{"id":40763,"date":"2007-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-22T21:00:35","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T15:30:35","slug":"b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 11619 of 2006(G)\n\n\n1. B.VINOD, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT\n\n4. THE KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION HAVING\n\n5. IDUKKI DISTRICT SPORTS COUNCIL, OFFICE\n\n6. SARATH U.NAIR, COMMERCIAL SHOPPING\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :05\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n                           --------------------------\n                     W.P.(C). NO. 11619 OF 2006\n                             ---------------------\n                Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
         This writ petition is filed by the Hon. Secretary of Idukki<\/p>\n
District Cricket Association seeking to quash Ext.P6 order issued by<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent and to declare that Ext.P3 registration certificate<\/p>\n
obtained by respondent No.6 is invalid and cannot be acted upon.<\/p>\n
         2. The Idukki District Cricket Association, of which petitioner<\/p>\n
is the Hon. Secretary, was incorporated in the year 1998 and is<\/p>\n
affiliated to the Kerala Cricket Association, the 4th respondent. The<\/p>\n
6th respondent herein had moved the 3rd respondent, District<\/p>\n
Registrar, for incorporating a new association known as Idukki<\/p>\n
District Cricket Association.        On completion of the formalities<\/p>\n
contemplated under Act 12 of 1955, the Idukki District Cricket<\/p>\n
Association was incorporated and Ext.P3 is the certificate of<\/p>\n
incorporation. Since the name of the new association was same as<\/p>\n
that of the Association represented by the petitioner, petitioner<\/p>\n
moved a compliant before the 3rd respondent against the<\/p>\n
incorporation of the new association.\n<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
        3.    An enquiry was conducted into the complaint of the<\/p>\n
petitioner and finally Ext.P4 order was issued on 25.1.99. In Ext.P4<\/p>\n
order it has been found that the petitioner association is functioning<\/p>\n
in terms of the provisions of the Statute and under the Byelaws of the<\/p>\n
4th respondent and that the incorporation of the new association by<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 was erroneous. On this basis, Ext.P3 order of incorporation<\/p>\n
was cancelled by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P4 order was challenged<\/p>\n
by the Idukki District Cricket Association (the new association) in<\/p>\n
O.P. No.7497\/99. That Original Petition was disposed of by Ext.P5<\/p>\n
judgment dated 4.11.05 with the following directions:<\/p>\n
       “The petitioner shall submit a representation before the
\n       Inspector General of Registration, Thiruvananthapuram within
\n       a period of two months from today, after serving a copy of the
\n       same on the 3rd respondent as well as the Kerala Cricket
\n       Association. Thereafter the Inspector General of Registration
\n       shall consider the issue with notice to the petitioner, Kerala
\n       Cricket Association and the 3rd respondent. Appropriate orders
\n       thereon in accordance with law shall be passed by the
\n       Inspector General of Registration within another four months.
\n       Subject to the petitioner thus moving the inspector General of
\n       Registration, the interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P.
\n       NO.12626\/1999 will continue till orders are passed by the said
\n       authority.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        4.    In pursuance to Ext.P5, the 6th respondent herein, who<\/p>\n
was the then Secretary of the new association, filed a representation<\/p>\n
dated 25.1.06. The 2nd respondent thereafter passed Ext.P6 order.<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                Page numbers<\/p>\n
In Ext.P6 order it was held that a detailed reading of the depositions<\/p>\n
and the records submitted as exhibits would show that the claims<\/p>\n
made by the petitioner herein and Shri. Mathew carries reasonable<\/p>\n
material for consideration. But he proceeded to hold that the issue<\/p>\n
raised before him was beyond his jurisdiction.         It was held that<\/p>\n
remedy against Ext.P4 is provided in Section 25 of Act 12 of 1955.<\/p>\n
According to the 2nd respondent, if a person is aggrieved, he should<\/p>\n
move the State Government and the State Government in turn<\/p>\n
should apply to the District Court for dissolution of the Society. It is<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P6 and seeking the reliefs mentioned above that this<\/p>\n
writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
        5. The 4th respondent, Kerala Cricket Association, has filed<\/p>\n
an affidavit supporting the plea in the writ petition. According to the<\/p>\n
4th respondent, they are the State Association with 14 district level<\/p>\n
units all over the State and the petitioner is one such unit recognised<\/p>\n
by them, functioning in the Idukki district of Kerala. It is pointed out<\/p>\n
that their byelaws do not contemplate separate registration for the<\/p>\n
district wise units and they accept that the petitioner in this writ<\/p>\n
petition is the Secretary of their Idukki unit.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    The 6th respondent, who was instrumental in the<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
incorporation of the new association, has also filed a counter affidavit<\/p>\n
wherein he has taken a totally different stand. According to him, of<\/p>\n
late he has realised the mistake and he wants the petitioner-<\/p>\n
association to be in existence as the representative of the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    The Idukki District Cricket Association (the new<\/p>\n
association) was not impleaded as a party in this writ petition. By<\/p>\n
