{"id":123808,"date":"2006-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006"},"modified":"2017-09-08T00:30:11","modified_gmt":"2017-09-07T19:00:11","slug":"radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 30\/01\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM         \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR          \n\nHCP.No.1073 of 2005 and HCP. No.1076 of 2005   \n\nRadhika                                .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1073\/05\n\nKousalya                        .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1076\/05\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Secretary to Government \n   Prohibition and Excise Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai 9.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Police \n   Greater Chennai\n   Egmore, Chennai 600 008.     .. Respondents in both the HCPs.<\/pre>\n<p>                Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India<br \/>\npraying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>For petitioners :Ms.  R.  Subadradevi<br \/>\n                for Mr.  V.  Sakthivel<\/p>\n<p>For respondents :Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam<br \/>\n                Government Advocate (Crl.side)<\/p>\n<p>:COMMONN ORDER<br \/>\n(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY P.  SATHASIVAM,J.)             <\/p>\n<p>                The petitioner by name Radhika, wife of the  detenu  Sivamani,<br \/>\ndetained  under  detention  order dated 05.08.2005 made in Memo No.398\/2005 of<br \/>\nthe second respondent, as Bootlegger under Section  3(1)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nPrevention  of  Dangerous  Activities  of  Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest<br \/>\nOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates<br \/>\nAct, 1982 (in short &#8220;Tamil Nadu Act 14  of  1982&#8221;),  challenges  the  same  in<br \/>\nHCP.No.1073 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The petitioner by name Kousalya, wife of the detenu Kumar,<br \/>\ndetained  under  detention  order dated 05.08.2005 made in Memo No.399\/2005 of<br \/>\nthe second respondent, as Bootlegger under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu  Act<br \/>\n14 of 1982, challenges the same in HCP.No.1076 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.   The  learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the<br \/>\nforemost submitted that in view of discrepancy in the number of sample bottles<br \/>\nsent for chemical analysis as found in the grounds of  detention,  requisition<br \/>\nletter  of  the  sponsoring  authority  and the report of the Forensic Science<br \/>\nLaboratory, the detention orders are liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  Regarding the said contention, we  verified  the  relevant<br \/>\ndetails  in  para 3 of the grounds of Detention in both the HCPs., requisition<br \/>\nletter of the Inspector of Police (available at page 72 of  the  paper  book),<br \/>\nreport  of  Forensic  Science  La hennai-5 dated 28.07.2 005, addressed to the<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri (available at page 78 of the  paper  book).<br \/>\nIt  is  seen  from  the  materials  placed that the Police party noticed three<br \/>\npolythene bags and each of them contained about 40 liters of I.D.  arrack with<br \/>\nirritating smell.  The said 120 liters of I.D.  arrack along  with  a  sum  of<br \/>\nRs.50\/- being  the  sale proceeds and a glass tumbler were seized.  It is also<br \/>\nseen from the grounds that samples of about 500 ml.  were taken in two bottles<br \/>\nfrom each of the polythene bags, sealed and labelled at the spot itself.    It<br \/>\nis  stated  in  the  same paragraph that the Inspector of Police deposited the<br \/>\nseized properties before the Court and made a  requisition  to  the  concerned<br \/>\nJudicial  Magistrate  to  forward  &#8220;one  of  the  sample  bottles for chemical<br \/>\nanalysis out of  six  seized.&#8221;  In  the  requisition  letter,  the  sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority  has  stated  that  totally  six  sample  bottles  taken  from three<br \/>\npolythene bags were forwarded to  the  Assistant  Director,  Forensic  Science<br \/>\nLaboratory,  Chepauk,  Chennai  with  a  request  to  ascertain  the  proof of<br \/>\npoisonous substance and issue certificate for the same.  In the  report  dated<br \/>\n28.07.2005, the  Laboratory  has  also  referred  3  sample bottles.  In other<br \/>\nwords, it is clear that from the seized three polythene bags samples of  about<br \/>\n500  ml  was  taken  in two bottles from each of the polythene bags and out of<br \/>\nthose samples, three bottles were sent for chemical analysis through  Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate.   By  reading  the  details  furnished in para 3 of the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention, requisition letter dated 23.07.2005 of the sponsoring authority and<br \/>\nthe report of the Forensic Lab dated 28.07.2005, we are satisfied  that  there<br \/>\nis  no  discrepancy  at  all  as  claimed  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioners.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The learned counsel for the petitioners further  contended<br \/>\nthat  inasmuch as the detenus were not furnished with the copy of the order of<br \/>\nthe Judicial Magistrate, forwarding the sample bottles to the Forensic Science<br \/>\nLaboratory, the ultimate order is liable to be quashed.  She also relied on  a<br \/>\ndecision of  this  Court dated 18.03.2005 rendered in HCP.No.173 of 2005.  