{"id":70971,"date":"2009-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-17T15:07:16","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T09:37:16","slug":"p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 2773 of 2003(E)\n\n\n1. P.P.GEORGE AND SONS, N.H.47, ANGAMALY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,\n\n3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,\n\n4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.C.THOMAS, SC, K.S.E.B\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J\n               ------------------------------------------------------------\n                          O.P. NO: 2773 OF 2003\n               -----------------------------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 6th April, 2009.\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     As per G.O(MS)4\/92\/PD dated 6.2.1992 the Government of<\/p>\n
Kerala announced a concessional power tariff and electricity duty to<\/p>\n
industries, as a measure of incentive. The concessional tariff was<\/p>\n
applicable only to units that started production between 1.1.1992<\/p>\n
and 31.12.1996. Though the petitioner did not start commercial<\/p>\n
production before 31.12.1996, he claims the benefit of the<\/p>\n
concessional tariff alleging that he had started commercial<\/p>\n
production in June 1996, using a diesel generator set installed by<\/p>\n
him.     On the above basis, he challenges the denial of the<\/p>\n
concessional rate of electricity tariff to him.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The petitioner is running a printing press unit at<\/p>\n
Angamaly, which is registered as a small scale industrial unit. The<\/p>\n
unit had applied for electrical connection and as per Ext.P4<\/p>\n
proceedings, the Executive Engineer K.S.E.Board sanctioned the<\/p>\n
work on an estimate of Rs.1,16,640\/- on 19.6.1995. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the concerned Minister had directed the grant of electricity<\/p>\n
connection to the petitioner on priority basis, as per his letter dated<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
24.11.1995, which is Ext.P5. The petitioner alleges that the entire<\/p>\n
work for giving electric connection to the petitioner was over in<\/p>\n
1996 itself but, supply was delayed without any justification and<\/p>\n
finally, he was granted electric connection only on 1.1.1997.   But,<\/p>\n
according to him, the petitioner started commercial production<\/p>\n
before the said date using a generator set installed by him, having<\/p>\n
a capacity of 62.5 KVA. Since the petitioner was not given electric<\/p>\n
connection before 31.12.1996, he submitted Exts.P8 and P9<\/p>\n
representations and also filed O.P.19444\/2001 praying for the<\/p>\n
issue of appropriate directions from this Court, commanding the<\/p>\n
respondents to collect only the pre 1992 tariff rates from the<\/p>\n
petitioner. During the pendency of the said Original Petition a bill<\/p>\n
for Rs.75,095\/- was issued to the petitioner which was also<\/p>\n
challenged by him before this Court in a Miscellaneous Petition filed<\/p>\n
in the writ petition referred to above. This Court had granted an<\/p>\n
order of interim stay conditional on payment of an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.35,000\/-. Subsequently the original petition was disposed of as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P11 judgment directing the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB to<\/p>\n
consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner within<\/p>\n
a period of three months of the date thereof.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The grievances of the petitioner were considered in<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
compliance with the directions of this Court and orders were<\/p>\n
passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB which is Ext.P13.        As<\/p>\n
per Ext.P13 it has been found that the petitioner is not entitled to<\/p>\n
the concessional tariff rates claimed by him.     He has also been<\/p>\n
found liable to pay the amount demanded as electricity charges<\/p>\n
from him. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition challenging<\/p>\n
Ext.P13 order and claiming that he is entitled to the benefit of the<\/p>\n
concessional pre 1992 tariff rates announced by the Government of<\/p>\n
Kerala as per G.O(MS) 4\/92 dated 9.2.1992. Though this petition<\/p>\n
was filed in the year 2003 no counter affidavit has been filed on<\/p>\n
behalf of the respondents. It is seen from the proceedings that<\/p>\n
though sufficient opportunity was granted to the respondents, they<\/p>\n
have not chosen to file a counter affidavit till date. No prayer for<\/p>\n
time to file counter affidavit was also made by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents.     Therefore, I have heard Shri. T.M.Abdul Latiff,<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the<\/p>\n
KSEBoard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was entitled to be given the benefit of the pre 1992<\/p>\n
concessional tariff. According to him the unit of the petitioner was<\/p>\n
started before 31.12.1996.      The petitioner claims that he had<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
