{"id":34634,"date":"2009-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-04T18:51:09","modified_gmt":"2017-11-04T13:21:09","slug":"rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 650 of 2009()\n\n\n\n1. REV. FR. MATHEW NARIVELY AND 2 OTHERS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :06\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             W.A. No. 650 of 2009\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Bhavadasan, J,<\/p>\n
            This litigation is an offshoot of Ext.P3 order,<\/p>\n
whereby the State declared two churches situate side by side<\/p>\n
and a two storied building as protected monuments under the<\/p>\n
Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and<\/p>\n
Remains Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for<\/p>\n
brevity).\n<\/p>\n
            2. The monuments are located in Ramapuram, a<\/p>\n
little known town in Kottayam District.                                    There are three<\/p>\n
structures involved. They are (1) St. Mary’s Church, (2) St.<\/p>\n
Augustine’s Church and (3) a two storied building in which<\/p>\n
Thoma Kathanar was residing in Ramapuram in Meenachil<\/p>\n
Taluk of Kottayam District.\n<\/p>\n
            3. It is believed that the first church was built in<\/p>\n
1450 A.D., which was dedicated to Virgin Mary and the<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
present small church was built in 1599 at the very same site where<\/p>\n
the old one was situated.      The main altar of the old church<\/p>\n
constructed in 1450 A.D with mural paintings in Indian style<\/p>\n
having preserved in sanctum of the present church and the same<\/p>\n
has been dedicated to the memory of St. Augustine. The new<\/p>\n
church constructed in 1864 is larger in size than the first church,<\/p>\n
but is an exact replica of the smaller one. They are situated in the<\/p>\n
heart of Ramapuram town.        These churches are the centre of<\/p>\n
attraction for a large number of pilgrims and visitors, both from<\/p>\n
inside and outside the State. We get a glimpse of the grandeur of<\/p>\n
the churches from the two reports available in the records. The<\/p>\n
structures appear to be very unique and exquisite. As further<\/p>\n
description of the churches may not be very relevant here, they are<\/p>\n
skipped.     It admits of no doubt that the churches and the two<\/p>\n
storied building       attract devotees, pilgrims and visitors.<\/p>\n
Considering the structure, the age and importance of the churches<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
and the building, and the need for preservation and protection of<\/p>\n
the same, the State felt that these structures must be brought within<\/p>\n
the ambit of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
           4. When the State formed such an opinion as envisaged<\/p>\n
under Section 4(1) of the Act, they have issued Ext.P1 notification,<\/p>\n
thus disclosing their intention to declare that the church and other<\/p>\n
building as    protected monuments. Petitioners and others filed<\/p>\n
their objections.  After considering the objections and hearing<\/p>\n
them, the State issued a notification under Section 4(3) of the Act<\/p>\n
declaring the ancient monuments to be protected monuments. The<\/p>\n
said notification was challenged in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
           5. In the writ petition, several grounds were taken.<\/p>\n
Among them, what were urged at the time of hearing appear to be<\/p>\n
(1) the formation of opinion as contemplated under Section 4(1)<\/p>\n
was not supported by any material, (2) Section 4(1) and (3) did not<\/p>\n
lay down any guidelines for exercising the power conferred with<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
the State and therefore they are unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
           6. The learned Single Judge found on a consideration<\/p>\n
of the various provisions of the Act that there are sufficient<\/p>\n
guidelines provided by the statute itself for formation of the<\/p>\n
opinion. The learned Single Judge referred to Section 2(a), (d), (g)<\/p>\n
and (k) read along with Section 4(1) and (3) and came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that sufficient indication and criteria were given in the<\/p>\n
statute.  This criteria was sufficient for determining the issues<\/p>\n
involved and the Sections do not suffer from any vice. The learned<\/p>\n
Judge held that formation of the opinion on the basis of the<\/p>\n
materials available from the statute itself, which provides<\/p>\n
sufficient guidelines would satisfy the requirements of law.<\/p>\n
           7.   It is interesting to note that the learned Judge<\/p>\n
referred to the objections filed by the petitioners to Ext.P1<\/p>\n
notification and has extracted the statements which find a place in<\/p>\n
the objections numbered as items. 1 to 12, which would indicate<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
that the structures qualified to fall within the ambit of the Act.<\/p>\n
The learned Judge has also noticed that the petitioners         have<\/p>\n
admitted that the structures are more than 100 years old. Based on<\/p>\n
