2nd respondent or the Government officials also.<br \/>\n        Further,  possession   of   skills   and   infrastructure<br \/>\n        facilities  may  confer  advantages on individuals, and a<br \/>\n        rank outsider cannot  always  insist  for  a  level  play<br \/>\n        field.  A ferry will be workable only if landing site and<br \/>\n        pathway for  thoroughfare  is available.  The petitioner,<br \/>\n        therefore, cannot harbour a grudge  to  the  advantageous<br \/>\n        situation  of  any  competitor, who might have acted with<br \/>\n        foresight.  Their partnership is in  no  way  illegal  or<br \/>\n        against public  policy.   The opening of the ferry cannot<br \/>\n        await until the advent  of  an  accomplished  competitor.<br \/>\n        The  conditions  of  tender  notice  cannot  therefore be<br \/>\n        considered as arbitrary, the intending tenderers were  to<br \/>\n        possess the essential requirements only.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t7.\tThe  second  submission of the learned counsel<br \/>\n        was that there was no stipulation about the ferry charges<br \/>\n        and this may develop as a nepotism, as it would have been<br \/>\n        possible  for  the  operator  to   fleece   the   public.<br \/>\n        Reference  was  made  to  the notifications made by other<br \/>\n        Panchayats, and especially Ext.P3, which showed that even<br \/>\n        before  the  auction,  the  leviable  charges  have  been<br \/>\n        prescribed.   It  is  submitted  that the totality of the<br \/>\n        endeavour was to see that the residents of the  area  was<br \/>\n        put to loss and hardship.  From the facts of the case, it<br \/>\n        is  clear  that  it  may  not  be  possible for the third<br \/>\n        respondent to make  any  undue  gains,  since  the  total<br \/>\n        income from  the ferry service is limited.  It is pointed<br \/>\n        out by the second respondent that people in the area  can<br \/>\n        resort  to  the  facility  of country boats, which is the<br \/>\n        method of travelling now being used by them, in case  the<br \/>\n        levy of ferry charges is exorbitant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        \t11.\tThe  further  issue  is  as  to  whether it is<br \/>\n        possible  for  the  Deputy  Director  of  Panchayats   to<br \/>\n        prescribe any   solution.     Even  though  he  had  been<br \/>\n        addressed in the matter, as  far  as  I  could  see,  the<br \/>\n        second respondent has taken a policy decision and on such<br \/>\n        matters,    Governmental    authorities   can   have   no<br \/>\n        administrative or  supervisory  powers.    It   will   be<br \/>\n        improper on my part to direct him to look into the matter<br \/>\n        or to draw his views, as he has no such jurisdiction, and<br \/>\n        the suggestion may also be opinion, purely personal.\tThe<br \/>\n        writ petition is therefore dismissed.<br \/>\n.JN<\/p>\n<p>        \t\t\t       (M.RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE)@@<br \/>\n           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<br \/>\n        mks\/<\/p>\n<p>((HDR 0<\/p>\n<p>))<br \/>\n.HE 2<br \/>\n.PA<br \/>\n&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.L&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.J&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<br \/>\n.SP 1<\/p>\n<p>                                (M.RAMACHANDRAN,J)@@<br \/>\n                               jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n<p>                               &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br \/>\n.JN<\/p>\n<p>                                    O.P.NO. OF 2003-@@<br \/>\n                               j\n<\/p>\n<p>                               &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>                               \t\tJ U D G M E N T@@<br \/>\n                                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n<p>                               &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     Dated:   6th day of July, 2004<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">7<\/span><br \/>\n           [WPC 21123\/2004]\t&#8211;   <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 21123 of 2004(M) 1. SHIBU.C.F., CHERAMANTHURUTHY, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE PUTHENVELIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 3. C.V.ANTONY, CHERAMANTHURUTHY, 4. K.K.CHITHRANGADHAN, KALAKKASSERY, For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH [&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-218404","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>Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T15:14:51+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T15:14:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1244,\"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\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\",\"name\":\"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T15:14:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - 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\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T15:14:51+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T15:14:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004"},"wordCount":1244,"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\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004","name":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T15:14:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shibu-c-f-vs-the-deputy-director-of-panchayath-on-10-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shibu.C.F. vs The Deputy Director Of Panchayath on 10 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/218404","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=218404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}