{"id":90090,"date":"2009-05-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-30T04:11:42","modified_gmt":"2015-04-29T22:41:42","slug":"p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP.No. 13351 of 1999(M)\n\n\n\n1. P.C.RUKKIYA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SUKUMARAN NAYAR(SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SCGSC\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :21\/05\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             S. Siri Jagan, J.\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                       O.P. No. 13351 of 1999\n               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n                  Dated this, the 21st     May, 2009.\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioners in this original petition are the widow and<\/p>\n
children of late N.K. Kunhavaru. The said Kunjavaru was the brother<\/p>\n
of one Moidunni, who was a detenu under the Conservation of Foreign<\/p>\n
Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. On the<\/p>\n
ground that certain properties standing in the name of Kunhavaru<\/p>\n
were acquired with the illegal funds of Moidunni, proceedings were<\/p>\n
initiated against those properties under the Smugglers and Foreign<\/p>\n
Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, by issuing<\/p>\n
Ext. P1 notice under Section 6(1) of the said Act. The said Kunhavaru<\/p>\n
challenged the notice before the High Court of Madras in W.P. No.<\/p>\n
4470 of 1978, and obtained a stay of further proceedings . In view of<\/p>\n
the fact that a batch of cases challenging the constitutional validity of<\/p>\n
the Act was pending before the Supreme Court, the said writ petition<\/p>\n
was kept pending. While that writ petition was pending, the said<\/p>\n
Kunhavaru died on 20-3-1992. In the meanwhile, in the decision of<\/p>\n
Attorney General for India and Others v. Amratlal Prajivandas<\/p>\n
and Others, [(1994) 5 SCC 54], the Supreme Court upheld the<\/p>\n
constitutional validity of the Act. Thereafter, on 18-7-1994, W.P.No.<\/p>\n
4470\/1998 was disposed of by the High Court of Judicature, Madras<\/p>\n
holding that since the validity of the Act has been upheld by the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, further proceedings         pursuant to Ext. P1 may be<\/p>\n
continued and completed within six months, granting further time to<\/p>\n
the petitioner in that writ petition to file objections to the show cause<\/p>\n
notice, apparently without noticing that the petitioner Kunhavaru was<\/p>\n
no more.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Subsequently, the 2nd petitioner herein filed Ext. P3<\/p>\n
objections to Ext. P1 notice, which was followed up with Ext. P4<\/p>\n
additional objections. However, the same did not find favour with the<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.               -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
3rd respondent herein, who is the competent authority under the Act,<\/p>\n
who passed Ext. P5 order under Section 7(1) of the Act, ordering<\/p>\n
forfeiture of the 10 items of properties detailed therein to the<\/p>\n
Government of India. Ext. P6 consequential order under Section 19<\/p>\n
(1) of the Act was also passed by the 3rd respondent,     requiring the<\/p>\n
petitioners to surrender those properties. The 5th petitioner herein<\/p>\n
filed Ext. P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent-Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
under Section 12 of the Act, which was dismissed by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent by Ext. P8 order. Exts.P5, P6 and P8 orders are under<\/p>\n
challenge in this original petition.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the competent<\/p>\n
authority has to show link or nexus between the illegal funds of the<\/p>\n
detenu and the properties proposed to be forfeited to substantiate<\/p>\n
the belief that the property was illegally acquired and reasons to<\/p>\n
come to that belief have to be recorded in writing. According to the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner, when properties of relatives of a detenu are<\/p>\n
proposed to be proceeded against, the competent authority has to<\/p>\n
show       a connecting link between those properties and the<\/p>\n
convict\/detenu and even if the property is illegally acquired by the<\/p>\n
relative, without a connecting link between the funds of the detenu<\/p>\n
and the properties, the reasons for belief regarding which connecting<\/p>\n
link has to be recorded in writing by the competent authority, a<\/p>\n
notice cannot be issued under Section 6(1). He points out that in<\/p>\n
Amratlal Prajivandas’s case (supra), the challenge against the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act to relatives and associates has been repelled by<\/p>\n
Supreme Court noting that it is because of the necessity for the<\/p>\n
competent authority to record such reasons in writing before he can<\/p>\n
proceed under the Act, sufficient safeguard against arbitrariness has<\/p>\n
been provided in the Act.       The counsel buttresses this argument<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.              -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Fatima Mohd.<\/p>\n
Amin (Dead) through L.R. v. Union of India [(2003) 7 SCC 436],<\/p>\n
P.P. Abdulla and another v. Competent Authority and others,<\/p>\n
[(2007) 2 SCC 510] and Kesar Devi (SMT) v. Union of India and<\/p>\n
others<\/a> [(2003) 7 SCC 427]. The counsel argues that Ext. P1 notice<\/p>\n
does not disclose any such nexus between the detenu and the<\/p>\n
properties in question and therefore Ext. P1 notice itself is vitiated.<\/p>\n
On the basis of such a notice, the petitioners cannot be asked to prove<\/p>\n
that the properties have not been acquired with the illegal funds of<\/p>\n
the detenu, is the contention raised by the petitioner’s counsel.<\/p>\n
      4. With the help of a counter affidavit, the 3rd respondent seeks<\/p>\n
to support the impugned orders. According to the Assistant Solicitor<\/p>\n
General, in Ext. P1 itself it is specifically recorded that for the<\/p>\n
detailed reasons recorded in the case of Shri. N.K. Moidunni, brother<\/p>\n
