{"id":267895,"date":"2005-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005"},"modified":"2019-02-25T17:01:49","modified_gmt":"2019-02-25T11:31:49","slug":"in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 13522 of 1997\n\n\n0. RAVINDRAN P.M. (EX.NK.NO.6650140)       \n                      ...  Petitioner \n1. RAVINDRAN P.M.                          \n\n                        Vs\n\n\n0. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY           \n                       ...       Respondent\n0. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS\n0. OFFICER I\/C A.S.C. RECORDS\n1. UNION OF INDIA\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN                       \n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.NARAYANIKUTTY CHETTUR,ADDL.CGSC     \nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN                  \nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN                    \n\n Dated :     27\/07\/2005\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
.PL 60
\n.TM 3
\n.BM 3
\n.SP 2
\n               M.Ramachandran & S.Siri Jagan, JJ.@@
\n             jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n              =–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=@@
\n             j
\n              O.P. No. 13522 of 1997 @@
\n             j
\n              =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=@@
\n             j
\n              Dated this, the  27th  day of July, 2005.@@
\n             j
\n((HDR 0
\n[O.P.No.13522 of 1977]\t\t-:  # :-\n<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 1
\n              J U D G M E N T@@
\n             jEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
\n             Siri Jagan,  J.@@
\n             CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n             \tIn  this  original  petition,  the  petitioner  is
\n             challenging Exts.    P4  and  P11   orders   of   the
\n             respondents  by  which  the  petitioner’s  claim  for
\n             disability pension was rejected on  the  ground  that
\n             the  injury  sustained  by him consequent to which he
\n             was  invalided  out  of  military  service  was   not
\n             attributable to  military  service.   The issue to be
\n             decided in this original petition is  as  to  whether
\n             the accident in which the petitioner sustained injury
\n             is attributable to military service.  The brief facts
\n             necessary for deciding this issue are as under.\n<\/p>\n
             \t2.   The  petitioner  was  enrolled in the Army on
\n             10-1-1980.  While he was serving in one of the  units
\n             of  the  Army  in a forward area, on 13-3-1986, while
\n             travelling on  out  pass  with  permission  from  his
\n             superior  authority  for  attending  to some personal
\n             affairs in the University nearby , he was  hit  by  a
\n             truck   in   which  accident,  he  sustained  serious
\n             injuries.  He sustained  permanent  disability  which
\n             was assessed  at 40% by the Medical Board.  Later, he
\n             was invalided out of the military service because  of
\n             the disability  suffered  by  him.    The  petitioner
\n             preferred  an  application  for  disability  pension,
\n             which was    rejected.        Therefore,   he   filed
\n             O.P.No.10360\/1990 before this  Court  in  which  this
\n             Court  directed  the  respondents  to  re-examine the
\n             claim of the petitioner for disability with reference
\n             to the  medical  records.    Pursuant  to  the   said
\n             direction,  the  2nd  respondent passed Ext.P11 order
\n             again rejecting  the  claim  of  the  petitioner  for
\n             disability pension.      Therefore,   he  filed  this
\n             original petition challenging the said order also.\n<\/p>\n
             \t3.  When the original petition came up for hearing
\n             before a learned Single  Judge  of  this  Court,  the
\n             petitioner  sought to buttress his claim on the basis
\n             of a decision of another learned Single Judge of this
\n             Court in  O.P.No.9107\/1988.    However,  the  learned
\n             Single Judge who heard the present original petition,
\n             doubted  the  correctness  of  the said decision and,
\n             therefore, referred the matter for consideration by a
\n             Division Bench by order dated 4-3-1999.  Pursuant  to
\n             the   said  order,  the  Hon’ble  Chief  Justice  has
\n             directed the  original  petition  to  be  posted  for
\n             hearing by  us.   It is under the above circumstances
\n             that the matter has come up before us.\n<\/p>\n
             \t4.   We have heard arguments of Sri.M.Rajagopalan,
\n             learned  counsel   for   the   petitioner   as   also
\n             Sri.Jalaludeen,    Additional    Central   Government
\n             Standing counsel.      The    issue    arising    for
\n             consideration  in  this original petition, as we have
\n             already  indicated,  is  as  to  whether  the  injury
\n             sustained by the petitioner on 13-3-1986 while he had
\n             gone  on  out pass for a private work to Rohail Khand
\n             University in a traffic accident, can  be  considered
\n             as  injury attributable to military service entitling
\n             the petitioner to claim disability pension.\n<\/p>\n
             \t5.   The  relevant  provision   in   the   Pension
\n             Regulations   for   the   Army   regarding  grant  of
\n             disability pension is Regulation 173 in Section IV of
\n             the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961,  Part  I.
