{"id":39725,"date":"2009-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-15T21:34:11","modified_gmt":"2016-07-15T16:04:11","slug":"a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMFA.No. 1377 of 2002(C)\n\n\n1. A.N.RAMACHANDRAN S\/O. A.K.NARAYNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. A.N.\/CHANDRAMATHY, PUZHPAK, MULLUKKARA,\n3. A.N.SAROJINI, PADINJAKARA HOUSE,\n4. A.R.SAJEESH S\/O. N.RAMACHANDRAN,\n5. A.R.SHEENA, D\/O..A.N.RAMACHANDRAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE VIGILANCE CELL, DIRECTORATE OF\n\n3. KIRTADS, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS,\n\n4. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED\n\n5. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,\n\n6. THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED\n\n7. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD\n\n8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :28\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n       K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                             M.F.A. NO: 1377 OF 2002\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                      Dated this the 28th January, 2009.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The appellants challenge the proceedings of the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee for verification of community certificate (No: 3445\/G-<\/p>\n
2\/97\/SCSTDD) dated 21.11.2002. By the said order, the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee constituted under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and<\/p>\n
Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates<\/p>\n
Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has held that the<\/p>\n
appellants do not belong to Thandan Scheduled Caste Community,<\/p>\n
but belong to Thiyya community.                           The above decision of the<\/p>\n
Scrutiny Committee rendered under Section 11 of the Act,                                      is<\/p>\n
challenged by filing this Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section<\/p>\n
12(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The brief facts of the case are the following:- Appellants 2<\/p>\n
and 3 are the sisters of the first appellant and appellants 4 and 5<\/p>\n
are the children of the first appellant. Appellants claim that they<\/p>\n
belong to Thandan community, which is declared as a scheduled<\/p>\n
caste, as per the Presidential Notification issued in 1976. Several<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002              2<\/span><\/p>\n
documents which came into existence long before 1976, would<\/p>\n
show that the appellants and their predecessors were members of<\/p>\n
Thandan community, it is submitted.       They also rely on a few<\/p>\n
judgments of this Court, upholding the claim of their close relatives<\/p>\n
that they belong to Thandan Scheduled Caste Community.<\/p>\n
      3.   Appellants 2 and 3 got employment in the State Bank of<\/p>\n
Travancore and Union Bank of India respectively on 26.10.1978<\/p>\n
and 22.9.1980, in the quota reserved for scheduled caste. They<\/p>\n
produced     caste certificates issued by the competent authority,<\/p>\n
while seeking appointment under the said Banks. While so, based<\/p>\n
on some petitions filed by persons having vested interest against<\/p>\n
appellants 2 and 3, the Vigilance Officer of KIRTADS, Kozhikode<\/p>\n
issued   notices to them to appear before him on 9.8.1996 and<\/p>\n
15.10.1996 for an enquiry into the caste status of them.        They<\/p>\n
appeared on the said dates and submitted all documents in support<\/p>\n
of their claim that they are members of the scheduled caste<\/p>\n
Thandan Community. Later, they were served with a copy of the<\/p>\n
report dated 16.12.1996, prepared by the second respondent<\/p>\n
KIRTADS, along with a show cause notice issued by the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/Scrutiny Committee.        The appellants submitted a<\/p>\n
detailed written explanation on 2.5.1997 along with 44 documents<\/p>\n
to support their scheduled caste status.     They were personally<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002              3<\/span><\/p>\n
heard by the first respondent on        30.6.1999.    They appeared<\/p>\n
through counsel and made their submissions.         Later, again they<\/p>\n
were served with a notice in October 2002, calling upon them to<\/p>\n
appear before the Scrutiny Committee for personal hearing on<\/p>\n
26.10.2002. On that date also they appeared and reiterated their<\/p>\n
contentions.\n<\/p>\n
      4. In the meantime, the first appellant who is the brother of<\/p>\n
appellants 2 and 3 approached the Tahsildar, Palghat for issuing<\/p>\n
community certificates for his two children, the 4th and 5th<\/p>\n
appellants.     The Tahsildar rejected his request, by order dated<\/p>\n
