{"id":30255,"date":"2009-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-03-06T22:01:58","modified_gmt":"2014-03-06T16:31:58","slug":"sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 32159 of 2001(C)\n\n\n\n1. SIBU JACOB\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.S.E.B\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SUDHIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :03\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J\n                ................................................\n                     O.P. No. 32159 of 2001\n               .................................................\n         Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is a consumer of electricity. On 7.8.2001, the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent inspected the electrical installation at the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s premises and prepared Ext.P1 Mahazar, wherein it was<\/p>\n
stated that on examination of the meter in detail, which is a three<\/p>\n
phase meter, the 1st and 3rd phases were working properly and the<\/p>\n
2nd phase was found running in the reverse direction. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice claiming an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 83,393\/- which is described as a penalty charged as per the<\/p>\n
inspection report of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner challenged<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 bill before this court by filing O.P. No. 24313 of 2001. By<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 judgment, this court relegated the petitioner to the remedy<\/p>\n
by way of appeal before the Executive Engineer. Pursuant thereto,<\/p>\n
the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive Engineer, who<\/p>\n
by Ext.P4 order rejected the contentions of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
confirmed Ext.P2 bill. Thereafter, the petitioner was again served<\/p>\n
with Exts.P6 and P7 bills demanding charges for the probable<\/p>\n
energy consumed by the petitioner through the faulty meter, on the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
assumption that the meter was recording only \/3    1 rdof the actual<\/p>\n
consumption. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2, P4, P5, P6 and<\/p>\n
P7.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The primary contention of the petitioner is that the<\/p>\n
respondents had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to<\/p>\n
whether the meter was faulty and if the meter was faulty, the<\/p>\n
energy charges payable by the consumer for the period in question.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, that jurisdiction rests exclusively with<\/p>\n
the Electrical Inspector under Section 26(6) of the Indian<\/p>\n
Electricity Act, which was applicable at the relevant time and<\/p>\n
without reference to the electrical inspector, respondents could not<\/p>\n
have demanded and recovered energy charges on the assumption<\/p>\n
that the meter was recording only    1\/3 of the actual consumption.\n<\/p>\n
                                        rd<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, since the respondents have not chosen<\/p>\n
to refer the dispute to the electrical inspector under Section 26(6),<\/p>\n
going by the Division Bench decision of this court in Nirmala<\/p>\n
Metal Industries v. K.S.E.B.<\/a> [2006(3) KLT 465], the Board<\/p>\n
cannot demand electricity charges for the alleged short recording<\/p>\n
of electricity consumed by the alleged faulty meter. He also relies<\/p>\n
on my decision in O.P. Nos. 26123, 27988 and 29518 of 1999, by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 14.10.2008.\n<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      3. The standing counsel for the electricity board contends<\/p>\n
that in so far as the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P1 Mahazar,<\/p>\n
it must be presumed that he has accepted the fact that the meter<\/p>\n
was faulty and therefore there was nothing wrong in the<\/p>\n
respondents demanding the electricity charges from the petitioner<\/p>\n
on the ground that the meter was recording only \/3 1  rd of the actual<\/p>\n
consumption. The contention is that if the petitioner had a dispute<\/p>\n
that the meter is actually correct, it was for him to raise that<\/p>\n
dispute and seek reference under Section 26(6). The petitioner<\/p>\n
having not done so, he cannot now dispute the correctness of the<\/p>\n
demand made is the contention raised by the respondents.<\/p>\n
Regarding Exts.P5 to P7 bills, the contention is that in order for the<\/p>\n
petitioner to decide whether to seek reference under Section 26(6)<\/p>\n
or not the respondents did not replace the meter for three months<\/p>\n
and for that period also the electricity charges were demanded on<\/p>\n
the basis that the meter was recording only \/3   1  rd  of the actual<\/p>\n
consumption.\n<\/p>\n
      4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      5. In view of the pleadings before me, the question to be<\/p>\n
decided is as to whether the bills issued by the respondents for<\/p>\n
recovery of electricity charges without first resorting to reference<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act is valid or not.<\/p>\n
Section 26(6) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “Where any difference or dispute arises as to
\n       whether any meter referred to in sub-section (1) is or is
\n       not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the
\n       application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector; and
\n       where the meter has, in the opinion of such Inspector
\n       ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the
\n       amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the
\n       electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such
\n       time, not exceeding six months, as the meter shall not, in
\n       the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct; but save
\n       as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence
\n       of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount or quantity:”<\/p>\n
                                            (underlining supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      6. As is clear from the first sentence of Section 26(6), in<\/p>\n
order to attract jurisdiction of the Electrical Inspector under that<\/p>\n
Section a difference or dispute as to whether any meter is or is not<\/p>\n
correct should arise. The counsel for the petitioner would argue<\/p>\n
that the word ‘arise’ means “come into being” or “come to notice or<\/p>\n
action as a result of” as given in Oxford Dictionary. According to<\/p>\n
him, word ‘arise’ should be considered in contradistinction with<\/p>\n
‘raised’. Therefore, according to him as soon as a meter is found<\/p>\n
faulty a dispute arises and therefore electricity board is bound to<\/p>\n
refer that dispute under Section 26(6) to the Electrical Inspector. I<\/p>\n
am unable to agree. If that be so, in every case, where the meter is<\/p>\n
found faulty, automatically the electricity board would be bound to<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector. That is not what is<\/p>\n
