{"id":248088,"date":"2010-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010"},"modified":"2015-02-04T05:36:16","modified_gmt":"2015-02-04T00:06:16","slug":"johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34147 of 2010(P)\n\n\n1. JOHNY E.C., S\/O. CHACKUNNI, AGED 60,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :12\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.\n                    ---------------------------\n                W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148\n                       & 34216 of 2010\n                 -----------------------------------\n        Dated this the 12th day of November 2010\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     In all these writ petitions the petitioners challenge the<\/p>\n
common order passed by the Additional District Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam in the matter of drawing of a 33KV Feeder Line<\/p>\n
from Kurumassery to Annamanada. Since its proposed route<\/p>\n
was over their properties, petitioners raised objection with<\/p>\n
respect to the said proposal.          Thereupon, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer, Transmission Sub Division of the KSEB<\/p>\n
based on the objections raised by the petitioners herein, filed<\/p>\n
a petition under Section 16(1)<\/a> of the Indian Telegraph Act,<\/p>\n
1885 read with Section.164 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003<\/p>\n
to remove the resistance and obstruction before the District<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Ernakulam. Thereupon, the impugned order in<\/p>\n
these writ petitions, viz; Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.34148\/2010 and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.34216\/10 which is a common order, has<\/p>\n
been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam.<\/p>\n
In the other writ petition. the contention of the petitioners is<\/p>\n
that on their objection no order has been passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional District Magistrate. However, Exts.P5 and P8 viz;<\/p>\n
the impugned common order would            reveal   that    the<\/p>\n
objection of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34147\/2010 was<\/p>\n
also considered and in fact the same was also rejected by the<\/p>\n
said common order.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Before adverting to the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ<\/p>\n
petitions, I may have to consider the circumstances under<\/p>\n
which the Additional District Magistrate, Ernakulam has<\/p>\n
passed the above impugned common order.                For the<\/p>\n
petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.34147\/10 and 34148\/10 this is the<\/p>\n
second round litigation and as regards the petitioners in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.34216\/2010, this is the third round litigation, on<\/p>\n
the aforesaid issue. The original orders passed by the ADM<\/p>\n
on the same subject matter were subjected to challenge in a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
batch of writ petitions. As per a common judgment, produced<\/p>\n
as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.34148 of 2010, the impugned orders<\/p>\n
permitting the Board authorities to draw the electric lines<\/p>\n
through the proposed route were set aside. This Court found<\/p>\n
those orders as unsustainable since there was no proper<\/p>\n
application of mind. Accordingly, the ADM was directed to<\/p>\n
pass fresh orders after conducting a site inspection and after<\/p>\n
affording an opportunity of being heard to all concerned<\/p>\n
including the petitioners in those writ petitions.    As per<\/p>\n
Ext.P3, it was directed to pass fresh orders within one month<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant<\/p>\n
to the said common judgment, the 4th respondent herein<\/p>\n
conducted a local inspection of the concerned site and passed<\/p>\n
the impugned common order viz; Exts.P5 and P8 referred<\/p>\n
above.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The facts expatiated above would thus reveal that<\/p>\n
the impugned common order has been passed by the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent in purported compliance with Ext.P3 common<\/p>\n
judgment.     They would also reveal that the earlier order<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
passed by the ADM on the matter was set aside by this Court<\/p>\n
as per Ext.P3 holding that the impugned orders were passed<\/p>\n
with a closed mind. The above prelude will enable this Court<\/p>\n
to examine the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned<\/p>\n
order in a proper perspective. True that the common order<\/p>\n
presently impugned in these writ petitions is a lengthy one.<\/p>\n
However, a close scrutiny of the same would reveal that the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioners were not properly<\/p>\n
considered by the ADM. A perusal of the order would reveal<\/p>\n
that the objections raised by the petitioners as also the reply<\/p>\n
to such objections made by the Board Officials were duly<\/p>\n
taken note of by the ADM. In Sl.Nos.1 and 2 at page No.3 of<\/p>\n
the impugned order, the respective objections of petitioners 1<\/p>\n
to 3 in W.P.(C)No.34148\/2010 and the replies to those<\/p>\n
objections by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Transmission<\/p>\n
Sub Division, KSEB Chalakudy were incorporated. At Sl.No.3<\/p>\n
in the same page the respective objection and reply in the<\/p>\n
