{"id":80070,"date":"2008-12-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-12-20T21:39:08","modified_gmt":"2016-12-20T16:09:08","slug":"m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 30238 of 2008(Y)\n\n\n1. M.P. JOY, MANGALATH\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE SECRETARY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :16\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            V.GIRI,J.\n                     -------------------------\n         W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,\n              33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008\n                     --------------------------\n           Dated this the 16th December, 2008\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Common issue which arises for consideration in all<\/p>\n
these cases relates to the alleged delay on the part of the<\/p>\n
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram in<\/p>\n
dealing with applications for grant of regular permit, or<\/p>\n
settling timings in relation to varied permits or dealing<\/p>\n
with applications for revision of existing timings. It was<\/p>\n
found that there is a persistent complaint as regards the<\/p>\n
undue delay on the part of the Regional Transport<\/p>\n
Authority, Malappuram to deal with applications filed by<\/p>\n
operators    invoking provisions of the Kerala Motor<\/p>\n
Vehicles Act and Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Learned Government Pleader was therefore<\/p>\n
requested to get instructions as to what was the reason<\/p>\n
for such delay.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   A statement has been filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
and thereafter reply affidavit       has been filed by the<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner. It is contended that for several months together<\/p>\n
timing conferences were not convened by the Regional<\/p>\n
Transport Officer, Malappuram.           The Joint Regional<\/p>\n
Transport Officer is burdened with work and therefore is<\/p>\n
not in a position to convene timing conferences. Statistics<\/p>\n
in a tabular form showing the pendency of applications<\/p>\n
have been given in the said statement. Reference has been<\/p>\n
made to the directions issued by this Court on several<\/p>\n
occasions, in individual cases, to deal with applications in a<\/p>\n
time     bound manner and this         in turns disables the<\/p>\n
Secretary , Regional Transport Authority in maintaining a<\/p>\n
list of priority with reference to any certain date.<\/p>\n
      4.    Taking note of all these factors, learned<\/p>\n
Government       Pleader   was    again   requested   to  get<\/p>\n
instructions as to whether the Government can appoint on<\/p>\n
an ad hoc basis, an additional officer to clear the arrears<\/p>\n
and to see that the Secretary, RTA is in a position to deal<\/p>\n
with applications which come on a regular basis.<\/p>\n
      5.    Learned Government Pleader submits that the<\/p>\n
Government has decided to make available the services of<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
one Sri.K.N.Gopi, Regional Transport Officer (nationalised<\/p>\n
centre), Thiruvananthapuram, on deputation to assist the<\/p>\n
Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram for conducting<\/p>\n
timing conferences. I appreciate the expeditious manner in<\/p>\n
which action has been taken in this regard by the Transport<\/p>\n
Commissioner and by the learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
Smt.Sudha Devi.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     In the result, respondents are directed to see<\/p>\n
that the services of Sri.K.N.Gopi is made available for the<\/p>\n
purpose of convening timing conferences and settling the<\/p>\n
timings, of different stage carriage services.<\/p>\n
      7.   Petitioners    and learned Government Pleader<\/p>\n
have made submissions as to the manner in which the<\/p>\n
applications will have to be prioritized.     It is submitted<\/p>\n
that the applications for settlement of timings, which have<\/p>\n
to be dealt with by the Regional Transport Officer would<\/p>\n
broadly come under the following heads:<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
           1.    Fresh grant of permits\n<\/p>\n
           2.    Pursuant to variation of permits\n<\/p>\n
           3.    On applications for revisions for existing
\n                 timings.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   It is also admitted by counsel on both sides that<\/p>\n
the number of applications for fresh grant are quite limited.<\/p>\n
This may not really be a burden on any office . Major<\/p>\n
portion of    applications   relate to the request made for<\/p>\n
revision of existing timings and settlement of timings<\/p>\n
consequential upon the grant of varied permits.      It is only<\/p>\n
appropriate that the plea for settlement of timings<\/p>\n
consequent upon variation of routes be dealt with on a<\/p>\n
priority, ahead of the applications for revision of existing<\/p>\n
timings. Therefore, the competent authority may prioritize<\/p>\n
the applications in the following manner.<\/p>\n
           (1). Settlement of timings relatable to
\n      fresh grant of permits.\n<\/p>\n
           (2)   Settlement of timings consequential
\n      upon variation of permits (either extension or
\n      curtailment as the case may be).\n<\/p>\n
           (3)   Revision of existing timings.\n<\/p>\n
Priority may therefore be given to the first category ahead<\/p>\n
of the second category and the second category ahead of<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the third category.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    It is only appropriate that the services of<\/p>\n
Sri.K.N.Gopi, be made available         immediately for the<\/p>\n
purpose of convening timing conferences and dealing with<\/p>\n
the request for settlement of timings in the manner<\/p>\n
aforementioned. In other words, till the existing arrears<\/p>\n
are wiped off, no other duty may be assigned to<\/p>\n
Sri.K.N.Gopi. This, of course does not mean the existing<\/p>\n
incumbent in the office of the Secretary, Regional<\/p>\n
Transport Authority, Malappuram shall not take up the<\/p>\n
aforementioned work as part of his normal statutory duties.<\/p>\n
      10. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for one<\/p>\n