\n             The same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
.SP 1<\/p>\n
              “173. Unless    otherwise specifically provided, a@@
\n             i
\n                disability  pension   may   be   granted   to   an
\n                individual who  is    invalided  from  service  on
\n                account of a disability which is attributable   to
\n                or  aggravated by military service and is assessed
\n                at 20  per cent or over.”\n<\/p>\n
              The question whether a disability is  attributable@@
\n             i
\n                to  or  aggravated  by  military  service shall be
\n                determined under the Rules in Appendix II.”\n<\/p>\n
.SP 2
\n             As is clear from the said regulation, the question as
\n             to whether a disability is attributable  to  military
\n             service  should  be determined in accordance with the
\n             Rules in Appendix II.  Appendix II is the Entitlement
\n             Rules.  Rule 2(a) thereof reads as follows:
\n.SP 1<\/p>\n
              “2. Disablement  or death  shall  be  accepted  as@@
\n             i
\n                due to  military service provided  it is certified
\n                that:-\n<\/p>\n
              (a) the  disablement is  due to a wound, injury or@@
\n             i
\n                 disease which-\n<\/p>\n
              (i) is attributable to military service; or@@
\n             i<\/p>\n
              (ii) existed before  or  arose    during  military@@
\n             i
\n                service   and  has  been  and  remains  aggravated
\n                thereby;\n<\/p>\n
             \t\txx\t\txx\t\txx”\n<\/p>\n
.SP 2
\n             The  petitioner  relies  on this Rule to contend that
\n             his disablement is attributable to  military  service
\n             since the disablement is due to an injury which arose
\n             during   military   service  and  remains  aggravated
\n             thereby as provided in Rule 2(a)(ii).    Counsel  for
\n             the  petitioner lays stress on the words “which arose
\n             during military  service.”  He  also  relies  on  the
\n             judgment    of    a    learned    Single   Judge   in
\n             O.P.No.9107\/1988 as also the decision of the  Hon’ble
\n             Supreme  Court  of  India in Madan Singh Shekhawat v.@@
\n                                          CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n             Union of India & others, 2000(2)-VI All India Service@@
\n             CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n             Law Journal 178.\n<\/p>\n
             \t6.  On the other hand, learned Additional  Central
\n             Government   Standing   Counsel   appearing  for  the
\n             respondents submits that since the petitioner was not
\n             actually  on  duty   at   the   time   of   accident.
\n             Entitlement  Rules  as  per  the  provisions of which
\n             eligibility for disability pension has to be  decided
\n             do  not  enable  the  petitioner  to claim disability
\n             pension in so far as  the  injury  sustained  by  the
\n             petitioner while on out pass for his private purpose,
\n             is unconnected with military service, and, therefore,
\n             cannot   be  regarded  as  attributable  to  military
\n             service.\n<\/p>\n
             \t7.  We shall first deal with the argument  of  the
\n             petitioner’s counsel on the basis of Rule 2(a)(ii) of
\n             Appendix  II of the Pension Regulations for the Army.
\n             Placing reliance on the words “arose during  military
\n             service”  counsel  argues that in order to enable the
\n             petitioner to  get  disability  pension,  it  is  not
\n             necessary  that  he should have been actually on duty
\n             at the time when the accident  occurred.    He  would
\n             submit  that  even  when  a  person  is  off-duty, if
\n             accident occurs within the  general  area  where  the
\n             petitioner  is stationed, the same should be taken as
\n             injury which arose during military  service.    This,
\n             the counsel submits on the premise that an armyman is
\n             expected to  be  on  duty 24 hours.  He has relied on
\n             the  decision  of  the  learned   Single   Judge   in
\n             O.P.No.9170\/1988 in support of this contention.\n<\/p>\n
             \t8.  The said original petition  related  to  claim
\n             for family pension by the next of kin of an Artillery
\n             Sepoy  who  died  in an accident caused by a civilian
\n             bus of the Haryana Roadways while the  Sepoy  was  on
\n             casual leave  for two days.  The learned Single Judge
\n             took the view that the Sepoy happened to  be  at  the
\n             place where the accident occurred only because of his
\n             stay  in the barracks of the Regiment in which he was
\n             attached to.  However, there was no reference to  the
\n             Entitlement Rules and no consideration of the case or
\n             discussion with reference to the Entitlement Rules or
\n             any other  Rules  for that matter.  Therefore, we are
\n             of opinion that the said decision do not lay down the
\n             correct law on the point.  Hence, we  are  unable  to
\n             agree with  the  said  argument  or the decision.  If
\n             such an argument is accepted, it would  mean  that  a
\n             person  who  is in military service would be entitled
\n             to disability pension even if the  accident  occurred
\n             while he  was at his home on leave.  A reading of the
\n             Entitlement Rules do not warrant such  a  conclusion.