case of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.34147\/2010 were duly<\/p>\n
taken note of.      Likewise, at Sl.No.4 in page No.4 of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned order the objection of the petitioner and its reply<\/p>\n
were incorporated.      However, the consistent case of the<\/p>\n
petitioners in all these writ petitions is that their actual<\/p>\n
objections and suggestions were not properly looked into<\/p>\n
by the ADM.      Evidently, as per the petitioners in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.34148\/2010 the alternative route suggested by them<\/p>\n
would pass through a paddy filed and in which event, it will<\/p>\n
not entail cutting and removing of any trees. As regards, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.34147 of 2010 his grievance is that<\/p>\n
the proposed route passes through the middle of his property<\/p>\n
that abounds with valuable fruit bearing and commercially<\/p>\n
valuable trees.      According to him, drawing of lines as<\/p>\n
proposed would result in cutting and removing of a large<\/p>\n
number of trees. Ext.P3(a) which is a list of trees required to<\/p>\n
be cut and removed from his property prepared and served on<\/p>\n
him by the Assistant Executive Engineer would reveal that the<\/p>\n
contention is not without any basis. The petitioner in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.34216 of 2010 is a Sabha viz; the Kerala Viswakarma<\/p>\n
Sabha. According to them the proposed route would disable<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
them from constructing a building for their office and the<\/p>\n
proposed nursery school.        The contention of petitioners in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.34147\/2010 and W.P.(C)No.34216\/2010 is that<\/p>\n
instead of drawing the lines through their properties it could<\/p>\n
be drawn through a road\/pathway without causing any<\/p>\n
damage to any of the properties. It is true that in the matter<\/p>\n
of drawing of electric lines for a purpose like the present one<\/p>\n
viz; drawing of 33KV Feeder Line from Kurumassery to<\/p>\n
Annamanada, private interests have to give way to public<\/p>\n
interest. In the context of the contentions of the petitioners,<\/p>\n
it is relevant to refer to a statement made by the Assistant<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer recorded by the ADM in the impugned<\/p>\n
order which runs as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
      “The total length of 33 KV line from Kurumassery Sub<\/p>\n
      station to the newly constructed Annamanada Sub station<\/p>\n
      is 9 kilo metres. Out of which only about 250 metres of<\/p>\n
      the line will be passing through residential area, rest of<\/p>\n
      the line is passing through paddy fields and along public<\/p>\n
      roads”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        (Emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
If that be the case of the Board Officials the ADM should have<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
considered the feasibility of the alternative routes suggested<\/p>\n
by the petitioners which according to them will pass through<\/p>\n
paddy fields\/roads\/path ways.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     4.    But, the question is whether objections and<\/p>\n
suggestions made by the petitioners were considered by the<\/p>\n
ADM while passing the impugned order.          In fact, without<\/p>\n
considering any of such objections and suggestions of the<\/p>\n
petitioners, that too despite the specific direction by this<\/p>\n
Court in Ext.P3 judgment for such consideration, the ADM has<\/p>\n
issued the impugned common order. The said action indeed,<\/p>\n
is highly depreciative and censurable.        In fact, without<\/p>\n
considering the objections and the alternative routes<\/p>\n
suggested by the petitioners, the ADM has merely relied<\/p>\n
on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.3278\/2010<\/p>\n
taking into account a mass petition dated 18.9.2010 submitted<\/p>\n
against the proposal of changing the alignment of 33KV line<\/p>\n
through ‘Kadathukadavu Vazhi’. True that there cannot be<\/p>\n
any doubt with respect to the position that private interest<\/p>\n
has to give way to public interest. But, in this case such a<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
view was taken by the ADM solely on the basis of a mass<\/p>\n
petition submitted by certain passes that too, against the<\/p>\n
proposal of changing the alignment of 33KV line through<\/p>\n
‘Kadathukadavu Vazhi’.       In fact, the statement in the<\/p>\n
impugned order would reveal the existence of a proposal to<\/p>\n
change the alignment of 33KV line through ‘Kadathukadavu<\/p>\n
Vazhi’. At any rate, the action on the part of the ADM in<\/p>\n
disregarding the specific direction of this Court in Ext.P3<\/p>\n
judgment and passing the impugned order in a perfunctory<\/p>\n
manner merely by narrating the objections of the petitioner<\/p>\n
and the replies, remarks and opinion of the Assistant<\/p>\n
Executive Engineer, before him up to the last paragraph in<\/p>\n
page No.7 of the impugned order cannot be considered at all<\/p>\n
as an order passed in compliance with Ext.P3 judgment. So<\/p>\n
also, it cannot be treated as an order issued in true discharge<\/p>\n
of the power under 16(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    It is unfortunate to say that except the narration of<\/p>\n
the objections and suggestions of the aggrieved parties and<\/p>\n