13.8.1998.     He filed  an appeal    against that order before the<\/p>\n
Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected<\/p>\n
his appeal by proceedings dated 7.9.1998.         The first appellant<\/p>\n
preferred a revision before the Government.        In the meantime,<\/p>\n
appellants 4 and 5 had to approach this Court to get community<\/p>\n
certificates, to get admission for higher studies. A Division Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court directed the State Government to dispose of the<\/p>\n
revision filed on behalf of appellants 4 and 5 within a time frame.<\/p>\n
      5. In the meantime, the vigilance cell of the KIRTADS had<\/p>\n
already initiated proceedings against appellants 1, 4 and 5, to<\/p>\n
determine their caste status. The Vigilance Officer of the KIRTADS<\/p>\n
submitted a report against them on 28.9.2001. They were served<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            4<\/span><\/p>\n
with a copy of the said report by the Scrutiny Committee. The first<\/p>\n
appellant appeared before the Committee on 28.9.2002. Again, he<\/p>\n
appeared along with his counsel before the Scrutiny Committee on<\/p>\n
19.10.2002. Finally, the matter was heard on 26.10.2002. Over-<\/p>\n
ruling the objections of the appellants,   the Scrutiny Committee<\/p>\n
passed    a   common    combined   order   by proceedings    dated<\/p>\n
21.11.2002,      holding that the appellants do not belong to<\/p>\n
scheduled caste Thandan Community, but are members of Thiyya<\/p>\n
community, which is an OBC in Kerala. Aggrieved by the said order,<\/p>\n
the present appeal is filed by them. During the pendency of the<\/p>\n
appeal, based on the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee,<\/p>\n
consequential adverse orders have been passed against them by<\/p>\n
the Government, a copy of which is produced in this appeal along<\/p>\n
with C.M.P.8237\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The appellants attack the reports of the KIRTADS as also<\/p>\n
the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee on various grounds.<\/p>\n
They submit that the KIRTADS prepared the reports based on<\/p>\n
enquiries made behind their back.         Though, the appellants<\/p>\n
requested before the Scrutiny Committee to give a chance to cross-<\/p>\n
examine the witnesses, who have given statements against them,<\/p>\n
the said claim was rejected.   Secondly, it is submitted that A.N.<\/p>\n
Sivanandan, who is the brother of appellants 1 to 3, got a decision<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002             5<\/span><\/p>\n
in his favour, declaring his caste as Thandan in O.P.4506\/1979.<\/p>\n
Similarly their father’s brother’s daughter Padmini also got a<\/p>\n
decision in her favour declaring that she belongs to Thandan<\/p>\n
community in O.P.5010\/1987.      Thirdly, it is contended that several<\/p>\n
documents, including those of pre-independent period, describe the<\/p>\n
predecessors     of the   appellants  as    belonging   to  Thandan<\/p>\n
community.     While those documents were drafted, no one had an<\/p>\n
inkling that Thandan community is going to be declared as a<\/p>\n
Scheduled Caste Community in 1976. Such documents have great<\/p>\n
probative value. Therefore, such documents and other documents<\/p>\n
produced before the Scrutiny Committee should have been relied<\/p>\n
on by the said authority. Instead, all those relevant documents<\/p>\n
were rejected on flimsy grounds.     It is also submitted that there<\/p>\n
was also omission to consider some of the relevant documents<\/p>\n
produced by the appellants. So the impugned order is vitiated, it<\/p>\n
is submitted.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The official respondents have filed a detailed counter<\/p>\n
affidavit and have produced the two reports of the vigilance cell of<\/p>\n
the KIRTADS against the appellants. They also produced various<\/p>\n
documents, which were relied on by the Scrutiny Committee to<\/p>\n
reject the scheduled caste claim of the appellants.      The learned<\/p>\n
Special Govt. Pleader, appearing for the official respondents,<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002              6<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted that going by Section 10 of the Act the burden of proof<\/p>\n
to show that they belong to the Scheduled Caste Thandan<\/p>\n
Community rests heavily on the appellants. But, they have failed to<\/p>\n
produce any reliable material to support their claim.      He also<\/p>\n
pointed out that Section 9(2) of the Act makes the reports of the<\/p>\n
expert agency (KIRTADS) conclusive proof for or against the<\/p>\n
scheduled caste or scheduled tribe claim, as the case may be, of<\/p>\n
the persons concerned.     The Scrutiny Committee being a statutory<\/p>\n
authority is bound by the said statutory provision.     So, even if<\/p>\n
