{"id":9715,"date":"2007-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-02-15T21:36:47","modified_gmt":"2017-02-15T16:06:47","slug":"k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 442 of 2007(E)\n\n\n1. K.P. MOHAMMAD ALI HAJI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S. RASITHA, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY\n\n3. A. DIVAKARAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY,\n\n4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,\n\n5. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES\n\n6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n\n7. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MOHAN C.MENON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RATNA SINGH (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :13\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\nWA 442 & 596\/2007                            1\n\n\n\n\n       K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n\n     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                   Writ Appeal  Nos. 442 and 596 of 2007\n\n     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                            Dated:     13th  April 2007\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Learned   single   judge   of   this   court   vacated   Ext.   P10   order<\/p>\n
passed   by   the   Government   in   exercise   of   its     revisional   powers<\/p>\n
conferred   under   clause   71   of   the   Kerala   Rationing   Order   on   the<\/p>\n
ground that the same was passed by an officer inferior to the officer<\/p>\n
who has passed the appellate order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The   question   that   is   posed   for   consideration   before   us   is<\/p>\n
whether   the     petitioner,   an   unemployed   girl,     is   entitled   to   be<\/p>\n
appointed   as   authorised   wholesale   distributor   of   rationed   articles   in<\/p>\n
Kozhikode taluk area.             District Collector held in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner   and   the   same   was   taken   in   appeal   before     the<\/p>\n
Commissioner,   appellate   authority.   Appeal   was   dismissed.<\/p>\n
Mohammed   Ali   filed   a     revision   before   the   Government   and   the<\/p>\n
orders of the District Collector  and the Civil Supplies  Commissioner<\/p>\n
were reversed and the Government granted wholesale dealership to<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
7th  respondent, Mohammed Haji.    Aggrieved by the same, petitioner<\/p>\n
has   approached   this   court   by   filing     W.P.C.   No   20262   of   2006.<\/p>\n
Learned single   judge  did  not  go to   the  merits  of  the   case,  but   held<\/p>\n
that   the   Government   have   committed   an     error     in   entrusting   the<\/p>\n
revision to a lower level officer compared to that of the Commissioner<\/p>\n
of   Civil   Supplies.         Learned   single   judge   noticed   that   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner   of   Civil   Supplies   is   a   senior   level   officer   who   had<\/p>\n
decided   the   appeal   and   the   revision   petition   should   have   been<\/p>\n
disposed   of   either   by   the   Chief   Secretary   or   by   the   Minister<\/p>\n
concerned and not by an officer inferior to that of the Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Civil Supplies.   Learned single judge opined as follows:<\/p>\n
      “It   is   certainly   improper   if   not   illegal   to   have   a   subordinate<\/p>\n
      authority   to   sit   in   appeal   over   the   order   of   the   head   of   the<\/p>\n
      Department.   The   arrangement   made   by   the   minister   is   not   a<\/p>\n
      healthy  practice.       I  therefore   vacate   the  Ext.P10   order  of   the<\/p>\n
      Deputy   Secretary   for   the   reason   that   he   has   no   authority   to<\/p>\n
      vacate the order issued by the superior officer.  ……………………<\/p>\n
      The   order   issued   in   revision   by   the   Deputy   Secretary   is   in   a<\/p>\n
      statutory revision to Government, and decisions in Government<\/p>\n
      are   always   based   on   the   hierarchy   of   the   officers   in   the<\/p>\n
      Government.         In   another   case   this   court   called   for   a   report<\/p>\n
      from  the  Chief  Secretary   justifying  similar  anomalous  situation<\/p>\n
      which   in   this   case   is   found   to   be   attributable   to   the   minister’s<\/p>\n
      order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             In   the   circumstances,   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   by<\/p>\n
      vacating Ext. P10 order of the Deputy Secretary with a direction<\/p>\n
      to the Civil Supplies Department to place the revision file before<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
       the Chief Secretary for  either referring the revision petition tobe<\/p>\n
       decided   by   a   Secretary   to   Government   senior   to   the   Civil<\/p>\n
       Supplies  Commissioner  whose order is under challenge and if<\/p>\n
       no   such   officer   is   available   the   Chief   Secretary   himself   will<\/p>\n
       decide the revision.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Learned single judge, in our view,   has not properly appreciated the<\/p>\n
legal   validity   of   the   revisional   order.           Counsel   for   the   appellants<\/p>\n
submitted   that   since   similar   matter   is   likely   to   arise     in   future   and<\/p>\n
unless   the   legal   position   is   made   clear,     the   judgment   impugned<\/p>\n
would   stand   in   the   way   of   the   Government   while   exercising   the<\/p>\n
revisional powers.     W.A.  No 596 of 2007 was however filed by the<\/p>\n
writ   petitioner   contending   that   the   learned   single   judge   was   not<\/p>\n
justified in not examining the matter on merits.    Senior Counsel Shri<\/p>\n
V.N.Achutha Kurup submitted that the Government was not justified<\/p>\n
in upsetting the order of the District Collector and the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
       3. Shri Mohan C. Menon, counsel appearing for the appellant in<\/p>\n
W.A.   No   442   of   2007       explained     the   special   features   of   the<\/p>\n
revisional order passed by the Government.     Reference was made<\/p>\n