the above materials, the learned Judge repelled the contentions<\/p>\n
taken by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
            8. In this appeal, the challenge was made only on the<\/p>\n
following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
            (i) Principles of natural justice were violated.<\/p>\n
            (ii) There were absolutely no materials before the State<\/p>\n
for forming an opinion as envisaged under Section 4(1).<\/p>\n
            (iii)  Even if there were       materials, they were not<\/p>\n
disclosed to the petitioners and their explanation sought for, and<\/p>\n
            (iv)  Even if there were materials, based on which<\/p>\n
opinion was formed, they must find a place in the order itself. It is<\/p>\n
stated that the order must speak for itself.\n<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
           9.  In support of their contentions, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellants relied on the decisions reported in<\/p>\n
Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a> ((2008) 4 SCC<\/p>\n
144), Indian Nut Products v. Union of India<\/a> ((1994) 4 SCC 269)<\/p>\n
and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India<\/a> ((1981) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
664).\n<\/p>\n
           10. Per contra, learned Government Pleader pointed out<\/p>\n
that a reading of the Act will show that it provides for guidelines<\/p>\n
based on which the State is to form an opinion as contemplated<\/p>\n
under Section 4(1). It provides for the procedure to be followed<\/p>\n
and then the final determination to be made under Section 4(3) of<\/p>\n
the Act. All that the authority concerned is to see whether the<\/p>\n
structure in question satisfies the definition contained in the Act.<\/p>\n
Section 4(1) of the Act provides for calling for objection when a<\/p>\n
particular structure is sought to be        declared as a protected<\/p>\n
monument. Section 4(3) provides for declaring the structure as a<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
protected monument after considering the objection. There is no<\/p>\n
dispute in this case that notice was given to the petitioners for<\/p>\n
filing their objections as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the<\/p>\n
Act. They filed their objections and they were heard also. The<\/p>\n
statute requires only to provide an opportunity to object and<\/p>\n
nothing more.     The formation of opinion and the subsequent<\/p>\n
declaration do not involve any quasi judicial or judicial function.<\/p>\n
A perusal of the records, according to the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader will clearly show that all necessary steps have been<\/p>\n
followed and there is no legal or factual illegality or irregularity in<\/p>\n
the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
            11.  Before going into the rival contentions, some<\/p>\n
relevant aspects may be noticed. The Act was brought into force<\/p>\n
since the State felt the necessity and importance of preserving and<\/p>\n
protecting ancient monuments and archaeological sites. They are<\/p>\n
considered to be national treasures. The State consider as its duty<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
to properly maintain, protect and preserve them.<\/p>\n
           12.     The    Act defines     an ancient monument,<\/p>\n
archaeological sites, remains and monuments etc. Section 4 of the<\/p>\n
Act deals with the power of the Government to declare a particular<\/p>\n
structure as an ancient monument etc.         The procedure to be<\/p>\n
followed under Section 4 will be discussed later. Section 5 deals<\/p>\n
with the acquisition of rights in a protected monument. Section 6<\/p>\n
deals with matters relating to the preservation and protection of the<\/p>\n
monument. Sections 8 and 9 deal with the repair and maintenance<\/p>\n
of the monument. One must notice here that Section 5 infact<\/p>\n
reserves the right to use any protected monument for customary<\/p>\n
and religious observances. The Act also envisages an agreement to<\/p>\n
be entered into between the owner of the structures with the<\/p>\n
Government through the Director.\n<\/p>\n
           13. One of the grounds of attack is that there are no<\/p>\n
materials in the case whereby the State could have formed an<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
opinion that the structures are ancient monuments.          This is<\/p>\n
followed by the argument that if there were infact any materials<\/p>\n
before the State or the authority concerned, they ought to have<\/p>\n
been disclosed to the petitioners and their explanation sought for.<\/p>\n
It is further stated that the declaration issued under Section 4(3)<\/p>\n
does not mention the reasons for the declaration.<\/p>\n
            14. In the decision reported in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai<\/p>\n
Patel v. State of Gujarat<\/a> ((2008) 4 SCC 144) the words<\/p>\n
“consider” and “opinion” came up for consideration. It was held<\/p>\n
that formation of opinion though subjective must be based on<\/p>\n
materials and that formation of opinion must reflect an application<\/p>\n