of the petitioners in these cases submits that in the case of<\/p>\n
fresh grant or variation of permits, settlement of timings<\/p>\n
need not be deferred or be included in the same list of<\/p>\n
priority, if there are no objections. If there are absolutely<\/p>\n
objection whatsoever in any particular centre for a fresh<\/p>\n
grant or grant of permit on variation pursuant to orders<\/p>\n
passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the proposal<\/p>\n
for settlement of timings in relation to such permits should<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
be published. If it is found that there are no objections to<\/p>\n
the proposed timings published in that regard, then it is<\/p>\n
open to the competent officer to deal with such cases,<\/p>\n
distinctly from cases where there are objections to the<\/p>\n
proposed timings, since obviously such objections will have<\/p>\n
to be considered in a timing conference.<\/p>\n
      The aforementioned directions are applicable to all<\/p>\n
these cases in general.      I now propose to take the writ<\/p>\n
petitions    separately.   I dispose of    the following writ<\/p>\n
petitions.\n<\/p>\n
           WP(C) No.31182\/2008:\n<\/p>\n
      Petitioner was granted a regular permit to operate on<\/p>\n
the route Melechelari-Feroke-Idimoozhikkal in relation to<\/p>\n
stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. NoKL-10\/P 8943.<\/p>\n
Petitioner is aggrieved by       the delay in the issuance of<\/p>\n
permit. Respondent shall proceed to issue a permit on the<\/p>\n
basis of Exhibit-P1 decision taken by the RTA and settle<\/p>\n
the timings including the issue regarding settlement of<\/p>\n
timings relatable to Exhibit-P1 in a list to be drawn up<\/p>\n
pursuant     to   the   directions    issued  herein   above.<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
Obviously, it will be eligible to dealt with on a date earlier<\/p>\n
to the presently scheduled date on account of the posting<\/p>\n
of an Officer for the purpose of expeditiously dealing with<\/p>\n
such matters.\n<\/p>\n
      WP(C ) No.33224\/2008<\/p>\n
      Petitioner’s complaint is regarding non-settlement of<\/p>\n
timings in relation to a fresh grant of permit. Fresh date<\/p>\n
for a timing conference may be issued in relation to this<\/p>\n
judgment and timings may be settled in relation to the<\/p>\n
stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-10N\/6827<\/p>\n
pursuant to Exhibit-P2 going by the list of priority to be<\/p>\n
drawn up in the manner aforementioned.<\/p>\n
      WP(C)No.19989\/2008<\/p>\n
         Issue raised in this case relates to the request made<\/p>\n
by the petitioner for revisions of timings pursuant to<\/p>\n
Exhibit-P2 judgment of the State Transport Appellate<\/p>\n
Tribunal dated 13.3.2008.      Petitioner’s application may be<\/p>\n
included in the list of cases to be drawn up pursuant to<\/p>\n
directions issued herein above under the category of<\/p>\n
revision of existing timings and it shall be dealt with going<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
by the said list of priority.\n<\/p>\n
           WPC (C) No.31827\/2008<\/p>\n
      Issue raised in this case relates to an application for<\/p>\n
settlement of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 for a varied<\/p>\n
permit.       The said     application may be dealt with in<\/p>\n
accordance with the directions issued herein above.<\/p>\n
           WP(C) No.30238\/2008<\/p>\n
      The request made in this case relates to settlement of<\/p>\n
timings pursuant to regular variation granted under<\/p>\n
Exhibit-P1.    According to the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, there will be no objection from any other<\/p>\n
operator. If so, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the<\/p>\n
directions issued herein above.\n<\/p>\n
            WP(C) No.35605\/2008<\/p>\n
      Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of<\/p>\n
timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a<\/p>\n
permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings<\/p>\n
may be settled as per the directions issued herein above.<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
           WP(C) No.34368\/2008<\/p>\n
      Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of<\/p>\n
timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a<\/p>\n
permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings<\/p>\n
may be settled as per the directions issued herein as above.<\/p>\n
      All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above<\/p>\n
directions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (V.GIRI,JUDGE)
\nma<\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
\n33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 30238 of 2008(Y) 1. M.P. JOY, MANGALATH … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SECRETARY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.GIRI Dated :16\/12\/2008 O R D […]<\/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-80070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - 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-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-20T16:09:08+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=\"7 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-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T16:09:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1388,\"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-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\",\"name\":\"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T16:09:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - 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-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-20T16:09:08+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T16:09:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008"},"wordCount":1388,"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-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008","name":"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T16:09:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-p-joy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.P. Joy vs The Secretary on 16 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/80070","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=80070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}