also the replies, remarks and the opinion of the Assistant<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Executive Engineer, the order carries no independent<\/p>\n
consideration of the ADM. In fact, there is no consideration<\/p>\n
at all of such objections and suggestions. There could not be<\/p>\n
any doubt that when an authority is clothed with a power to<\/p>\n
take a decision affecting the rights of citizens that authority is<\/p>\n
supposed to decide the matter by applying the mind.<\/p>\n
      6.   Though     the  learned    Standing    Counsel    and<\/p>\n
Government Pleader vehemently opposed the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the petitioners, they, despite their earnest<\/p>\n
endeavour, could not detect anything in the impugned order<\/p>\n
which would suggest that the impugned common order was<\/p>\n
passed in terms of Ext.P3 judgment and with application of<\/p>\n
mind. While exercising the powers under Section 16(1)<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Telegraph Act the concerned authority has to bear in mind<\/p>\n
that the power conferred under Section 16(1)<\/a> of the Indian<\/p>\n
Telegraph Act read with Section 164<\/a> of the Indian Electricity<\/p>\n
Act is not one just to consider the proposal by the KSEB and<\/p>\n
to accept or reject the same (see the decisions of this Court<\/p>\n
in Manikkam v. Assistant Registrar<\/a> reported in [2008(1)<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                               -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
KLT 647]). In fact, while exercising the jurisdiction, wherever<\/p>\n
possible, a balance will have to be achieved between the<\/p>\n
objections, grievance and the technical as well as the techno<\/p>\n
ecological feasibility of altering the route.<\/p>\n
           In view of the above discussions, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the impugned       common order viz; Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.34148 of 2010 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.34216 of 2010 are<\/p>\n
liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.    The<\/p>\n
matter requires a further re-examination with proper<\/p>\n
application of mind with a proper exercise of power.       The<\/p>\n
above observations are made with a view to make 4th<\/p>\n
respondent to alert while deciding the matter and to stress<\/p>\n
upon the need to pass orders under Section 16(1)<\/a> of the<\/p>\n
Telegraph Act with proper application of mind and in the<\/p>\n
manner required to exercise the power conferred under the<\/p>\n
said provision. The 4th respondent shall pass fresh orders in<\/p>\n
place of the impugned common order. This shall be done by<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible at any rate,<\/p>\n
within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) Nos.34147, 34148
\n& 34216 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment. To enable the ADM to pass fresh orders within the<\/p>\n
stipulated time limit the parties are free to produce copy of<\/p>\n
this judgment before the said authority. It is made clear that<\/p>\n
the 4th respondent shall rehear the matter and pass fresh<\/p>\n
orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the<\/p>\n
parties concerned. It will also be open to the ADM to conduct<\/p>\n
further site inspection if necessary.\n<\/p>\n
           Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                    C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
Jvt<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34147 of 2010(P) 1. JOHNY E.C., S\/O. CHACKUNNI, AGED 60, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, … Respondent 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP.BY For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA For […]<\/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-248088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJohny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 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\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-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=\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-04T00:06:16+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\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-04T00:06:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1958,\"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\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-04T00:06:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 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":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 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\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-04T00:06:16+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\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-04T00:06:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010"},"wordCount":1958,"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\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010","name":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-04T00:06:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/johny-e-c-vs-the-addl-district-magistrate-on-12-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Johny E.C. vs The Addl. District Magistrate on 12 November, 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\/248088","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=248088"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248088\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}