{"id":99643,"date":"2007-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007"},"modified":"2019-04-10T04:16:54","modified_gmt":"2019-04-09T22:46:54","slug":"d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 18751 of 2007(G)\n\n\n1. D.K.SUDHEER, S\/O. DIVAKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (VIGILANCE)\n\n3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (I &amp; E),\n\n4. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,\n\n5. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,\n\n6. DEPOT OFFICER,\n\n7. KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :01\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                 W.P.(C) No.18751 OF 2007\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n             Dated this the 1st October, 2007\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>    The issue that arises for consideration is whether<br \/>\ncancellation of an auction by Exts.P4 and P5 is legal or<br \/>\nnot?\n<\/p>\n<p>    2.   Ext.P1   Tender  Notice  was  issued  by  the  2nd<br \/>\nrespondent inviting tender in respect of various types of<br \/>\ntimber  in  the  different  depots  of  the  Department  of<br \/>\nForests, including the Government Timber Depot, Achankovil<br \/>\nin Kollam District, scheduling the same to 25.04.2007.<br \/>\nBeing a timber merchant, petitioner participated in the<br \/>\nauction held and was the successful bidder in respect of 25<br \/>\nlots of teak and 3 lots of Punna.     On settlement of the<br \/>\nauction,  in  compliance   with  the  conditions  of  sale,<br \/>\npetitioner remitted 1\/5th of the bid amount and Exts.P2 and<br \/>\nP3 are the receipts acknowledging payment.   However, while<br \/>\nawaiting  order  of  confirmation  of  the auction,  Ext.P4<br \/>\ncommunication was received informing the petitioner that<br \/>\nthe auction held at the Government Timber Depot, Achankovil<br \/>\non 25.04.2007 has been canceled.  He made enquiries when it<br \/>\nwas  revealed  that  based  on  Ext.P6  report  of  the 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent, Ext.P5 order was issued by the 1st respondent<br \/>\ndirecting cancellation of the auction.      Petitioner has<br \/>\nproduced  Ext.P7,  copy  of  a  complaint received  by  the<br \/>\ncontrol room of the 1st respondent in regard to the auction<br \/>\nheld on 25.04.2007.  Ext.P8 is a letter issued by the then<br \/>\nDivisional Forest Officer, requesting the 4th respondent to<br \/>\nconfirm the instruction of the Hon&#8217;ble Minister for Forests<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 18751 OF 2007         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to cancel the auction in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.     Petitioner would allege that the cancellation of<br \/>\nauction     by  Exts.P4    and  P5 are  illegal, arbitrary  and<br \/>\nvitiated by malafides.        According to him Ext.P5 is based<br \/>\nentirely on Ext.P6 report and that a reading of Ext.P6<br \/>\nreport reveals that no procedural irregularity has been<br \/>\nfound in respect of the auction in question.        It is also<br \/>\nalleged that the political party in power, made demands<br \/>\nfrom contractors and that it was on account of their<br \/>\ninability to satisfy such demands that the auction was<br \/>\ncancelled.      He also raises a plea that the 1st respondent<br \/>\nhad no authority to issue Ext.P5 and that usually the order<br \/>\nof confirmations\/ cancellation is made by the respective<br \/>\nConservator of Forests.       It is also his contention that no<br \/>\nreason is stated in Ext.P5 as to why the 1st respondent had<br \/>\nstepped into the shoes of the 4th respondent.       Further, it<br \/>\nis also alleged that in issuing Ets.P4 and P5, natural<br \/>\njustice has been violated.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.     On behalf of the 4th respondent a statement has<br \/>\nbeen filed.       It is alleged that though the petitioner was<br \/>\nthe highest bidder in respect of some of the lots, the<br \/>\nauction     was   not   confirmed in  his  favour nor  has  the<br \/>\ndepartment entered into any contract with the petitioner.<br \/>\nIt is contended that the petitioner has no legal right to<br \/>\ninsist that the timber in question should be sold to him or<br \/>\nthat the sale should be confirmed.       It is alleged that the<br \/>\nwrit petition is apparently filed on behalf of the then<br \/>\nDFO, who has retired on superannuation on 30.04.2007 and<br \/>\nthat the documents attached to the writ petition are copies<br \/>\navailable in the DFO&#8217;s office, which are inaccessible to<br \/>\nthe petitioner and that the petitioner had not even applied<br \/>\nfor copies under the provisions of the Right to Information<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.     