evidence is let in before the Scrutiny Committee in support of their<\/p>\n
claim of Scheduled Caste status, in view of sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
Section 9, such evidence cannot be looked into by the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee. The learned Special Govt. Pleader also brought to our<\/p>\n
notice the various documents relating to the appellants and their<\/p>\n
close relatives, including school admission registers, which would<\/p>\n
show that they are in fact members of Thiyya community and to<\/p>\n
corner the benefits available to the members of scheduled caste,<\/p>\n
recently they have started calling themselves as Thandans and got<\/p>\n
caste certificates for the said purpose. In this case, based on the<\/p>\n
relevant evidence on record, the decision has been rendered by the<\/p>\n
Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the learned Govt. Pleader prayed<\/p>\n
for dismissal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002             7<\/span><\/p>\n
      8. We considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. We<\/p>\n
also went through the      two reports of the KIRTADS       and the<\/p>\n
impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. We have perused the<\/p>\n
materials placed by both sides before the said Committee. We will<\/p>\n
first deal with the contention raised by the learned Special<\/p>\n
Government Pleader relying on Section 9(2) of the Act. Section 9(2)<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “The   report of the Expert Agency shall be
\n      conclusive proof for or against the Scheduled Caste or
\n      the Scheduled Tribe claim, as the case may be, of the
\n      persons reported upon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act defines what is conclusive<\/p>\n
proof in the following manner:-\n<\/p>\n
             “When one fact is declared by this Act to be
\n      conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof
\n      of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall
\n      not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of
\n      disproving it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In many enactments, we find provisions dealing with conclusive<\/p>\n
proof. In certain enactments it is said that some fact will be<\/p>\n
conclusive evidence of some other fact.     The distinction between<\/p>\n
these two expressions has been settled by the Apex Court in Smt.<\/p>\n
Somawanti and others v. The State of Punjab and others (AIR<\/p>\n
1963 SC 151) . Majority of the Judges in that case held that there<\/p>\n
is no substantial distinction between        the above said two<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002                8<\/span><\/p>\n
expressions.      When fact (a) is said to be conclusive evidence of<\/p>\n
fact (b), then fact (b) can be proved either by proving the existence<\/p>\n
of fact (a) or by some other evidence. Once fact (a) is proved, it will<\/p>\n
be impermissible to adduce any evidence to disprove fact (b).      In<\/p>\n
the said decision it was held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” 19. The object of adducing evidence is to
\n          prove a fact.     The Evidence Act deals with the
\n          question as to what kind of evidence is permissible
\n          to be adduced for that purpose and states in S.3
\n          when a fact is said to be proved. That section reads
\n          thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                ‘Evidence means and includes—\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (1) all statements which the court permits or
\n          requires to be made before it by witnesses, in
\n          relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such
\n          statements are called oral evidence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (2) all documents produced for the inspection
\n          of   the    Court    such    documents      are  called
\n          documentary evidence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                A fact is said to be proved when, after
\n          considering the matters before it, the Court either
\n          believes it to exist, or considers its existence so
\n          probable that a prudent man ought, under the
\n          circumstances of the particular case to act upon the
\n          supposition that it exists.’
\n          Since evidence means and includes all statements
\n          which the Court permits or requires to be made,
\n          when the law says that a particular kind of evidence
\n          would be conclusive as to the existence of a
\n          particular fact it implies that that fact can be proved
\n          either by that evidence or by some other evidence
\n          which the court permits or requires to be advanced.
