{"id":253554,"date":"2007-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-17T13:30:49","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T08:00:49","slug":"devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 32678 of 2006(M)\n\n\n1. DEVADASAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. LT. COL. K.G.RAMACHANDRAN (RETD.),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN\n\n Dated :11\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                         K.K. DENESAN, J.\n\n\n\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n                   W.P.(C) No. 32678 OF 2006\n\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n               Dated this the 11th January, 2007\n\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The   petitioner   was   recruited   as   a   Driver   to   work<\/p>\n
in   the   Corporation.       In   the   context   of   the   reliefs<\/p>\n
prayed   for   by   him   in   this   writ   petition   to   quash   Ext.\n<\/p>\n
P1 order passed by the 1st  respondent and the relieving<\/p>\n
order   (Ext.   P2)   passed   by   the   Manager   of   the<\/p>\n
Corporation at Thripunithura and the further prayer for<\/p>\n
a   direction   to   post   him   back   in   the   Ernakulam   office<\/p>\n
and   permit   him   to   continue   as   Driver   in   the   Ernakulam<\/p>\n
office,   the   fact   that   his   recruitment   was   to   the   post<\/p>\n
of Driver and no other post assumes relevance.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   As   per   Ext.   P1,   the   petitioner   and   another<\/p>\n
Driver   by   name   Thankachan   have   been   transferred<\/p>\n
respectively   to   Wadakkancherry   and   Kunnamkulam   and<\/p>\n
posted   to   the   State   Warehouses   of   the   respondent-\n<\/p>\n
Corporation   in   the   above   places.            They   have   been<\/p>\n
directed   to   attend   the   godown   work   in   the   concerned<\/p>\n
Warehouses.     The   petitioner   was   working   as   Driver   in<\/p>\n
the   Container   Freight   Station   at   Thripunithura   as   on<\/p>\n
the   date   of   issuance   of   Ext.   P1.     He   was   relieved   as<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
per   Ext.   P2   on   26-10-2006.     Presently   he   is   attending<\/p>\n
to the work in Wadakkancherry godown of the respondent-\n<\/p>\n
Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
       3.   The   petitioner   would   contend   that   he   is   not<\/p>\n
expected to discharge works in posts other than that of<\/p>\n
a   Driver   or   Fork-lift   Operator   or   equivalent   posts.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore he can be posted only to a place where there<\/p>\n
are   either   cars   or   fork-lifts.     According   to   him,   the<\/p>\n
impugned order posting him in a place where there is no<\/p>\n
scope for   discharging the work of a driver or that of<\/p>\n
a   fork-lift   operator   or   any   other   equivalent   post   is<\/p>\n
only to humiliate and harass him.   The impugned orders<\/p>\n
are   assailed   on   the   ground   of   malafides   and   want   of<\/p>\n
authority.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The   1st          respondent   has   filed   a   counter<\/p>\n
affidavit.     It   is   admitted   that   the   petitioner   was<\/p>\n
posted   at   Container   Freight   Station,   Thripunithura<\/p>\n
prior   to   Ext.   P1   order.     It   is   averred   in   the   counter<\/p>\n
affidavit that there were four drivers at the Container<\/p>\n
Freight   Station,   Thripunithura,   that   their   services<\/p>\n
were not fully utilised, that at present there are only<\/p>\n
two         fork-lifts         at         Container         Freight         Station,<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Thripunithrua   and   that   only   two   drivers   are   necessary<\/p>\n
to operate the fork-lifts.  It is also averred that one<\/p>\n
car         stationed           at          Container           Freight          Station,<\/p>\n
Thripunithura              was         auctioned          in         October,         2006.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,   it   became   necessary   for   the   respondents   to<\/p>\n
utilise   the   services   of   the   petitioner   and   the   other<\/p>\n
driver who were idling and therefore they were deployed<\/p>\n
to the State Warehouses, Wadakkancherry and Kunnamkulam<\/p>\n
as   per   Ext.   P1   order.       The   respondents   would   contend<\/p>\n
that   the   petitioner   cannot   have   any   legal   grievance<\/p>\n
because   his   posting   in   the   godown   does   not   result   in<\/p>\n
any reduction in pay and allowances and that he cannot<\/p>\n
complain that doing the work of a godown keeper is not<\/p>\n