It is stated that the Government had received<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 18751 OF 2007        3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>various complaints regarding the improper classification of<br \/>\ntimber sold in the auction and hence the 4th respondent had<br \/>\ngiven instruction to the DFO not to conduct the auction<br \/>\npending verification by higher authorities.        According to<br \/>\nthe 4th respondent despite the instructions given at about<br \/>\n10 p.m. on 24.04.2007, and 10 a.m. on 25.04.2007, ignoring<br \/>\nthe same,      the    DFO had  conducted  auction  scheduled  on<br \/>\n25.05.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.     It is stated that a preliminary verification in<br \/>\nthe depot was conducted on 27th and 28th of May 2007 when it<br \/>\nwas revealed that high quality teak logs qualifying for<br \/>\nClass B, were classified as Class C.      The 2nd respondent had<br \/>\nsent a report to the Government on 30.07.2007 and it was on<br \/>\nthat report, the auction was directed to be cancelled.<br \/>\nAccording to the respondent if the auction was confirmed,<br \/>\nthe timber would not have fetched the price it should have<br \/>\nand therefore the cancellation was in public interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>      7.     The   Learned  Government  Pleader  also   filed  a<br \/>\ncomparative table indicating the sale proceeds as I.A. No.<br \/>\n13035 of 2007.       This indicates that in the auction held on<br \/>\n25.04.2007, for 841.558 m3 the total amount realized by the<br \/>\ndepartment was Rs.3,11,41,329\/-.       It is also shown that in<br \/>\nthe subsequent auctions held on 22.06.2007 and 22.08.2007,<br \/>\nthe total quantity sold was 779.777 m3 and the total amount<br \/>\nrealized was Rs.3,13,38,249\/-.       Therefore, while leaving a<br \/>\nbalance of 61.681 m3 to be sold, the respondents have<br \/>\nalready realized an excess amount of Rs.1,96,920\/-.          The<br \/>\nattempt of the respondents, obviously is to indicate that<br \/>\nby cancelling        and re-auctioning  the  timber,  they  have<br \/>\nrealized a substantially higher amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>      8.     Essentially what calls for a decision in this case<br \/>\nis the correctness of Exts.P4 and P5 by which the auction<br \/>\nhas been cancelled.       At this stage, before anything else, I<br \/>\nshould examine whether petitioner has any legal right to<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 18751 OF 2007          4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>insist that the auction shall not be confirmed. Ext.P1 is<br \/>\nonly a notice inviting bids, which is only an offer made by<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>      9.     Auction in pursuance to Ext.P1 can result in a<br \/>\nconcluded contract only when sale is confirmed and the<br \/>\nprocedure in this behalf is completed.            In this case,<br \/>\nthough    the    petitioner    was  the  highest  bidder, it  is<br \/>\nadmitted that sale was not confirmed in his favour nor has<br \/>\nthe   Department       entered  into   any  agreement  with  the<br \/>\npetitioner.       Therefore, the position is that there is no<br \/>\nconcluded contract in his favour.         If that be so, if the<br \/>\nrespondents have decided to cancel the auction, petitioner<br \/>\ncannot be heard to complain that by the said decision any<br \/>\nof his legal right is affected.\n<\/p>\n<p>      10. The further question that arise is whether the<br \/>\nrespondents      were    justified  in  cancelling  the  auction.<br \/>\nRecords would show that complaints were received alleging<br \/>\nirregularities in the classification of timber.           In the<br \/>\nstatement it is also averred, without contradiction by the<br \/>\nthen DFO, that prior to the auction the DFO was instructed<br \/>\nto cancel the auction and that it was ignoring the same the<br \/>\nauction     was   held.      It  is  also  evident  that on  the<br \/>\ninstruction of the 1st respondent, verification was held and<br \/>\nExt.P6 is the report submitted.        In Ext.P6 it is confirmed<br \/>\nthat in the auction held procedural formalities have been<br \/>\ncomplied     with.      But  it  is  stated  that  regarding  the<br \/>\nclassification of the timber reverification is necessary.<br \/>\nIt is acting upon Ext.P6 report that Ext.P7 order was<br \/>\nissued by the 1st respondent.       