{"id":245257,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-15T12:06:55","modified_gmt":"2014-12-15T06:36:55","slug":"george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 22774 of 2006(J)\n\n\n1. GEORGE THEKKEKARA, THEKKEKARA HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRI),\n\n3. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,\n\n4. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J\n                ------------------------------------\n                W.P.(C).No.22774 OF 2006\n                ------------------------------------\n\n           Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                       ———————-\n<\/p>\n
     1.       The petitioner had entered into an agreement<\/p>\n
with the 2nd respondent for execution of the work of;<\/p>\n
“deepening, widening and side protection of the Valiyathodu<\/p>\n
in Kayattukuzhi Puncha Padasekharam” undertaken by the<\/p>\n
Agricultural Department of the State Government, under the<\/p>\n
‘Natural Calamities Scheme’. According to the petitioner, the<\/p>\n
work was allotted to him only as elected convener of the<\/p>\n
beneficiary committee. The approved estimate of the work<\/p>\n
was for Rs.4 lakhs, which according to the petitioner, is<\/p>\n
prepared as per the PWD schedule rates prevailing at that<\/p>\n
time. Ext.P1 is the contract agreement executed. Admittedly<\/p>\n
the work was not completed. According to the petitioner it<\/p>\n
became impossible to complete the work at the rates at which<\/p>\n
it was undertaken due to steep increase in the price of<\/p>\n
building materials and labour charges.            It is stated that,<\/p>\n
inspite of request made by the petitioner to revise the rates in<\/p>\n
accordance with the revised schedule rates of PWD, which<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                  -2-\n<\/p>\n
was brought into force subsequently, it was not allowed.<\/p>\n
Eventhough a major portion of the work was completed as<\/p>\n
early as in the year 1998, the matter was left as such, and the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent has not taken any action till the year 2002.<\/p>\n
Valuation of the completed work was taken only on 26.7.2002.<\/p>\n
In Ext.P2 & Ext.P3 issued by the 2nd respondent, the cost of<\/p>\n
the work completed was estimated as Rs.1,66,778\/-.         The<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted Ext.P4 objection against the valuation<\/p>\n
alleging irregularity and impropriety. During execution of the<\/p>\n
work the petitioner was given advance payments to the tune of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/-. According to the petitioner, the said payment<\/p>\n
was effected in two phases of Rs.2,00,000\/- and Rs.1,50,000\/-<\/p>\n
respectively.    It is stated that release of the 2nd phase of<\/p>\n
payment       was effected only after receipt of utilisation<\/p>\n
certificate and satisfaction obtained from the monetary<\/p>\n
committee, who was evaluating progress of the work.<\/p>\n
      2.        Since the petitioner has not completed the work<\/p>\n
and since the advance amount received by him was in excess<\/p>\n
of the cost of the work completed, the 2nd respondent issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 notice demanding refund of the differential amount of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06               -3-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.1,83,222\/-. Since the petitioner failed to make payment<\/p>\n
revenue recovery steps was initiated based on requisition of<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent. But the action was initiated for realisation<\/p>\n
of the total advance amount of Rs.3,50,000\/- along with<\/p>\n
interest. Being aggrieved by such action the petitioner had<\/p>\n
approached this court earlier, in WP(C).No:5185\/2004. Since<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 objection submitted against the valuation was pending<\/p>\n
undisposed, this court disposed of the writ petition through<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 Judgment directing the 2nd respondent to consider and<\/p>\n
pass orders on Ext.P4 (Ext.P5 in that writ petition) with notice<\/p>\n
and opportunities to the petitioner. Further proceedings of<\/p>\n
recovery was directed to be kept in abeyance till such time.<\/p>\n
      3.    Ext.P8 is the proceedings issued by the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent in compliance with the directions contained in<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 judgment. Since objection raised by the petitioner was<\/p>\n
against the valuation, which mainly pertains to technical<\/p>\n
matters, the 3rd respondent referred the matter for opinion of<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent thereupon called the<\/p>\n
petitioner for a personal hearing in order to clarify his doubts<\/p>\n
regarding measurements taken. But the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                -4-\n<\/p>\n
attended the hearing. The 2nd respondent reported that the<\/p>\n
valuation of Rs.1,66,778\/- arrived at with respect to the work<\/p>\n
completed, is on the basis of actual measurements and that<\/p>\n
there is no error in estimating the valuation.       On getting<\/p>\n