\n          Where such other evidence is adduced it would be
\n          open to the Court to consider whether, upon that
\n          evidence, the fact exists or not. Where on the other
\n          hand, evidence which is made conclusive is adduced,
\n          the Court has no option but to hold that the fact
\n          exists. If that were not so it would be meaningless
\n          to call a particular piece of evidence as conclusive
\n          evidence. Once the law says that certain evidence is
\n          conclusive it shuts out any other evidence which<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002               9<\/span><\/p>\n
         would detract from the conclusiveness of that
\n         evidence.    In substance, therefore, there is no
\n         difference    between    conclusive    evidence   and
\n         conclusive proof. Statutes may use the expression
\n         ‘conclusive proof’ where the object is to make a fact
\n         non-justiciable. But the legislature may use some
\n         other expression such as ‘conclusive evidence’ for
\n         achieving the same result.          There is thus no
\n         difference between the effect of the expression
\n         ‘conclusive evidence’ from that of ‘conclusive proof’,
\n         the aim of both being to give finality to the
\n         establishment of the existence of a fact from the
\n         proof of another.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus, if the report of the KIRTADS held that a person does not<\/p>\n
belong to scheduled caste, then that issue is no longer justiciable.<\/p>\n
      9. But, the finality given under a statute to the decision of a<\/p>\n
statutory    authority is available, if only the decision is taken in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.       If the decision is taken in violation of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the statute or without following the due procedure,<\/p>\n
then such a decision can be impugned even before ordinary civil<\/p>\n
courts, notwithstanding the finality clause.    Therefore, we feel that<\/p>\n
if the appellants are able to show some fundamental flaw in the<\/p>\n
procedure followed by the Scrutiny Committee in arriving at its<\/p>\n
conclusion, the provisions of Section 9(2) will not stand in the way<\/p>\n
of examining the validity of the impugned order.         So, the non-<\/p>\n
justiciability of the finding of the KIRTADS pointed out by the<\/p>\n
learned Special Government Pleader will depend upon the<\/p>\n
irregularities or illegalities pointed out by the appellants against<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002             10<\/span><\/p>\n
the report. In other words, it is not a matter which can be decided<\/p>\n
at the threshold. It is a contention to be decided along with the<\/p>\n
merits of the grounds put forward by the appellants.<\/p>\n
      10. Now, we will examine the documents produced by both<\/p>\n
sides concerning the appellants.       First, we will refer to the<\/p>\n
documents produced by the first appellant. It is common case that<\/p>\n
Kunjiraman and Chellu are the grand parents of appellants 1 to 3.<\/p>\n
Kunjiraman had 9 children.     A.K.Narayanan, who is    one among<\/p>\n
them is the father of appellants 1 to 3. Document No: 151 of 1114<\/p>\n
(Annexure A1 produced by the first appellant before the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee) describes A.K.Narayanan as the son of Thandan<\/p>\n
Kunjiraman.       Annexure A2    is a mortgage deed executed by<\/p>\n
A.K.Narayanan, son of Thandan Kunjiraman. Annexure A3 which is<\/p>\n
a document of 1932 describes Chami, father of Kunjiraman as<\/p>\n
Thandan Chami. Annexure A4 describes Kunjiraman the paternal<\/p>\n
grand father of first appellant as Thandan.     Annexure A5    also<\/p>\n
describes Kunjiraman as Thandan. In Annexure A6, produced by<\/p>\n
the very same appellant, Kunjirman, who is the paternal grand<\/p>\n
father, is described as Thandan.      In Annexure A7 also, again<\/p>\n
Kunjiraman is described as Thandan.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Now, we will refer to the documents produced by<\/p>\n
appellants 2 and 3.   Document No: D9 of 1913 produced by them<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002             11<\/span><\/p>\n
before the Scrutiny Committee describes Kunjirman’s father Chami<\/p>\n
as Thandan.        The School admission registers of A.K.Girija and<\/p>\n
Subadra, who are the daughters of the brother of A.K.Narayanan,<\/p>\n
would show that they belonged to Thandan community. Annexure<\/p>\n
A33 is the certified copy of the admission register of Krishna Das,<\/p>\n
son of A.K.Gopalan,     who is the brother of A.K.Narayanan, the<\/p>\n
father of appellants 1 to 3. The same would show that Krishna Das<\/p>\n
belongs to Thandan community. Annexuure A35 is the extract of<\/p>\n
the school admission register of the first appellant.    The same<\/p>\n
shows his caste as Thandan.      Annexure A37 is the extract of the<\/p>\n
admission register of Chandramathy, second        appellant, which<\/p>\n
would show that her caste is Thandan.        Annexure A42 is the<\/p>\n
