{"id":60127,"date":"1996-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996"},"modified":"2015-11-20T01:53:56","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T20:23:56","slug":"krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","title":{"rendered":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N. Ray, B.L. Hansaria<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nKRISHNAN KAKKANTN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/10\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nS.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nG.N. RAY, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Heard   learned\tcounsel\t  for\tthe   parties.\t The<br \/>\nconstitutional validity\t of  the  circular  dated  19.5.1995<br \/>\nissued\tby   the  Secretary  to\t the  Government  of  Kerala<br \/>\ndirecting  that\t  for\tdistribution   of   pumpsets   under<br \/>\ncomprehensive  coconut\t Development  Programme\t  and  other<br \/>\nsimilar schemes\t of the\t Agriculture Department and in order<br \/>\nto streamline  the implementation  of the schemes specifying<br \/>\nspecific roles\tand responsibilities  for different agencies<br \/>\ninvolved, M\/S  Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (KAICO and<br \/>\nRegional Agro  Industries Corporation (RAIDCO) would arrange<br \/>\nsupply of  pump[sets in\t the districts of Kesarkoda, Kanner,<br \/>\nvyanad,\t Koznikoda,   Malappuram,  Palekkao,   Trissur\t and<br \/>\nKottayam and  in the  remaining districts,  supply  will  be<br \/>\neffected by  private dealers  along with  KAICO and  RAIDCO,<br \/>\nsince challenged  by the  appellants in\t O.P. No.  16115  of<br \/>\n1995, but  upheld by the impugned judgment on the High Court<br \/>\ndated February,\t 1996 is  in question  in this\tappeal, Such<br \/>\nwrit petition  was disposed  by a common judgment along with<br \/>\nother writ  petitions being  O.A. Nos,\t13936 and  14454  of<br \/>\n1995, In  the said  other writ petitions, the constitutional<br \/>\nvalidity of  the circular  dated  30.3.1989  issued  by\t the<br \/>\nRegistrar of  Co-operative Societies  inter  alia  directing<br \/>\nthat all  the Land  Development Banks, District Co-operative<br \/>\nBanks and  Service Co-operative Banks in the State of Kerala<br \/>\nwould patronise\t RAIDCO to  the fullest extent in preference<br \/>\nto private dealers in the matter of purchase of Agro Machine<br \/>\nunder the  scheme financed  by the  Bank\/Societies and at in<br \/>\nany rate not less than 75% of total requirement of such Agro<br \/>\nMachines should be purchased through RAIDCO, was challenged.<br \/>\nThe High Court has also upheld the validity of such circular<br \/>\nby the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It may  be stated\tthat in the circular dated 19.9.1995<br \/>\nissued by  the Secretary  to the Government of Kerala it was<br \/>\nalso indicated that pumpsets and accessories of the farmer&#8217;s<br \/>\nchoice alone  should be\t supplied  and\tafter  sale  service<br \/>\nfacility should\t be provided  by suppliers\/dealers.  It\t was<br \/>\nalso indicated\tthat the  cost of  pumpsets and\t accessories<br \/>\nwould be  supplied at  a lesser price than that fixed by the<br \/>\nState level Technical Committee and necessary advance amount<br \/>\nwould be  provided to  KAICO and  RAIDCO for  taking advance<br \/>\naction for implementing the scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It will  also be  appropriate  to\tstate  that  in\t the<br \/>\ncircular dated\t30.3.1989 issued  by the  Registrar  of\t Co-<br \/>\noperative Societies,  it was  indicated that  RAIDCO was the<br \/>\nonly  co-operative  in\tthe  state  under  the\tCo-operative<br \/>\nDepartment, having  a net  work of branches for distribution<br \/>\nof all\tsorts of  pumpsets etc.\t RAIDCO\t has  dealership  of<br \/>\nalmost all  important pumpsets\tmanufactures in\t the country<br \/>\nand   RAIDCO\twas   sole    distributor   for\t   Villiers,<br \/>\nPetrol\/Kerosene engines\t manufactured by  M\/s Enfield  India<br \/>\nLtd. In\t addition, RAIDCO  has set up its factory at Palghat<br \/>\nwith NCDC  assistance for  the manufacture  of\tpumpsets  in<br \/>\ncollaboration  with   M\/s  Kirloskar  Bros.  Explaining\t the<br \/>\njustification of the said circular, it was also indicated:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Though  this   is\t a  Co-operative<br \/>\n     Institution, it  is felt  that  the<br \/>\n     Co-operative  bank\t  including  the<br \/>\n     Land Development Banks in the State<br \/>\n     do\t not   patronise,  this\t society<br \/>\n     faces   stiff    competition   with<br \/>\n     private dealers.  The District  Co-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     op. Bank,\tCannanore and  Kasargode<br \/>\n     have taken\t policy decisions to the<br \/>\n     effect that the loans sanctioned by<br \/>\n     them to  the primary societies, for<br \/>\n     the   purchase    of   Agricultural<br \/>\n     implements\t shall\tbe  routed  only<br \/>\n     through  this   Co-operative.  This<br \/>\n     being a  society  assisted\t by  the<br \/>\n     Government\t substantially,\t  it  is<br \/>\n     necessary\tin   the  interests   of<br \/>\n     Government also  that it  functions<br \/>\n     properly with good business.<br \/>\n\t  In the  circumstances. all the<br \/>\n     Land  Development\tBanks.\tDistrict<br \/>\n     Co-op.  Banks   and   Service   Co-<br \/>\n     operative Banks  in the  State  are<br \/>\n     directed to patronise RAIDCO to the<br \/>\n     fullest  extent  in  preference  to<br \/>\n     private dealers.  