of mind. It was held that the discretion conferred is not unfettered.<\/p>\n
It is also held that the word “consider” means active application of<\/p>\n
mind. It meant consideration of all relevant aspects.<\/p>\n
            15. In the decision reported in Indian Nut Products v.<\/p>\n
Union of India<\/a> ((1994) 4 SCC 269, it was held as follows:<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
           “It is well-settled that if a statute requires an<\/p>\n
     authority to exercise power, when such authority is<\/p>\n
     satisfied that conditions exist for exercise of that power,<\/p>\n
     the satisfaction has to be based on the existence of<\/p>\n
     grounds mentioned in the statute. The grounds must be<\/p>\n
     made out on the basis of the relevant material. If the<\/p>\n
     existence of the conditions required for the exercise of<\/p>\n
     the power is challenged, the courts are entitled to<\/p>\n
     examine whether those conditions existed when the<\/p>\n
     order was made. A person aggrieved by such action can<\/p>\n
     question the satisfaction by showing that it was wholly<\/p>\n
     based on irrelevant grounds and hence amounted to no<\/p>\n
     satisfaction at all. In other words, the existence of the<\/p>\n
     circumstances in question is open to judicial review.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           16. In the decision reported in Swadeshi Cotton Mills<\/p>\n
v. Union of India<\/a> ((1981) 1 SCC 664), the necessity to follow the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice was emphasized.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           17. Here, one needs to notice the difference between an<\/p>\n
administrative and quasi judicial function. In the decision reported<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
in State of H.P. v. Raja Mahendra Pal<\/a> ((1999) 4 SCC 43), it was<\/p>\n
held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “The submission that the Pricing Committee was a<\/p>\n
     quasi-judicial  tribunal   constituted    by   the    State<\/p>\n
     Government in exercise of its statutory as well as<\/p>\n
     plenary executive powers can also not be accepted in<\/p>\n
     the light of the functions assigned to the Committee.<\/p>\n
     Quasi-judicial acts are such acts which mandate an<\/p>\n
     office the duty of looking into certain facts not in a way<\/p>\n
     which it specifically directs but after a discretion, in its<\/p>\n
     nature judicial. The exercise of power by such tribunal<\/p>\n
     or authority contemplates the adjudication of rival<\/p>\n
     claims of the persons by an act of the mind or judgment<\/p>\n
     upon the proposed course of official action s to an<\/p>\n
     object of the corporate power, for the consequences of<\/p>\n
     which the official will not be liable, although his act<\/p>\n
     was not well judged.      A quasi-judicial function has<\/p>\n
     been termed to be one which stands midway a judicial<\/p>\n
     and an administrative function. The primary test is as<\/p>\n
     to whether the authority alleged to be a quasi-judicial<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
     one, has any express statutory duty to act judicially in<\/p>\n
     arriving at the decision in question. If the reply is in the<\/p>\n
     affirmative, the authority would be deemed to be quasi-<\/p>\n
     judicial, and if the reply is in the negative, it would not<\/p>\n
     be. The dictionary meaning of the word “quasi” is “not<\/p>\n
     exactly”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           It follows, therefore, that an authority is described<\/p>\n
     as quasi-judicial when it has some of the attributes or<\/p>\n
     trappings of judicial functions, but not all. This court in<\/p>\n
     Province of Bomaby v. Khushaldas S. Advani<\/a> dealt<\/p>\n
     with the actions of the statutory body and laid down<\/p>\n
     tests for ascertaining whether the action taken by such a<\/p>\n
     body was a quasi-judicial act or an administrative act.<\/p>\n
     The Court approved the celebrated definition of the<\/p>\n
     quasi-judicial body given by Atkin, L.J., as he then was<\/p>\n
     in R.v. Electricity Commrs., in which it was held:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           “Whenever any body of persons having legal<\/p>\n
     authority to determine questions affecting rights of<\/p>\n
     subjections, and having the duty to act judicially act in<\/p>\n
     excess of their legal authority they are subject to the<\/p>\n
     controlling jurisdiction of the King’s Bench Division<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
     exercised in these writs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The aforesaid definition was accepted as correct in<\/p>\n
     R.v.London Country Council and many subsequent<\/p>\n
     cases both in England and in India. Again this court in<\/p>\n
     Radeshyam Khare v. State of M.P. Relying upon its<\/p>\n
     earlier decision held:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “It will be noticed that this definition insists on<\/p>\n
     three requisites each of which must be fulfilled in order<\/p>\n