executed a minimum guarantee agreement on 29.7.1995.            The<\/p>\n
Electrical Inspector, Ernakulam permitted energisation of his<\/p>\n
generator and the electrical installation on 27.6.1996 and the unit<\/p>\n
started commercial production immediately.        The petitioner did<\/p>\n
everything on his part and started commercial production using the<\/p>\n
generator set before 1.1.1997. According to him the petitioner had<\/p>\n
invested money and established the unit on the expectation that<\/p>\n
electrical energy would be supplied to him at the pre 1992 tariff<\/p>\n
rates.      He contends that the concession made available to<\/p>\n
industrial units should not be denied to him for the reason that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had done everything that was to be done by him before<\/p>\n
31.12.1996 and it was not due to any fault of his that the<\/p>\n
energisation of electrical supply to his unit was delayed beyond the<\/p>\n
cut off date of 31.12.1996.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The claim of the petitioner is opposed by the standing<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents.       According to the counsel,     the<\/p>\n
concessional rate was announced by the State Government as early<\/p>\n
as on 6.2.1992. Even at that time, the Government had announced<\/p>\n
that the concession would be available only to units that started<\/p>\n
commercial    production    between    1.1.1992   and   31.12.1996.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the cut off date was well within the contemplation of the<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner even when he started preparations for establishing his<\/p>\n
unit. Since the petitioner’s unit was not energised before the cut<\/p>\n
off date, he was not entitled to the concession.   According to the<\/p>\n
counsel, in Ext.P13, the impugned order, all the contentions of the<\/p>\n
petitioner have been considered. The counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
contended that, it was not due to any fault on the part of the KSE<\/p>\n
Board that the unit was not given electric connection before<\/p>\n
31.12.1996. It is further contended that the petitioner had not<\/p>\n
submitted any application for availing the concessional tariff rate at<\/p>\n
any time.      He has made his claim for the first time only in<\/p>\n
O.P.19444\/2001 filed by him. Therefore, it is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
original petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   It is seen from Ext.P13 order that the equipments for<\/p>\n
providing supply to the petitioner’s unit was received only on<\/p>\n
27.12.1996. The installation work was completed on 30.12.1996<\/p>\n
and the same was inspected by the Electrical Inspector on 1.1.1997.<\/p>\n
The installation was energised on getting oral sanction of the<\/p>\n
Electrical Inspector on 1.1.1997 itself. The Deputy Chief Engineer<\/p>\n
who considered the above contention has found that the records do<\/p>\n
not show any delay in giving power connection to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
The dates mentioned above would show that there was no delay on<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
the part of the authorities in giving connection to the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
unit. There is nothing on record to show that the above statements<\/p>\n
in Ext.P13 are false. The above question being a pure question of<\/p>\n
fact, the finding of the Deputy Chief Engineer in Ext.P13 on this<\/p>\n
point has to be accepted. The petitioner has also not disputed the<\/p>\n
above statements contained in Ext.P13, in the above Original<\/p>\n
Petition. In the absence of any evidence or material to show that<\/p>\n
the respondents were at fault in delaying grant of electric<\/p>\n
connection to the petitioner’s unit, the above finding in Ext.P13 is<\/p>\n
only to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The next question to be considered is whether the claim of<\/p>\n
the petitioner that he has to be granted the Ext.P3 concessional<\/p>\n
tariff for the reason that he had started commercial production<\/p>\n
well before 31.12.1996. A copy of the G.O dated 6.2.1992 has<\/p>\n
been handed over to me by the parties, in court. It is to be noted<\/p>\n
that the concession granted by the Government is in respect of<\/p>\n
consumption of electrical energy by industrial units. The same is<\/p>\n
granted to units which started commercial production between<\/p>\n
1.1.1992 and 31.12.1996.      Since the concession granted is in<\/p>\n
respect of electrical energy consumed by industrial units that<\/p>\n
started commercial production during the relevant period, the<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
concession cannot be made available to units which do not<\/p>\n
commence consumption of energy during the relevant period.<\/p>\n
Admittedly the petitioner’s unit has not consumed any electrical<\/p>\n
energy before 31.12.1996. According to him, he has commenced<\/p>\n
commercial production using a diesel generator.              There is<\/p>\n
absolutely no evidence to show that he had started commercial<\/p>\n
production before 31.12.1996.          Though the petitioner has<\/p>\n