At any  rate  not<br \/>\n     less  than\t  75%\tof   the   total<br \/>\n     requirement  of   Agro  Machineries<br \/>\n     under the\tscheme financed\t by  the<br \/>\n     Banks\/Societies should be purchased<br \/>\n     through RAIDCO.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant, has\tsubmitted that\tthe circular  dated  19.5.95<br \/>\nissued\tby   the  Secretary  to\t the  Government  of  Kerala<br \/>\ndirecting that\tin eight districts mentioned in the circular<br \/>\nonly RAIDCO  and KAICO\twould arrange supply of pumpsets and<br \/>\nin other  parts of  the State  of Kerala the said RAIDCO and<br \/>\nKAICO  along   with  private   dealers\twould\tarrange\t the<br \/>\ndistribution of\t such pumpsets\tunder Comprehensive  Coconut<br \/>\nDevelopment Programme  and other  similar  schemes,  offends<br \/>\nArticles 14 and 19(i) (g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal has contended that private dealers in the<br \/>\nState of  Kerala have  a  fundamental  right  under  Article<br \/>\n19(1)(g) of  the Constitution  to carry\t on the\t business or<br \/>\nsale of\t pumpsets and  dealership in  the  pumpsets  without<br \/>\nbeing subjected\t to any\t unreasonable  restriction  in\tsuch<br \/>\ntrading activities.  The aforesaid  circular imposes embargo<br \/>\non the\tfarmers of  eight  districts  covered  by  financial<br \/>\nschemes\t introduced  by\t the  Government  to  purchase\tsuch<br \/>\npumpsets from  any dealer  of their  choice. They  have been<br \/>\ncompelled to  select pumpsets  to be  offered by  RAIDCO and<br \/>\nKAICO only  even if  better terms and conditions of sale and<br \/>\nafter sales service are offered by private dealers.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal  has submitted  that it  does not require<br \/>\nany imagination\t to accept that majority of the farmers will<br \/>\ntake the  financial assistance\tunder the schemes introduced<br \/>\nby the\tGovernment  for\t purchase  of  pump  sets.  If\tsuch<br \/>\nmajority of  consumers of pumpsets are compelled to purchase<br \/>\nfrom the  said tow  organizations, namely, RAIDCO and KAICO,<br \/>\nthe private dealers right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g)<br \/>\nto carry  on trading  activities without  being subjected to<br \/>\nunreasonable restriction, is bound to suffer.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr Venugopal  has further\tsubmitted  that\t fundamental<br \/>\nright guaranteed  under Article\t 19(1) (g)  may\t not  be  an<br \/>\nabsolute right and such right may be subjected to reasonable<br \/>\nrestriction but\t such reasonable  restriction may be imposed<br \/>\nby statutory law and regulation on cogent grounds justifying<br \/>\nthe reasonable\trestriction imposed  with reference  to\t the<br \/>\nobject for  which reasonable restriction is imposed. In this<br \/>\nconnection. Mr.\t Venugopal has\trelied on a decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in  Kharak Singh\tVersus State  of U.P.  (AIR 1963  SC<br \/>\n1295). A  Constitution Bench  of this  Court considered\t the<br \/>\nvalidity  of  Regulation  236  clause  (b)  of\tU.P.  police<br \/>\nRegulations. It\t has been  held in the said decision that if<br \/>\nthe  petitioner\t  who  has   challenged\t the  constitutional<br \/>\nvalidity of  the Regulation  is able  to establish  that the<br \/>\nimpugned Regulation  constitutes an  infringement of  any of<br \/>\nthe freedom  guaranteed to him by the Constitution, then the<br \/>\nonly manner in which this violation of the fundamental right<br \/>\ncan be\tdefended is  by justifying the impugned action taken<br \/>\nby the\tpolice under  the said\tRegulation by reference to a<br \/>\nvalid law,  i.e. be  it a  statute, a  statutory  law  or  a<br \/>\nstatutory regulation.\t\t   (emphasis supplied)<br \/>\n     The regulation  contained in  Chapter XX  of  the\tU.P.<br \/>\nPolice Regulations  under which\t Regulation 237\t is  placed,<br \/>\nhave no\t such statutory\t basis but  are merely\texecutive or<br \/>\ndepartmental instructions  framed for  the guidance  of\t the<br \/>\npolice officers.  They are,  therefore, not  a law which the<br \/>\nState is  entitled to make under relevant clauses (2) to (6)<br \/>\nof Article  19 in  order to  regulate or curtail fundamental<br \/>\nrights guaranteed by the several clauses under Article 19(1)<br \/>\nnor can the same be &#8220;a procedure established by law.&#8221; within<br \/>\nArticle 21 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal  has submitted  that as the said circular<br \/>\nof the Government clearly impinges upon the right to trading<br \/>\nactivities of  dealers in pumpsets etc. and such restriction<br \/>\nagainst free  and uncontrolled trading activities guaranteed<br \/>\nunder Article  19  of  the  Constitution  is  sought  to  be<br \/>\nimposed, not  through any  statute or  statutory  rules\t and<br \/>\nregulations or by any procedure established by law, but only<br \/>\non the basis of executive direction of the State Government,<br \/>\nthe said unreasonable restriction sought to be introduced by<br \/>\nthe said impugned circular must be held violative of Article<br \/>\n19(1) (g) of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal  has\t contended  that  it  has  not\tbeen<br \/>\ndemonstrated that as a matter of fact the private dealers in<br \/>\nthe said eight districts were not supplying genuine pump set<br \/>\netc. or\t they were  charging price  for such implements at a<br \/>\nrate higher  that offered  by RAIDCO  or KAICO or that after<br \/>\nsales service  of  the\tprivate\t dealers  is  unsatisfactory<br \/>\nthereby causing\t  hardship  to the  farmers purchasing\tpump<br \/>\nsets etc.  from the  private dealers. Accordingly, there can<br \/>\nnot be\tany reasonable\tground to give a favorable treatment<br \/>\nto a  particular dealer or dealers and by giving unjustified<br \/>\nfavorable  treatment   to  such\t  dealers.  