within   the   scope   of   his   duties   and   responsibilities.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   invited   my<\/p>\n
attention   to   clause   20(1)   of   the   Kerala   State<\/p>\n
Warehousing   Corporation   Staff   Regulation,   1963   to<\/p>\n
highlight   the   rule   position   that   employees   of   the<\/p>\n
Corporation   are  bound  to  serve  the  Corporation  in  such<\/p>\n
capacity   and   in   such   places   as   may   be   directed   by   the<\/p>\n
Corporation from time to time.\n<\/p>\n
       5.   The   petitioner   has   filed   a   reply   affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   one<\/p>\n
driver has become excess only due to the fact that the<\/p>\n
newly   appointed   Chairman   of   the   Corporation   has<\/p>\n
dispensed   with   the   services   of   the   driver   already<\/p>\n
engaged to drive the car of the Chairman, and instead,<\/p>\n
has   appointed   a   new   recruit   to   suit   his   convenience.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   submits   that   the<\/p>\n
Chairman   is   entitled   to   have   that   privilege,   and<\/p>\n
therefore,   recruiting   a   driver   of   his   choice   is   not<\/p>\n
against law.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   On   a   consideration   of   the   rival   contentions   of<\/p>\n
the   parties,  it  seems  that  the  point  for  consideration<\/p>\n
is   whether   the   petitioner   is   liable   to   be   posted   as   a<\/p>\n
Worker in the godown.\n<\/p>\n
     7. It is admitted position that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
recruited   as   Driver   and   is   qualified   for   that   post.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents have no case that any deficiency in the<\/p>\n
discharge of his duties as Driver or Fork-lift Operator<\/p>\n
was   noticed.     Though   I   am   inclined   to   agree   with   the<\/p>\n
contention   of   the   respondents   that   the   employees   are<\/p>\n
liable   to   be   transferred   from   one   place   to   another<\/p>\n
under   the   respondent-Corporation,   I   find   it   difficult<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
to accept the plea that a Driver can be transferred and<\/p>\n
posted as worker in the godown of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   It   is   common   knowledge   that   the   duties   and<\/p>\n
responsibilities of Drivers and Fork-lift Operators are<\/p>\n
entirely different from that of a Worker in the Godown.\n<\/p>\n
The   power   of   transfer   has   to   be   exercised   keeping   in<\/p>\n
mind the equivalence of posts.  Law authorises transfer<\/p>\n
only   within   the   range   of   transferability.              Merely<\/p>\n
because   two   posts   carry   the   same   scale   of   pay,   an<\/p>\n
inter-se   transfer   between   the   post   of   driver   and   that<\/p>\n
of a worker cannot be justified.   State of West Bengal<\/p>\n
v.  Hirendra   Nath   Banerjee<\/a>  (AIR   1967   Cal.   285),   is   a<\/p>\n
case   decided   by   the   High   Court   of   Calcutta.       In   that<\/p>\n
case   the   Registrar   of   Rent   Controller’s   Court   was<\/p>\n
transferred   to   the   post   of   Certificate   Officer   under<\/p>\n
the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act.  The court held<\/p>\n
that   where   a   person   was   appointed   permanently   as   a<\/p>\n
Registrar by way of promotion from the post of a Deputy<\/p>\n
Registrar,   it   was   an   implied   condition   of   the<\/p>\n
appointment   that  the  incumbent  will  hold  that  post  and<\/p>\n
no   other,   and   as   such   it   was   not   a   transferable   post.\n<\/p>\n
In  Prem   Beharilal   Saksena  v.  Director   of   Medical   and<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                  -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Health   Services   Lucknow<\/a>         (AIR   1959   All   629)   while<\/p>\n
considering the case of an Anaesthetist attached to the<\/p>\n
State Hospital at Kanpur, the Allahabad High Court held<\/p>\n
that where a government servant has been appointed to a<\/p>\n
specific post and that post is in its very nature such<\/p>\n
that it can be performed at the particular place only,<\/p>\n
he   cannot   be   transferred   to   another   post.     A   Division<\/p>\n
Bench   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   High   Court   in  State   of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan     v.       Kailash   Chandra   Jain   &   another<\/a>     (1973<\/p>\n
Lab.I.C.   221)   while   affirming   the   judgment   of   the<\/p>\n
Single Bench, held that the action of the management in<\/p>\n
converting a workman into a non-workman is liable to be<\/p>\n
declared   invalid.     The   High   Court   of   Delhi   in  Prem<\/p>\n
Praveen  v.  Union of India<\/a>  {1973 (2) SLR 659} held that<\/p>\n
