{"id":88656,"date":"2008-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-31T07:35:52","modified_gmt":"2015-01-31T02:05:52","slug":"s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 26776 of 2003(K)\n\n\n1. S.K.MOHAN, S\/O. S.T.KURIAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY,\n\n3. SATISH MITTAL,\n\n4. MITESH PATTEL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J\n\n      -----------------------------------------------------------------\n      W.P.(C).NOs.26776\/2003,10847\/2006 &20527\/2006\n      -----------------------------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The controversy in these writ petitions is in relation to<\/p>\n
an alleged unauthorised construction made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006. The facts of the case<\/p>\n
are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The common petitioner in W.P.(c).Nos.26776\/2003<\/p>\n
and 20527\/2006, Sri. S.K. Mohanan is the 3rd respondent in<\/p>\n
W.P(c).No.10847\/2006 and he is a resident of flat Number<\/p>\n
1106 on      the 12th floor of the multistoried building, viz.<\/p>\n
Pioneer Towers, Marine Drive, Ernakulam. The petitioner<\/p>\n
in W.P.(c).No.10847\/2006, Sri. Mitesh K. Patel,                     is  the<\/p>\n
common respondent in other cases and is also a resident of<\/p>\n
flat No.1105 on the 12th floor of the same building.<\/p>\n
     3.    According        to    the     petitioner       in       W.P(c).\n<\/p>\n
Nos.26776\/2003 &20527\/2006, the residents of the 12th<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    2<\/span><\/p>\n
floor, the top most floor of the building, did not have any<\/p>\n
opening to the roof portion of the building. It is alleged that<\/p>\n
the petitioner in W.P.(c).No.10847\/2006 made an opening<\/p>\n
through the concrete roof of the building (which according<\/p>\n
to Sri. Mitesh K. Patel, was through a glass portion) and<\/p>\n
constructed a staircase connecting the opening. It is stated<\/p>\n
that on the roof, a room with water connection was also<\/p>\n
constructed.      On coming to the know of the same, the<\/p>\n
petitioner     in WP(c).Nos.26776\/2003     and    20527\/2006,<\/p>\n
Sri.S.K. Mohanan complained to the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Corporation and after enquiries, a provisional order under<\/p>\n
Section 406(1) of the Muncipalities Act was issued and<\/p>\n
thereafter a final order under Section 406(3) was issued<\/p>\n
confirming the provisional order. This order is Ext.P1 in WP<\/p>\n
(c).No.20527\/2006 filed by sri. S.K. Mohanan.<\/p>\n
     4. Against Ext.P1 final order issued under Section 406<\/p>\n
(3) of the Muncipalities Act, the petitioner in W.P.(c).<\/p>\n
No.10847\/2006, Sri. Mitesh K. Patel, filed an appeal to the<\/p>\n
Corporation and that was rejected by             order dated<\/p>\n
10.3.2000      (Ext.P2     in WP(c).No.20527\/2006).    In   the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, the petitioner in W.P(c).No.20527\/2006, filed a<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    3<\/span><\/p>\n
writ petition before this court as O.P.No.22636\/98 for<\/p>\n
implementing Ext.P1. That writ petition was finally disposed<\/p>\n
of by judgment dated 23.01.2002 directing implementation<\/p>\n
of Ext.P1 final order. It is submitted that, even thereafter<\/p>\n
consequential action was not taken and                seeking<\/p>\n
implementation of Ext.P1, for the second time, and for other<\/p>\n
reliefs he has filed WP(c).No.26776\/2003.<\/p>\n
     5.    During the pendency of that      writ petition, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006 filed an application for<\/p>\n
regularisation      of the  construction, in respect of which<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 order was issued. Such application was made to the<\/p>\n
Government and as orders were not passed he filed a writ<\/p>\n
petition before this court as O.P.No.25192\/2002 praying<\/p>\n
for a direction for an expeditious consideration of his<\/p>\n
application for regularisation. That Original Petition was<\/p>\n
disposed of by judgment dated 16.9.2002, directing<\/p>\n
consideration of the application for regularisation and also<\/p>\n
ordering stay of demolition in the meanwhile.<\/p>\n
     6. It is stated that in pursuance to the above judgment,<\/p>\n
Government heard all the parties and issued Ext.P5 order<\/p>\n
rejecting the application for regularisation. Seeking review<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.      4<\/span><\/p>\n
of the said order, invoking the power of the Government<\/p>\n
under Rule 7 of the Kerala          Building (Regularisation of<\/p>\n
Unauthorised Construction and Land Development) Rules,<\/p>\n
1999,(here-in-after referred to as the Rules) the petitioner<\/p>\n
in WP(c).No.10847\/2006 filed a review petition. That was<\/p>\n
rejected by the Government without hearing any one of the<\/p>\n
parties. The order rejecting the review petition was<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(c).No.12747\/2005.<\/p>\n
By judgment dated 22.6.2005, that writ petition was<\/p>\n
disposed of quashing the order rejecting the review petition<\/p>\n
and directing its reconsideration with notice to all<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      7. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, the matter<\/p>\n
was reconsidered by the Government and by Ext.P7 in WP<\/p>\n
(c).No.20527\/2006,         the  review  was   allowed    subject<\/p>\n
conditions, the first of which being relevant, is as follows.<\/p>\n
               “(a).     consent  from   the  owner     of  the<\/p>\n
               neighbouring property (i.e. Sri. S.K. Mohan)<\/p>\n
               should be obtained and produced before the<\/p>\n
               Secretary of the local body.\n<\/p>\n
     8. It is challenging Ext.P7, WP(c).No.20527\/2006 has<\/p>\n
