{"id":64263,"date":"2009-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-07T10:15:36","modified_gmt":"2015-04-07T04:45:36","slug":"m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 31710 of 2007(Y)\n\n\n1. M.K.MOHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :22\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J\n                --------------------------------------------------\n                      W.P.(C) NO: 31710 of 2007\n                ---------------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2009\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the respondents by way<\/p>\n
of second punishment on the basis of same set of charges, the<\/p>\n
petitioner has filed this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2007, while<\/p>\n
working as Regional Manager at the Kannur Regional Office of the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent Corporation.        He was working as such from November,<\/p>\n
1998 onwards. One Smt.Edacherian Seetha, had filed an application<\/p>\n
for financial assistance for purchase of two plots having the extent of<\/p>\n
35 > and 18 cents of land. The application was supported by the<\/p>\n
reports of Village Officers concerned showing that the value of the land<\/p>\n
is Rs.1500\/- per cent in regard to the first item and a market value of<\/p>\n
Rs.45,000\/- with regard to the second item. Based on the above reports,<\/p>\n
the petitioner conducted a site inspection thereafter and found that the<\/p>\n
property is cultivable. Exts.P2 and P2(a) are the applications and<\/p>\n
reports of the petitioner in respect of the two items of land and in it he<\/p>\n
had certified that the lands are cultivable and going by the value shown<\/p>\n
in the applications and certified by the Village Officer concerned, the<\/p>\n
assistance can be released. When certain complaints arose regarding<\/p>\n
the utilisation of funds, he was issued a memo of charges on the basis<\/p>\n
wpc:31710 of 2007
\n                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the allegation that the valuation report does not reflect the correct<\/p>\n
value. Ext.P3 is the memo of charges to which he submitted Ext.P4<\/p>\n
explanation. After considering his explanation Ext.P5 show cause notice<\/p>\n
was issued wherein Rs.26,875\/- was shown as loss and it was proposed<\/p>\n
to fix as personal liability of the Regional Manager. He was allowed 15<\/p>\n
days time to submit an explanation, to which he responded by<\/p>\n
submitting Ext.P6. Later by Ext.P7, it was ordered that the loss to the<\/p>\n
Government should be compensated by him. He was directed to file an<\/p>\n
affidavit to the effect that he would pay to the Corporation a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.26,875\/- if the assignee fails to pay the dues in full or in case the<\/p>\n
lands in question fails to fetch the amount equal to the loan amount<\/p>\n
when it is sold in public auction due to the failure of repaying the dues<\/p>\n
by the assignee. This was responded by the petitioner by submitting<\/p>\n
Ext.8 affidavit and final proceedings were issued. Thereafter, the<\/p>\n
matters were left there.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Three years after, he was informed by Ext.P9 that it has been<\/p>\n
ordered to recover half of the amount, that is, Rs.13,438\/- from his<\/p>\n
salary in 25 installments. If he had any objection in that regard, he has<\/p>\n
to give a reply. This was issued on the ground that no recovery has<\/p>\n
been effected from the loanee. The petitioner submitted a reply to<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 show cause notice stating that the repayment period of the loan<\/p>\n
is 12 years and that steps are being taken to recover the amounts from<\/p>\n
the loanee. Ext.P10 is the reply.     Long thereafter, on 20.12.2004, he<\/p>\n
wpc:31710 of 2007
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
was issued a fresh memo of charges on the same set of facts. Ext.P12 is<\/p>\n
the explanation given by him. Therein he pointed out that in the earlier<\/p>\n
proceedings his liability already had been fixed. Ext.P13 is a further<\/p>\n
explanation given by him. Ext.P14 is the enquiry report submitted by<\/p>\n
the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued as<\/p>\n
Ext.P15, wherein he was asked to show cause as to why a penalty of<\/p>\n
realisation of difference in value of the land assessed by the Village<\/p>\n
Officer between the market value and the fair price value, that is<\/p>\n
Rs.39,438\/- should not be recovered from him. He objected to the said<\/p>\n
findings by submitting a reply Ext.P16. Finally by Ext.P17, the proposal<\/p>\n
was confirmed by assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.39,438\/-. He filed<\/p>\n
an appeal by Ext.P18. The appeal also stands rejected by Ext.P19.<\/p>\n
      4.   The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
that in the light of the finality attached to the proceedings initiated on<\/p>\n
the first memo of charges reflected in Exts.P7 to P9, there cannot be<\/p>\n
any fresh enquiry into the matter, that too on the same set of<\/p>\n
allegations. It is therefore, submitted that the proceedings resulting in<\/p>\n
Exts.P17 and P19 are without jurisdiction. He relies upon the principles<\/p>\n
laid down by this Court in Thankappan Unnithan V.State of Kerala<\/p>\n
1992 (1)KLT 263 and a decision of the Apex Court in Lt.Governor,<\/p>\n
Delhi and Others v. HC Narinder Singh (2004) 13 Supreme Court<\/p>\n
Cases 342 .\n<\/p>\n
wpc:31710 of 2007
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
      5.    The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also<\/p>\n
submitted that even going by the report, the enquiry officer was of the<\/p>\n
view that the action taken by the petitioner in relying upon the<\/p>\n
certificates of the Village Officer was correct. It was reported by the<\/p>\n
enquiry officer that the Regional Manager cannot be blamed for<\/p>\n