an\t unfortunate<br \/>\nsituation has  been created  by which  right to free trading<br \/>\nactivities of  the dealers  in pump  sets etc.\tis seriously<br \/>\ninfringed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Venugopal  has also  submitted that a vast majority<br \/>\nof the\tpurchasers of  such pumps  sets etc.  are also being<br \/>\ndeprived of  their unfettered right to choose the dealers of<br \/>\ntheir choice  of such  pump sets  because of  the embargo on<br \/>\nsuch farmers  who have been given financial assistance under<br \/>\nthe schemes  of the  State Government  that they are to take<br \/>\ndelivery of  pump sets\tonly from  two dealers namely RAIDCO<br \/>\nand  KAICO.   While  the  farmers  covered  under  financial<br \/>\nassistance in  areas outside  the said\teight districts\t are<br \/>\nfree to choose their dealers and to strike better bargain in<br \/>\nan open\t competitive market,  the farmers in eight districts<br \/>\nhave been  deprived of\tsuch free  choice and  consequential<br \/>\nopportunity of\tstriking better\t bargain on  account of open<br \/>\ncompetition.  Mr.   Venugopal  has   submitted\t that\twhen<br \/>\nGovernment has\ttaken a\t decision to  give largesses  to the<br \/>\nfarmers\t by  introducing  benevolent  schemes  of  financial<br \/>\nassistance,  the   Government  cannot  discriminate  between<br \/>\nfarmers\t of   one  area\t and  farmers  of  another  area  in<br \/>\ncontrolling  the  recipients  of  such\tlargesses.  In\tthis<br \/>\nconnection reference to the decision of this Court in Ramana<br \/>\nDayarm Shetty  versus The international Airport Authority of<br \/>\nIndia (AIR 1979 SC 1628) has been made. In the said decision<br \/>\nthis court has held:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;It must, therefore, be taken to be<br \/>\n     the law  that where  the Government<br \/>\n     in dealing with the public. Whether<br \/>\n     by way  of giving\tjobs or entering<br \/>\n     into contracts or issuing quotas or<br \/>\n     licences or granting other forms of<br \/>\n     largess, the  Government cannot act<br \/>\n     arbitrarily at  its sweet\twill and<br \/>\n     like  a  private  individual,  deal<br \/>\n     with any person it pleases, put its<br \/>\n     action must  be in\t conformity with<br \/>\n     standard  or   form  which\t is  not<br \/>\n     arbitrary,\t     irrational\t      or<br \/>\n     irrelevant. The power of discretion<br \/>\n     of the  Government in the matter of<br \/>\n     grant of largess including award of<br \/>\n     job contracts. quota, licences etc,<br \/>\n     must be  confined and structured by<br \/>\n     rational,\t relevant    and    non-<br \/>\n     discriminatory  standards\tor  norm<br \/>\n     and if  the Government departs from<br \/>\n     such  standard   or  norm\t in  any<br \/>\n     particular\t case\tof  cases,   the<br \/>\n     action of\tthe Government\twould be<br \/>\n     liable to be struck down, unless it<br \/>\n     can be shown by the Government that<br \/>\n     the departure  was\t not  arbitrary,<br \/>\n     but  was\tbased  on   some   valid<br \/>\n     principle which  in itself\t was not<br \/>\n     irrational,     unreasonable     or<br \/>\n     discriminatory&#8221;.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Mr.  Venugopal   has  submitted   that  there   is\t  no<br \/>\ndemonstrable foundation\t on fact  that there  was  impelling<br \/>\nreasons to  treat the  farmers of  eight districts,  who got<br \/>\nfinancial  assistance\tunder  the   schemes  of  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment differently,\t thereby  compelling  them  to\ttake<br \/>\ndelivery of  pump sets\tfrom only  two dealers.\t Hence, such<br \/>\naction\tmust   be  held\t to  be\t arbitrary,  capricious\t and<br \/>\ndiscriminatory\twithout\t  being\t informed   by\treason.\t The<br \/>\ncircular is  therefore liable  to be struck down also on the<br \/>\nscore of  offending  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  Mr<br \/>\nVenugopal has  submitted  that\tthe  impugned  circular\t has<br \/>\nresulted in  creating a discriminatory monopoly in favour of<br \/>\nonly two  dealers in the eight districts of the State in the<br \/>\ndealership business because by and large most of the farmers<br \/>\npurchasing pump\t sets etc. are covered by schemes introduced<br \/>\nby the\tGovernment. Mr.\t Venugopal, therefore, has submitted<br \/>\nthat the  hostile discrimination meted out to the farmers of<br \/>\neight districts\t and also  dealers in pump sets etc. without<br \/>\nany just  reason, must\tbe held violative of Articles 14 and<br \/>\n19 of  the Constitution\t and should  be struck\tdown by this<br \/>\nCourt by allowing this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. K.N.  Bhat, learned  Additional  Solicitor  General<br \/>\nappearing for  the State of Kerala, has however disputed the<br \/>\ncontentions of\tMr. Venugopal.\tHe  has\t submitted  that  no<br \/>\naction has  been taken\tby the\tGovernment  to\tregulate  or<br \/>\ncontrol the  business of dealership of pump sets etc. in the<br \/>\nState of Kerala. Hence question of violating the fundamental<br \/>\nright  guaranteed   under  Article   19\t (i)   (g)  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution does  not arise.  