to   the   heading   of   the   order     and   emblem   of   the   Government   of<\/p>\n
Kerala   and   the   numbering   as   G.O.   (Rt)   270\/06.     Further   it   was<\/p>\n
pointed  out  that  at  the   terminal  portion   it  is   shown  that  it   has  been<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
issued  by the order  of the Governor.       Counsel  submitted  that   the<\/p>\n
State   Government     means   the   Governor   and   the     executive   power<\/p>\n
vested   in   him   is   exercised   by   him   directly   or   indirectly   by   officers<\/p>\n
subordinate   to   him   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution.       Referring   to   Article   166   of   the   Constitution,   counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that  the     executive action of the Government   of a State<\/p>\n
shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor and the<\/p>\n
orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the<\/p>\n
Governor shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified<\/p>\n
in the rules to be made by the Governor and the validity of an order<\/p>\n
or   instrument   which   is   so   authenticated   shall   not   be   called   in<\/p>\n
question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument made or<\/p>\n
executed by the Governor.   Counsel also submitted that; the rules of<\/p>\n
business   of   the   Government   of   Kerala   specifically   says   that   the<\/p>\n
Minister   is   primarily   responsible   and   that   all   orders   made   by   or   on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Government of Kerala shall be expressed to be made in<\/p>\n
the   name   of   the   Governor.       Further   it   is   submitted   that   every<\/p>\n
government order shall be signed by the Secretary  or the Additional<\/p>\n
Secretary   or   the   Joint   Secretary   or   the   Deputy   Secretary   or   the<\/p>\n
Under   Secretary   or   such   other   officer   specifically   empowered   and<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
that   it   would   be   deemed   to   be   proper   authentication   of   the   order.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also submitted that  the learned single judge failed<\/p>\n
to note the vital difference between the institutional decision and the<\/p>\n
individual decision.   Counsel also referred to the Rules of Business<\/p>\n
of the Government of Kerala Part II in support of his contentions.<\/p>\n
       4.   Smt   K.   Meera,   learned   Government   Pleader   placed   before<\/p>\n
court the Kerala Government Secretariat Instructions. Reference was<\/p>\n
made to Instruction 94 which deals with the procedure and mode of<\/p>\n
disposal   of   appeals   and   revisions   which   lie   to   the   Government.<\/p>\n
Government   while   disposing   of   the   revision   under   clause   71   of  the<\/p>\n
Kerala   Rationing   Order   was   discharging   a   quasi   judicial   function.<\/p>\n
Instruction   94   of   the   Kerala   Government   Secretariat   Instructions,<\/p>\n
which   is   relevant   for   our   purpose,   is   extracted   below   for   easy<\/p>\n
reference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                94.   The   procedure   and   mode   of   disposal   of   appeals<\/p>\n
  and revisions which lie to Government will be as follows:<\/p>\n
      (i)  Statutory  appeals   and  revision  petitions   to  Government   will<\/p>\n
      be disposed  of by the Minister  concerned,  unless  the Minister<\/p>\n
      specifically   delegates   this   power   to   the   Special   Secretary,<\/p>\n
      Secretary,   Additional   Secretary\/Joint   Secretary   or   Deputy<\/p>\n
      Secretary as the case may be.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
       (ii)   When   a   case   is   delegated   to   any   of   the   Subordinate<\/p>\n
       authority   specified   above   for   personal   hearing   of   the   parties<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
       involved, the power of final disposal of the matter will also vest<\/p>\n
       in that authority. Accordingly, the authority which hears a case<\/p>\n
       will itself pass final orders thereon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Above mentioned provision would indicate that statutory appeals and<\/p>\n
revision   petitions   to   the   Government   shall   be   disposed   of   by   the<\/p>\n
Minister   concerned   unless   the   Minister   specifically   delegates   the<\/p>\n
power to the Special Secretary, Secretary, Additional Secretary\/Joint<\/p>\n
Secretary   or   Deputy   Secretary   as   the   case   may   be.       Powers<\/p>\n
conferred on the Minister concerned  can be delegated to the officers<\/p>\n
upto   the   level   of   Deputy   Secretary.       It   is   in   accordance   with   the<\/p>\n
above   mentioned   procedure   laid   down   in   the   Kerala   Government<\/p>\n
Secretariat   Instructions   that   the  Minister   has   authorised  the   Deputy<\/p>\n
Secretary to decide the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5. We  called for the original files and examined the manner in<\/p>\n
which the order was passed.    We find  it was the Deputy  Secretary<\/p>\n
who had  heard the affected parties  and after   passing the order but<\/p>\n
before   issuing   the   same,   the   order   was   placed   before   the   Minister<\/p>\n
and the Minister  gave his approval.     On approval by the Minister  it<\/p>\n
becomes   an   order   passed     by  the   Government   in   accordance   with<\/p>\n
the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, particularly in the<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
light   of   Instruction   94   quoted   above.       Every   order   passed   by   the<\/p>\n
Government whether it is signed by the Deputy Secretary,Secretary<\/p>\n
or   Additional   Secretary,   it   means   as   an   order   passed   by   the<\/p>\n
Government   in   accordance   with   the   Rules   of   Business.     Only   in<\/p>\n
cases   where   the   Minister   has   not   given   his   approval       the   order<\/p>\n
becomes   bad  in  the   eye  of  law.       Order   passed   in   this  case   is  not<\/p>\n
strictly an executive order falling within the scope of Article 166.<\/p>\n
       6. Article 166 of the Constitution says that  all executive action<\/p>\n