\n             Unless  the  injury itself had happened while on duty
\n             or at  least  under  the  circumstances  specifically
\n             envisaged in the Entitlement Rules for treating as on
\n             deemed   duty,   the   same  cannot  be  regarded  as
\n             attributable to military service.  Although,  counsel
\n             for  the  petitioner  would  contend  that  when  the
\n             service personnel is on casual leave,  he  should  be
\n             deemed  to  be  on  duty since he is not permitted to
\n             leave the station, we do not find  support  for  such
\n             contention in   the   Rules.    Rule  6  details  the
\n             circumstances under which injuries can  be  taken  as
\n             injuries attributable to military service in cases of
\n             accidents.  Rule 6 reads as follows:
\n.SP 1<\/p>\n
              6.  In  respect  of  accidents the following rules@@
\n             i
\n                will be observed:-\n<\/p>\n
              (a) Injuries sustained when the man   is  on  duty@@
\n             i
\n                will be deemed to have arisen in  or resulted from
\n                Army\/Naval\/Air  Force  Service  unless  they  were
\n                self-inflicted or  due to  serious  negligence  or
\n                misconduct in   which   case   the  question    of
\n                withholding the pension  in full or  in part  will
\n                be considered.\n<\/p>\n
              (b)  A  person subject to the Disciplinary Code of@@
\n             i
\n                the Armed Force is `on duty’ during the period  of
\n                time when he is in the course of performance of an
\n                official  task  or  a task the failure to do which
\n                would constitute  an  offence  triable  under  the
\n                Disciplinary Code  applicable  to him.  The course
\n                of performance of a task includes the  journey  or
\n                transport   by   a  reasonable  route  from  one’s
\n                quarters to and back from the appointed  place  of
\n                duty under organised arrangements.\n<\/p>\n
              (c) A person is also deemed to be `on duty’ during@@
\n             i
\n                the   period   of   participation  in  recreation,
\n                organised or permitted by Service Authorities  and
\n                of  travelling in a body or singly under organised
\n                arrangements.  A person is also considered  to  be
\n                `on  duty’ when proceeding to his leave station or
\n                returning to duty from his leave station at public
\n                expense.\n<\/p>\n
              (d) An accident which occurs when  a  man  is  not@@
\n             i
\n                strictly   `on   duty’  as  defined  may  also  be
\n                attributable to service, provided that it  is  not
\n                an accident which can be attributed to risk common
\n                to  human existence in modern conditions in India,
\n                unless such risk is definitely enhanced in kind or
\n                degree by the nature, conditions,  obligations  or
\n                incidents of  the  person’s  service.    Thus, for
\n                instance, where a person is killed or  injured  by
\n                another  party by reason of belonging to the Armed
\n                Forces, he  shall  be  deemed  `on  duty’  at  the
\n                relevant time.\n<\/p>\n
              This benefit will be given more liberally  to  the@@
\n             i
\n                claimant  in  cases occurring on active service as
\n                defined in the Army\/Air Force Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
              Note 1:- (a) Personnel  of  the    Armed    Forces@@
\n             i
\n                participating in–\n<\/p>\n
              (i)      local\/national\/international       sports@@
\n             i
\n                tournaments as members of teams, or<\/p>\n
              (ii) mountaineering            expeditions\/gliding@@
\n             i
\n                organised by the service authorities,    with  the
\n                approval  of Government-\n<\/p>\n
              will be deemed  to  be “on duty” for  purposes  of@@
\n             i
\n                the  post-March  1948  entitlement  rules      for
\n                disability and family pensions;\n<\/p>\n
              (b) personnel of the Armed Forces participating in@@
\n             i
\n                the above-mentioned    sports  tournaments  or  in
\n                privately organised mountaineering expeditions  or
\n                indulging   in   gliding  as  a  hobby,  in  their
\n                individual capacity, will not be deemed to be  “on
\n                duty” for purposes of  those  rules,  even  though
\n                prior   permission  from  the  competent   Service
\n                authorities may have been obtained by them.\n<\/p>\n
              (c)  injuries  sustained by personnel of the Armed@@
\n             i
\n                Forces  in  impromptu  games  and  sports  outside
\n                parade  hours, which are organised by, or with the
\n                approval  of  the  local  Service  authority,  and
\n                deaths arising from such injuries will continue to
\n                be regarded as having occurred while “on duty” for
\n                purposes of these entitlement rules.\n<\/p>\n
              Note 2:- The personnel of the Armed Forces deputed@@
\n             i
\n                for  training  courses  conducted by the Himalayan
\n                Mountaineering  Institute,  Darjeeling  shall   be
\n                treated  on  par  with  personnel  attending other
\n                authorised professional course  of  exercises  for
\n                the  Defence Services for the purpose of the grant
\n                of  disability  family  pensions  on  account   of
\n                disability\/death sustained during the courses.”\n<\/p>\n
.SP 2
\n             From  a  reading  of this Rule, it is evident that in
\n             order to qualify accidents for being counted for  the
\n             purpose of disability pension, essentially the injury
\n             should have been sustained while on duty.  Of course,
\n             the  Rules  also envisage certain circumstances under
\n             which a person is also deemed to have been  on  duty.