relevant page of the S.S.L.C book of the third appellant, which<\/p>\n
would show that her caste is Thandan.        Annexure A43 is the<\/p>\n
relevant page of the S.S.L.C book of Indira Devi. N, who is one of<\/p>\n
the sisters of appellants 1 to 3. As per that document her caste is<\/p>\n
Thandan.     Annexure A50 is the School admission register relating<\/p>\n
to Chellamma,      who is the daughter of Chami, the brother of<\/p>\n
A.K.Narayanan. Annexure A51 is the School admission register of<\/p>\n
Bharghavi, the sister of the above Chellamma. Those documents<\/p>\n
would show that both of them belonged to Thandan community.<\/p>\n
Annexure A52 is the school admission register of A.K.Sukumari,<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            12<\/span><\/p>\n
D\/o. Kuttikrishnan, who is the brother of A.K.Narayanan. It shows<\/p>\n
that she belongs to Thandan community.      Document Nos: A28 &<\/p>\n
A31 to 37, produced by Chandramathi and Sarojini, would show<\/p>\n
that their mother’s relatives also were mentioned as Thandan in<\/p>\n
those documents.      Annexure A28 is a registered partition deed<\/p>\n
and Annexures A31 to A37 are the extracts of school admission<\/p>\n
registers. The above documents which came into existence before<\/p>\n
1976, conclusively prove that the caste of the appellants is<\/p>\n
Thandan, it is claimed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      12. Per contra the learned Special Govt. Pleader made the<\/p>\n
following submissions:- He submitted that the appellants and all<\/p>\n
their blood relations belong to Thiyya community.     The marital<\/p>\n
relations between admitted Thiyyas and the kith and kin of the<\/p>\n
appellants will fortify that fact.   Some persons of the Thiyya<\/p>\n
community were called Thandans as an honorific title and some of<\/p>\n
the descendants of such persons also were described as Thandans<\/p>\n
in common parlance. They are all Thiyyas with a higher status in<\/p>\n
the society, especially among the Thiyyas, it is submitted.   The<\/p>\n
learned Special Government Pleader relied on the following<\/p>\n
documents to show that the appellants and their blood relations<\/p>\n
are Thiyyas\/Ezhavas.       He first referred to the documents<\/p>\n
mentioned in Ext.R8(a) report of the KIRTADS dated 16.12.1996<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            13<\/span><\/p>\n
against appellants 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Document No:4 which is the extract from the admission<\/p>\n
register of Govt. L.P. School, Peringottukurissi would show that<\/p>\n
Shaji A.K belongs to Thiyya community.       He is the son of A.G.<\/p>\n
Krishna Das, who is the son of A.K. Gopalan, the brother of A.K.<\/p>\n
Narayanan, the father of appellants 1 to 3. Document No:5 would<\/p>\n
show that Lalitha A.K belongs to Hindu Thiyya community. She is<\/p>\n
the daughter’s daughter of A.K. Gopalan, the brother of the said<\/p>\n
A.K. Narayanan.     Document No:6 which is an extract of the<\/p>\n
admission register of Govt. L.P. School, Kottayi dated 13.5.1927<\/p>\n
would show that A.K. Govindan belongs to Ezhava community.<\/p>\n
A.K. Govindan is the brother of the said A.K. Narayanan. Document<\/p>\n
No:7 relates to A.K. Kumaran. It is an extract from the admission<\/p>\n
register of Govt. High School, Kottayi dated 14.6.1937, which would<\/p>\n
show that the said person belongs to Ezhava Community.         A.K.<\/p>\n
Kumaran       is the brother of the aforesaid A.K. Narayanan.<\/p>\n
Document No: 8 relates of Subadra A.K, who is the daughter of A.K.<\/p>\n
Kumaran, the brother of A.K. Narayanan.         It is the admission<\/p>\n
register of Govt. High School, Peringottukurissi dated 7.6.1957. In<\/p>\n
that document her     caste is shown as Ezhava.      Document No:9<\/p>\n
would show that Sulekha A.K. Is a member of Thiyya community.<\/p>\n
She is the sister of Subadra A.K, mentioned in document No: 8.<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            14<\/span><\/p>\n
Document No: 10 shows that Sujatha A.K belongs to Hindu Ezhava<\/p>\n
community.      She is another sister of Subadra A.K mentioned in<\/p>\n
document No: 8. Document No: 11 relates to none other than the<\/p>\n
mother of appellants 1 to 3 Smt. M. Mookami. She was admitted in<\/p>\n
Little Flower Girls High School on 12.10.1922.     In that document<\/p>\n
her caste is shown as Ezhava.        Document No: 12 relates to<\/p>\n
Sivanandan A.N.       He was admitted in Govt. L.P. School,<\/p>\n
Peringottukurissi on 3.6.1968. This document, which is the extract<\/p>\n
of the admission register of that school, shows that he belongs to<\/p>\n
Thiyya community. Sivanandan A.N is the brother of appellants 1 to<\/p>\n
3.   Document No: 13 is an extract from the SSLC book of the<\/p>\n
second appellant. The same would show that her caste shown in<\/p>\n
that document is Thiyya.     Document Nos: 14 to 16 relate to<\/p>\n
Pushpangathan K.N (husband of second appellant) and his sisters.<\/p>\n
Those documents would show that they are members of Ezhava<\/p>\n
community.       Document Nos: 17 and 18 relate to Ranjith K.P and<\/p>\n