The<br \/>\nreading of requisition of the sponsoring authority dated 23.07.2005 (available<br \/>\nat page 72 of the papers book) makes it clear that after  taking  the  samples<br \/>\nand  after  affixing  proper  seal,  the  same  were forwarded to the Forensic<br \/>\nScience Laboratory through Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri.  In addition to<br \/>\nthis, the perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 28.07<br \/>\n.2005 also makes it clear that they received those samples as per  the  letter<br \/>\nNo.1770\/05 dated 26.07.2005 of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri and the same<br \/>\nwere brought  by  Head  Constable  No.514,  Ponniyan.    The  said letter also<br \/>\ncertifies that they received 3 sample bottles with proper seal.    In  such  a<br \/>\ncircumstance,  we  are  of  the  view that firstly it cannot be contended that<br \/>\nwithout the order of the Judicial Magistrate, the samples had been sent to the<br \/>\nForensic Laboratory and secondly, because of the absence of copy of the  order<br \/>\nof   the   learned   Magistrate,   the   detenus  were  prejudiced  in  making<br \/>\nrepresentation.  We are of the view that samples have to be taken by  adhering<br \/>\nto strict  procedure.    The  same must be affixed with proper seal and on the<br \/>\norders of the Court, the same has to be sent to the Forensic Laboratory.    On<br \/>\nperusal  of  the  materials available at pages 72 and 78 of the paper book, we<br \/>\nare clear that only on the orders of Judicial Magistrate No.II,  Ponneri,  (by<br \/>\nletter  No.1770\/05 dated 26.07.2005), the samples were sent to the Laboratory.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the above decision relied on  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioners, which is not directly on the point, is not helpful to them.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted<br \/>\nthat  in  the case of Sivamani, detenu in HCP.No.1073 of 2005, there was delay<br \/>\nin disposal of his second representation.  It is not in dispute that the first<br \/>\nrepresentation of the said detenu was duly considered and orders  were  passed<br \/>\nwithout any  delay.   According to the learned counsel only in considering the<br \/>\nsecond representation, there was delay.  We verified the particulars furnished<br \/>\nby the  learned  Government  Advocate.    The  second   representation   dated<br \/>\n23.09.2005  was  received by the Government on 26.09.2005; remarks were called<br \/>\nfor on the next day i.e., on 27.09.2005; remarks were received on  30.09.2005;<br \/>\nthereafter,  the  file  was  dealt  with  by  Under  Secretary  and the Deputy<br \/>\nSecretary on 03.10.2005 and finally the Minister for Prohibition  and  Excise,<br \/>\npassed an  order on 04.10.2005.  However, the rejection letter was prepared on<br \/>\n10.10.2005, the same was sent to the detenu on 13.10.2005 and the said  letter<br \/>\nwas served  on  the  detenu  on  14.10.2005.    Though  it  is stated that the<br \/>\nauthorities were not justified in taking 6 days&#8217; time for the  preparation  of<br \/>\nrejection  letter,  if  we exclude the Government holidays inclusive of public<br \/>\nholidays, it cannot be claimed that there was undue delay on the part  of  the<br \/>\nauthorities.    As  said  earlier,  it  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  first<br \/>\nrepresentation of the detenu was duly  considered  and  rejected  without  any<br \/>\ndelay.   We  are satisfied that even in respect of second representation there<br \/>\nwas no undue delay as claimed by the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners.<br \/>\nAccordingly, we reject the said contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Finally, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted<br \/>\nthat  pages 51 and 69 of the paper book supplied to the detenu are not legible<br \/>\nand readable.  We verified the same and we are satisfied that both  pages  are<br \/>\nreadable.  Accordingly, we reject the said contention also.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid<br \/>\nground for interference.  Hence, both the petitions are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>Kh <\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner of Police<br \/>\nGreater Chennai<br \/>\nEgmore, Chennai 600 008.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/01\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE J.A.K. SAMPATH KUMAR HCP.No.1073 of 2005 and HCP. No.1076 of 2005 Radhika .. Petitioner in HCP.No.1073\/05 Kousalya .. Petitioner in [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - 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\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-07T19:00:11+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T19:00:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1223,\"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\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-07T19:00:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/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":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - 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\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-07T19:00:11+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T19:00:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006"},"wordCount":1223,"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\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006","name":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-07T19:00:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/radhika-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Radhika vs The Secretary To Government on 30 January, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/123808","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=123808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}