{"id":80838,"date":"2009-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-12-20T15:29:30","modified_gmt":"2018-12-20T09:59:30","slug":"pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 4698 of 1999(H)\n\n\n\n1. PATTAKKAL SAYED AHAMED KOYA THANGAL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHAD\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :20\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J\n                ...............................................\n                      O.P. No.4698 of 1999\n               .................................................\n         Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      In this original petition, the petitioner, who aspires to be<\/p>\n
the Kazi of the Andrott Island, challenges Ext.P4 order of the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent    –   Administrator         of    the    Union      Territory  of<\/p>\n
Lakshadweep, by which he appointed the 3rd respondent as the<\/p>\n
Kazi of Andrott Island.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Ext.P4 order was passed pursuant to a selection process<\/p>\n
initiated by the 1st respondent by Ext.P1 notification dated<\/p>\n
23.6.1997, inviting applications for appointment as Kazi of the<\/p>\n
Juma Masjid, on the death of the existing Kazi, one Pattakal<\/p>\n
Pookoya Thangal. The petitioner challenged the notice before<\/p>\n
this court, in O.P. No. 11211 of 1997, contending that, the<\/p>\n
deceased Kazi and the petitioner being members of the Pattakal<\/p>\n
family, and the position of Kazi being hereditary to be appointed<\/p>\n
only from among the members of the family, the petitioner is<\/p>\n
entitled to function in place of the deceased Kazi and therefore<\/p>\n
there is no reason to issue Ext.P1 notice.                   Alternately, the<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner also contended that a Kazi under the Kazis’ Act, 1880<\/p>\n
can be appointed only when “any considerable number of<\/p>\n
Muhammadans resident in any local area desire that one or more<\/p>\n
Kazis should be appointed for such local area” and such selection<\/p>\n
can only be “after consulting the principal Muhammadans of<\/p>\n
such local area”, which procedures have not been complied with<\/p>\n
before issuing Ext.P1 notification. A learned single Judge of this<\/p>\n
court, by Ext.P2 judgment repelled the contention of the<\/p>\n
petitioner that the office of Kazi is hereditary in nature. It was<\/p>\n
further held therein that “even if the petitioner’s contention that<\/p>\n
he succeeds to the deceased Kazi, the position being hereditary<\/p>\n
in nature, is accepted, that will not prevent the Administration<\/p>\n
choosing a Kazi in terms of the Kazis Act” and that “appointment<\/p>\n
of Kazi made under the Act shall not be deemed to prevent any<\/p>\n
person discharging any of the functions of the Kazi as per<\/p>\n
Section 4 of the Act.” The contention that considerable number<\/p>\n
of Muhammadans had not expressed their desire that a Kazi<\/p>\n
should be appointed was also repelled, holding that when the<\/p>\n
administration has issued Ext.P1, naturally it has to be presumed<\/p>\n
that there was desire expressed by considerable number of<\/p>\n
Muhammadans.        Regarding the contention that there was no<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
consultation with principal Muhammadan residents of the local<\/p>\n
area, the learned Judge held that the question of such<\/p>\n
consultation arises only after the interview committee selects a<\/p>\n
suitable candidate.     Accordingly the original petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed upholding the validity of Ext.P1.         The petitioner<\/p>\n
challenged Ext.P2 judgment in W.A. No. 1558 of 1997. By Ext.P3<\/p>\n
judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed affirming Ext.P2<\/p>\n
judgment.     But it was directed therein that the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
application for appointment as Kazi also be considered, if he<\/p>\n
applied within three weeks. Pursuant thereto the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
continued the process of selection which culminated in Ext.R1<\/p>\n
selection by the 4th respondent of the 3rd respondent and the<\/p>\n
petitioner in that order of merit and Ext.P4 order appointing the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent as Kazi. It is under the above circumstances the<\/p>\n
petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P4<\/p>\n
order.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Although the counsel for the petitioner initially tried to<\/p>\n
raise a contention that in view of the decision of another Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this court in Pattakal Cheriya Koya & others V<\/p>\n
Aliyathammuda Beethathebiyyappura and others [2008(1)<\/p>\n
KHC 683 (DB)], the office of Kazi is hereditary and a member of<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
Pattakal family is entitled to be the Kazi by succession, the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner himself did not press that contention,<\/p>\n
since in the petitioner’s own case a Division Bench held to the<\/p>\n
contrary, which decision has become final and the petitioner has<\/p>\n
not taken that contention in this original petition. The petitioner<\/p>\n
was prompted to abandon that contention also because this court<\/p>\n
expressed the view that if the conflict between the two decisions<\/p>\n
has tobe resolved the matter has to be referred to a Division<\/p>\n
Bench and then a Full Bench. The petitioner now challenges<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 only on the ground that before selecting the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent, the principal Muhammadans of the area was not<\/p>\n
consulted.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the first<\/p>\n
respondent and by the 3rd respondent disputing the contentions<\/p>\n
