{"id":65858,"date":"2009-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-22T11:01:05","modified_gmt":"2016-11-22T05:31:05","slug":"irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 10681 of 2009(E)\n\n\n1. IRINJALAKUDA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n5. KATTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   ANTONY DOMINIC,J.\n          -----------------------------\n          W.P.(C).Nos.10681 & 13423 OF 2009\n         ------------------------------\n           Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009.\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     WP(c).No.10681\/09 is filed by the Irinjalakuda Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is stated that on 30.9.2008, the<\/p>\n
Bank passed a resolution, resolving to start a clinical lab<\/p>\n
within the municipal town of Irinjalakuda, it being the area<\/p>\n
of operation of the Society and that the same was sent to<\/p>\n
the Joint Registrar for approval. It is stated that, coming to<\/p>\n
know that certain other societies were planning to establish<\/p>\n
similar units within the area of operation of the petitioner<\/p>\n
Society, they had also represented to the authorities against<\/p>\n
sanctioning the same. At that stage apprehending that the<\/p>\n
Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd; the petitoner in WP<\/p>\n
(c).No.13423\/09 was attempting         to get the bye laws<\/p>\n
amended to extend the area of its operation into the area<\/p>\n
of operation of     Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank,<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09        2<\/span><\/p>\n
they filed WP(c).No.6537\/09 before this court, which was<\/p>\n
dismissed by Ext.P9 judgment, on the ground that the said<\/p>\n
writ petition was an anticipatory one.\n<\/p>\n
      2. It is stated that thereafter the Irinjalakuda Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank invoked the provisions of the Right to<\/p>\n
Information Act, sought for certain documents, which were<\/p>\n
furnished under the cover of Ext.P10.        Ext.P10(a) is the<\/p>\n
proceedings of the Joint Registrar, granting sanction to the<\/p>\n
Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank to establish a clinical lab,<\/p>\n
within the Irinjalakuda Municipal area. Similarly, Ext.P10(b) is<\/p>\n
another proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 18.3.2009<\/p>\n
granting sanction for establishing another clinical lab within<\/p>\n
the   Irinjalakuda Municipal area.    It is on record that the<\/p>\n
clinical labs sanctioned as per Ext.P10(a) was started on<\/p>\n
14.12.2008     and as per Ext.P10(b) was started on 23.3.2009.<\/p>\n
According to the Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank, on<\/p>\n
receipt of Ext.P10(a), they filed Ext.P11 dated 25.3.2009, a<\/p>\n
petition under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09        3<\/span><\/p>\n
Act before the Arbitration Court, which was numbered         as<\/p>\n
ARC.No.52\/09. Along with ARC.No.52\/09, they also filed<\/p>\n
Ext.P12, I.A.No.40\/09, seeking a direction to the Kattoor<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank to stop functioning of the clinical<\/p>\n
laboratories which were already functioning.<\/p>\n
         3. Immediately after filing Exts.P11 and P12,      on<\/p>\n
31.3.2009 the      Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank filed<\/p>\n
this writ petition, mainly complainng that despite the urgency<\/p>\n
of the matter, without praying for a direction to quash<\/p>\n
Exts.P10(a) and (b) referred to above and to issue directions<\/p>\n
for stopping the laboratories established by the Kattoor<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank. On 1.4.2009 and 74.2009, the writ<\/p>\n
petition came up for orders and        on 7.4.2009   a counter<\/p>\n
affidavit was filed by the 5th respondent, the Kattoor Service<\/p>\n
Co-operative Bank. Although interim order for stopping the<\/p>\n
clinical labs were sought , no orders were passed by this court,<\/p>\n
during the pendency of this writ petition it is stated that on<\/p>\n
22.4.2009 an interim order was passed by the Arbitration<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Court on Ext.P12 IA.No.40\/2009 directing that both the<\/p>\n
clinical labs should be stopped.\n<\/p>\n
      4. In so far as WP(c).No.13423\/09 is concerned, that<\/p>\n
writ petition is filed by the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank.<\/p>\n
According to them Ext.P1 is the certificate of amendment of<\/p>\n
clause 3(2)of       the bye laws, enabling them to open<\/p>\n
establishments within its      area of operation and in the<\/p>\n
adjacent areas subject to the sanction of the Registrar of Co-<\/p>\n
operative Societies. It is stated that prior to Ext.P1, they had<\/p>\n
obtained Ext.P2 on 10.10.2008          and     Ext.P4 18.3.2009<\/p>\n
sanctioning establishment of clinical labs (Exts.P10(a) and<\/p>\n
Ext.P10(b) in WP(c)No.10681\/09).       It is stated that on that<\/p>\n
basis, they had opened the labs on 14.12.2008 and<\/p>\n
23.3.1999. According to them subsequently, ARC. No.52\/09<\/p>\n
was filed and in which Ext.P6 ex-parte order dated 22.4.2009<\/p>\n
has been passed which is challenged in this writ petition. It is<\/p>\n
complained that, by Ext.P6 order passed by        the Arbitration<\/p>\n
court,    Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank      was  restrained<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09       5<\/span><\/p>\n
from continuing the functioning of the Clinical Laboratories<\/p>\n
permitted to be established as per Exts.P2 and P4. Although<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 referred to above is an interlocutory order, the writ<\/p>\n
petition has been filed without moving the Arbitration Court<\/p>\n
for getting the stay order vacated. The justification offered is<\/p>\n
that   the    proceedings  in  ARC.No.52\/09      itself  is  not<\/p>\n
maintainable and therefore, they are entitled to invoke the<\/p>\n
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India. The writ petition was moved on<\/p>\n