\n             Therefore, the question now to be considered is as to
\n             whether,  although  the petitioner was not on duty at
\n             the time of accident, he could be deemed to have been
\n             on duty at the time of the accident.  Sub-clauses (a)
\n             and (b) cannot evidently be applied  to  petitioner’s
\n             case because the same relate to persons who have been
\n             actually on  duty.   Of course, under clause (c), the
\n             person will be deemed to be  on  duty  under  certain
\n             circumstances.   First part of clause (c) will not be
\n             applicable to the petitioner’s case because it refers
\n             to participation in recreation.  In  order  to  apply
\n             the  latter  part  of clause (c), the accident should
\n             have occurred while proceeding to his  leave  station
\n             or returning to duty from his leave station at public
\n             expense.   (This  clause  will have to be adverted to
\n             for deciding the validity of the contentions  of  the
\n             petitioner  based on the Supreme Court decision supra
\n             which he relies on, which we shall do later).   Thus,
\n             the  latter  part  will  not  be  applicable  to  the
\n             petitioner in so  far  as,  admittedly,  he  was  not
\n             either  proceeding  to his leave station or returning
\n             to duty from his leave station.\n<\/p>\n
             \t9.  Now, let us  examine  whether  clause  (d)  is
\n             applicable.   Under  clause (d), although a person is
\n             not strictly on duty, an accident  which  occurs  may
\n             also be attributable to service provided it is not an
\n             accident  which  can  be attributed to risk common to
\n             human existence in modern conditions in India, unless
\n             such a risk is definitely enhanced in kind or  degree
\n             by  the  nature, conditions, obligations or incidents
\n             of the person’s service.  An example is also provided
\n             to the effect  that  where  a  person  is  killed  or
\n             injured  by  another  party by reason of belonging to
\n             the Armed Forces, then, he shall be deemed to  be  on
\n             duty at  the relevant time.  In the present case, the
\n             accident occurred in  a  public  place  caused  by  a
\n             civilian truck.      The   risk   undertaken  by  the
\n             petitioner was a risk which  any  common  man  should
\n             have  to  take while travelling through that road, or
\n             through any road for that  purpose.    Therefore,  it
\n             cannot  be  said  that  the  accident  in  which  the
\n             petitioner was injured can be attributed  to  a  risk
\n             which  is not common to human existence stipulated in
\n             clause (d).  As such, that accident had no nexus with
\n             the  petitioner  being  in  the   military   service.