accepting the land value as fixed by the competent revenue authorities.<\/p>\n
It was also reported that there is no evidence of any mal practice or<\/p>\n
corruption in the deal.\n<\/p>\n
      6. This Court in Thankappan Unnithan v. State of Kerala<\/a><\/p>\n
1992 (1) KLT 263 held that “Article 20 guarantees immunity against<\/p>\n
`prosecution and punishment for the same offence’ for a second time. In<\/p>\n
the case on hand, there was no prosecution or punishment. However,<\/p>\n
postulates of fair action, require that a person ought not to suffer the<\/p>\n
same consequence twice. The Government may differ from findings<\/p>\n
made by the disciplinary authority and reach a different conclusion on<\/p>\n
the same facts.     It cannot hold another enquiry to reach another<\/p>\n
conclusion.” Finally it was held that the Government re opened the<\/p>\n
matter, held another enquiry and came to an independent conclusion,<\/p>\n
where principles of fair- play interdict such a course. In the decision of<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in Lt.Governor, Delhi and Others v. HC Narinder<\/p>\n
Singh, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 342, it was held that the<\/p>\n
second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to<\/p>\n
wpc:31710 of 2007
\n                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
deny promotion or reversion is contemplated under the impugned show<\/p>\n
cause notice. The second penalty based on the same cause of action<\/p>\n
would amount to double geopardy. In the light of the above dictum, the<\/p>\n
proceedings culminated in Exts.P17 and P19 cannot be supported. The<\/p>\n
earlier proceedings which resulted in Ext.P7, quantified the total<\/p>\n
liability as Rs.26,875\/-. He was made liable to pay the amount, only if<\/p>\n
the loanee fails to replay the amount. As directed in Ext.P7, he filed an<\/p>\n
affidavit agreeing for the said course as per Ext.P8. Since, the recovery<\/p>\n
was not effected steps continued to get the amount from him. By Ext.P9,<\/p>\n
it was informed that an amount of Rs.13,438\/- is being recovered from<\/p>\n
the salary. There is no contention that these were set aside by any<\/p>\n
higher authority to order a de novo enquiry.           The learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondents submitted that fresh memo of charges<\/p>\n
were issued based on a complaint. The memo of charges shows that the<\/p>\n
allegations are identical. They are issued on the same set of facts. If<\/p>\n
that be so, the second disciplinary action on the same set of facts will<\/p>\n
result in double geopardy. A new punishment also is imposed, to the<\/p>\n
effect that he is made to bear the difference in the market value to the<\/p>\n
tune of Rs.39,438\/-.\n<\/p>\n
       7. In that view of the matter, Exts.P17 and P19 are quashed. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P7, he was directed to file an affidavit to the effect that he would<\/p>\n
pay the Corporation a sum of Rs.26,875\/- if the assignee fails to pay the<\/p>\n
dues in full or in case the land in question fail to fetch the amount equal<\/p>\n
wpc:31710 of 2007
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
to the loan amount when it is sold in public auction due to the failure of<\/p>\n
the assignee to pay the amount. That was implemented by Ext.P9 by<\/p>\n
effecting the recovery. The contingencies covered by Ext.P7 have not<\/p>\n
arisen at all. Therefore, the recovery ordered in Ext.P9 is premature.<\/p>\n
       Pending this writ petition, the DCRG due to the petitioner after<\/p>\n
retaining the amount of Rs.39,438\/- has been released. In view of the<\/p>\n
findings rendered to above, the balance amount of Rs.39,438\/- has to be<\/p>\n
released to him. But if the contingency contemplated in Ext.P7 arises<\/p>\n
amount of liability as fixed could be recovered from the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the right of the respondents to recover the same from the<\/p>\n
petitioner is protected by the said proceedings. The respondents<\/p>\n
shall release the balance amount of Rs.39,438\/- within a period of six<\/p>\n
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ<\/p>\n
petition is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
\n                                           JUDGE<\/p>\n
bps<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 31710 of 2007(Y) 1. M.K.MOHANAN, AGED 58 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION … Respondent 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, 3. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.SASINDRAN For […]<\/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-64263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-07T04:45:36+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-07T04:45:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1485,\"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\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\",\"name\":\"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-07T04:45:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-07T04:45:36+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-07T04:45:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009"},"wordCount":1485,"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\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009","name":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development ... on 22 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-07T04:45:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-mohanan-vs-the-kerala-state-development-on-22-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K.Mohanan vs The Kerala State Development … on 22 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64263","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=64263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64263\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}