If there was such a material<br \/>\nindicating irregularity in the matter of classification of<br \/>\nthe timber in question, on which depends the value realized<br \/>\nin the auction, I do not see anything irregular in the<br \/>\ndecision of the respondents to cancel the auction.\n<\/p>\n<p>      11. Petitioner complains that the 1st respondent had<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 18751 OF 2007         5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>no jurisdiction to issue Ext.P1 and that the Minister<br \/>\nconcerned had intervened in the matter.       True it is the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent which has issued Ext.P5.          Apart from stating<br \/>\nthat confirmation\/ cancellation are usually on the orders<br \/>\nof the concerned Conservator of Forests, the petitioner has<br \/>\nnot   produced      any   material  to  conclude  that the   1st<br \/>\nrespondent lacked jurisdiction to issue an order in the<br \/>\nnature of Ext.P5.          Even otherwise, I do not see any<br \/>\nsubsistence in this contention.          If the Government had<br \/>\nreceived complaints alleging irregularity in the auction,<br \/>\nit being the custodian of the resources of the state, is<br \/>\ncertainly     entitled    to   issue  orders and  thus  prevent<br \/>\nirregularities.        Similarly, if on receipt of a complaint,<br \/>\nthe Minister in charge of the department issues an order<br \/>\nnot to proceed with the auction, I cannot see any absence<br \/>\nof jurisdiction in such a step, especially when there is<br \/>\nnothing to prove any malafides on his part.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12. In a matter like this, question is whether public<br \/>\ninterest     deserves    interference with  the  action of  the<br \/>\nauthorities.        It is settled law that in the award of<br \/>\ncontracts or in finalizing tenders, the court has to be<br \/>\nguided by public interest and interference with decisions<br \/>\ntaken by the authorities is permissible only if public<br \/>\ninterest warrants it and not on the making of a legal<br \/>\npoint.      In this case, the fact that public interest has<br \/>\nbeen safeguarded is evident from the figures supplied by<br \/>\nthe Learned Government Pleader through I.A.No.13035 of 2007<br \/>\nwhich shows that even as of now, 779.777 m3 is remaining to<br \/>\nbe   sold     whereas    the  department  has already  realized<br \/>\nRs.1,96,920\/- in excess of what was realized by them while<br \/>\ndisposing of the whole of 841.558 m3 timber.         That apart<br \/>\nthe auction having been held against the instruction of the<br \/>\ngovernment, the respondents were justified in interfering<br \/>\nin the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">W.P.(C) No. 18751 OF 2007    6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      13. Thus, on an overall consideration of the issue, I<br \/>\nam satisfied that the petitioner has not made out a case of<br \/>\ninterference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                      ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>pr\/jan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 18751 of 2007(G) 1. D.K.SUDHEER, S\/O. DIVAKARAN, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, &#8230; Respondent 2. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (VIGILANCE) 3. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (I &amp; E), 4. CONSERVATOR [&hellip;]<\/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-99643","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-09T22:46:54+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-09T22:46:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1549,\"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\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\",\"name\":\"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-09T22:46:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-09T22:46:54+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-09T22:46:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007"},"wordCount":1549,"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\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007","name":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-09T22:46:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-k-sudheer-vs-the-government-of-kerala-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.K.Sudheer vs The Government Of Kerala on 1 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99643","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=99643"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99643\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99643"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99643"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99643"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}