remarks from the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent afforded<\/p>\n
personal hearing to the petitioner. After consideration of the<\/p>\n
entire matter, the 3rd respondent had arrived at a conclusion<\/p>\n
that the petitioner had only completed works worth<\/p>\n
Rs.1,66,778\/-, and that he had failed to complete the works as<\/p>\n
undertaken through the agreement.       It is found that there is<\/p>\n
no reason to discard the valuation taken by the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
and therefore there is no reason to reconsider the demand of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/-, which is the amount advanced to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
      4.    Aggrieved by Ext.P8 the petitioner had preferred<\/p>\n
appeal before the Government, as evidenced from Ext.P9.<\/p>\n
When the coercive steps of recovery was pursued without<\/p>\n
considering such appeal, the petitioner again approached this<\/p>\n
court through WP(C).No:32013\/2004. A learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
of this court had disposed of the writ petition modifying<\/p>\n
Ext.P8, and directing the petitioner to remit Rs.1,83,222\/- only<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                -5-\n<\/p>\n
along with 15% interest in 2 equal monthly installments. But<\/p>\n
in Writ Appeal No:772\/2005 filed by the petitioner, Judgment<\/p>\n
of the Single Judge was set aside and the Government was<\/p>\n
directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal within<\/p>\n
three months. Ext.P11 is the Judgment in the Writ Appeal.<\/p>\n
Revenue recovery proceedings was directed to be kept in<\/p>\n
abeyance till the disposal of the appeal, on condition of the<\/p>\n
petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.50,000\/-, within a period<\/p>\n
of six weeks from the date of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Ext.P12 is the order passed by the Government,<\/p>\n
disposing the appeal. It is observed that the petitioner had<\/p>\n
failed to produce any invoice pertaining to the work completed<\/p>\n
by him. The Government found that, since the agreement was<\/p>\n
executed before revision of rates the request for allotting<\/p>\n
revised rates, is inadmissible. It is observed that since the<\/p>\n
work was not completed inspite of receipt of advance payment<\/p>\n
of Rs.3,50,000\/-, intention of the petitioner was malafide and<\/p>\n
was only to misappropriate the said amount. Therefore the<\/p>\n
appeal petition was rejected and the amount was directed to<\/p>\n
be recovered from the petitioner. The present writ petition is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                -6-\n<\/p>\n
filed challenging Ext.P12 order of the Government.<\/p>\n
      6.    Heard, Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Sri. Ashok<\/p>\n
Kumar argued that the work could not be completed due to<\/p>\n
the steep hike experienced in the price of building materials<\/p>\n
and labour charges. It is contended that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
only a nominee of the beneficiary committee and the work was<\/p>\n
undertaken at a very low rate than the schedule rate of PWD,<\/p>\n
which had undergone considerable changes immediately after<\/p>\n
execution of the agreement.        It is further argued that<\/p>\n
eventhough the work was stopped as early as in 1998, the<\/p>\n
valuation was taken only in the year 2002, that too during a<\/p>\n
heavy rainy season. Therefore there is no proper valuation<\/p>\n
taken and the estimation of the amount with respect to the<\/p>\n
works completed is not true and correct.         It is further<\/p>\n
contended that the advance payment was effected in two<\/p>\n
phases and the second payment of Rs.1,50,000\/- was made<\/p>\n
only after being convinced that there was proper utilisation of<\/p>\n
the initial amount of Rs.2 lakhs. Therefore the estimation now<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                 -7-\n<\/p>\n
taken with respect to the completed portion of the work is<\/p>\n
highly erroneous.     It is further argued that, at any rate,<\/p>\n
recovery of the total amount of advance payment along with<\/p>\n
huge rate of interest is not at all justified. It is also contended<\/p>\n
that the rate of interest with respect to the recovery is not<\/p>\n
specified in Ext.P1 agreement. Yet another contention raised<\/p>\n
is that the Government is not entitled to invoke provisions of<\/p>\n
Revenue Recovery Act for realising the amount, because such<\/p>\n
enablement is not specifically provided in the agreement, and<\/p>\n
because the amount sought to be recovered is not adjudicated<\/p>\n
and finalised.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondents.       However,     learned     Government      Pleader<\/p>\n
contended that the dispute regarding valuation has already<\/p>\n
been considered by the competent authority in accordance<\/p>\n
with the direction contained in Ext.P7 Judgment. It is pointed<\/p>\n
out that inspite of notice the petitioner has not turned up<\/p>\n
before the 2nd respondent to raise any dispute nor he had<\/p>\n
produced any convincing materials, to substantiate such<\/p>\n
disputes. It is further argued that since non completion of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06               -8-\n<\/p>\n