Mr. Bhat\t has submitted\tthat<br \/>\nunless any  action has a direct impact on the right to carry<br \/>\non any\ttrade or  business, such action cannot be held to be<br \/>\nviolative of  fundamental  right  guaranteed  under  Article<br \/>\n19(i) (g).  If the  action of  the executive only indirectly<br \/>\ncreates some  prejudice in carrying on any trade or business<br \/>\nsuch action  per se  does not  offend Article  19(i) (g). In<br \/>\nsupport of  such contention,  Mr Bhat  has referred  to\t the<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court\t in  Viklad  Coal  Merchant  Patiala<br \/>\nversus Union  of India\t(1984 (1) SCR 657 (682). In the said<br \/>\ncase, the  Coal Merchant challenged the vires of Section 27A<br \/>\nof the\tIndian Railways\t Act and  circular issued thereunder<br \/>\nrelating to  preferential  Traffic  Schedule  providing\t for<br \/>\npriorities for\tmovement of  different goods. A circular was<br \/>\nissued by  the\tMinistry  of  Railways\tin  connection\twith<br \/>\nmovement of  some goods\t including coal. The petitioners who<br \/>\nwere coal  merchants, alleged  that  sum  total\t of  various<br \/>\nrestrictions imposed  by giving\t abbreviation GX against all<br \/>\nway side  stations in  the coal belt and restricting loading<br \/>\nof coal\t in wagons  from the  stations categorised as GX and<br \/>\nintroducing  preferential   Traffic   Schedule,\t  in   their<br \/>\ncumulative effect resulted in total ban on transport of coal<br \/>\nby  Railways   at  their  instance  and\t such  actions\twere<br \/>\nviolative of  Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.<br \/>\nRepelling such\tcontention, it\thas been  held by this Court<br \/>\nthat whenever  the court  is  called  upon  to\texamine\t the<br \/>\ncomplaint that\trestrictions imposed on the freedom to carry<br \/>\non trade  are unreasonable, it is necessary to find out what<br \/>\nis the\ttrade and business of the complainant-petitioner and<br \/>\nto what\t extent the restriction, if any, is imposed upon the<br \/>\nfreedom to  carry on trade or business and then to determine<br \/>\nwhether the  restriction is&#8217;  reasonable or  not. It  is the<br \/>\ndirect impact  of the restriction on the freedom to carry on<br \/>\ntrade that  has to  be kept in view and not the ancillary or<br \/>\nincidental effects of the governmental action on the freedom<br \/>\nto carry on trade.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t (Emphasis supplied)<br \/>\nIt has\talso been indicated that prima facie it appears that<br \/>\npetitioners business or trade as coal merchants is in no way<br \/>\ninterfered with by the Railways by not being able to provide<br \/>\ntransport facilities.  Railway is  not\tthe  only  means  of<br \/>\ntransport. There  are other means of transport by which coal<br \/>\ncan be\ttransported by\tthe petitioners\t to their respective<br \/>\nplace of  business. Even  assuming that the direct impact of<br \/>\nthe policy  laid down by the Railway administration pursuant<br \/>\nto the\torders of  the Central\tGovernment under Section 27A<br \/>\nresults\t in   denial  of  the  allotment  of  wagon  to\t the<br \/>\npetitioners,  the   restriction\t will\tnone-the  -less\t  be<br \/>\nreasonable because  petitioners are  not wholly\t denied\t the<br \/>\nallotment of wagons. (Emphasis Supplied)<br \/>\n     Mr. Bhat  has contended that trading activities in pump<br \/>\nsets etc  have not been controlled or regulated. Even within<br \/>\nthe area  comprising the said eight districts, any dealer is<br \/>\nfree to\t carry on  its trading activities in respect of pump<br \/>\nsets. By  the impugned\tcircular, the  State Government\t has<br \/>\nonly ensured  that farmers  in the  said eight districts who<br \/>\nhave been  given financial  assistance under a scheme of the<br \/>\nGovernment, should  take delivery  of pump  sets from RAIDCO<br \/>\nand KAICO,  Any other  farmer or  purchaser is quite free to<br \/>\nchoose his  dealer. Such  limited restriction  is&#8217; also\t not<br \/>\nthere in  respect of  farmers, even  though covered  by\t the<br \/>\nfinancial assistance under the scheme of the Government, who<br \/>\nare outside the area comprising the said eight districts. It<br \/>\nis, therefore  quite apparent  that there is no total ban of<br \/>\npurchase of  pump sets\tfrom private dealers in the State of<br \/>\nKerala.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bhat  has submitted  that it  is quite\t open to the<br \/>\nGovernments to\tselect appropriate  dealers in pump sets for<br \/>\nsupply of  pump sets  to farmers  or agriculturists  to whom<br \/>\nfinancial assistance  has been\tgiven under  scheme  of\t the<br \/>\nState Government.  After all,  the State  Government will be<br \/>\nwithin its  right to ensure supply of genuine pump sets at a<br \/>\ndesired price  and proper  after sales\tservice through\t its<br \/>\napproved  dealers   so\tthat  the  schemes  are\t effectively<br \/>\nimplemented by appropriate utilization of the pump sets over<br \/>\na reasonable  period and, on such utilization, the concerned<br \/>\nfarmer may  day back  the financial  assistance received  by<br \/>\nhim.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr.  Bhat\thas  further  submitted\t that  the  impugned<br \/>\ncircular clearly  indicates that  for distribution  of\tpump<br \/>\nsets  under   the  schemes   of\t the   Government  and\t for<br \/>\nstreamlining the  implementation of  the schemes  specifying<br \/>\nspecific rules\tand responsibilities  of different  agencies<br \/>\ninvolved. the directions contained in the circular have been<br \/>\ngiven.