of Kunhavaru, there is reason to believe that the properties have<\/p>\n
been acquired from the illegal funds of the detenu and the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded in Moidunni’s case are sufficient to show the nexus between<\/p>\n
the properties and the detenu. The Assistant Solicitor General has<\/p>\n
also made available for my perusal in Court a copy of the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded under Section 6(1) of the Act in the case of Moidunni. The<\/p>\n
Assistant Solicitor general points out that in Kesar Devi’s case<\/p>\n
(Supra), the Supreme Court has held that the requirement for the<\/p>\n
competent authority to show link or nexus to substantiate the belief<\/p>\n
that property was illegally acquired is only where the relationship of<\/p>\n
the convict\/detenu with the person holding the property is remote and<\/p>\n
not where the relationship is close and direct. According to learned<\/p>\n
Assistant Solicitor General, in this case, the said Kunhavaru being the<\/p>\n
brother of the      detenu, the relationship is close and direct and<\/p>\n
therefore the requirement under the Act is satisfied by Ext. P1 read<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.                   -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
with the reasons recorded in the case of Moidunni.<\/p>\n
      5.    I have considered the rival contentions in detail.<\/p>\n
      6. I am of opinion that in view of the specific provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 6(1) and the Supreme Court decisions cited before me<\/p>\n
(supra), the legal proposition that the competent authority should<\/p>\n
record the reasons for the belief that the properties sought to be<\/p>\n
proceeded       against    are   illegally   acquired   properties     of the<\/p>\n
convict\/detenu in writing cannot be disputed. That being the legal<\/p>\n
position, all I have to decide is whether that requirement is fulfilled in<\/p>\n
this case.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Some reasons stated to be as required under Section 6(1) are<\/p>\n
appended to Ext. P1 which are the following:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Shri. N.K. Kunhavara is the brother of Sri N.K. Moidunny
\n       who was a detenu under the COFEPOSA Act, 1974. Therefore,
\n       Shri. Kunhavara is a “relative” within the meaning of Section 2(2)<\/p>\n
       (c) of the Smugglers & Foreign Exchange Manipulators
\n       (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Shri. Kunhavara went to Malaysia prior to 1947 and was
\n       till now in Malaysia. He is stated to be now in India. Various
\n       properties were acquired by Shri. Moidunny either in his name or
\n       in the name of Shri. N.K. Kunhavara. There is a partition on
\n       21.9.1977 according to which, certain properties have been
\n       allotted to Shri. Kunhavara. For the details reasons recorded in
\n       the case of Shri. N.K. Moidunny brother of Shri. Kunhavara, all
\n       these properties would be deemed to have been acquired from the
\n       illegal funds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           xx                  xx                xx<\/p>\n
       Shri. Kunhavara has also acquired a property in R.S.No. 298 in
\n       Orumanayur panchayat (purchased vide doc. No. 827\/67 dated.
\n       6.6.1967 – Extent 1.37= acres) Since there is no evidence for the
\n       source of funds for purchase of this property the same would be
\n       deemed to have been acquired out of illegal funds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              It is seen that a construction has been put-up during 1970
\n       to 1972, in the lands (Item 3 and 4 above) for a sum of Rs.
\n       25,000\/-. The source for this is stated to have been the amounts<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       remitted to Shri. Moidunny, brother, and which was deposited in
\n       the Catholic Syrian Bank, Chowghat.        Details of the bank a\/c.
\n       reveal the following deposits:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       7.1.1974                          Rs. 25,992.50\n\n       9.2.1974                          Rs. 4,207.30         Rs.30,199.80\n\n<\/pre>\n
       Since the construction was put-up prior to the receipt of this
\n       money, the source for the same cannot be related to the
\n       remittance.    Therefore, the source for the construction of the
\n       building would be deemed to have come from the illegal funds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Apart from the above properties, Shri. Kunhavara has also
\n       acquired the property at Guruvayur village in Survey No. 246\/10,
\n       236\/6 and 254\/18 being agricultural lands, purchased vide doc.
\n       Nos. 379\/69 dt. 26-7-1969 and 720\/61 dated. 13.5.1961 (Extent
\n       1.09 acres) along with Shri. Moidunny, brother and Mrs. Suhara,
\n       W\/o. Shri Moidunny. Since there is no evidence for the source of
\n       funds for purchase of this property, this would also be deemed to
\n       have been acquired out of illegal funds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              From the facts mentioned above and considering the
\n       properties owned by the person, I am of the opinion that all the
\n       properties mentioned above were acquired out of unexplained
\n       funds and this is a fit case for the issue of a notice u\/s 6(1) of the
\n       Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             (Underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
I do find some reasons here to connect the properties to the detenu,<\/p>\n
Moidunni. I further find that the above also refers to the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded in the case of Moidunni. As I have stated, the Assistant<\/p>\n
Solicitor General has made available for my perusal the reasons<\/p>\n
recorded in the case of Moidunni. In the same, it is stated thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             “Shri. Moidunny has acquired a number of properties over the
\n      years. In 1973 there was a partition between himself and his brother
\n      Shri. N.K. Kunhavaru, Orumarayur, Trichur Dist. (Partition deed No.