8.5.2009 and this court passed an order of interim stay of<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 order referred to above for a period of one month. That<\/p>\n
order was extended subsequently and is in force now.<\/p>\n
      5. In the facts of these cases as narrated above, in my<\/p>\n
view, it is necessary for this court to examine the merits of<\/p>\n
the controversy raised by both the petitioners. This is for the<\/p>\n
reason that,      in so far as WP(c).No.10681\/09, filed by<\/p>\n
Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank is concerned, they filed<\/p>\n
ARC.No.52\/99 on 25.3.2009 along with I.A.No.40\/09 and the<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09         6<\/span><\/p>\n
IA was posted on 22.4.2009. It was there upon that<\/p>\n
complaining that though they moved the statutory authority<\/p>\n
for appropriate relief, the same was not attended to with the<\/p>\n
urgency that is deserved, the writ petition was filed by them<\/p>\n
on 31.3.2009. Though the writ petition came up for orders on<\/p>\n
1.4.2009 and 7.4.2009, no interim order was passed. The<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court proceeded to deal with the case and the<\/p>\n
order dated 22.4.2009 has been passed directing that clinical<\/p>\n
labs shall be closed. Therefore at this distance of time in view<\/p>\n
of the fact that, the Arbitration Court considered their case<\/p>\n
and order has been passed, the WP(c).No.10681\/09 has<\/p>\n
become infructuous and is liable        to be dismissed on that<\/p>\n
basis.\n<\/p>\n
      6. In so far as WP(c).No.13423\/09 is concerned, that is<\/p>\n
filed by the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank. According to<\/p>\n
them, the Arbitrator was not justified in passing Ext.P6 order<\/p>\n
dated 22.4.2009. First of all, it is stated that the clinical labs in<\/p>\n
question were established and commenced            functioning as<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09       7<\/span><\/p>\n
early as on 14.12.2008 and 23.3.2009 respectively. It is stated<\/p>\n
that an ex-parte interim order, ought not have passed by the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court which has the effect of allowing the ARC<\/p>\n
itself and that at any rate an order which has the effect of<\/p>\n
closing down the running establishments should not have<\/p>\n
been passed. It is also the contention of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
because of Ext.P1 amendment to their bye laws and Exts.P2<\/p>\n
and P4 (Exts.P10(a) and Ext.P10(b) in WP(c)No.10681\/09) and<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 circular, they were entitled to establish clinical labs in<\/p>\n
question. Yet another contention that is raised is that after the<\/p>\n
Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank      had filed this writ<\/p>\n
petition on 31.3.2009 and when this court had declined to<\/p>\n
pass     interim orders on      1.4.2009 and 7.4.2009, the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court ought not have passed any interlocutory<\/p>\n
order. It is also their contention that the ARC itself is not<\/p>\n
maintainable and therefore the order passed by the Arbitrator<\/p>\n
is without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09         8<\/span><\/p>\n
      7. The Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank, which is<\/p>\n
impleaded in this writ petition as respondent No.2 challenges<\/p>\n
the very maintainability of this writ petition. According to them<\/p>\n
if a statutory authority has passed an interim order, the<\/p>\n
remedy available to the person aggrieved by such an order, is<\/p>\n
not to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court<\/p>\n
under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, but to invoke the<\/p>\n
statutory remedies provided under the Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
Act itself. In support of this contention, the counsel relies on<\/p>\n
the judgment of the Apex Court in           Seth Chand Ratan V.<\/p>\n
Pandit Durga<\/a> prasad(AIR 2003 SC 2736). In so far as Ext.P11,<\/p>\n
the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
relied on by the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank              is<\/p>\n
concerned, counsel for the Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank    would contend that the said circular is against the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and therefore is<\/p>\n
illegal. Reliance in this context is placed on the decision in<\/p>\n
Palliman Ksheerulpadak Co-operative Societies Pvt. Ltd. V.<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09         9<\/span><\/p>\n
Deputy Director, Diary Developmet Office (2002(3) KLT 193).<\/p>\n
      8. Yet another plea that is raised by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
Bank is that, Ext.P11 circular was issued only on 19.5.2009<\/p>\n
and therefore that circular will not legitimize Exts.P2 and P4<\/p>\n
orders issued on 10.10.2008 and 18.3.2008 respectively. It is<\/p>\n
contended that the clinical labs in question are established<\/p>\n
within the municipal town Irinjalakuda which is entirely within<\/p>\n
the area of operation of Irinjalakuda Society and that the same<\/p>\n
is impermissible. It is also their contention that, even if Ext.P1<\/p>\n
amendment to the bye-laws, is accepted, that does not entitle<\/p>\n
the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank to trespass into their<\/p>\n
area of operation and establish the clinical labs in question.<\/p>\n
On these contentions, counsel for the Irinjalakuda Service Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank would pray for the dismissal of WP(c).<\/p>\n
No.13423\/09.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Having heard the contentions raised by the respective<\/p>\n
parties, I am inclined to think that it is unnecessary for this<\/p>\n
court to enter into the merits of the respective contentions<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09        10<\/span><\/p>\n
raised by both parties. In this writ petition all that is necessary<\/p>\n
for this court to consider is the validity of Ext.P6, an interim<\/p>\n
