{"id":220973,"date":"2010-06-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-12T08:46:53","modified_gmt":"2018-09-12T03:16:53","slug":"gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 202 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. GANGADHARAN.C.V., 'ABHAYAM', EDAKKAD PO\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SOBHANA.MP. 'ABHAYM', EDAKKAD POST,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY MINISTRY OF\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MINISTRRY OF SHIPPING COMPANY\n\n3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF\n\n4. INDIA STEAMISHIP COMPANY\n\n5. DIRECTOR GENERAL, D.G.SHIPPING COMPANY\n\n6. POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOZHIKODE.\n\n7. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.\n\n8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELATHUR.\n\n9. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :01\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n                      **********************\n                   W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009\n                       *********************\n               Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioners are the parents of Mr.Sanaj Gangadharan, the<\/p>\n
4th Engineer in a shipping company owned by the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
They have come to this Court for issue of a writ of habeas corpus<\/p>\n
to direct the production of their son Sanaj Gangadharan, who is<\/p>\n
said to be missing from 08.03.2009.        The vessel in question<\/p>\n
“Ratna Urvi” arrived at anchorage of Fujariah Port in U.A.E at<\/p>\n
19.00 hours local time on 07.03.2009. Bunkering commenced at<\/p>\n
22.00 hours. The bunkering operation was supervised by the<\/p>\n
said Sanaj Gangadharan. He was duly assisted by his senior<\/p>\n
Engineer.     The operation continued till 04.48 hours on<\/p>\n
08.03.2009.     On completion of the bunkering, Mr.Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan was given off by the Chief Engineer with direction<\/p>\n
to report at 18.00 hours.      The said Sanaj Gangadharan is<\/p>\n
reported to have had his lunch at 12.00 hours and thereafter at<\/p>\n
13.15 hours, he went up to the bridge to enquire about the<\/p>\n
prospect of the signing off. To cut a long story short, he was<\/p>\n
seen on board at 13.30 hours by the electrical officer. He was<\/p>\n
not seen thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009          2<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.      According    to    the   petitioners,    no    proper<\/p>\n
enquiry\/investigation has been conducted into circumstances<\/p>\n
under which the petitioners’ son was said to be missing from<\/p>\n
13.30 hours on 08.03.2009. They have hence come before this<\/p>\n
Court to issue necessary directions. To summarise their prayer,<\/p>\n
they want a proper enquiry\/investigation to be conducted to<\/p>\n
ascertain the whereabouts of their son. They want appropriate<\/p>\n
further action to be taken after ascertaining the relevant details.<\/p>\n
     3.      Notice has been issued to all the respondents.<\/p>\n
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 have filed statements. The 4th<\/p>\n
respondent has also filed a statement. The 9th respondent, C.B.I,<\/p>\n
has entered appearance through the Standing Counsel, but no<\/p>\n
statement has been filed. Respondent Nos.2 and 5 have filed a<\/p>\n
counter affidavit. Respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8 are represented by<\/p>\n
the Government Pleader. No statement has been filed by them.<\/p>\n
     4.      Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are represented by the<\/p>\n
learned A.S.G.I.       The learned A.S.G.I takes the stand that<\/p>\n
necessary action under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 has<\/p>\n
already been taken by the Union Government and its officers. A<\/p>\n
preliminary enquiry has been conducted and report submitted as<\/p>\n
required under Sections 358 and 359 of the said Act. A copy of<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009          3<\/span><\/p>\n
the preliminary enquiry report has been produced. The officer<\/p>\n
who conducted the preliminary enquiry did not suggest any<\/p>\n
formal investigation as required under Section 360 of the<\/p>\n
Merchant Shipping Act.        The officer who conducted the<\/p>\n
preliminary enquiry, did not suspect any foul play and the matter<\/p>\n
stood closed with the preliminary enquiry report submitted by<\/p>\n
the said officer.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     As directed by this Court, the learned A.S.G.I took<\/p>\n
instructions from the Consul General of India, U.A.E and has<\/p>\n
obtained report of the senior Public Prosecutor,         Fujariah<\/p>\n
submitted to the Ministry of Justice. The Fujariah police after<\/p>\n
investigation had come to the conclusion that the missing of<\/p>\n
Sanaj Gangadharan “was due to drowning”. The investigation<\/p>\n
and the enquiries in the case did not reveal anything contrary to<\/p>\n
that. It was further concluded by the senior Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
that the said act of drowning was not proved to be due to any<\/p>\n
deliberate act or negligence of anybody. It was opined that the<\/p>\n
said alleged drowning “may be considered as a fate and destiny”.<\/p>\n
Accordingly he had recommended that the matter be closed as it<\/p>\n
is an accident.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009           4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.     The learned A.S.G.I, in these circumstances, takes the<\/p>\n
stand that both on the preliminary enquiry report under<\/p>\n
