{"id":112674,"date":"2005-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005"},"modified":"2019-02-02T08:04:11","modified_gmt":"2019-02-02T02:34:11","slug":"ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","title":{"rendered":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 21\/12\/2005\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nAND\nTHE HONURABLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM\n\n\nWrit Appeal (MD) No.67 of 2005\n\n\nEx.Rect(MP)A.Madurai Veeran\t\t\t...  Appellant\nNo.7779447K\n\t\t\t\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.Union of India, rep.by its\n  Secretary to Government\n  Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.\n\n2.The CCDA (Pensions),\n  Grants-3 Section (Group V),\n  Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.\n\n3.The Record Officer,\n  Office of the Records,\n  Sena Police Corps,\n  Abhilekh Karyala,\n  Corps of Military Police Records,\n  Bangalore.\n\n4.The Commandant,\n  Corps of Military Police,\n  Try Centre, Bangalore-25.\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\t\tAppeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the\nlearned Single Judge, dated 05.01.2005, made in W.P.(MD)No.742 of 2004.\n\n\n!For Appellant   \t...   \tMr.M.Thirunavukkarasu\n\n\n^For Respondents  \t...   \tMr.K.M.Vijayakumar,\n\t\t\t\tACGSC.\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t     \t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
P.K.MISRA,J<\/p>\n
\t\tThe present appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single
\nJudge, dismissing the Writ Petition No.742\/2004 solely on the ground of want of
\nterritorial jurisdiction.  The entire order of the learned Single Judge is
\nextracted herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t“The respondents against whom the relief is sought for are 1 to 4.  None
\nof them are within the jurisdiction of this Court.  Clause 2 of the Article 226
\nof the Constitution of India reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders of writs to
\nany Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court
\nexercising jurisdiction in relation to the territoires within which the cause of
\naction, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
\nnotwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
\nof such person is not within those territories.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of the above said clause, this writ petition is dismissed for
\nwant of territorial jurisdiction.  No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.The only question to be considered in this present appeal is as to
\nwhether the learned Single Judge was correct in dismissing the writ petition
\nonly on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has already
\nbeen extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and it is not
\nnecessary to extract the said provisions again.  A bare perusal of the aforesaid
\nclause makes it clear that notwithstanding the fact that the seat of Government
\nor authority or the residence of the person against whom writ application is
\nfiled is not within the territory of the concerned High Court, the High Court
\nmay exercise the jurisdiction if the cause of action wholly or in part arises
\nwithin the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.In the present case, even though the learned Single Judge has not
\ngiven any reason, it can be assumed that the learned Single Judge has proceeded
\non the footing that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the
\njurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).  The only question to be
\ndecided in the appeal is as to whether any part of the cause of action has
\narisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai
\nBench).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.For the purpose of finding out whether any part of the cause of
\naction has arisen within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, obviously
\nthe averments made in the writ petition are to be considered.  In the present
\ncase, the appellant has filed the writ petition for issuing a writ of
\ncertiorarified mandamus by calling for the records from the file of the third
\nrespondent, namely the Record Officer, Office of the Records, Sena Police Corps,
\nAbhilekh Karyala, Corps of Military Police Records, Bangalore, and to quash the
\norder dated 16.02.2004, and consequently to direct the respondents to grant
\ndisability pension to the petitioner with effect from 24.07.1996.  The other
\nrespondents in the writ petition are the Union of India represented by the
\nSecretary, the CCDA (Pensions), Grants-3 Section (Group V), Allahabad and The
\nCommandant, Corps of Military Police, Try Centre, Bangalore-25.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFrom the assertion made in the writ petition, it is apparent that
\nthe petitioner was selected for the post of  corps Army Military Police on
\n23.02.1996.  While the petitioner was undergoing training, he was medically
\ndischarged on 24.07.1996 under medical category “EEE” for substandard vision.
\nThe Medical Board fixed the disability pension at 20%.  However, the third
\nrespondent rejected the petitioner’s claim of disability pension by letter,
\ndated 19.11.1997.  The petitioner had made a representation to the third
\nrespondent, but no reply was received.  Thereafter, the petitioner also sent
\nmany representations to other respondents on various dates.  Ultimately, by
\norder dated 16.02.2004, his claim has been rejected by the third respondent.