work is accepted, the petitioner is liable to make refund of the<\/p>\n
full amount of advance along with interest.          It is also<\/p>\n
contended that since the matter was elaborately considered at<\/p>\n
various levels by the competent authorities, this court could<\/p>\n
not interfere with the findings, which are basically on the<\/p>\n
factual matrix of the issue.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Having considered facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case and rival submissions, I am of the opinion that there is no<\/p>\n
scope for any interference with the findings arrived in Ext.P8<\/p>\n
& P12 orders.      It is an admitted fact that there was an<\/p>\n
agreement executed by the petitioner for execution of the<\/p>\n
work and to complete the same in a satisfactory manner.<\/p>\n
Admittedly there was failure on the part of the petitioner in<\/p>\n
completing the work. The claim for revised rates cannot be<\/p>\n
allowed as a matter of right, in view of the terms of the<\/p>\n
agreement.      Further the petitioner has not succeeded in<\/p>\n
establishing through any cogent materials that there is any<\/p>\n
error occurred with respect to the valuation done by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
co-operated with reconsideration of the matter, in view of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                 -9-\n<\/p>\n
direction issued by this court in Ext.P7 Judgment. Inspite of<\/p>\n
his assertions the petitioner has not produced any materials<\/p>\n
before this court to prove that there was a certificate of<\/p>\n
utilisation issued during pendency of the work regarding<\/p>\n
proper utilisation of the amount of advance payment.<\/p>\n
Therefore I find no merits in the contentions raised in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner<\/p>\n
had completed works having valuation of Rs.1,66,778\/-. It is<\/p>\n
also not disputed that the total amount paid to the petitioner is<\/p>\n
Rs.3,50,000\/- only.    Under such circumstances there is no<\/p>\n
justification for demand and recovery of the entire advance<\/p>\n
amount, from the petitioner. There is no reason forthcoming<\/p>\n
to substantiate any such action, based on any specific<\/p>\n
provisions of the contract or based on proceedings of any<\/p>\n
competent authority. Therefore I am of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is liable to pay only the balance amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,83,222\/-.   Since there is no specific agreement with<\/p>\n
respect to the rate of interest payable, I am of the opinion that<\/p>\n
the above said amount is recoverable from the petitioner<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).22774\/06                -10-\n<\/p>\n
along with a moderate rate of interest at 12% per annum.<\/p>\n
Since the demand at the first instance in this regard was<\/p>\n
raised through Ext.P5 notice dt:17.10.2002, the failure in<\/p>\n
payment can be attributed only from that date onwards.<\/p>\n
      10. Therefore while upholding Ext.P8 & P12, it is<\/p>\n
clarified that the petitioner is liable for payment of only an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.1,83,222\/- along with 12% interest per annum<\/p>\n
due thereon from 17.10.2002 till realisation. The petitioner is<\/p>\n
granted two months time from today for making payment of<\/p>\n
the said amount. Needless to say that on failure of payment of<\/p>\n
the amount as stipulated above the respondents will be at<\/p>\n
liberty to proceed with further coercive steps of recovery for<\/p>\n
realisation of the said amount.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.<\/p>\n
                            C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 22774 of 2006(J) 1. GEORGE THEKKEKARA, THEKKEKARA HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE … Respondent 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (AGRI), 3. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, 4. THE […]<\/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-245257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeorge Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-15T06:36:55+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\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-15T06:36:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1904,\"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\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-15T06:36:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-15T06:36:55+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\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-15T06:36:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":1904,"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\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010","name":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-15T06:36:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-thekkekara-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"George Thekkekara vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/245257","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=245257"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245257\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}