     that the act of the body may be quasi-judicial act,<\/p>\n
     namely, that the body of persons (1) must have legal<\/p>\n
     authority, (2) to determine questions affecting the rights<\/p>\n
     of parties, and (3) must have the duty to act judicially.<\/p>\n
     Since a writ of certiorari can be issued only to correct<\/p>\n
     he errors of a court or a quasi-judicial body, it would<\/p>\n
     follow that the real and determining test for ascertaining<\/p>\n
     whether an act authorised by a statute is a quasi-judicial<\/p>\n
     act or an administrative act is whether the State has<\/p>\n
     expressly or impliedly imposed upon the statutory body<\/p>\n
     the duty to act judicially as required by the third<\/p>\n
     condition in the definition given by Atkin, L.J.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           *                     *                      *<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
           Relying on paras 114 and 115 of Halsbury’s Laws<\/p>\n
     of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11 at pp.55-58 and citing the<\/p>\n
     case of R.v.Manchester Legal Aid Committee learned<\/p>\n
     counsel for the appellants contends that where a statute<\/p>\n
     requires decision to be arrived at purely from the point<\/p>\n
     of view of policy of expediency the authority is under<\/p>\n
     no duty to act judicially. He urges that where, on the<\/p>\n
     other hand, the order has to be passed on evidence<\/p>\n
     either under an express provision of the statute or by<\/p>\n
     implication and determination of particular facts on<\/p>\n
     which its jurisdiction to exercise its power depends or if<\/p>\n
     there is a proposal and an opposition the authority is<\/p>\n
     under a duty to act judicially. As stated in para 115 of<\/p>\n
     Halbury’s Laws of England, vol.11 at57 the duty to act<\/p>\n
     judicially may arise in widely differing circumstances<\/p>\n
     which it would be impossible to attempt to define<\/p>\n
     exhaustively. The question whether or not there is a<\/p>\n
     duty to act judicially must be decided in each case in<\/p>\n
     the light of the circumstances of the particular case and<\/p>\n
     the construction of the particular statute with the<\/p>\n
     assistance of the general principles lid down in the<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
     judicial decisions. The principles deducible from the<\/p>\n
     various judicial decisions considered by this Court in<\/p>\n
     Khushaldas v. Advani at p.725 (of SCR): (at p.260 of<\/p>\n
     AIR) were thus formulated, namely –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i) that if a statute empowers an authority, not<\/p>\n
     being a court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes<\/p>\n
     arising out of a claim made by one party under the<\/p>\n
     statute which claim is opposed by another party and to<\/p>\n
     determine the respective rights of the contesting parties<\/p>\n
     who are opposed to each other, there is a lis and prima<\/p>\n
     facie and in the absence of anything in the statute to the<\/p>\n
     contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially<\/p>\n
     and the decision of the authority is a quasi judicial act;<\/p>\n
     and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do<\/p>\n
     any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then,<\/p>\n
     although there are not two parties apart from the<\/p>\n
     authority and the contest is between the authority<\/p>\n
     proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the<\/p>\n
     final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi<\/p>\n
     judicial act provided the authority is required by the<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    16<\/span><\/p>\n
     statute to act judicially.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the instant case the order appointing the Pricing<\/p>\n
     committee     which     was  amended   on   26.11.1986<\/p>\n
     specifically provided:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “The aforesaid Pricing Committee was established<\/p>\n
     to determine (not merely to advise on) the price and<\/p>\n
     terms and conditions for the supply of resin, resin<\/p>\n
     blazes, standing trees and other foreign produce to be<\/p>\n
     handed     over by the H.P. Forest Department to the<\/p>\n
     H.P.State Forest Corporation Ltd., from time to time.”<\/p>\n
     Applying the tests noticed hereinabove, it cannot be<\/p>\n
     said by any stretch of imagination that the said<\/p>\n
     Committee was or intended to be a quasi-judicial<\/p>\n
     tribunal as argued on behalf of respondent 1. This<\/p>\n
     Committee can also not be stated to have been<\/p>\n
     constituted in exercise of the plenary administrative<\/p>\n
     power of the appellant-State. It has been conceded<\/p>\n
     before us that the said Committee was not constituted in<\/p>\n
     terms of Section 6 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest<\/p>\n
     Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1982. No other<\/p>\n
     statutory provision has been relied on either.     The<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