produced Ext.P17 certificate of registration dated 10.7.1996 issued<\/p>\n
under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, the same does not show<\/p>\n
that he has started commercial production. Exts.P18 and P19 are<\/p>\n
also not acceptable as evidence of commencement of commercial<\/p>\n
production. It therefore follows that the petitioner has not been<\/p>\n
able to produce any evidence of commencement of commercial<\/p>\n
production before 31.3.1996.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   Apart from the above, it is common knowledge that<\/p>\n
commercial production of an industrial unit by utilising power<\/p>\n
generated by diesel generators is not at all viable.      That is the<\/p>\n
reason why all industrial units apply for regular electric connection.<\/p>\n
The diesel generators are meant only as a stand by, to prevent loss<\/p>\n
that may be caused by disruption of production due to failure of<\/p>\n
electric supply. The diesel generator installed by the petitioner<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
does not have the capacity to meet the power requirements of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   Even if it is assumed that the unit had started<\/p>\n
production using a generator set, the same can only be presumed<\/p>\n
to have been in anticipation of getting a regular electric connection.<\/p>\n
Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had started<\/p>\n
production using a diesel generator set, the same would not entitle<\/p>\n
him to the benefit of the concessional pre 1992 tariff rates<\/p>\n
announced by the Government of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n
      9. I am supported in this reasoning by the decision of the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Southern Ispat Ltd. v. State of<\/p>\n
Kerala and others<\/a> {(2004) 4 SCC 68}. In the said decision, the very<\/p>\n
same notification dated 6.2.1992 was considered by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court. The industrial unit in the said case claimed the benefit of<\/p>\n
the Government order alleging that production had been started<\/p>\n
before 31.12.1996 using a diesel generator set. The unit had also<\/p>\n
produced returns submitted to the commercial taxes department,<\/p>\n
the assessment order issued by the sales tax department and the<\/p>\n
balance sheet of the company as on 31.3.1997 to show that it had<\/p>\n
started commercial production. However, the said documents were<\/p>\n
all rejected as unreliable and self-serving by the Apex Court. It has<\/p>\n
also been held that the question whether the unit had started<\/p>\n
O.P.2773\/2003                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
commercial production before the appointed date was a question of<\/p>\n
fact which was not liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
      10. In the above case also this Court had directed the Deputy<\/p>\n
Chief Engineer KSE Board to consider the grievance of the petitioner<\/p>\n
and the order passsed after such consideration is Ext.P13.          The<\/p>\n
authority who is the fact finding body has determined the questions<\/p>\n
of fact against the petitioner.   The said findings do not call for any<\/p>\n
interference in this original petition. The Original Petition fails and<\/p>\n
is hereby dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                            K. SURENDRA MOHAN\n                                                    Judge\njj\n\nO.P.2773\/2003    10\n\n    K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.\n\n-----------------------------\n\n   O.P.NO: 2773 OF 2003-E\n\n-----------------------------\n\n\n\n          JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n   Dated: 6th April, 2009.\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 2773 of 2003(E) 1. P.P.GEORGE AND SONS, N.H.47, ANGAMALY, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE … Respondent 2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, 4. ASSISTANT […]<\/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-70971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-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=\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-17T09:37:16+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T09:37:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1771,\"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\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\",\"name\":\"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T09:37:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-17T09:37:16+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T09:37:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009"},"wordCount":1771,"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\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009","name":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T09:37:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-george-and-sons-vs-state-of-kerala-on-6-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.P.George And Sons vs State Of Kerala on 6 April, 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\/70971","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=70971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}