of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the<\/p>\n
name   of   the   Governor.         But     when   a   minister   exercises   quasi<\/p>\n
judicial  power sitting  as a revisional authority under  the statute and<\/p>\n
passes an order as quasi judicial authority, it can never be termed as<\/p>\n
an   executive   order     requiring   authentication   under     Rule   12   of   the<\/p>\n
Rules of business of the Government of Kerala.   Apex court in State<\/p>\n
of   Maharashtra   v.   Basantilal<\/a>  (2003)   10   S.C.C   620)   examined   the<\/p>\n
question   whether   quasi   judicial   order   made   under   the   provisions   of<\/p>\n
the statute by the revisional authority who is also a minister requires<\/p>\n
authentication   under   Article   166.           Apex   court   held   that   if   the<\/p>\n
minister   exercisimg   revisional   jurisdiction   under   the   statute   as   a<\/p>\n
quasi judicial authority and passes an order   it can never be termed<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
as an executive order requiring  authentication  under   Article 166 of<\/p>\n
the Constitution. We may extract the relevant portion of the judgment<\/p>\n
of the apex court in Basantilal’s case, supra as follows:<\/p>\n
                     “The   question,   therefore,   for   our   consideration   is<\/p>\n
      whether  a  quasi-judicial   order   made   under  the   provisions   of   a<\/p>\n
      statute   by   a   revisional   authority   who   is   also   a   Minister   in   the<\/p>\n
      State Cabinet, requires authentication under Article 166.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                     It   is   an   admitted   fact   that   the   order   made   by   the<\/p>\n
      Minister  concerned  was on a  revision  petition filed  against  the<\/p>\n
      order   of   the   Commissioner   of   Excise   who   himself   was<\/p>\n
      entertaining   a   petition   before   him   under   the   provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
      Act sitting as a quasi-judicial authority.  It is also an undisputed<\/p>\n
      fact   that   executive   authorities   also,   if   so   empowered   under   a<\/p>\n
      statute,   exercise   quasi-judicial   powers.     Such   powers   when<\/p>\n
      exercised   by   an   authority   under   a   statute,   sitting   as   a   quasi-<\/p>\n
      judicial authority result in  a quasi-judicial order which can never<\/p>\n
      be termed as an executive order requiring authentication under<\/p>\n
      Article 166 of the Constitution of India.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.     We   find   in   the   instant   case   order   has   been   issued   in   the<\/p>\n
name   of   the   Governor,     though   strictly   speaking   when   minister<\/p>\n
exercises     his     quasi   judicial   power   it   requires   no   authentication<\/p>\n
under Article 166 of the Constitution.   Nevertheless it   never ceases<\/p>\n
to be an order passed by the minister in exercise of his quasi judicial<\/p>\n
power   under   the   Kerala   Rationing   order.   In   our   view,   since   the<\/p>\n
minister has affixed his signature to the order passed by the Deputy<\/p>\n
Secretary to whom he has delegated his power under Instruction 94<\/p>\n
WA 442 & 596\/2007                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
of   the   Kerala   Government   Secretariat   Instructions   it   is   an   order<\/p>\n
passed   by   the   Government,   consequently   it   is   an   order   validly<\/p>\n
issued.     In   such   circumstances,   we   are   of   the   view   learned   single<\/p>\n
judge  has  committed   an  error   in  holding   that   since   order   has   been<\/p>\n
signed by the Deputy Secretary it will cease to be an order passed by<\/p>\n
the Government.  In such circumstances, we set aside the judgment<\/p>\n
of the learned single judge and direct the registry to place the matter<\/p>\n
before   the   learned   judge   as   per   the   roaster   and   the   case   will   be<\/p>\n
disposed  of   on merits.  Both the appeals are disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                                  Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                           K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN<\/p>\n
                                           Ag. Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                  Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                           M.N. KRISHNAN\n\n13\/04\/2007                                 Judge\n\n\nen\/\n\n\n\n\n\n                             true copy\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 442 of 2007(E) 1. K.P. MOHAMMAD ALI HAJI, … Petitioner Vs 1. S. RASITHA, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, … Respondent 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY 3. A. DIVAKARAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, 4. THE […]<\/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-9715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - 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\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-15T16:06:47+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T16:06:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1888,\"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\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\",\"name\":\"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-15T16:06:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - 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\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-15T16:06:47+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T16:06:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007"},"wordCount":1888,"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\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007","name":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-15T16:06:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammad-ali-haji-vs-s-rasitha-on-13-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P. Mohammad Ali Haji vs S. Rasitha on 13 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/9715","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=9715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}