contemplated under Section 26(6).      A dispute or difference would<\/p>\n
arise only when one party asserts the existence or non-existence of<\/p>\n
a fact and the other party disputes the existence or non-existence<\/p>\n
of that fact.     When one person asserts the existence or non<\/p>\n
existence of a fact and the other party does not dispute the same<\/p>\n
there arises no difference or dispute.        Therefore, going by the<\/p>\n
reasoning given by the counsel for the petitioner himself only if a<\/p>\n
difference or dispute arises the jurisdiction of the electrical<\/p>\n
inspector attracted. That is the law declared by the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in Tata Hydro-Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Union of<\/p>\n
India<\/a> [AIR 2003 SC 1581], wherein in paragraph 15 it is held thus:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             “It was urged before the High Court as also before
\n        us that having regard to the judgment of this Court in
\n        U.P.S.E.B. v. Atma Steel<\/a> (supra) it is no longer open to
\n        the appellant to contend that CT was not an apparatus
\n        within the meaning of Section 26(7) of the Act. Having
\n        perused the judgment of this Court in Atma Steel’s case
\n        (supra), we also entertain no doubt that CT is an
\n        apparatus within the meaning of Section 26(7) of the
\n        Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      7. Here, in Ext.P1 Mahazar it is specifically stated that on<\/p>\n
detailed inspection it was found that one phase of the three phase<\/p>\n
meter was running in reverse direction.         It does not need any<\/p>\n
expertise to understand from the same that what it means is that<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the meter is faulty. Therefore as soon as Ext.P1 is received the<\/p>\n
petitioner must have known that according to the respondents the<\/p>\n
meter is faulty. If the petitioner had a case that the meter is not<\/p>\n
faulty he should have contested Ext.P1 immediately on receipt of<\/p>\n
the same. Only if he had done so, a difference or dispute would<\/p>\n
arise as to whether the meter is or is not correct.       It is also<\/p>\n
pertinent to note that in Ext.P8 memorandum of writ petition in<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No. 24313\/2001, which the petitioner has produced along<\/p>\n
with I.A. No. 15257 of 2009, the petitioner did not choose to<\/p>\n
challenge Ext.P1 although he had produced Ext.P1 in that writ<\/p>\n
petition also. In fact in Ext.P9 appeal filed by the petitioner as<\/p>\n
directed in Ext.P3 judgment, there is no assertion that the meter is<\/p>\n
not faulty nor is there a demand for reference of the any dispute<\/p>\n
under Section 26(6). The explanation of the petitioner for this is<\/p>\n
that at that time the petitioner was not aware that Ext.P2 demand<\/p>\n
was for deficit current charges for the past six months on account<\/p>\n
of the fault in the meter, since Ext.P2 specifically stated that<\/p>\n
demand is for penalty.        It is prepared that in Ext.P2 the<\/p>\n
respondents have chosen to describe the demand as penalty<\/p>\n
charged as per the inspection report. Even then the petitioner<\/p>\n
cannot dispute the fact that going by Ext.P1 it is abundantly clear<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
that according to the respondents the meter was faulty. Therefore<\/p>\n
if the petitioner had a contention that the meter was not faulty the<\/p>\n
petitioner was bound to raise that dispute, when only the dispute<\/p>\n
would arise as contemplated under Section 26(6) of the Indian<\/p>\n
Electricity Act.    Therefore in my opinion since the petitioner<\/p>\n
condescended to the fact that the meter was faulty, the<\/p>\n
respondents were not bound to refer any dispute for decision of the<\/p>\n
electrical inspector as required under Section 26(6).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. Then the only the question is whether the petitioner is<\/p>\n
liable to pay the amount demanded by the respondents on account<\/p>\n
of the defect in the meter. Nowhere has the petitioner disputed<\/p>\n
the specific statement in Ext.P1 that one of the phases of the power<\/p>\n
meter was running in the reverse direction. That being so, it is<\/p>\n
clear that the meter was recording only \/3 of the consumption. In
\n                                         1 rd<\/p>\n
such circumstances, the respondents are justified and demanding<\/p>\n
the electricity charges for the balance \/32  rd consumption for six<\/p>\n
months prior to the date of detection of the defect in the meter.<\/p>\n
Therefore I do not find any merit in the challenge against Exts.P2<\/p>\n
and P4.\n<\/p>\n
      9. But after having found the meter to be faulty it is not<\/p>\n
proper on the part of the respondents to continue billing the<\/p>\n
O.P. No. 32159 of 2001            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner by a calculator on the basis of the reading in the faulty<\/p>\n
meter. The maximum they could have done is to charge the<\/p>\n
petitioner for the average consumption per month as per the<\/p>\n
reading in the replaced meter. Accordingly Exts.P5 to P7 bills are<\/p>\n
quashed. The respondents are directed to issue fresh bills in the<\/p>\n
place of Ext.P6 to P7 on the basis of the average consumption of<\/p>\n
the petitioner for three months subsequent to the replacement of<\/p>\n
the meter.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                          S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
\nrhs<\/p>\n
                            \/\/ True copy \/\/<\/p>\n
                             PA to Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 32159 of 2001(C) 1. SIBU JACOB … Petitioner Vs 1. K.S.E.B … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.SUDHIR For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, KSEB The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :03\/12\/2009 O R D E R […]<\/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-30255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-06T16:31:58+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-06T16:31:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1754,\"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\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-06T16:31:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - 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\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-06T16:31:58+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-06T16:31:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009"},"wordCount":1754,"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\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009","name":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-06T16:31:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sibu-jacob-vs-k-s-e-b-on-3-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sibu Jacob vs K.S.E.B on 3 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/30255","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=30255"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30255\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}