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bhat has also submitted that there is no compulsion<br \/>\nto any\tof the\tfarmers to  get covered under the scheme. If<br \/>\nany farmer  within the\tsaid eight  districts, feels that it<br \/>\nwill be\t more advantageous  for him to take delivery of pump<br \/>\nsets  from  a  dealers,\t he  may  not  avail  the  financial<br \/>\nassistance under the scheme. It is only when such assistance<br \/>\nis to  be taken\t the choice of selecting dealer has not been<br \/>\nleft to his discretion.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bhat has contended that it is immaterial if some of<br \/>\nthe dealers  are  prepared  to\tsupply\tpump  sets  on\tmore<br \/>\nfavorable terms.  In the  instant case,\t the Government\t has<br \/>\nfelt that  pump sets  should be\t supplied to farmers covered<br \/>\nunder the financial assistance scheme through the dealers of<br \/>\nits choice  in eight  districts. The  choice of\t dealers has<br \/>\nalso not  been made  on the  josi dixit\t of the Governmental<br \/>\nauthorities. The  circular issued  by the  Secretary of\t Co-<br \/>\noperative Societies  has indicated  that RAIDCO\t is the only<br \/>\nstate sponsored\t Co-operative Society  having dealership  of<br \/>\nalmost all  varieties of pump sets. It has been ensures that<br \/>\nboth RAIDCO  and KAICO\twill sell pump sets at a price lower<br \/>\nthan that  fixed by State Level Technical Committee and will<br \/>\ngive proper  after sales  service. In the impugned circular,<br \/>\nit has\tbeen indicated that necessary advance amount will be<br \/>\nprovided to  RAIDCO and\t KAICO for taking advance action for<br \/>\nimplementing the  scheme. Mr  Bhat has submitted  that it is<br \/>\nnot feasible to give advance to large number of dealers. Nor<br \/>\nis it  a practicable  proposition to  keep proper  watch and<br \/>\nsupervision in\tthe functioning\t of large number of dealers.<br \/>\nTherefore selection  of the  said  two\tdealers\t is  neither<br \/>\nunreasonable nor capricious.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Bhat  has also\t submitted that for the entire state<br \/>\nof Kerala,  the said two dealers could have been selected by<br \/>\nthe  State  Government\tas  approved  dealers.\tBut  as\t Co-<br \/>\noperative movement  is less  organised in  areas outside the<br \/>\nsaid eight  districts, the State Government did not feel any<br \/>\nnecessity to ensure purchase of pump sets in such areas only<br \/>\nfrom said  two dealers.\t Mr Bhat  has, therefore,  submitted<br \/>\nthat any  interference by  this Court  against the  impugned<br \/>\njudgment is not called for and appeal should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr Dipankar Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe other respondents, has also supported the contentions of<br \/>\nMr Bhat.  Mr. Gupta  has submitted  that RAIDCO\t is a  state<br \/>\nowned co-operative  society having  large number of branches<br \/>\nin the State of Kerala. It has also the dealership of almost<br \/>\nall brands  of pump  sets. It also manufactures pump sets in<br \/>\ncollaboration\twith\tKirlosker,RAIDCO    has\t   elaborate<br \/>\narrangement for\t after\tsales  service.\t KAICO\tis  also  an<br \/>\nestablished Co-operative  Society having  dealership in pump<br \/>\nsets. The  Government,\tproviding  finance  to\tfarmers\t and<br \/>\nagriculturists,\t  providing    finance\t to    farmers\t and<br \/>\nagriculturist, certainly  has anxiety  to ensured  that such<br \/>\nfarmers and  agriculturists should  get supply\tof pump sets<br \/>\nfrom  such   dealer  on\t which\tthe  Government\t may  repose<br \/>\nconfidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>     If on  such consideration,\t the two  dealers have\tbeen<br \/>\nselected  for\tsupplying  pump\t  sets\tin  the\t said  eight<br \/>\ndistricts, to  the farmers  and agriculturists, no exception<br \/>\ncan  be\t taken\tby  alleging  that  such  course  of  action<br \/>\ninfringes Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Gupta has submitted that dealership business in the<br \/>\nState of  Kerala or  in the region comprising the said eight<br \/>\ndistricts has not been regulated and controlled. It is still<br \/>\nopen to\t all the  dealers to  carry on trading activities in<br \/>\nthe dealership\tof pump\t sets in  such areas.  Mr Gupta\t has<br \/>\nfurther submitted that the executive instructive instruction<br \/>\nof the\tState Government  in fixing two dealers in the eight<br \/>\ndistricts has  been issued for streamlining and safeguarding<br \/>\nthe interest  of  the  Government  because  of\tlarge  scale<br \/>\nmalpractices prevalent\tand found  to be  indulged in by the<br \/>\nprivate pump  set dealers  contrary to\tthe interest  of the<br \/>\neconomy of the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Referring to  the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2<br \/>\nRAIDCO. Mr  Gupta has  submitted that  is was brought to the<br \/>\nnotice\tof   the  Agricultural\t Department  of\t  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment  that  false\t invoice  had  been  issued  without<br \/>\neffecting actual  sale of  the pump sets with a view to draw<br \/>\nloans,\tsubsidies  and\tother  financial  benefit  from\t the<br \/>\nGovernment. There  had been newspaper report about this wide<br \/>\nspread manipulations and irregularities in the activities of<br \/>\nvarious private\t dealers in  the matter of sale of pump sets<br \/>\nagainst\t subsidies   and  financial   assistance  from\t the<br \/>\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Gupta has also contended that it has been indicated<br \/>\nin  the\t counter  affidavit  of\t respondent  No.2  that\t co-<br \/>\noperative  movements   are  stronger   in  northern  regions<br \/>\ncomprising the said eight districts where pump sets are sold<br \/>\nin large  numbers. There was, therefore, a felt necessity to<br \/>\nfix approved  dealers in  such ares  by the  Government. Mr.