     Committee appears to have been constituted for<\/p>\n
     settlement of the claims and disputes between the<\/p>\n
     appellant-State and the respondent-Corporation. The<\/p>\n
     decisions of the Committee were applicable to the<\/p>\n
     parties to the said Committee and not to any third<\/p>\n
     person.    The said Committee had no source of its<\/p>\n
     constitution in any statute nor was it intended to<\/p>\n
     determine or adjudicate the claims of parties with<\/p>\n
     respect to the matters referred to it for opinion and<\/p>\n
     suggestion or even for settlement between the parties<\/p>\n
     concerned. The decision of the committee, not being<\/p>\n
     statutory, thus could not be given effect to by the High<\/p>\n
     Court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           18. It will be useful to refer to the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare<\/a><\/p>\n
(2002(2) KLT 548). Therein it was held that in order to qualify as<\/p>\n
a quasi judicial function, there must be a lis between two persons<\/p>\n
and it must be necessary to resolve the dispute based on their<\/p>\n
respective rights by an independent authority. Therefore, there<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                      18<\/span><\/p>\n
have to be two or more parties contesting each others claims and<\/p>\n
the statutory authority requires to adjudicate the rival claims<\/p>\n
between the parties.       When that exercise is undertaken, the<\/p>\n
function exercised by the authority is said to be quasi judicial in<\/p>\n
nature. What function is an administrative act or a quasi judicial<\/p>\n
act is, in the case of quasi judicial functions under the relevant law<\/p>\n
the statutory authorities required to act judiciously. In other words,<\/p>\n
where law requires that an authority before arriving at a decision<\/p>\n
must make an enquiry, such a requirement of law makes the<\/p>\n
authority a quasi judicial authority. In a quasi judicial function,<\/p>\n
there are some aspects of judicial function. In some cases, an<\/p>\n
administrative authority may determine a question of fact before<\/p>\n
arriving at a decision, which may affect the right of a person. But<\/p>\n
such a decision would not be a quasi judicial act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            19. True, the distinction between administrative and<\/p>\n
quasi judicial function is very thin. In quasi judicial function the<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                      19<\/span><\/p>\n
adjudication of civil rights of a person is involved. The legal rights<\/p>\n
of persons are decided according to legal rules and prudence. But<\/p>\n
an administrative authority does not do so. It is true that a balance<\/p>\n
has to be struck between executive function and legal protection of<\/p>\n
right of the citizen.    Abuse of discretionary power should be<\/p>\n
checked.\n<\/p>\n
           20.   It is well settled that in judicial review of an<\/p>\n
administrative action, the court looks at the manner in which and<\/p>\n
the procedure followed in arriving at the decision. The court is not<\/p>\n
concerned with the decision as such, but the decision making<\/p>\n
process. The courts are not sitting as a court of appeal, but simply<\/p>\n
reviews the manner in which the decision was taken. It is accepted<\/p>\n
that the courts usually do not have the expertise to correct<\/p>\n
complicated and technical administrative decisions. The courts<\/p>\n
usually do not substitute its own decisions without the necessary<\/p>\n
expertise.   The intention is to check malafide, perverse and<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                      20<\/span><\/p>\n
arbitrary action. It is trite that judicial review is held to be an<\/p>\n
integral part of the constitution and its basic structure.<\/p>\n
           21. If the executive or administrative authority comes<\/p>\n
to a decision without any basis or it is unreasonable, so<\/p>\n
unreasonable as no persons would come to such a conclusion, the<\/p>\n
court will certainly interfere. Usually the interference is only when<\/p>\n
the decision is found to be unfair or unjust or so unreasonable that<\/p>\n
no reasonable man would have come to such a conclusion.<\/p>\n
           22. In such cases, usually Wednesbury test is applied.<\/p>\n
           23. While the powers must be exercised reasonably, it<\/p>\n
is no less important that the court must not overstep the limit.<\/p>\n
Merely because the court feels that another more reasonable<\/p>\n
conclusion could have been reached, by itself is not a ground to<\/p>\n
interfere with the administrative action. The test is to see whether<\/p>\n
the administrative authority’s decision is based on the relevant<\/p>\n
matters and the authority has eschewed the irrelevant matters. The<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
attempt would be to find out whether the decision making authority<\/p>\n
(i) exceeded its power, (ii)    committed an error of law (iii)<\/p>\n
committed breach of the rules of natural justice. (iv) whether<\/p>\n