\n             Therefore,  we  are  of  opinion that clause (d) also
\n             would not come to the rescue of the petitioner in the
\n             matter of deciding as to whether the injury sustained
\n             by him in the particular accident is attributable  to
\n             military service.\n<\/p>\n
             \t10.   In  the circumstances, we are unable to hold
\n             that the petitioner’s case falls  under  any  of  the
\n             situations  detailed  in  Rule 6 which would make him
\n             entitled to disability pension.\t11.     Petitioner
\n             further  relies on a decision of the Supreme Court of
\n             India in Madan Singh Shekhawat’s case supra.  We  are@@
\n                      CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n             afraid that the same cannot also be of any assistance
\n             to  the  petitioner  in  proving  that the particular
\n             accident  which  he  suffered  was  attributable   to
\n             military service.    That was a case where a military
\n             personnel while alighting from the train on  his  way
\n             to  his  home  station  on  authorised  casual  leave
\n             granted to him, met with an accident.  At  the  time,
\n             he  was  travelling  at  his  own  expense and not at
\n             public expense.    The  question  considered  by  the
\n             Supreme Court in that case was whether in view of the
\n             fact  that  he was travelling at that time at his own
\n             expense, the latter portion of clause (c) of  Rule  6
\n             would   be   applicable   and   the   Supreme  Court,
\n             ultimately, held that the military personnel in  that
\n             case  cannot  be  denied  disability  pension  on the
\n             ground that at that time he was travelling at his own
\n             expense.  In this connection, it may  be  noted  that
\n             that  particular  provision  is  applicable only to a
\n             situation where a person was either proceeding to his
\n             leave station or returning to  duty  from  his  leave
\n             station.  Since, there is a specific provision in the
\n             Rule  itself  for  deeming such situation as on duty,
\n             the said decision based on the interpretation of that
\n             clause cannot also be of any help to  the  petitioner
\n             in  proving that the accident in which he was injured
\n             also was while on deemed duty, since, in his case, he
\n             was not proceeding to or  returning  from  his  leave
\n             station.\n<\/p>\n
             \t12.  Counsel for the petitioner submits that since
\n             the Department did not take care to contest the motor
\n             accident   compensation   case   of   the  petitioner
\n             appropriately,  it  came   to   be   dismissed   and,
\n             therefore,  the petitioner has been left high and dry
\n             without either the compensation or any benefits  from
\n             the Army.    Therefore,  he submits that petitioner’s
\n             case may be considered sympathetically in so  far  as
\n             he  is  now  incapable  of doing any work to earn his
\n             livelihood.  We have no doubt in our  mind  that  the
\n             petitioner deserves      sympathy.           However,
\n             unfortunately, sympathy cannot take the place of  law
\n             and  we  cannot decide cases on the basis of sympathy
\n             alone regardless of the legal entitlement.   Deciding
\n             cases on considerations of sympathy doing violence to
\n             statutory  provisions  would  do  more  harm  to  the
\n             justice system.  Sympathy can, of  course,  be  shown
\n             within  the  frame  work of law, but cannot go to the
\n             extent of undermining the law itself which has to  be
\n             applied uniformly  to  all  situations  alike.  While
\n             deciding cases, we should bear in mind that decisions
\n             on considerations of sympathy can  also  be  used  to
\n             claim   benefit   in   undeserving  cases  which  may
\n             ultimately result in undermining public confidence in
\n             the efficacy of  law  which  may  not  enure  to  the
\n             benefit of the society at large in the long run.\n<\/p>\n
             \t13.  In the above circumstances, we have no option
\n             but to hold that the accident in which the petitioner
\n             was injured is not covered by any of  the  situations
\n             enumerated  and,  therefore,  was not attributable to
\n             military service.  Therefore, the  petitioner  cannot
\n             claim  disability  pension  under  Rule  173  of  the
\n             Pension Regulations  for  the  Army.     Hence,   the
\n             petitioner  is  not  entitled  to any reliefs in this
\n             original  petition  and  the  original  petition   is
\n             dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             Tds\/
\n             \t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
.JN
\n.SP 1
\n             \t\t\t     M.Ramachandran, Judge.@@
\n                AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
             \t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
             \t\t\t       S.Siri Jagan, Judge.@@
\n                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n.PA <\/p>\n
((HDR 0<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 2
\n.SP 2
\n.JN
\n             \t\t\t\tM.Ramachandran
\n             \t\t\t\t\t&
\n             \t\t\t\tS.Siri Jagan, J.\n<\/p>\n
             \t\t\t=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\n                                      O.P. No. 13522 of 1997
\n                                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<\/p>\n
             \t\t\t\tJ U D G M E N T@@
\n                 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
\n             \t\t\t\t27th  July, 2005.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 13522 of 1997 0. RAVINDRAN P.M. (EX.NK.NO.6650140) … Petitioner 1. RAVINDRAN P.M. Vs 0. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY … Respondent 0. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS 0. OFFICER I\/C […]<\/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-267895","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIn The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - 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\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-25T11:31:49+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-25T11:31:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3109,\"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\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\",\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-25T11:31:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"In The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - 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\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-25T11:31:49+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-25T11:31:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005"},"wordCount":3109,"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\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005","name":"In The High Court Of Kerala At ... vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-25T11:31:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/in-the-high-court-of-kerala-at-vs-unknown-on-27-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs Unknown on 27 July, 2005"}]},{"@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\/267895","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=267895"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267895\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267895"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267895"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267895"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}