“logically   it   does   not   stand   to   reason   that   a   person<\/p>\n
recruited   to   a   particular   cadre   should   be   compelled<\/p>\n
against his wishes to serve outside the cadre”.  Courts<\/p>\n
have   leaned   in   favour   of   the   view   that   transfers<\/p>\n
between   interchangeable   and   equated   posts   alone   would<\/p>\n
be valid.  In V.C., L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand<\/p>\n
Jha<\/a>     {1986   (3)   SCC   7}   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court<\/p>\n
expressed   the   view   that   the   transfer   of   the   Principal<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
of a college as a Reader in another college ordered by<\/p>\n
the   Vice   Chancellor,   even   though   the   two   posts   were<\/p>\n
carrying   the   same   grade   and   pay   was   illegal,   on   the<\/p>\n
ground   that   the   posts   were   not   equivalent.     The   Apex<\/p>\n
Court   observed   in   the   above   decision   that   while<\/p>\n
determining the equivalence of posts the true criterion<\/p>\n
is the status and the nature and responsibility of the<\/p>\n
duties attached to the two posts.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Transfer between posts which are not equivalent<\/p>\n
requires         the         consent          or         willingness         of         the<\/p>\n
employee\/employees   or   the   option   exercised   by   them   in<\/p>\n
favour of such transfer.   A unilateral decision of the<\/p>\n
Management   to   transfer   the   employee   contrary   to   the<\/p>\n
above principle will give rise to a cause of action for<\/p>\n
the   aggrieved   employee   to   question   that   decision.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,   in   cases   where   the   members   of   the   service<\/p>\n
belonging   to  a  particular  cadre  or  post  become  surplus<\/p>\n
and     the   management,   for   bonafide   reasons,   interchange<\/p>\n
the employees from one post or cadre to another post or<\/p>\n
cadre,   with   the   object   of   retaining   them   in   service,<\/p>\n
even   such   interchangeability   can   be   justified   only   if<\/p>\n
it   is   done   with   the   willingness   or   consent   of   the<\/p>\n
WPC No.32678 \/2006                   -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
employees concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   In   the   above   view   of   the   matter   Exts.   P1   and<\/p>\n
P2 orders to the extent they affect the petitioner are<\/p>\n
set   aside.     The   respondents   are   free   to   deal   with   the<\/p>\n
case   of  the  petitioner  in  accordance  with  law,  keeping<\/p>\n
in view the observations made above.  If the petitioner<\/p>\n
expresses his willingness or consent to work in a post<\/p>\n
other   than   that   of   Driver   or   Fork-lift   Operator,   the<\/p>\n
same   shall   be   considered   by   the   1st  respondent   and<\/p>\n
appropriate decision taken.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       K.K. DENESAN<\/p>\n
                                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
jan\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 32678 of 2006(M) 1. DEVADASAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN., … Respondent 2. LT. COL. K.G.RAMACHANDRAN (RETD.), For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. 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-253554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDevadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - 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\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-17T08:00:49+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T08:00:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1436,\"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\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-17T08:00:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - 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\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-17T08:00:49+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T08:00:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007"},"wordCount":1436,"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\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007","name":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing ... on 11 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-17T08:00:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadasan-vs-the-kerala-state-warehousing-on-11-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devadasan vs The Kerala State Warehousing … on 11 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/253554","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=253554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}