of the petitioner.   The 1st respondent states that the Board<\/p>\n
constituted under the Samastha Kerala Jem-Iyyathul Ulama<\/p>\n
(SKJIU for short) conducted the written test and interview in<\/p>\n
which the 3rd respondent and the petitioner participated and by<\/p>\n
Ext.R1 dated 17.11.98 the SKJIU informed the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
that the 3rd respondent was placed first and the petitioner<\/p>\n
second. It is also stated that the 1st respondent received Ext.R2<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
mass    memorandum     dated    12.4.1998    from   the  principal<\/p>\n
Muhammadan residents and others of Andrott Island requesting<\/p>\n
to appoint the most competent from the selected candidates<\/p>\n
excluding the petitioner and accordingly by Ext.P4, the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent, being the only other candidate apart from the<\/p>\n
petitioner, was appointed. It is further stated that wide publicity<\/p>\n
was given about the appointment of the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
throughout Andrott Island and the Executive Magistrate of<\/p>\n
Andrott had by Ext.R3 message dated 20.1.99 intimated the<\/p>\n
District Magistrate of Kawaratti that the Idul-Fitre prayers in the<\/p>\n
Juma Mosque of Andrott was conducted under the leadership of<\/p>\n
the 3rd respondent Kazi peacefully and about 3500 persons<\/p>\n
assembled for the prayer.     According to the first respondent<\/p>\n
there are two groups of Muslims in the island called Jama -Athe<\/p>\n
Himanayathe      Sheriyathul  Islamiya    (the   JHSI)  and    the<\/p>\n
Lakshadweep Sheriyathil Pravarthaka Sambarka Samithi (the<\/p>\n
LSPSS). When the former Kazi, Pattakal Pookoya Thangal was<\/p>\n
out of the island in May 1986, the petitioner who is the nephew<\/p>\n
of the said Pookoya Thangal acted as the Kazi and under his<\/p>\n
leadership the JHSI passed a resolution excommunicating the<\/p>\n
followers of LSPSS, proclaiming them as un-islamic and denying<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
them right to enter the mosque and other religious and public<\/p>\n
institutions. This resulted in a major law and order problem in<\/p>\n
the island and a litigation, leading to the decision Attakoya<\/p>\n
Thangal v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep<\/a> 1987 (1) KLT 762,<\/p>\n
laying down certain principles for the guidance of the authorities<\/p>\n
who have to tackle the law and order situation. Thereafter the<\/p>\n
petitioner and his group JHSI were conducting prayers in a<\/p>\n
separate mosque protesting against the then Kazi, Pattakal<\/p>\n
Pookoya Thangal permitting the other group, LSPSS, to<\/p>\n
participate in the Juma prayers at the Juma mosque.<\/p>\n
      5. In an affidavit accompanying C.M.P. No.30386\/2002 for<\/p>\n
receiving Ext.R3(a) and for taking note of subsequent events, the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent would contend that the petitioner is not even<\/p>\n
eligible to be considered for the post of Kazi, since, at the time of<\/p>\n
application he was an accused in C.C. No. 7 of 1991 of the<\/p>\n
Judicial Magistrate of the I class, Andrott, in which the petitioner<\/p>\n
and others were charged with offences under Section 143, 144,<\/p>\n
145, 147, 148, 188, 332, 353 and 506(2) read with Sections 149<\/p>\n
of the Indian Penal Code, in which by Ext.R3(a) judgment dated<\/p>\n
8.5.2001, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 143 and<\/p>\n
188 of the I.P.C., but was released under Section 4 of the<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999              -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
Probation of Offenders Act. According to him, the position of<\/p>\n
Kazi under Mohammedan law is that of a Judge or Judicial officer<\/p>\n
who should have an untainted character and hence the petitioner<\/p>\n
who has been convicted in a criminal case is not eligible to be<\/p>\n
appointed as a Kazi.\n<\/p>\n
     6. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit of the 1st respondent, questioning Ext.R2 and relying on<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 memorandum dated 12.2.1998, allegedly issued by<\/p>\n
prominent members of the Island requesting the administration<\/p>\n
to recognise the petitioner as the Kazi of the Andrott Island. But<\/p>\n
no reply affidavit is filed disputing the averments in the affidavit<\/p>\n
of the 3rd respondent referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
     7. As I have already stated, although the petitioner tried to<\/p>\n
raise the contentions regarding hereditary Kaziship, and absence<\/p>\n
of desire of considerable numbers of Muhammadans, in view of<\/p>\n
Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, the petitioner ultimately confined<\/p>\n
himself to only one contention viz. want of consultation with the<\/p>\n
principal Muhammadans of the local area before issuing Ext.P4.<\/p>\n
Even otherwise in Ext.P2 judgment, which was affirmed by the<\/p>\n
Division Bench in Ext.P3 Judgment and has become final, it has<\/p>\n
been held that the petitioner cannot challenge the appointment<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
of Kazi on the first two grounds. But in those judgments it has<\/p>\n
been held that the question of consultation with principal<\/p>\n
Muhammadans, as stipulated in Section 2 of the Kazis Act, arises<\/p>\n
only after selection. The petitioner now contends that there was<\/p>\n
no consultation with the principal Muhammadans of the area.<\/p>\n
The 1st respondent contends that in view of Ext.R2, submitted by<\/p>\n
the principal Muhammadans of the local area, no further<\/p>\n
consultation was called for and in any event, since out of the two<\/p>\n
persons selected, the petitioner had rendered himself unfit to<\/p>\n
hold the post of Kazi by his own conduct, further consultation<\/p>\n
was not called for.      The 3rd respondent contends that the<\/p>\n
