{"id":94847,"date":"2006-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2"},"modified":"2016-04-18T04:49:10","modified_gmt":"2016-04-17T23:19:10","slug":"s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","title":{"rendered":"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 29835 of 2003(B)\n\n\n1. S.P.KRISHNAKUMAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,\n\n3. THE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, GDB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\n\n Dated :06\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                  (M.RAMACHANDRAN & A.K.BASHEER,  JJ)\n\n         -------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n                     W.P.(C) No.29835  of 2003-B\n\n\n         --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n               Dated this the 6th day of December, 2006\n\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran, J:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               After   undergoing   10   years   training,   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
had been appointed as Music Artist Grade III on 03-05-1997, by<\/p>\n
the Guruvayoor   Devaswom.     Although  the  training   was  over   by<\/p>\n
12-10-1996, for want of regularisation, he had been continued to<\/p>\n
be   paid   only   a   stipend.     The   petitioner   claims   that   he   was<\/p>\n
attending   to   the   work   of   Grade   III   Artist   from   the   above   said<\/p>\n
date.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         2.    Later   on,     in   its   wisdom,   the   Managing   Committee<\/p>\n
had   given   retrospective   effect   to   the   appointment   from<\/p>\n
12-10-1996.          But   the   employee   had   been   advised   that<\/p>\n
consequent   thereto   there   will   not   be   any   monitory   benefits.<\/p>\n
Perhaps taking into account the representation submitted by the<\/p>\n
petitioner and persons similarly situated, by Ext.P5 order dated<\/p>\n
07-03-2000,  the Managing Committee  had  extended the benefit<\/p>\n
of   salary,   in   the   prescribed   scale,   for   the   above   said   period   as<\/p>\n
well.     In   respect   of   the   petitioner,   after   adjusting   the   stipend<\/p>\n
paid for the period, additionally Rs.11,355\/- had been given.<\/p>\n
         3.    After   over   three   years,   on   24-05-2003   he  had   been<\/p>\n
advised   that   the   monitory   benefits   so   granted   was   proposed   to<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
be   recovered.     This   was   stated   to   be   for   the   reason   that   the<\/p>\n
Local Fund Audit had objected about the grant of pay, since the<\/p>\n
statute   did   not   postulate   extension   of   such   benefits.     He   was<\/p>\n
asked   to   pay   back   a   sum   of   Rs.11,355\/-.     The   writ   petition<\/p>\n
followed.     The   petitioner   submits   that   after   extending   the<\/p>\n
benefits,   which   was   prescribed   by   a   decision   of   the   competent<\/p>\n
authority,  it could have been cancelled and that too after years.<\/p>\n
        4.    Without   going   to   the   merits   of   the   case,   during   the<\/p>\n
pendency   of   the   writ   petition,   this   Court   had   directed   the<\/p>\n
Managing  Committee  to  consider   the matter  afresh.    However,<\/p>\n
by   Ext.10   the   petitioner   had   been   advised   that   there   was   no<\/p>\n
possibility for retracing the steps already taken.<\/p>\n
        5.    Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent,   justifying   their<\/p>\n
stand, submits that although   retrospectivity and arrears of pay<\/p>\n
had been granted,   it sprouted from   an erroneous decision and<\/p>\n
without jurisdiction, and when such infirmity is pointed out, the<\/p>\n
mistake   requires   to   be   set   right.     Although   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
contended that he was working as Grade III Artist, according to<\/p>\n
the respondent, there was nothing produced to indicate that he<\/p>\n
was working in the regular category.   Immediately after receipt<\/p>\n
of   the   Audit   Report,   consequential   steps   were   taken   for<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
rectification of the mistake,  as expected of a statutory authority,<\/p>\n
and if such follow up steps were not taken, the Committee would<\/p>\n
have been found fault with.   According to the counsel, the legal<\/p>\n
position   would   be   that   the   employee   was   not   authorised   to<\/p>\n
appropriate     the   extra   payments   received   by   him.   Once   it   was<\/p>\n
found that the payment was irregular, he had a duty to refund it.<\/p>\n
What was paid was not found to be an authorised payment.   The<\/p>\n
time lag was of no consequence.  An audit team was expected to<\/p>\n
critically   examine   the  accounts   and  proceedings,   and   point   out<\/p>\n
errors   and   omissions.     The   errors   required   to   be   set   right.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the claims as presented in the writ petition were not<\/p>\n
entertainable.     We   may   examine   the   rival   contentions   in   the<\/p>\n
above context.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.    We   find   that   the   petitioner   had   completed   the<\/p>\n
training   by   12-10-1996.     Having   been   recommended   for<\/p>\n
appointment,   he   would   have   been   normally   entitled   to   claim<\/p>\n
regularisation immediately thereafter.   It is not argued that the<\/p>\n
training   continued   after   the   stipulated   period   of   ten   years.<\/p>\n
There   was   no   orders   to   indicate   that   after   the   prescribed<\/p>\n
training period, training continued to be imparted.  The position,<\/p>\n
therefore, would be that the petitioner  would  have  been  put  to<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
work as a Grade III Artist, as delay in regularisation might have<\/p>\n
been   due   to     administrative   reasons.       The   contention   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner is that it will be unethical for an employer to contend<\/p>\n
that excess payments made even by an oversight  always would<\/p>\n
be recoverable, ignoring passage of time, albeit that   payments<\/p>\n
happened   to   be   made   unsolicited   or   were     sanctioned   by   the<\/p>\n
competent   authority   after   deliberations.     But   we   are   not<\/p>\n
prepared  to endorse the arguments as above to the full extent.<\/p>\n
Irregular payments are possible to be recovered and should be<\/p>\n
recovered.        The   audit   procedure   is   intended   to   detect<\/p>\n
irregularities   and   omissions.     The   recommendations   are   to   be<\/p>\n
duly taken notice of for setting right the mistake.  They are  also<\/p>\n
intended for future guidance and to suggest otherwise would be<\/p>\n
an encouragement to break down the system.   If there are rules<\/p>\n
authorising recovery, it will bind the parties.  That appears to be<\/p>\n