Secs.358 and 359 and            on the basis of the result of<\/p>\n
investigation\/enquiry held by the police at Fujariah, respondents<\/p>\n
1 to 3 and 5 do not feel the necessity to conduct any further<\/p>\n
enquiry in the matter.     The conclusion that it was an accident<\/p>\n
may be accepted and further proceedings may be discontinued,<\/p>\n
prays the learned A.S.G.I.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     The 4th respondent also takes the stand that the<\/p>\n
disappearance of Sanaj Gangadharan was only an accident.         A<\/p>\n
detailed counter statement has been filed by the 4th respondent.<\/p>\n
To sum up, the 4th respondent takes the stand that there is<\/p>\n
absolutely no foul play in the disappearance of Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan.        He must have accidentally fallen into the sea<\/p>\n
while the vessel was at Fujariah Port . The possibility of suicide<\/p>\n
is also not ruled out by the 4th respondent.    The 4th respondent<\/p>\n
has no objection against any appropriate further enquiry being<\/p>\n
conducted. But the 4th respondent asserts that there has been no<\/p>\n
inadequacy, omission or failure on the part of the 4th respondent<\/p>\n
in doing the needful following the disappearance of Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan.          The 4th respondent appears convinced and<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009           5<\/span><\/p>\n
satisfied that there is no foul play and that the disappearance<\/p>\n
was either accidental or suicidal – fatal.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     The petitioners have filed reply affidavit in which they<\/p>\n
bring to the notice of the court various circumstances which do<\/p>\n
not give the unfortunate parents the satisfaction that proper<\/p>\n
enquiry\/investigation has been conducted into the circumstances<\/p>\n
under which their son Sanaj Gangadharan has allegedly<\/p>\n
disappeared. They bring to the notice of the Court the fact that<\/p>\n
there was no possibility whatsoever for Sanaj Gangadharan to<\/p>\n
commit suicide. They also point out that with the standing and<\/p>\n
experience that he has and with no other untoward incident<\/p>\n
having been taken place, the possibility of accidental fall must<\/p>\n
also be effectively ruled out.     They do not make any specific<\/p>\n
allegation as such against any specified individual.        But they<\/p>\n
have brought to the notice of the Court several circumstances<\/p>\n
that cumulatively result in their inability to accept the theory of<\/p>\n
an accident or suicide. In short, the petitioners take the gracious<\/p>\n
stand that the matter deserves to be investigated for them to<\/p>\n
have satisfaction that all relevant facts have been ascertained.<\/p>\n
They do, in these circumstances, pray that appropriate directions<\/p>\n
may be issued to the 9th respondent to conduct a proper<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009           6<\/span><\/p>\n
investigation\/enquiry into the matter and authentically ascertain<\/p>\n
the circumstances under which their son Sanaj Gangadharan<\/p>\n
allegedly disappeared.\n<\/p>\n
     9.      It is not necessary for us to advert in detail to the<\/p>\n
various circumstances pointed out by the petitioners. But we do<\/p>\n
note that they point out that there was some dissatisfaction\/<\/p>\n
disagreement in the relationship between their son Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan and his employers. They further point out that the<\/p>\n
Fujariah police does not even appear to have been apprised to<\/p>\n
the fact that the slippers (foot wear) of Sanaj Gangadharan were<\/p>\n
available on board after his disappearance. They further point<\/p>\n
out that some organic remnants which were detected have not<\/p>\n
been subjected to proper examination to ascertain whether they<\/p>\n
are remnants of Sanaj Gangadharan.\n<\/p>\n
     10. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We must<\/p>\n
say that we are also left with the feeling that authentic<\/p>\n
ascertainment of the cause of disappearance of Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan has not been made so far. We appreciate the<\/p>\n
agony and helplessness of the petitioners and have no hesitation<\/p>\n
to agree that a proper enquiry\/investigation deserves to be<\/p>\n
conducted.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009         7<\/span><\/p>\n
     11. The fact that preliminary enquiry has been conducted<\/p>\n
and report submitted in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Secs.358 and 359 is not, according to us, sufficient and<\/p>\n
convincing reason not to direct further probe into the matter.<\/p>\n
A reading of the preliminary enquiry report which has been<\/p>\n
placed before us (Ext.R1) convinces us that the same cannot be<\/p>\n
reckoned as an authentic and competent attempt to ascertain the<\/p>\n
circumstances under which the son of the petitioners allegedly<\/p>\n
disappeared.       The learned counsel for the petitioners places<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision in       Unnikrishnan v. Divisional<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police<\/a> (2001 (2) KLT 942) and Subir Biswas v.<\/p>\n
Divisional Inspector of Police<\/a> (2001 (3) KLT 569) to drive<\/p>\n
home his contention that the investigation\/enquiry under Part<\/p>\n
XII of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 cannot be held to be a<\/p>\n
substitute for a proper investigation into an alleged crime if the<\/p>\n
same has been committed.        Following the logic, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel argues that the suspicious or mysterious disappearance<\/p>\n