 W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    5<\/span><\/p>\n
been filed by Sri. S.K.Mohanan and Sri. Mitesh K. Patel, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006 in whose favour it is<\/p>\n
issued has filed the writ petition challenging the above<\/p>\n
condition imposed in Ext.P7.         The prayer     in WP(c).<\/p>\n
No.20527\/2006 is for an order directing implementation of<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 and the fate of this writ petition will depend upon the<\/p>\n
out come of the other two writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
      9. I have heard the submission made by           Sri. S.<\/p>\n
Sreekumar, the counsel          for the petitioner in W.P(c).<\/p>\n
Nos.26776\/2003 & 20527\/2006 and Sri. Premjit Nagendran,<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner in W.P(c).No.10847\/2006, whose<\/p>\n
clients are the party respondents in the two writ petitions.<\/p>\n
Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the Government<\/p>\n
Pleader were also heard.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The main contention that was urged by Sri.S.<\/p>\n
Sreekumar is that, by the unauthorised construction that<\/p>\n
has been made by the petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006,<\/p>\n
he has violated the Marine Drive scheme.            It is also<\/p>\n
contended that, there cannot be         regularisation of any<\/p>\n
construction which is made in violation of the town planning<\/p>\n
scheme. It was also argued that Ext.P7 in WP(C).<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    6<\/span><\/p>\n
No.20527\/2006 was passed without notice to the petitioner<\/p>\n
and therefore, the said order is vitiated for violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice.All these contentions are<\/p>\n
controverted by the counsel for the respondents.<\/p>\n
     11. As far as the case of scheme violation is concerned,<\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail, in<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 order rendered by the Government. It is stated that,<\/p>\n
when the matter was heard, the contention regarding<\/p>\n
violation of the scheme was raised and that the Town<\/p>\n
Planning Officer, had confirmed that the petitioner in WP<\/p>\n
(c).No.10847\/2006 has violated the scheme. However, it is<\/p>\n
seen that the Town Planning Officer has pointed out that,<\/p>\n
the violations are not serious in nature and therefore the<\/p>\n
construction made could be regularised conditionally. It was<\/p>\n
acting upon this recommendation made by the Town<\/p>\n
Planning Officer, that in Ext.P7, the Government have held<\/p>\n
that the construction can be regularised on payment of the<\/p>\n
compounding fee.\n<\/p>\n
     12.     As far as the Rules, that are relied on by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(c).Nos.20527\/2006<\/p>\n
and 26776\/2003 are concerned, it is mainly of the Rule 5 of<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.      7<\/span><\/p>\n
the Rules. Rule 5 deals with the procedure for disposal of an<\/p>\n
application      for    regularisation of   the   unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction and land development. The sub Rule (3) relied<\/p>\n
on by the counsel says that, on receipt of an application, the<\/p>\n
Secretary shall note the extent of violation of any provision<\/p>\n
in the Building Rules and the Town Planning Scheme, if any,<\/p>\n
in the report. The compounding fee as in table-I which is<\/p>\n
to be remitted, in case regularisation is allowed, also has to<\/p>\n
be     noted in the report. Sub rule (7) says that no<\/p>\n
unauthorised construction shall be regularised if the<\/p>\n
construction so carried out affects adversely the proposals<\/p>\n
of any sanctioned General Town Planning Scheme(Master<\/p>\n
Plan) or Detailed Town Planning scheme in the area or if the<\/p>\n
construction grossly violates any safety provisions in the<\/p>\n
Building Rules for the time being in force or any safety<\/p>\n
conditions specified in the exemption order or permit.<\/p>\n
Counsel argued that, in view of Sub rule (7), if there is<\/p>\n
anything violating the Scheme, then regularisation cannot<\/p>\n
be granted.\n<\/p>\n
     13. A combined reading of sub rule (3) and (7) of Rule<\/p>\n
5 reveals that,        even if there is violation of the Town<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.      8<\/span><\/p>\n
Planning Scheme, still an application for regularisation has<\/p>\n
to be processed by the Secretary as provided in Sub rule<\/p>\n
(3). Such construction can also be regularised, provided the<\/p>\n
unauthorised construction made does not adversely affect<\/p>\n
the proposal of any sanctioned General Town Planning<\/p>\n
Scheme or Detailed Town Planning Scheme. It is not that,<\/p>\n
in all cases, where there is any minor violation of Scheme,<\/p>\n
the Government is devided of its power of regularisation.<\/p>\n
     14. In this case, as already noticed, the Town Planning<\/p>\n
Officer has opined that the construction can be regularized,<\/p>\n
since the violations are not serious in nature. This was<\/p>\n
because       the unauthorised construction made by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.(c).No.10847\/2006 was not one adversely<\/p>\n
affecting the Scheme. In such circumstances,         the first<\/p>\n
respondent        was      perfectly justified in    ordering<\/p>\n
regularization subject to the payment of compounding fee<\/p>\n
as prescribed in the Rules. Therefore, I do not find any thing<\/p>\n
illegal in Ext.P7 warranting interference.<\/p>\n
     15. Next is the complaint of Sri. C.K. Mohanan, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(c).No.26776\/2003 and 20527\/2006          that<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 was issued without notice to him. It is stated in<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    9<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P7 order that, notice was issued to him on two<\/p>\n