Rajini K.P, who are the children of the second appellant<\/p>\n
Chandramathi.      Those documents are the school admission<\/p>\n
registers of those children wherein their caste is shown as Ezhava.<\/p>\n
Document Nos: 26 and 27 which are the extracts of School<\/p>\n
admission register would show that Shalima P.A, who was born on<\/p>\n
10.3.1988, belongs to other backward community.          She is the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002             15<\/span><\/p>\n
daughter of Sarojini, the third appellant.   Since the children’s<\/p>\n
admissions in the educational institutions were made after 1976,<\/p>\n
if they belong to scheduled caste community, the said claim would<\/p>\n
have been raised, it is pointed out. Document No: 28 would show<\/p>\n
that Padmini A.K belongs to Thiyya community. She is the daughter<\/p>\n
of A.K. Kumaran, the brother of A.K. Narayanan, who is the father<\/p>\n
of appellants 1 to 3.   Document Nos: 29 and 30 also relate to A.K<\/p>\n
Padmini, which would show that she belongs to Thiyya community.<\/p>\n
The above documents, as mentioned earlier, were those produced<\/p>\n
in Annexure R8(a) report.\n<\/p>\n
      14. The documents hereafter referred to are those mentioned<\/p>\n
in Annexure R8(b) report dated 28.9.2001 of the KIRTADS against<\/p>\n
appellants 4 and 5. Document No: 19 is the third page of the SSLC<\/p>\n
book of Ramachandran A.N, the first appellant. The same would<\/p>\n
show that he belongs to Thiyya community.       Document No: 20<\/p>\n
relates to Chandramathi A.N, the second appellant.      The said<\/p>\n
document is an extract from her SSLC book. The same would show<\/p>\n
that she belongs to Thiyya community.\n<\/p>\n
      15. We notice that the Scrutiny Committee considered the<\/p>\n
above documents and arrived at a finding that the appellants<\/p>\n
belong to Thiyya community and not Thandan community. Since<\/p>\n
the appellants pointed out various flaws in the consideration of<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            16<\/span><\/p>\n
materials by the Scrutiny Committee,       we will   independently<\/p>\n
evaluate the probative value of the documents produced by both<\/p>\n
sides. It is not in dispute that some of the blood relations of the<\/p>\n
appellants including their predecessors were described as Thandan<\/p>\n
in the registered deeds and school admission registers concerning<\/p>\n
them. The Thandan community which was notified as a Scheduled<\/p>\n
Caste community in Travancore-Cochin Area is a very backward<\/p>\n
community. The members of that community are mainly engaged<\/p>\n
in plucking coconuts. It is their traditional avocation. They are<\/p>\n
treated as untouchables also. The Central Government issued a<\/p>\n
Presidential Order in 1976, as per which the Thandans of Malabar<\/p>\n
area also were treated as members of that Scheduled Caste. So, if<\/p>\n
the appellants belonged to a separate and independent community<\/p>\n
called Thandan community,       then they are also entitled to be<\/p>\n
treated as members of the scheduled caste,       by virtue of the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya<\/p>\n
Samrakshana Samithi and another v. State of Kerala {1994(1) KLT<\/p>\n
118}. But, in this case, we notice that members of the same family<\/p>\n
related by blood are described as Thandan, Thiyya, Ezhava etc.<\/p>\n
contemporaneously. If they belong to Thandan community, there<\/p>\n
is no question of them being described as Thiyya and Ezhava also.<\/p>\n
So, in this context the contention of the respondents that some<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002              17<\/span><\/p>\n
persons among the Thiyya community were described using the<\/p>\n
honorific title ‘Thandan’ and members of their family also used that<\/p>\n
name as their caste name assumes importance.\n<\/p>\n
      16. Going by the facts disclosed and the various documents<\/p>\n
produced, we find that the appellants or their sibblings and<\/p>\n
children of some of them were described as members belonging to<\/p>\n
Thiyya\/Ezhava community in their school records. If they belonged<\/p>\n
to a    separate community called “Thandan community”, such<\/p>\n
discrepancies in the matter of entering caste name concerning<\/p>\n
them could not have happened. So, going by preponderance of<\/p>\n
probability, we are inclined to accept the case of the respondents<\/p>\n
that the appellants actually belonged to Thiyya\/Ezhava community.<\/p>\n
      17. Now, we will consider the contention of violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice raised by the appellants. In fact, many<\/p>\n
of the documents collected by the expert agency viz., the Vigilance<\/p>\n
Officer of KIRTADS, are undisputed documents and copies of them<\/p>\n
were furnished to the appellants also. The Scrutiny Committee did<\/p>\n
not rely on the statement of any witness recorded behind their<\/p>\n
back. If oral evidence is collected, the same cannot be acted upon<\/p>\n
unless the witness is made available for cross-examination of the<\/p>\n
appellants. We find that the Scrutiny Committee has not rested its<\/p>\n