relevant aspects have been omitted to be considered and irrelevant<\/p>\n
aspects have taken into consideration and whether the authority has<\/p>\n
exceeded or abused its powers. Wednesbury test means that the<\/p>\n
decision reached is so unreasonable that no reasonable man under<\/p>\n
the circumstances would have come to such a conclusion.<\/p>\n
           24. Bearing these principles in mind, an attempt shall<\/p>\n
now be made to see how far the principles apply to the facts of the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
           25. Coming back to Section 4(1) of the Act, it says that<\/p>\n
if the Government are of the opinion that ancient monuments<\/p>\n
should be declared to be a protected monument, they may issue a<\/p>\n
notification. Two months notice should be given of their intention<\/p>\n
to declare such ancient monument as protected monument and that<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
the notification shall be affixed in a conspicuous place near the<\/p>\n
monument.     Section 4(2) enables any person interested in the<\/p>\n
matter, within two months after the issue of the notification, to<\/p>\n
object to the declaration.\n<\/p>\n
           26. One may here at once notice that the definition of<\/p>\n
ancient monument as contained in Section 2(a). One may also<\/p>\n
refer to Sections 2(d) and 2(k).      These provisions have been<\/p>\n
extracted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence it<\/p>\n
is not necessary to extract them again.\n<\/p>\n
           27. Even going by the stand taken by the petitioners,<\/p>\n
they admit that the structures are more than 100 years old. The<\/p>\n
documents available with the department also show that structures<\/p>\n
are unique and of much significance and importance. The present<\/p>\n
state of affairs of these monuments are disclosed in the petition<\/p>\n
itself. It was applying the ingredients available in the Statute that<\/p>\n
the Government had formed the opinion about these structures.<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    23<\/span><\/p>\n
There is nothing to show that the opinion so formed was arbitrary<\/p>\n
or fanciful. As already noticed, the Statute itself provides the<\/p>\n
necessary ingredients to be looked into and the elements to be<\/p>\n
taken into consideration. One need not therefore go in search of<\/p>\n
them outside the Act. One need not import anything else. In fact<\/p>\n
the very objection filed by the petitioners to the notice published<\/p>\n
under Section 4(1) of the Act would reveal that all the ingredients<\/p>\n
are satisfied. The main objection was that only the smaller church<\/p>\n
needs to be retained and the larger one needs to be demolished and<\/p>\n
a new church is to be put up. It is on the basis of the ingredients<\/p>\n
stipulated, as per the statute, which were found available in the<\/p>\n
case on hand, that the State had formed the opinion. By no stretch<\/p>\n
of imagination it could be said that the opinion so formed is<\/p>\n
without any basis or is unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n
            28. Coming next to the issues that the materials were<\/p>\n
not disclosed, there is absolutely no merit in the contention. The<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     24<\/span><\/p>\n
nature of the structure, its importance, and its significance are<\/p>\n
matters on which there is no dispute and they are known to the<\/p>\n
petitioners. There are two reports in the records made available in<\/p>\n
the case. These reports show the necessity to carry on repairs<\/p>\n
under the supervision of the archaeological department. It makes<\/p>\n
mention of the damages caused to the structures and the necessity<\/p>\n
to protect the structures.   The statute only requires  notice of<\/p>\n
intention to declare such ancient monument to be protected<\/p>\n
monument and an opportunity to be given to persons to prefer their<\/p>\n
objections. No judicial or quasi judicial function in the sense<\/p>\n
affecting any religious right is involved. The only right is to file<\/p>\n
objections to the proposal for consideration before forming an<\/p>\n
opinion. The statute does not envisage a hearing of the persons,<\/p>\n
who have preferred their objection. It may not be feasible also.<\/p>\n
There may be innumerable number of objectors and it is not<\/p>\n
practical to hear them all. In the decision reported in Mohd.<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                     25<\/span><\/p>\n
Ibrahim Khan v. State of M.P. (AIR<\/a> 1980 SC 517), it has been<\/p>\n
held that the mere fact that the persons are given their right to file<\/p>\n
their objection does not take within its ambit a right for hearing<\/p>\n
also. It is pointed out that in such cases there may be hundreds of<\/p>\n
objectors it is not feasible or practical to give hearing to all those<\/p>\n
persons. But in the instant case the objectors were heard. In such<\/p>\n
a circumstance, there is no merit in the contention that there is any<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
            29. Coming to the contention based on non-mention of<\/p>\n
the reason in the decision arrived at by the authority concerned,<\/p>\n