one side of the picture.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7.    When   we   independently   examine   the   issue,   it   is<\/p>\n
possible to note that the rule should admit of exceptions as well.<\/p>\n
For   instance,   if   an   employee   was   required   to   shoulder   higher<\/p>\n
responsibilities,   consequent   to   the   proceedings   issued   by   the<\/p>\n
competent authority, later on when an error is found, it is not in<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
any   case   automatic   that   the   enhanced   pay   earned   by   him<\/p>\n
necessarily   have   to   be   regurgled.     It   may   be   unjust.     In   the<\/p>\n
present case, the circumstances highlighted would establish that<\/p>\n
the petitioner had been put to work as a Grade III Artist, which<\/p>\n
post   carried   a   time   scale.     Only   the   admissible   pay   had   been<\/p>\n
paid   over   to   him.     He   was   not   a   trainee.     Therefore   the<\/p>\n
contention   that   only   stipend   would   be   paid   for   the   period   may<\/p>\n
not be acceptable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.     The   Supreme   Court,   in  Purshottam   Lal   Das  v.<\/p>\n
State of Bihar [2006 AIR SCW 5325], had occasion to consider<\/p>\n
an   issue,   concerning   the   right   of   the   employer   to   recover   the<\/p>\n
excess   salary   paid.     Promotions   were     made   by   the   State   of<\/p>\n
Bihar   from   Class   IV   to   Class   III   post   of   Basic   Health   Workers,<\/p>\n
but   later  on   it   was   found   that   it   was   done   in   violation   of<\/p>\n
statutory   Rules.     The   beneficiaries   were   reverted   and   excess<\/p>\n
salary was ordered to be recovered.      Challenge followed.   The<\/p>\n
Patna   High   Court   repelled   the   contentions   raised   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners, which had led to the  Special Leave Petition.<\/p>\n
        9.     The apex Court held that the reversion was legal and<\/p>\n
justified.       But,   it   had  been   observed   that   it   did   not  mean   that<\/p>\n
the   recovery   of   the   higher   salary   paid   was   to   automatically<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
follow.       We may quote paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment<\/p>\n
herein below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          “10. High   Court   itself   noted   that<\/p>\n
                the appellants deserve sympathy as for no<\/p>\n
                fault   of   theirs,   recoveries   were   directed<\/p>\n
                when   admittedly   they   worked   in   the<\/p>\n
                promotional posts.  But relief was denied on<\/p>\n
                the   ground   that   those   who   granted   had<\/p>\n
                committed gross irregularities.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           11.    While, therefore, not accepting<\/p>\n
                the challenge to the orders of reversion on<\/p>\n
                the   peculiar   circumstances   noticed,   we<\/p>\n
                direct that no recovery shall be made from<\/p>\n
                the amounts already paid in respect of the<\/p>\n
                promotional posts.  However, no arrears or<\/p>\n
                other financial benefits shall be granted in<\/p>\n
                respect of the concerned period.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         10.    We feel that the observations could be applied on all<\/p>\n
fours   to   the   facts   of   this   case,   at   least   in   so   far   as   the   relief<\/p>\n
portion   is   concerned.       We   do   note   that   the   Court   was   not<\/p>\n
examining   the   contention   where   the   audit   authority   had<\/p>\n
objected   to   the   payment.     We   are   of   the   opinion   that   audit<\/p>\n
reports   normally   are   to   be   given   due   weight,   and   rectification<\/p>\n
measures in respect of the objections are to follow.   There is no<\/p>\n
scope   for   importing   discretion   here.     The   Department   or<\/p>\n
organisation concerned also do not have any liberty to write off<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
over   payments,   unless   a   decision     come   from   an   empowered<\/p>\n
authority.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        11.       Although we have explained the general principles,<\/p>\n
which normally are to be followed, the facts of the present case,<\/p>\n
however, require that interference is made in exercise of powers<\/p>\n
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.    Exts.P6, P7 and<\/p>\n
P10     will   stand   set   aside.     This   position   will   not   enable   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   to   claim   any   other   benefits   of   service   in   a   manner<\/p>\n
adversely affecting  any of his colleagues, since  rights declared<\/p>\n
are   purely   in   respect   of   the   salary   earned   by   him   for   a   short<\/p>\n
period.   The writ petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                                         (M.RAMACHANDRAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                                (A.K.BASHEER)<\/p>\n
                                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
mks\/<\/p>\n
[WPC No.29835 of 2003]<\/p>\n
                          -8-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 29835 of 2003(B) 1. S.P.KRISHNAKUMAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE … Respondent 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, 3. THE COMMISSIONER, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL For Respondent […]<\/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-94847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - 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-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\" \/>\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=\"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"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-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\",\"name\":\"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@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.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - 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-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2"},"wordCount":1367,"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-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2","name":"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing ... on 6 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T23:19:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-krishnakumar-vs-guruvayoor-devaswom-managing-on-6-december-2006-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.P.Krishnakumar vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 6 December, 2006"}]},{"@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\/94847","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=94847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}