<br \/>\nGupta  has  further  contended\tthat  the  dealers  are\t not<br \/>\nrecipients  of\t loans\tor  financial  assistance  from\t the<br \/>\nGovernment. The\t farmers have not raised any dispute that by<br \/>\nthe impugned  Government circular,  they have  suffered\t any<br \/>\nprejudice  whatsoever,\tThe  selection\tof  two\t dealers  in<br \/>\nnorthern region\t of the\t State is  not only within the right<br \/>\nand competence of the State Government but such selection is<br \/>\nnot also  otherwise arbitrary,\tcapricious and unreasonable.<br \/>\nHence, question of infringement of Articles 14 and 19 of the<br \/>\nConstitution does  not arise.  The appeal should, therefore,<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After giving our careful consideration to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of  the  case  and  submissions  made  by\t the<br \/>\nlearned counsel\t for the  parties, it appears to us that the<br \/>\nfundamental right  for trading\tactivities of the dealers in<br \/>\npump sets in the State of Kerala as guaranteed under Article<br \/>\n19(1) (g)  of the Constitution has not been infringed by the<br \/>\nimpugned  circular.   Fundamental  rights  guaranteed  under<br \/>\nArticle 19 of the Constitution are not absolute but the same<br \/>\nare subject to reasonable restrictions to be imposed against<br \/>\nenjoyment of  such rights. Such reasonable restriction seeks<br \/>\nto strike a balance between the freedom guaranteed by any of<br \/>\nthe clauses  under Article  19(1)  and\tthe  social  control<br \/>\npermitted by the clauses (2) to (6) under Article 19.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The reasonableness\t of restriction\t is to be determined<br \/>\nin an  objective manner\t and  from  the\t standpoint  of\t the<br \/>\ninterests of  general public  and not from the standpoint of<br \/>\nthe interests  of the  persons upon whom the restriction are<br \/>\nimposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot<br \/>\nbe said\t to be\tunreasonable merely because in a given case,<br \/>\nit operates  harshly and  even if  the persons\taffected  be<br \/>\npetty traders (AIR 1958 SC 73- Hanif Versus State of Bihar).<br \/>\nIn determining\tthe infringement  of  the  right  guaranteed<br \/>\nunder Article  19(1), the  nature of  right alleged  to have<br \/>\nbeen infringed,\t the underlying\t purpose of  the restriction<br \/>\nimposed, the  extent and  urgency of  the evil\tsought to be<br \/>\nremedied thereby,  the disproportion  of the imposition, the<br \/>\nprevailing conditions  at  the\ttime,  enter  into  judicial<br \/>\nverdict (AIR  1981 SC  673 Laxmi ) versus State of U.P.; AIR<br \/>\n1968 SC\t 1323 Treveli Versus State of Gujarat and Herekchand<br \/>\nvs. Union of India. India. AIR 1970 SC 1453).\n<\/p>\n<p>     Under Clause (1) (g) of Article 19, every citizen has a<br \/>\nfreedom and  right to  choose his  own employment or take up<br \/>\nany trade  or calling  subject only  to the  limits as my be<br \/>\nimposed by  the State in the interests of public welfare and<br \/>\nthe other grounds mentioned in clause (6) of Article 19. But<br \/>\nit  may\t  be  emphasised  that\tthe  Constitution  does\t not<br \/>\nrecognise  franchise   or  rights   to\tbusiness  which\t are<br \/>\ndependent on  grants by\t the State  or business\t affected by<br \/>\npublic interest Saghir vs. State of U.P. 1955 (1) SCR 707).\n<\/p>\n<p>     It may  be indicated that where a right is conferred on<br \/>\na particular  individual or  group  of\tindividuals  to\t the<br \/>\nexclusion of  others, the reasonableness of restrictions has<br \/>\nto  be\t determined  with  reference  to  the  circumstances<br \/>\nrelating to  the trade or business in question. Canalisation<br \/>\nof a  particular business  in favour of specified individual<br \/>\nhas been held reasonable by this Court where vital interests<br \/>\nof the\tcommunity are concerned or when the business affects<br \/>\nthe economy  of the  country (P.T.C.S Vs. R.T.A. AIR 1960 SC<br \/>\n801: Meenakshi Mills Vs. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 366 and<br \/>\nLala Harichand\tSeroa Vs.  Mizo District  Council   and Anr,<br \/>\n1967(1) SCR 1012).\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t is   true  that   even\t for   imposing\t  reasonable<br \/>\nrestriction  on\t  the  fundamental  right  guaranteed  under<br \/>\nArticle 19(1),\tthe restriction\t is to\tbe imposed  under  a<br \/>\nvalid law,  be it  a statutory\tlaw or statutory regulation,<br \/>\nand not\t by any\t executive instruction\tof  the\t Government.<br \/>\n[Knarak Singh&#8217;s case (supra)].\n<\/p>\n<p>     But  in   the  instant   case,  no\t  fundamental  right<br \/>\nguaranteed under  Article 19(1)\t (g) of the Constitution has<br \/>\nbeen infringed.