order passed by the Arbitration Court in I.A.No.40\/09 in ARC.<\/p>\n
No.52\/09. The said order shows that by this order the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court has directed closure of the two clinical labs<\/p>\n
established by the Kattoor     Service Co-operative Bank. The<\/p>\n
said order has been passed on an ex-parte basis. In my view<\/p>\n
such an ex-parte order should not have been passed by the<\/p>\n
Bank for the further reason that by         the said order, the<\/p>\n
Arbitration Court has virtually granted the final relief that<\/p>\n
could be granted in the ARC. As already noticed, the Kattoor<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank has valid contentions in the matter<\/p>\n
and among others the Bank is relying on Ext.P1 amendment<\/p>\n
to the Bye laws, Exts.P2 and P4 orders and Exts.P10 and P11<\/p>\n
circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In<\/p>\n
my view, the Arbitration Court ought to have given the Bank an<\/p>\n
opportunity to file     its objections and resist the      prayers<\/p>\n
sought in the ARC. This has not been done and therefore I am<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09        11<\/span><\/p>\n
inclined to set aside Ext.P6.\n<\/p>\n
      10. In so far as the contention raised by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court in Seth Chand Ratan V. Pandit Durga<\/a> prasad & Ors.(AIR<\/p>\n
2003 SC 2736) is concerned, it is true that if the statute<\/p>\n
provides for a remedy, the aggrieved party is bound to pursue<\/p>\n
that statutory remedy. However, in WP(c).No.13423\/09, the<\/p>\n
case pleaded by the petitioner is that the Arbitration Court has<\/p>\n
no jurisdiction to entertain the Arbitration petition itself. The<\/p>\n
rule of alternate remedy is a self imposed one. There are<\/p>\n
exceptions to this rule and one of the recognized exceptions<\/p>\n
is violation of the principles of natural justice and when the<\/p>\n
order is without jurisdiction. (See in this connection the Apex<\/p>\n
Court judgment in 1998(8)SCC 1) Therefore if the order<\/p>\n
passed by the Arbitration Court is without jurisdiction or the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Arbitration Court is in violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice, certainly that order      can be<\/p>\n
challenged in a writ Petition. In this case, it is evident from<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09        12<\/span><\/p>\n
the proceedings that the ARC in question was filed by the<\/p>\n
Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative Bank on 25.3.2009 and the<\/p>\n
Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank had filed its counter on<\/p>\n
7.4.2009. Despite that, without putting them notice or hearing<\/p>\n
them Ext.P6 order was passed on 22.4.2009. This is clearly in<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice and if that be so,<\/p>\n
the Kattoor Service Co-operative Bank           is justified in<\/p>\n
approaching this court bye-passing the statutory remedy and<\/p>\n
for that reason the writ petition is maintainable and cannot be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result WP(c). No.10681\/09 filed by the Irinjalakuda<\/p>\n
Service Co-operative Bank will stand dismissed and WP(c).<\/p>\n
No.13423\/09 is disposed of quashing Ext.P6, order passed in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.40\/09      in ARC.No.52\/09. The Arbitration Court is<\/p>\n
directed to consider I.A.No.40\/09 with notice to the parties as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible. Considering the urgency pointed<\/p>\n
out by the counsel for the Irinjalakuda Service Co-operative<\/p>\n
Bank, it is directed that within 4 weeks of production of a copy<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09       13<\/span><\/p>\n
of this judgment, the Arbitration Court shall pass fresh orders<\/p>\n
in I.A.No.40\/09.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                (ANTONY DOMINIC)
\n                                      JUDGE
\nvi\/<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.10681&13423\/09    14<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 10681 of 2009(E) 1. IRINJALAKUDA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY … Respondent 2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF […]<\/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-65858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIrinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Irinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-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=\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-22T05:31:05+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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T05:31:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2106,\"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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Irinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-22T05:31:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Irinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Irinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-22T05:31:05+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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T05:31:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"},"wordCount":2106,"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\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009","name":"Irinjalakuda Service ... vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-22T05:31:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/irinjalakuda-service-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Irinjalakuda Service … vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/65858","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=65858"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65858\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65858"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65858"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65858"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}