that too is without much substance. As already mentioned, there<\/p>\n
are materials available in the records to show that the authority<\/p>\n
concerned has taken note of the relevant matters into consideration<\/p>\n
and especially the two reports of the two competent authorities of<\/p>\n
the archaeological department. Age of the church, its historical<\/p>\n
and its archaeological importance are matters on which there can<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    26<\/span><\/p>\n
be no serious dispute.\n<\/p>\n
           30. In the decision reported in Income Tax Officer v.<\/p>\n
Biju Patnaik<\/a> (1991 (1) SCC 161), it was held that even though the<\/p>\n
order does not ex facie disclose satisfaction of the officer, if the<\/p>\n
records disclose the same, the order cannot be challenged on<\/p>\n
ground of non application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
           31. It is to be borne in mind that by the notification<\/p>\n
issued under Section 4(3) of the Act, the owner does not divest his<\/p>\n
ownership over the monument at all.         Certain restrictions are<\/p>\n
imposed on the use of the building, but maintenance and repairs<\/p>\n
are to be done by the State. True, one of the reports found in the<\/p>\n
records shows that the church authorities may be permitted to do<\/p>\n
repairs and maintenance.      But however, another report by a<\/p>\n
superior officer has highlighted the need to do the repairs under the<\/p>\n
supervision of the departmental authorities as the process involved<\/p>\n
is complicated and needs expertise and skill.\n<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                    27<\/span><\/p>\n
           32. The apprehension expressed by the owners of the<\/p>\n
monument is unfounded and misconceived. The State cannot put<\/p>\n
to use those monuments to any use they choose. The restriction<\/p>\n
imposed regarding the use of the building is only by way of<\/p>\n
caution to protect and preserve the structures. It is disturbing to<\/p>\n
note that such being the state of affairs, a section of the public is<\/p>\n
against the move. Destruction is easy. In fact, everyone should be<\/p>\n
anxious to see that such structures are protected and preserved by<\/p>\n
the State.\n<\/p>\n
           33. The presumption is that the statutory authorities are<\/p>\n
exercising their powers in accordance with law. The burden is on<\/p>\n
the person, who says otherwise to establish the said fact. In the<\/p>\n
case on hand, the learned Single Judge has considered these<\/p>\n
matters in detail and has come to the conclusion that there is no<\/p>\n
merit in any of the contentions taken by the petitioners.<\/p>\n
             There is nothing to show that the said finding suffers<\/p>\n
WA. 650\/2009.                   28<\/span><\/p>\n
from any legal or factual infirmities. The result is that this appeal<\/p>\n
is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed.       We do so,<\/p>\n
confirming the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              P.R. Raman,
\n                                                   Judge<\/p>\n
                                              P. Bhavadasan,
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 650 of 2009() 1. REV. FR. MATHEW NARIVELY AND 2 OTHERS … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR […]<\/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-34634","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 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\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-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=\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-04T13:21:09+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T13:21:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4519,\"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\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-04T13:21:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 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":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 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\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-04T13:21:09+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T13:21:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009"},"wordCount":4519,"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\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009","name":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-04T13:21:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rev-fr-mathew-narively-and-2-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-6-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rev. Fr. Mathew Narively And 2 … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 6 July, 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\/34634","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=34634"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34634\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34634"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34634"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34634"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}