petitioner, at the time of selection, being an accused in a<\/p>\n
criminal case in which later he was convicted, is not eligible for<\/p>\n
appointment. He also submits that this court may not exercise its<\/p>\n
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India in favour of such a person.\n<\/p>\n
      8. I have considered the contentions of both sides in detail.<\/p>\n
      9. At the outset I note that the petitioner has not chosen to<\/p>\n
dispute Ext.R3(a) judgment in C.C. No. 7 of 1991 of the Judicial<\/p>\n
First Class Magistrate’s Court, Andrott, in which he was<\/p>\n
convicted of offences under Sections 143 and 188 of the Indian<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999                -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
Penal Code. Those Sections read thus:\n<\/p>\n
              “143. Punishment – Whoever is a member of an
\n        unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment
\n        of either description for a term which may extend to six
\n        months, or with fine, or with both.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              188 – Disobedience to order duly promulgated by
\n        public servant.- Whoever, knowing that, by an order
\n        promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to
\n        promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a
\n        certain act, or to take certain order with certain property
\n        in his possession or under his management, disobeys
\n        such direction,<\/p>\n
              shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause
\n        obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction,
\n        annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be
\n        punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
\n        extend to one month or with fine which may extend to
\n        two hundred rupees, or with both;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause
\n        danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends
\n        to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with
\n        imprisonment of either description for a term which may
\n        extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
\n        one thousand rupees, or with both.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. I note that the criminal case itself arose in relation to<\/p>\n
the affairs of the mosque to be presided over by the Kazi<\/p>\n
selected pursuant to Ext.P1 itself. The petitioner is the kind of<\/p>\n
person who, in order to defy the then Kazi, whom he aspires to<\/p>\n
succeed, was prepared to lead an unlawful assembly even<\/p>\n
defying lawful orders of a public servant.            His unlawful act<\/p>\n
resulted in a riot and loss of lives of innocents. In Ext.R3(a)<\/p>\n
judgment in C.C. No. 7\/91, wherein the petitioner was the first<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999               -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused it is held thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “From the conclusions on point No.1 (paragraph 92)
\n        and point No.3 (paragraph 100) it is found that the 1st
\n        accused formed into an unlawful assembly alongwith
\n        others on the afternoon of 23.4.1990 and knowingly
\n        disobeyed an order lawfully promulgated under Section
\n        144 Cr.P.C. resulting in loss of life and property and riot
\n        and affray and thereby committed offences punishable
\n        under section 143 and 188 IPC.        The first accused is
\n        found guilty under section 143 and 188 IPC and is
\n        convicted accordingly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11. Kazi is a spiritual leader of the community. He guides<\/p>\n
the people of the community in spiritual and temporal matters so<\/p>\n
as to promote peace and harmony, not only in the community,<\/p>\n
but also in the society of which the community is a part. A Kazi<\/p>\n
must be a person acceptable to all in the community. He cannot<\/p>\n
be a person who is a spokesman of one faction of the community,<\/p>\n
that too a belligerent faction.         Factionalism breeds enmity<\/p>\n
between two sections of the community. Kazi has to look after<\/p>\n
the welfare of all sections of the community. The petitioner is a<\/p>\n
person, who, when he had the chance to act temporarily as Kazi<\/p>\n
in the absence of the Kazi, who was none other than his own<\/p>\n
uncle, excommunicated a whole section of the community and<\/p>\n
later led an uprising against the Kazi on the ground that the Kazi<\/p>\n
allowed that section to pray in the mosque, where peace and<\/p>\n
tranquility should prevail.     He led an unlawful assembly and<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999                -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
defied orders of the District Magistrate, unmindful of the safety<\/p>\n
of the people, which ultimately led to loss of lives, and his being<\/p>\n
convicted by a criminal court for offences against the society<\/p>\n
punishable under the Indian Penal Code. I have absolutely no<\/p>\n
doubt in my mind that such a person is not even fit to be<\/p>\n
considered for the office of Kazi. In this connection I find it apt<\/p>\n
to quote here two paragraphs of Ext.R3(a) judgment, regarding<\/p>\n
the teachings of Hazrath Ubaidulla, the spiritual leader of the<\/p>\n
Muslims in Lakshadweep who converted the earlier inhabitants<\/p>\n
of the island to Islam. The same reads thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “119. The matter will not be complete unless what
\n       Hazrath Ubaidulla has to say in this matter is also
\n       considered. He is revered by the community not only in
\n       this island but through out the world else. It was he who
\n       brought the religion in to this island and it was his
\n       Makhbara in respect of which the dispute centres round.