\nAgain the petitioner filed two representations  on 27.02.2004 and 12.04.2004 to
\nthe respondents which are yet to be disposed of.  Copies of the representations
\ndated 25.01.1998, 31.01.2004,  27.02.2004 and 12.04.2004 are available in the
\ntyped set.  All such representations have been sent from Virudhunagar within the
\nterritorial jurisdiction of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, which is the
\nplace of residence of the petitioner.  The impugned order dated 16.02.2004 is
\naddressed to the petitioner in his Virudhunagar address.  Even the original
\nletter issued in November, 1997 rejecting the disability pension is addressed to
\nthe petitioner in his Chennai address within the State of Tamil Nadu.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.These correspondences between the petitioner and some of the
\nrespondents clearly indicate that part of the cause of action has definitely
\narisen within the territory of Madras High Court, within Tamil Nadu and
\nsubsequently within the territory of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.  In our
\nopinion, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action had arisen within
\nthe territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench).  Our
\naforesaid conclusion receives considerable support from several decisions,
\nincluding that of the Supreme Court in 2000(7) SCC 640 – (Navinchandra
\nN.Majithia  vs. State of Maharashtra).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.In law, the expression ’cause of action’ means a bundle of facts
\nwhich the parties are required to prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a
\njudgment in his favour.  It is not the relation whatsoever to the defence which
\nmay be set up by the defendant.  In ILR (1889) 16 Cal. 98 (Chand Kour  v. Partab
\nSingh), it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the
\ncourt must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into
\nconsideration albeit without embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness or
\notherwise of the said facts.  In other words the question whether a High Court
\nhas territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on
\nthe basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof
\nbeing immaterial.  To put it differently, the question of territorial
\njurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.The aforesaid observation was cited with  approval in the decision
\nof the Supreme Court referred to above.  It is of course true that in the
\nSupreme Court decision question relating to quashing of FIR was in issue and the
\nHigh Court had decided that since the complaint had been filed at Shillong, the
\nBombay High Court did not have any jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court, however,
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t“27. …. the High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made
\nin the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya
\nto transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police.  The High Court also did not
\ntake note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at
\nShillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and
\npressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares.
\nThe relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for
\nconsideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the
\nmatter.  On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted
\nearlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the
\nwrit petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas observed:
\n\t“34.When the Constitution was framed, Article 226, as it originally stood
\ntherein provided that
\n\t“every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation
\nto which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
\nincluding in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories
\ndirections, orders or writs…”.\n<\/p>\n
\tSome of the decisions rendered by different High Courts during the earlier
\nyears of the post-Constitution period have given a wider perspective regarding
\nthe jurisdiction of the High Court and pointed out that a High Court can
\nexercise powers under Article 226 even in respect of tribunals or authorities
\nsituated outside the territorial limits of its jurisdiction if such tribunal or
\nauthority exercises powers in such a manner as to affect the fundamental rights
\nof persons residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction of such High
\nCourt [vide K.S.Rashid Ahmed  v. Income Tax Investigation Commission<\/a> – AIR 1951
\nPunj. 74, M.K.Ranganathan v.Madras Electric Tramways (1904) Ltd. AIR 1952
\nMad.659, Aswini Kumar Sinha v. Dy.Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs
\nAIR 1952 Ass. 91.]  It was Subba Rao, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was)
\nwho observed in M.K.Ranganathan case that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“If a tribunal or authority exercises jurisdiction within the territories
\naffecting such rights it may reasonably be construed that the authority or the
\ntribunal functioned within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and,
\ntherefore, is amenable to its jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
\t35.But a Constitution Bench of this Court has held in Election Commission,
\nIndia v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao<\/a> – (AIR 1953 SC 210) thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The power of the High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution is subject to the two-fold limitation that such writs cannot run
\nbeyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and the person or authority
\nto whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be amenable to the
\njurisdiction of the High Court either by residence or location within the
\nterritories subject to its jurisdiction.”\n<\/p>\n
\t36.It was the said decision of the Constitution Bench which necessitated
\nParliament to bring the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution by which clause
\n(1-A) was added to Article 226.  That clause was subsequently renumbered as
\nclause (2) by the Constitution Forty-Second Amendment.  Now clause (2) of
\nArticle 226 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“226.(2) the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or
\nwrits to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High
\nCourt exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the
\ncause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power,
\nnotwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
\nof such person is not within those territories.”\n<\/p>\n
\t37.The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was
\nto supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission  v. Sake
\nVenkata Subba Rao and<\/a> to restore the view held by the High Courts in the
\ndecisions cited above.  Thus the power conferred on the High Courts under
\nArticle 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction
\nin relation to the territories within which “the cause of action, wholly or in
\npart, arises” and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is
\noutside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court.  The
\namendment is thus aimed at widening the width of the area for reaching the writs
\nissued by different High Courts.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.Before the aforesaid decision was rendered, the question of
\nterritorial jurisdiction has been well considered by a Constitution Bench
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission  v. Utpal Kumar
\nBasu<\/a> – (1994) 4 SCC 711.  In the said decision, the Supreme Court had indicated
\nthat the High Court should not transgress into the jurisdiction of other High
\nCourt merely on the ground of some insignificant event took place within the
\nterritorial limit of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.We do not think the present case can be characterised one which
\nfalls into the category indicated in the Supreme Court decision.  As observed by
\nJustice Thomas, in such matters liberal view is to be taken,  but, at the same
\ntime, the Court should be cautious enough not to transgress into the territorial
\njurisdiction of other High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.We find that almost under similar circumstances,  a Division
\nBench of the Orissa High Court in a decision reported in 2000(II) Orissa Law
\nReviews 126 – (Janardan  v. Union),  after referring to the decision of the
\nSupreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission  v. Utpal Kumar Basu and the<\/a>
\ndecision reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289 (State of Rajasthan and others  v.