of an individual will also have to be properly enquired into and<\/p>\n
investigated by the police notwithstanding the provisions of Part<\/p>\n
XII of the Merchant Shipping Act. We agree with the learned<\/p>\n
counsel on that aspect.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009          8<\/span><\/p>\n
     12. Who          is  to be    directed  to    conduct     the<\/p>\n
investigation\/enquiry is the next question. A direction under<\/p>\n
Sec.360 of the Merchant Shipping Act that a formal investigation<\/p>\n
be conducted by the Magistrate appears to be possible. But we<\/p>\n
do not think that resort to that course will be efficacious or<\/p>\n
sufficient. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
that the 9th respondent has the requisite infrastructure,<\/p>\n
competence and facilities to help the court in the conduct of an<\/p>\n
enquiry\/investigation like the one that is needed in the case.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the petitioners suggests that even<\/p>\n
though on the basis of the materials presently available, a formal<\/p>\n
registration of a regular crime may not be possible under the<\/p>\n
CBI Manual, the CBI can be directed to register a Preliminary<\/p>\n
Enquiry (PE case) and enquire\/ investigate to the circumstances<\/p>\n
of the disappearance of Sri.Sanaj Gangadharan.            We are<\/p>\n
persuaded to agree that the said course would be the ideal<\/p>\n
course to be followed in the circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
     13. From          the  records   it   appears    that     the<\/p>\n
Vishakhapattanam police, Andhra Pradesh was also informed<\/p>\n
about the disappearance of Sanaj Gangadharan and some action<\/p>\n
has been taken at that end.      We are unable to ascertain what<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009           9<\/span><\/p>\n
actually has transpired in such action by the Vishakhapattanam<\/p>\n
police. This writ petition is pending from 23\/5\/09 and we do not<\/p>\n
think it necessary to further delay the proceedings to<\/p>\n
authentically ascertain      what has transpired        with   the<\/p>\n
Vishakhapattanam police.          No one has a case that the<\/p>\n
Vishakhapattanam police has come to any authentic conclusion<\/p>\n
on the cause of disappearance of Sanaj Gangadharan.<\/p>\n
     14. Taking all the relevant circumstances into account, we<\/p>\n
are satisfied that the ideal course to be followed in the instant<\/p>\n
case is to direct the 9th respondent to register a PE case in<\/p>\n
accordance        with   the     CBI    Manual     and      conduct<\/p>\n
enquiry\/investigation     into   the   disappearance     of   Sanaj<\/p>\n
Gangadharan, son of the petitioners at Fujariah Port on 8\/3\/09.<\/p>\n
In the course of such investigation, needless to say, the 9th<\/p>\n
respondent shall ascertain whether any action has been taken by<\/p>\n
the Vishakhapattanam police.          Such investigation can be<\/p>\n
reopened by the 9th respondent and proper further action can be<\/p>\n
taken.\n<\/p>\n
     15. We accordingly allow this writ petition and issue the<\/p>\n
above directions.      Appropriate further action shall be taken by<\/p>\n
the 9th respondent as directed above.      The 9th respondent can<\/p>\n
W.P(Crl.)No.202 of 2009           10<\/span><\/p>\n
direct the PE case to be registered at the appropriate unit of the<\/p>\n
CBI. We accept the request of the learned Standing Counsel for<\/p>\n
the 9th respondent – CBI, and direct that respondents 1 and 3<\/p>\n
shall ensure that all facilities are afforded to the 9th respondent<\/p>\n
to undertake the preliminary enquiry\/investigation as ordered by<\/p>\n
us in this writ petition. Bimonthly report shall be submitted by<\/p>\n
the CBI to this Court of the action taken by the CBI – the 9th<\/p>\n
respondent, in pursuance of the above directions issued by us.<\/p>\n
The first such report shall be filed before this Court by 2\/8\/10.<\/p>\n
                                          (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                        (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
\nrtr\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(Crl.).No. 202 of 2009(S) 1. GANGADHARAN.C.V., ‘ABHAYAM’, EDAKKAD PO … Petitioner 2. SOBHANA.MP. ‘ABHAYM’, EDAKKAD POST, Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY MINISTRY OF … Respondent 2. MINISTRRY OF SHIPPING COMPANY 3. SECRETARY TO […]<\/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-220973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-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=\"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-12T03:16:53+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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T03:16:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1918,\"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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-12T03:16:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-12T03:16:53+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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T03:16:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010"},"wordCount":1918,"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\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010","name":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-12T03:16:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gangadharan-c-v-vs-union-of-india-on-1-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gangadharan.C.V. vs Union Of India on 1 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/220973","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=220973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}