\t Hence, question of invalidity on account of<br \/>\nimposition of reasonable restriction on the exercise of such<br \/>\nright by executive order instead by a statute does not arise<br \/>\nin the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It may  be indicated  that although  a  citizen  has  a<br \/>\nfundamental right to carry on a trade or business, he has no<br \/>\nfundamental right to insist upon the Government or any other<br \/>\nindividual for doing business with him. Any government or an<br \/>\nindividual has\tgot a  right to\t enter into  contract with a<br \/>\nparticular person or to determine person or person with whom<br \/>\nhe or it will deal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  instant case,  the farmer\tor agriculturist who<br \/>\nhas chosen  to receive\tsubsidies  or  financial  assistance<br \/>\nunder the  schemes of  the Government  has an  obligation to<br \/>\naccept the  terms and conditions for such assistance. One of<br \/>\nsuch condition\tis that in the northern region of the state.<br \/>\nPump set for which financial assistance has been given is to<br \/>\nbe purchased  from the\tapproved dealers  of the Government.<br \/>\nThe private dealer cannot insist that the Government is also<br \/>\nto enter  into contract with any such private dealer to make<br \/>\nit an  approved dealer. Since the Government has every right<br \/>\nto select dealers of its choice for delivery or pump sets at<br \/>\nthe price  agreed  upon and to render after sales service to<br \/>\nthe  purchasers\t of  pump  sets\t covered  by  its  financial<br \/>\nassistance  scheme.   It  is  not  open\t to  challenge\tsuch<br \/>\nselection of  dealers  on  the\tscore  that  such  selection<br \/>\namounts to  unreasonable restriction  imposed on the dealers<br \/>\nof the State to carry on trading activities in pump sets. It<br \/>\nis nobody&#8217;s case that all the farmers and agriculturist have<br \/>\nbeen  compulsorily   covered  under  such  schemes.  On\t the<br \/>\ncontrary, it  is open  to any farmer or agriculturist not to<br \/>\nvolunteer for taking such assistance.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It has  already been  indicated that  in Vikalad&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra), it has been held by this Court that infringement of<br \/>\nfundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) must have a direct<br \/>\nimpact on  the restriction  on the freedom to carry on trade<br \/>\nand not\t ancillary or  incidental effects on such freedom to<br \/>\ntrade and  not\tancillary  or  incidental  effects  on\tsuch<br \/>\nfreedom to  trade arising out of any governmental action. It<br \/>\nhas also  been held  in that  case that unless the trader or<br \/>\nmerchant is  not wholly\t denied to  carry on  his trade, the<br \/>\nrestriction imposed  in denying\t the allotment\tof wagon  in<br \/>\nfavour of  such trader\tor merchant  to transport  coal\t for<br \/>\ncarrying put  trading activities  does\tnot  offend  Article<br \/>\n19(1) (g)  of the  Constitution.  No  restriction  has\tbeen<br \/>\nimposed on  the trading\t activity of dealers in pump sets in<br \/>\nthe State  of Kerala  including northern  region  comprising<br \/>\neight districts.  Even in  such area,  a dealer\t is free  to<br \/>\ncarry on  his business.\t Such dealer, even in the absence of<br \/>\nthe said  circular, cannot  claim as a matter of fundamental<br \/>\nright guaranteed  under Article\t 19(1) (g)  that a farmer or<br \/>\nagriculturist must  enter into\ta business  deal  with\tsuch<br \/>\ntrader in  the matter  of purchase  of pump sets. Similarly,<br \/>\nsuch trader  also cannot  claim that  the Government  should<br \/>\nalso accept him as an approved dealer of the Government. The<br \/>\ntrading activity  in dealership\t of pump sheets has not been<br \/>\nstopped or  even  controlled  or  regulated  generally.\t The<br \/>\ndealer can  deal with  purchasers of  pump sets\t without any<br \/>\ncontrol imposed\t on  it\t to  carry  on\tsuch  business.\t The<br \/>\nobligation  to\t purchase  from\t approved  dealer  has\tbeen<br \/>\nfastened only  to  such\t farmer\t or  agriculturist  who\t has<br \/>\nvolunteered to\taccept financial assistance under the scheme<br \/>\non various terms and conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In our  view the  impugned\t circular  does\t not  offend<br \/>\nArticle 14  of the  constitution. The direction contained in<br \/>\nsaid  circular\t cannot\t be   held  to\t be  vitiated  being<br \/>\narbitrary,capricious or\t unreasonable. The impugned circular<br \/>\nspecifically mentions that in order to implement the schemes<br \/>\nintroduced by the Government for streamlining specific rules<br \/>\nand responsibilities  of different  agencies  involved,\t the<br \/>\ndirections contained in the circular have been given. It has<br \/>\nbeen placed  on record that it\twas brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthe agricultural  department   of the  State Government that<br \/>\nfalse invoice  had been issued by dealers with out effecting<br \/>\nactual sales  with a view to draw loans, subsidies and other<br \/>\nfinancial  benefits   from  the\t  Government.  