filing I.A. No. 5743\/07 they have sought to be impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional respondent No.7. According to them they are a necessary<\/p>\n
party to these proceedings and therefore they ought to be impleaded.<\/p>\n
Though the writ petitioner has filed a counter affidavit resisting their<\/p>\n
impleadment, during the course of the hearing the contentions were<\/p>\n
not seriously urged. Therefore I allowed I.A. No.5743\/07 and they<\/p>\n
are impleaded as additional respondent No.7.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   Sri. V.N. Achutha Kurup, learned Senior Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the additional 7th respondent, points out that the writ<\/p>\n
petition as originally filed is defective for non-impleadment of the new<\/p>\n
association. According to him the said defect is fatal, warranting<\/p>\n
dismissal of the writ petition. It is contended that the new association<\/p>\n
is an organisation independent of the 4th respondent and therefore it<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                Page numbers<\/p>\n
is entitled to be incorporated at least at a district level. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel further points out that if the 4th respondent is hostile to them,<\/p>\n
the best they can do is to recognise their existence. But they cannot<\/p>\n
object to the incorporation of such an organisation. In his attempt to<\/p>\n
sustain Ext.P6 order, the learned counsel submits that the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent lacks power to upset Ext.P4 order and that if any one is<\/p>\n
aggrieved by Ext.P4, recourse will have to be taken to the provisions<\/p>\n
of Section 25 of the Act and the State Government should move an<\/p>\n
application to the District Court for dissolution of the association.<\/p>\n
On this ground learned Senior Counsel seeks dismissal of the writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  I have considered the rival submissions made by the<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for both sides. The primary question that arises<\/p>\n
for consideration is whether Ext.P6 order is sustainable or not. But<\/p>\n
before I decide the validity or otherwise of Ext.P6, the preliminary<\/p>\n
objection raised by learned Senior counsel regarding maintainability<\/p>\n
of the writ petition has to be dealt with.    It is true that as originally<\/p>\n
filed, the writ petitioner had not impleaded the Idukki District Cricket<\/p>\n
Association (the new association) as a party. As such, that defect<\/p>\n
would have been fatal, warranting dismissal of the writ petition.<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06               Page numbers<\/p>\n
However, in this case the new association itself has voluntarily got<\/p>\n
itself impleaded. They have also filed a detailed affidavit in support<\/p>\n
of their contentions and detailed arguments were also led in support<\/p>\n
of Ext.P6 order. Therefore, not only that they have now come on<\/p>\n
record as additional respondent No.7 but also they had an effective<\/p>\n
opportunity to resist the contentions of the petitioner. In such a case<\/p>\n
the fact that they were not originally impleaded loom its significance<\/p>\n
as it has not caused any prejudice to them.       For all these reasons<\/p>\n
the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel is only to be<\/p>\n
rejected and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
        10. Coming to the merits of Ext.P6 order, it was rendered<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment.        In Ext.P5 judgment, all parties<\/p>\n
including the new association and the petitioner, had agreed that the<\/p>\n
parties could be relegated to the 2nd respondent for resolution of the<\/p>\n
dispute.   It was accordingly that this Court had directed the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent to file a representation to the 2nd respondent, who was<\/p>\n
ordered to consider the entire issue.        In Ext.P6 order the 4th<\/p>\n
respondent found that the contentions of the writ petitioner and the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the State association carries reasonable materials for<\/p>\n
consideration. However, the 2nd respondent held that the matter was<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
beyond his jurisdiction and therefore he was incompetent to<\/p>\n
adjudicate the issue and at the same time unsettled Ext.P4 order.<\/p>\n
This approach of the 2nd respondent is contradictory.                     If he was<\/p>\n
incapable of resolving the issue, he should have not left it there<\/p>\n
without disturbing Ext.P4 and thus unsettling the position.<\/p>\n
       11. In so far as his plea of lack of jurisdiction is concerned,<\/p>\n
the same appears to be on the basis of the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
Act 12 of 1955.        When this issue was argued in court, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
General Clauses Act 1897 and 20 of the State Act. Elaborating this<\/p>\n
aspect, the learned counsel made reference to the judgment of this<\/p>\n
Court in Institute of Social welfare v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2000<\/p>\n
(1) K.L.J. 869] wherein it has been held as follows:<\/p>\n
        “The argument of counsel for the Election Commission that
\n        there is only a power in the Election Commission to register and
\n        there is no power to de-register has only to be stated to be
\n        rejected. It is clear that whenever a power to do something is
\n        conferred on a body, there is also conferred on that body the
\n        power to undo the same. Sections 16 and 21 of the General
\n        Clauses Act (corresponding to Sections 15 and 20 of the Kerala
\n        Act) also recognise such power. The power to do something
\n        obviously includes the power to undo that thing and the Election
\n        Commission cannot be heard to contend that once it has given
\n        registration to a political party, it has no right to act if that party