\nM\/s.Swaika Properties and<\/a> another), came to the conclusion that the court had
\nterritorial jurisdiction.  In the said case, the writ petitioner, a permanent
\nresident of Orissa, had been appointed as a Constable in the Central Industrial
\nSecurity Force and at the relevant time<\/p>\n
he was posted in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at Ranchi within the
\nState of Bihar.  On the basis of the disciplinary proceedings held at Ranchi, he
\nwas removed from service.  He had filed an appeal before the appellate
\nauthority, which was again outside the territory of Orissa.  After removal from
\nservice, the petitioner had to come back to his permanent place within Orissa.
\nThe order of dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority was communicated
\nto the petitioner at his permanent residence within Orissa.  Thereafter a writ
\napplication was  filed before the Orissa High Court and the Division Bench of
\nthe High Court, over-ruling the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for
\nCISF regarding territorial jurisdiction, held that Orissa High Court had also
\njurisdiction as the order of the appellate authority was received by him within
\nthe State of Orissa.  The Division Bench observed that the two decisions of the
\nSupreme Court referred to above did not lay down that as a general proposition
\nservice of notice can never be considered as part of the cause of action, but on
\nthe peculiar facts of the case held that the courts lacked jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13.In our view, the observations made by the Orissa High Court are
\nalso equally applicable to the present case, where most of the correspondences
\nrelating to rejection of disability pension and subsequent rejection of
\nrepresentation had been made within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.In the present case, the petitioner is seeking payment of
\ndisability pension.  It would be indeed impossible for him to go to Bangalore or
\nNew Delhi claiming the relief which  now he is claiming if a hyper technical
\nview of the matter is taken.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15.For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and hold that the
\nMadras High Court (Madurai Bench) has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with
\nthe matter.  Since the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground of lack of
\nterritorial jurisdiction, the matter is now directed to be placed before the
\nlearned Single Judge to consider the writ petition on merit.  It is needless to
\npoint out that we have not at all examined the merits of the contentions raised
\nin the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
gb.\n<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.The  Secretary to Government,
\n  Government of India,
\n  Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The CCDA (Pensions),
\n  Grants-3 Section (Group V),
\n  Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Record Officer,
\n  Office of the Records,
\n  Sena Police Corps,
\n  Abhilekh Karyala,
\n  Corps of Military Police Records,
\n  Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Commandant,
\n  Corps of Military Police,
\n  Try Centre, Bangalore-25.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/12\/2005 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA AND THE HONURABLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM Writ Appeal (MD) No.67 of 2005 Ex.Rect(MP)A.Madurai Veeran … Appellant No.7779447K vs. 1.Union of India, rep.by its Secretary to Government Ministry […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEx.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - 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\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-02T02:34:11+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T02:34:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2455,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\",\"name\":\"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-02T02:34:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - 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\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-02T02:34:11+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005","datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T02:34:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005"},"wordCount":2455,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005","name":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-02T02:34:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ex-rectmpa-madurai-veeran-vs-union-of-india-on-21-december-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ex.Rect(Mp)A.Madurai Veeran vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2005"}]},{"@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\/112674","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=112674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}