\n      793\/1977 dt. 21.9.1977). Narration in the partition deed reads as
\n      under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           “Properties mentioned in the schedules were acquired by us<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.                    -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
           jointly or separately by our earnings and these properties have
\n           been enjoyed by us till now. As per this deed, the properties
\n           shown in Schedules A and B will hereafter belong to the share of
\n           Kunjavaru (A schedule) and Moidunny (B schedule).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Shri. Kunhavaru, the elder brother of Shri. Moidunny, is
\n      reported to have gone to Malaysia prior to 1947 and Moidunny was
\n      also reported to have been in Malaysia from 1952 to 1970.            The
\n      various properties are alleged to have been acquired by means of
\n      income derived in Malaysia. However, there is no proof for having
\n      remitted any money to India.        There is also no known source of
\n      income for Shri. Moidunny in India. Therefore, the acquisition of the
\n      various properties would be deemed to have been made by Shri.
\n      Moidunny from his illegal funds. The properties that are allotted to
\n      the share of Shri. Moidunny, as per the partition deed, are as under.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (1)    Right, title and interest in property at Orumanayur village,
\n      Chowghat Taluq vide document No. 176\/65 dt. 16.2.1965:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Survey No. 61\/7             - 87 cents   ) with building\n                    ,,   61\/14           - 39 cents   ) in Ward No.I\n                                                      ) House No.222\n\n      (2)    Right, title and interest in lands at Orumanayur village,\n<\/pre>\n
      Chowghat Taluk in Survey No. 61\/12 – Extent 37 cents – Purchased
\n      vide document No. 730\/70 dt. 24.9.1970.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)      Right, title and interest in lands at Orumanayur village,
\n      Chowghat Taluk in Survey No. 254\/10 – Extent 56 cents – purchased
\n      vide document No. 163\/70 dt. 20.4.1970.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4)      Right, title and interest in lands at Orumanayur village,
\n      Chowghat Taluk in Survey No. 253\/7 – Extent 7 cents – purchased
\n      vide document No. 164\/70 dt. 20.4.1970.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5)    Right, title and interest in building in Survey No. 61\/7 of
\n      Orumanayur village – Ward No. 1 Door No. 200.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Apart from the above, the following property was also acquired
\n      by Shri. Moidunny.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             1.37= cents of land at Venkitanga village in Survey No. 298
\n      purchased vide document No. 830\/67 dt. 6.6.1967.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In addition, another property at Guruvayur village in S. No.
\n      246\/10, 253\/6 and 254\/18, being agricultural lands, purchased vide
\n      doc. Nos. 379\/69 dt. 26.7.1969 and 720\/61 dt. 13.5.1961 (Extent 1.09
\n      acres), is jointly held along with Shri. Kunhavaru and Mrs. Suhara,
\n      wife of Shri. Moidunny. For These two properties, as Shri. Moidunny
\n      has no legal source of income, the sources should be deemed to have<\/p>\n
O.P.. No. 13351\/99.                 -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
      come from his illegal funds.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                 (Underlining supplied)<\/p>\n
From the same, it is clear that the said Moidunni and Kunhavaru had<\/p>\n
very intimate transactions in respect of money and property. It is<\/p>\n
clear that they had put both their individually owned properties and<\/p>\n
jointly acquired properties in the hotchpot for partition. These are<\/p>\n
more than sufficient to show real nexus between the illegal funds of<\/p>\n
the detenu and the properties proceeded against. That being so, I do<\/p>\n
not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners that the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent has not recorded reasons in writing to show link or nexus<\/p>\n
between the properties and the detenu and for the belief that the<\/p>\n
property was acquired with the illegal funds of the detenu-Moidunni.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. Once that statutory requirement is fulfilled, then the onus is<\/p>\n
clearly on the petitioners to prove that the properties were not<\/p>\n
acquired with the illegal funds of the detenu. The petitioners have<\/p>\n
not even attempted to produce any proof whatsoever in that regard.<\/p>\n
That being so, they have not discharged the onus put on them by the<\/p>\n
Statute under Section 8 of the Act, without which they cannot succeed<\/p>\n
in the challenge against the impugned orders.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore, I do not find any merit in the original petition.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                            S. Siri Jagan, Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Tds\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP.No. 13351 of 1999(M) 1. P.C.RUKKIYA … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.SUKUMARAN NAYAR(SR.) For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SCGSC The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :21\/05\/2009 O R D E […]<\/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-90090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-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=\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-29T22:41:42+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\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T22:41:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2148,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\",\"name\":\"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T22:41:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-29T22:41:42+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\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T22:41:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009"},"wordCount":2148,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009","name":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T22:41:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-c-rukkiya-vs-union-of-india-on-21-may-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.C.Rukkiya vs Union Of India on 21 May, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90090","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=90090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}