occasions and those notices were returned to the<\/p>\n
Government by the postal authorities undelivered. It has<\/p>\n
come out during the course of arguments that the petitioner<\/p>\n
in WP(c).Nos.26776\/2003         and   20527\/2006 is a non-<\/p>\n
resident Indian and that most of the time he is out of India.<\/p>\n
If that be so, there is nothing unnatural, if the notice was<\/p>\n
returned undelivered and the Government cannot be faulted<\/p>\n
of having violated natural justice. In this context, it needs to<\/p>\n
be mentioned that, notice issued by this court in WP(c).<\/p>\n
No.10847\/2006 was also remaining unserved on him until<\/p>\n
now and at the time when these case were taken up for<\/p>\n
hearing, the learned counsel has accepted notice on his<\/p>\n
behalf. From Ext.P7, since it is evident that, notice was<\/p>\n
repeatedly sent and as it was undelivered, I am not able to<\/p>\n
find that the Government has violated the principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice in passing Ext.P7 order, without hearing the<\/p>\n
petitioner     in    WP(c).No.20527\/2006    and   26776\/2003.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the petitioner in these two cases are only to be rejected<\/p>\n
and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.      10<\/span><\/p>\n
     16. Coming to the grievance of Sri. Mitesh K. Patel,<\/p>\n
the petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006, is concerned, as<\/p>\n
already noticed, it is confined to condition No.1 in Ext.P7.<\/p>\n
Condition No.1 in Ext.P7 requires him to obtain sanction of<\/p>\n
the owner of the neighbouring property viz the petitioner in<\/p>\n
WP(c).Nos.26776\/2003 & 20527\/2006 and produce the<\/p>\n
same before the Secretary of the Corporation. In view of the<\/p>\n
fact that these two parties are at loggerheads and are<\/p>\n
fighting for years and even now there is no sign of any<\/p>\n
compromise, I am of the view that, this is a condition<\/p>\n
incapable of compliance. Further, for exercising the power<\/p>\n
of regularisation conferred on the Government, it is not a<\/p>\n
statutory requirement that the consent of the complainant<\/p>\n
should be obtained.         If condition No.1  is insisted, the<\/p>\n
petitioner in WP(c)No.10847\/2006 will be deprived of the<\/p>\n
benefit of Ext.P7 order          and that shall not be. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, for the implementation of the other conditions,<\/p>\n
retension of the Ist condition is unnecessary. Therefore,<\/p>\n
condition No.1 in Ext.P7 is liable to be quashed and I do so.<\/p>\n
       17. I also record the submission        of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006 that, in<\/p>\n
W.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    11<\/span><\/p>\n
case there is any leakage consequent on the construction<\/p>\n
that he has made, he will rectify the same at his cost.<\/p>\n
Therefore I direct that, in case there is leakage consequent<\/p>\n
on the construction that was made by the petitioner in WP<\/p>\n
(c).No.10847\/2006, the petitioner in the other two cases<\/p>\n
shall be at liberty to point out the same to the Secretary of<\/p>\n
the Corporation and the petitioner in WP(c).No.10847\/2006<\/p>\n
shall specify the same       as and when he is intimated of it<\/p>\n
by the Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
     18. In the result WP(c).No.20527\/2006 is dismissed<\/p>\n
and WP(c).No.10847\/2006 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
       In so far as WP(c).No.26776\/2003 is concerned, now<\/p>\n
that I have upheld Ext.P7 order there is no question of<\/p>\n
implementing Ext.P1 order issued under Section 406 of the<\/p>\n
Muncipalities Act. Consequently, this writ petition will also<\/p>\n
stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                ANTONY DOMINIC\nvi                                  JUDGE\n\nW.P(c).Nos.26776\/03 & conn.    12<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 26776 of 2003(K) 1. S.K.MOHAN, S\/O. S.T.KURIAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, 3. SATISH MITTAL, 4. MITESH PATTEL, For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN The Hon’ble […]<\/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-88656","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 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\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-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=\"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2059,\"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\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\",\"name\":\"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 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":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 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\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008"},"wordCount":2059,"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\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008","name":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-31T02:05:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-k-mohan-vs-corporation-of-kochi-on-10-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.K.Mohan vs Corporation Of Kochi on 10 June, 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\/88656","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=88656"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88656\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88656"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88656"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88656"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}