\n       It was he who founded the Pattakal family and the wakf
\n       of the Juma Masjid. His words are available in the form
\n       of his book ‘Futhuhathul Jazayeer’. This court can refer
\n       to it as an historical piece of evidence and resort to the
\n       relevant book as per section 57 of the Indian Evidence
\n       Act, 1872.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              120.  It shows that he was a person capable of
\n       bringing quakes and tigers in to the island both unknown
\n       here. He left Amini to Andrott in the dead of night when
\n       a mob planned to finish him off, not in fear, but to
\n       purchase peace. While he visited Kavaratti he advised
\n       his followers that the lord is with the tolarant and told
\n       them about the greatness of tolarance, when his
\n       followers found the assault from the inhabitants<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999             -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
       unbearable.    Towards the ends of his ‘Futhuhathul
\n       Jazayeer’ he viewed that he wont make any one greater
\n       than any one (
\n                        ……) vide page 28 of Hazrath
\n       Ubaidullayum Lakshadweepum”by Dr. N. Muthukoya.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It appears that the petitioner was unable to imbibe and<\/p>\n
assimilate the noble teachings of this reverred ancestor and<\/p>\n
leader, and acted contrary to his teachings to bring discord in<\/p>\n
the community, which is not what is expected of a person who<\/p>\n
aspires to become a Kazi, who is to guide the people of the<\/p>\n
community.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Further the selection of Kazi itself was conducted by<\/p>\n
the Samastha Kerala Jem-Iyyathil Ulama, a body consisting of<\/p>\n
principal Muhammadans of the local area. They selected the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent giving him the first place among the two candidates,<\/p>\n
in a selection between the 3rd respondent and the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Further, as is evidenced by Ext.R2, 355 Muhammadans of the<\/p>\n
area had objected to the appointment of the petitioner as Kazi.<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 only supports the candidature of the petitioner and does<\/p>\n
not dispute the eligibility of the 3rd respondent in any manner.<\/p>\n
The 1st respondent submits that for the last ten years, the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent is peacefully and competently administering the<\/p>\n
office of Kazi, without complaints from anybody. In view of the<\/p>\n
O.P. No.4698 of 1999            -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
tumultous past history of the mosque as evidenced by Ext.R3(a)<\/p>\n
judgment, it is not desirable to disturb the present tranquility of<\/p>\n
the mosque and the island by undoing the appointment made by<\/p>\n
the first respondent, who presently appears to be acceptable to<\/p>\n
all.\n<\/p>\n
     In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise<\/p>\n
my   discretionary   jurisdiction   under  Article   226   of  the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India to interfere with Ext.P4 appointment of the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent as Kazi by the first respondent, at the instance of<\/p>\n
the petitioner. Accordingly the original petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                       S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
\nrhs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 4698 of 1999(H) 1. PATTAKKAL SAYED AHAMED KOYA THANGAL … Petitioner Vs 1. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHAD … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP […]<\/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-80838","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 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\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-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=\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-20T09:59:30+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T09:59:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2835,\"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\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-20T09:59:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 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":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 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\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-20T09:59:30+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T09:59:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009"},"wordCount":2835,"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\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009","name":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya ... vs Administrator Union Territory Of ... on 20 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-20T09:59:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattakkal-sayed-ahamed-koya-vs-administrator-union-territory-of-on-20-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pattakkal Sayed Ahamed Koya … vs Administrator Union Territory Of … on 20 October, 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\/80838","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=80838"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80838\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80838"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80838"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80838"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}