Reports\twere<br \/>\npublished in  newspapers about\twide spread manipulation and<br \/>\nirregularities in  the activities  of various dealers in the<br \/>\npumpsets. It  is also  not in  dispute that  RAIDCO is\tonly<br \/>\ngovernment controlled  co-operative society  in the State of<br \/>\nwhich  eighty\tper  cent  capital  was\t subscribed  by\t the<br \/>\nGovernment. The\t other approved\t dealer KAICO  is also a Co-<br \/>\noperative society  involved in\tdealership of  pump sets. If<br \/>\nthe State  Government on  consideration of  such  facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances and  to ensure  genuine sale  of pump  sets at<br \/>\nproper price  with effective  after sales  service has\tfelt<br \/>\nthat farmers  covered by  financial assistance scheme should<br \/>\nbe fastened  with an  obligation to  purchase pump sets only<br \/>\nfrom approved  dealers in  a region where according to State<br \/>\nGovernment there  is a\tfelt  need  of\tpurchase  from\tsuch<br \/>\napproved dealers,  it cannot be held that such action of the<br \/>\nState Government  lies in  its\tipsi  dixit,  without  being<br \/>\ninformed by any reason.\n<\/p>\n<p>     To ascertain  unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the<br \/>\ncontext of  Article  14\t of  the  Constitution,\t it  is\t not<br \/>\nnecessary to  enter upon  any exercise\tfor finding  out the<br \/>\nwisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is<br \/>\nimmaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision<br \/>\ncould have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be<br \/>\ndemonstrated that  the policy  decision\t is  unwise  and  is<br \/>\nlikely to  defeat the  purpose for  which such\tdecision has<br \/>\nbeen taken.  Unless  the  policy  decision  is\tdemonstrably<br \/>\ncapricious or  arbitrary and  not  informed  by\t any  reason<br \/>\nwhatsoever or  it suffers from the vice of discrimination or<br \/>\ninfringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution, the<br \/>\npolicy decision\t can not  be struck down. It should be borne<br \/>\nin mind\t that except  for the  limited purpose\tof testing a<br \/>\npublic\t policy\t  in   the   context   of   illegality\t and<br \/>\nunconstitutionality,  court  should  avoid  &#8221;  embarking  on<br \/>\nuncharted ocean of public policy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     The contention  that the impugned circular suffers from<br \/>\nhostile discrimination\tmeted out to the farmers in northern<br \/>\nregion of  the State  covered by  the  financial  assistance<br \/>\nunder the Governmental schemes, by fastening such assistance<br \/>\nwith an\t obligation to\tpurchase pump sets only from the two<br \/>\napproved dealers,  cannot be  accepted in  the facts  of the<br \/>\ncase, The  reasons for\tfastening the  farmers\tof  northern<br \/>\nregion with  the obligation  to purchase  pump sets from the<br \/>\nsaid two  dealers have\tbeen indicated\tby Mr.\tBhat and Mr.<br \/>\nGupta and,  in\tour  view,  it\tcannot\tbe  held  that\tsuch<br \/>\nreasoning suffers  from lack of objectivity. The law is well<br \/>\nsettled that  even in  the matter of grant of largese, award<br \/>\nof job\tcontracts etc, the Government is permitted to depart<br \/>\nfrom the  general  norms  set  down  by\t it,  in  favour  of<br \/>\nparticular group  of persons by subjecting such persons with<br \/>\ndifferent  standard  or\t norm,\tif  such  departure  is\t not<br \/>\narbitrary but  based on some valid principle which in itself<br \/>\nis not\tirrational, unreasonable  or discriminatory [Dayaram<br \/>\nShetty&#8217;s case (supra)].\n<\/p>\n<p>     It may  be stated\there that  Mr.Venugopal&#8217;s contention<br \/>\nthat the  impugned circular has resulted in black listing of<br \/>\nthe private dealers of pump sets without even giving them an<br \/>\nopportunity of\tbeing heard cannot be accepted. In our view,<br \/>\nit cannot  be reasonably  contended that  if the  Government<br \/>\nselects a  dealer as  its approved  dealer the same may mean<br \/>\nthat all  the other  dealers have  been\t black\tlisted.\t The<br \/>\nquestion of  black listing  does not  arise  because  it  is<br \/>\nnobody&#8217;s  case\t that  all  other  dealers  were  previously<br \/>\napproved dealers  of the  Government  but  by  the  impugned<br \/>\ncircular, they\thave been  suddenly stripped  of such status<br \/>\nwithout affording them an opportunity of being heard.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  aforesaid facts,  we do  not find any reason to<br \/>\ninferfere with\tthe impugned judgment of the High Court. The<br \/>\nappeal therefore fails and is dismissed without any order as<br \/>\nto cost.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 Author: G Ray Bench: S.N. Ray, B.L. Hansaria PETITIONER: KRISHNAN KAKKANTN Vs. RESPONDENT: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/10\/1996 BENCH: S.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T G.N. [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-19T20:23:56+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T20:23:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\"},\"wordCount\":5607,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\",\"name\":\"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T20:23:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-19T20:23:56+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996","datePublished":"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T20:23:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996"},"wordCount":5607,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996","name":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T20:23:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-kakkantn-vs-government-of-kerala-and-ors-on-11-october-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnan Kakkantn vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 11 October, 1996"}]},{"@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\/60127","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=60127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}