\n        with impunity, flouts the Constitution or subvert the sovereignty
\n        or democracy or the rule of law, the basis of our democracy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        We have therefore no hesitation in holding that when a call for
\n        hartal made by an association or body of citizens is enforced by<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06                    Page numbers<\/p>\n
        force and the activities of others unwilling to respond to the call
\n        is brought to a standstill by threat coercion or force, an occasion
\n        clearly arises for the Election Commission to take action for
\n        cancelling the registration or for de-recognition of that body or
\n        association.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.     This argument of the learned counsel for the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner is resisted by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
additional 7th respondent by making reference to Section 25 of Act 12<\/p>\n
of 1955, which has been relied on by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P6.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel against Ext.P4 the remedy<\/p>\n
available is to move the State Government which in turn can move<\/p>\n
the District Court for dissolution of the association. According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel since the act 12 of 1955 provides a remedy in<\/p>\n
Section 25 thereof, recourse to the provision of General Clauses Act<\/p>\n
is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n
       13. In my view, the procedure canvassed by the learned<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel is not what is contemplated in Section 25. Section<\/p>\n
25 does not confer right on any stranger to move the State<\/p>\n
Government but is a power available to the Government only. The<\/p>\n
other category of persons whose right is recognised in Section 25 to<\/p>\n
move the District Court are the members of the association<\/p>\n
concerned.      In this case, even according to the additional 7th<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06               Page numbers<\/p>\n
respondent, the petitioner or the 4th respondent are not members of<\/p>\n
the new association and therefore recourse to Section 25 is not<\/p>\n
available to a stranger like the petitioner. In such a situation the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to move the 3rd respondent who can certainly<\/p>\n
invoke the power under Section 21 of the Central Act (Section 20 of<\/p>\n
the State Act) and as recognised by this Court in the aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgment, undo an act which requires to be undone. If that power is<\/p>\n
available, the stand of the 2nd respondent that he lacks power in this<\/p>\n
regard is erroneous and cannot be approved. For the same reason, I<\/p>\n
also cannot agree with the finding of the 2nd respondent that<\/p>\n
cancellation ordered by the 3rd respondent was without jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
        14.  In the result, I hold that Ext.P6 order passed by 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent is illegal and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P6<\/p>\n
order will stand quashed and the 2nd respondent will reconsider the<\/p>\n
representation dated 25.1.06 submitted by the 6th respondent in<\/p>\n
pursuance to Ext.P5 judgment and pass fresh orders thereon dealing<\/p>\n
the entire issues raised by the parties. It is made clear that before<\/p>\n
final orders are passed as above petitioner, respondent Nos.4 & 6<\/p>\n
and the additional respondent No.7 shall be given notice and<\/p>\n
afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. It is also ordered that if<\/p>\n
WPC NO 11619\/06               Page numbers<\/p>\n
any of the parties files any supplementary representation, that will<\/p>\n
also be considered and representation, if any, shall be made within a<\/p>\n
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment and the final orders as directed shall be passed within<\/p>\n
three months thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                          ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE\n\n\nvps\n\nWPC NO 11619\/06    Page numbers\n\n\n\n\n                                A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE\n\n\n                                       OP NO.8348\/01\n\n\n\n                                          JUDGMENT\n\n\n                                      2nd August, 2007\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 11619 of 2006(G) 1. B.VINOD, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY … Respondent 2. IN INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, 3. THE DISTRICT […]<\/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-40763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-22T15:30:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T15:30:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2117,\"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\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\",\"name\":\"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T15:30:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-22T15:30:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T15:30:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007"},"wordCount":2117,"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\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007","name":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By ... on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T15:30:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-vinod-vs-state-of-kerala-represented-by-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.Vinod vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 5 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/40763","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=40763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}