decision on oral evidence.       Mainly relying on documents,     the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            18<\/span><\/p>\n
decision has been rendered. Therefore, the claim of the appellants<\/p>\n
regarding violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.    Further, we are not exercising the power     of judicial<\/p>\n
review, but we are hearing an appeal. We have perused all the<\/p>\n
documents and we are rendering an independent decision after<\/p>\n
extensively hearing the learned counsel for the appellants.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with for the<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants also pointed out some of the decisions of this<\/p>\n
Court, which have become final and which relate to some of the<\/p>\n
blood relations of the appellants. A judicial decision even if it is<\/p>\n
wrong, may bind the parties thereto. But, that decision cannot be<\/p>\n
pressed into service to determine the caste status of the appellants,<\/p>\n
as their status has been independently considered by the Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee by virtue of the statutory power conferred on it. So, if<\/p>\n
some of the relatives have obtained any orders from this Court,<\/p>\n
they may be able to enjoy the fruits of that litigation.    But the<\/p>\n
appellants cannot rely upon it.\n<\/p>\n
      18. In view of our above finding, we hold that there is no<\/p>\n
merit in the appeal. Accordingly, challenge against the impugned<\/p>\n
order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 21.11.2002 is repelled. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the<\/p>\n
M.F.A.No: 1377\/2002            19<\/span><\/p>\n
certificates were not obtained by playing fraud by the appellants,<\/p>\n
as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, the benefits received<\/p>\n
by them      on the strength of the certificates issued by the<\/p>\n
competent authority may not be disturbed. We find it difficult to<\/p>\n
accept the said contention. The appellants knowing fully well that<\/p>\n
they do not belong to Thandan community have moved and<\/p>\n
obtained caste certificates and further obtained benefits based on<\/p>\n
them.    So, the above contention of the appellants cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      The M.F.A is accordingly dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
\n                                                 Judge<\/p>\n
                                        K. SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                 Judge<\/p>\n
jj<\/p>\n
      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &<\/p>\n
      K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
———————————\n<\/p>\n
       M.F.A.NO:1377 OF 2002<\/p>\n
———————————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     Dated: 28th January, 2008<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MFA.No. 1377 of 2002(C) 1. A.N.RAMACHANDRAN S\/O. A.K.NARAYNAN, … Petitioner 2. A.N.\/CHANDRAMATHY, PUZHPAK, MULLUKKARA, 3. A.N.SAROJINI, PADINJAKARA HOUSE, 4. A.R.SAJEESH S\/O. N.RAMACHANDRAN, 5. A.R.SHEENA, D\/O..A.N.RAMACHANDRAN, Vs 1. THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR VERIFICATION … […]<\/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-39725","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 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\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-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=\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-15T16:04:11+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T16:04:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4248,\"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\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\",\"name\":\"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-15T16:04:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 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":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 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\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-15T16:04:11+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T16:04:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009"},"wordCount":4248,"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\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009","name":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For ... on 28 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-15T16:04:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-n-ramachandran-vs-the-scrutiny-committee-for-on-28-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.N.Ramachandran vs The Scrutiny Committee For … on 28 January, 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\/39725","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=39725"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39725"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39725"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39725"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}