{"id":124515,"date":"2010-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-17T19:22:30","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T13:52:30","slug":"paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/06\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.357 of 2010\n\nParitha                          ..  Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The Additional Secretary,\n  Government of India,\n  Ministry of Consumer Affairs,\n   Food and Public Distribution\n  (Department of Consumer Affairs),\n  Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,\n  New Delhi - 110 001.\n\n2.The Secretary,\n  Government of Tamilnadu,\n  Co-operation, Food and Consumer\n   Protection Department,\n  Secretariat, Chennai - 9.\n\n3.The Commissioner of Police\n  Tiruchirapalli City,\n  Tiruchirapalli.\n\n4.The Inspector of Police,\n  CS.CID, Madurai.\t\t     ..   Respondents\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of\ndetention passed by the third respondent in his proceedings\nC.P.O.\/T.C.\/I.S\/B.M.D.O.No.01\/ 2010(CS) dated 01.04.2010 and quash the same as\nillegal and produce the detenu, namely, G.Babu @ Baburaj, S\/o. Gani, aged 28\nyears, who has been confined in Central Prison, Trichy before this Court and set\nhim at liberty.\n\n!For petitioner      ... Mr.T.Lenin Kumar\n^For 1st respondent  ... Mr.A.John Xavier,\n                         Central Government\n                         Standing Counsel\n\nFor 2nd respondent   ... Mr. M.Daniel Manoharan                       \t\n\t                 Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Writ Application challenges an Order of Detention of the third<br \/>\nrespondent made in C.P.O.\/T.C.\/I.S\/B.M.D.O.No.01\/2010 dated 01.04.2010  whereby<br \/>\nthe husband of the  petitioner, by name, G.Babu @ Baburaj, was ordered to be<br \/>\ndetained under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and<br \/>\nMaintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act No.7 of 1980)<br \/>\nbranding him as a &#8220;Black Marketer&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and<br \/>\nlooked into all the materials available, in particular, the order under<br \/>\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The detenu was involved in two adverse cases as follows:\n<\/p>\n<pre>SlNo        Police Station                Section of law\n            Cr.No. &amp; Date\n\n1            Tiruchirappalli       u\/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982\n                CSCID              r\/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act 1955\n             Cr.No.88\/2010\n\n2            Tiruchirappalli       u\/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982\n                 CSCID             r\/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act 1955\n             Cr.No.134\/2010\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case case registered by<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli Civil Supplies CID, in Crime No.153\/2010 under Section 6(4) of<br \/>\nTNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r\/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of E.C.Act 1955 on 20.3.2010, when the<br \/>\ndetenu was found in possession of 50 bags each containing 50 kgs of rice meant<br \/>\nfor Public Distribution System. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the<br \/>\nrecommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved two<br \/>\nadverse cases and also in one ground case as referred to above, after looking<br \/>\ninto the materials available, the detaining authority recorded its subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction that the activities of the detenu is prejudicial to the maintenance<br \/>\nof supplies of commodities essential to the community and accordingly, made the<br \/>\norder of detention, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner urged the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) In both the adverse cases and in the ground case, no bail application<br \/>\nwas filed but the detaining has stated that there was a real possibility of the<br \/>\ndetenu coming out on bail.  This observation was made without any basis or<br \/>\nmaterial muchless cogent material.  Under the circumstances, the order of<br \/>\ndetention is infirm.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Added further the learned counsel that insofar as two adverse cases<br \/>\nare concerned, copy of the arrest memos was not supplied and even in the<br \/>\nrepresentation made it was pointed out, and despite the same, till this day,<br \/>\nthose documents have not been served on the detenu.  Hence, on these two<br \/>\ngrounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State<br \/>\non the above contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Admittedly, pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority that the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and in one ground<br \/>\ncase as referred to above, the order of detention came to be passed against the<br \/>\ndetenu branding him as a &#8220;black marketer&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is<br \/>\nan admitted position that no bail application was filed either in the adverse<br \/>\ncases or in the ground case.  However, paragrah No.5 of the order reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;5. I am aware that Thiru.G.Babju @ Baburaj is in remand in<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli, Civil Supplies CID., Cr.Nos.88\/2010, 134\/2010 and 153\/10 and he<br \/>\nhas not moved any bail application for above cases.  His wife Tmt. Paritha<br \/>\nstated before the Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies CID., Tiruchirappali that<br \/>\nshe will take her husband on bail.  There is a real possibility of coming out on<br \/>\nbail in these cases by filing bail application.  If he comes out on bail he will<br \/>\nindulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the Maintenance of the<br \/>\nPublic Distribution System. &#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. From the very reading of above, it would be quite clear that when no<br \/>\nbail application was filed in any one of the three cases, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out<br \/>\non bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State<br \/>\nwould reply that a statement of the wife of the detenu, who is the petitioner<br \/>\nherein, was actually recorded where it would be quite clear that she was taking<br \/>\nsteps to move for bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the instant case, that cannot be the material which can be relied<br \/>\non by the detaining authority to arrive at subjective satisfaction, for the<br \/>\nsimple reason that on the day when the order came to be passed on 1.4.2010, not<br \/>\neven a bail application was filed or was pending in any one of the three cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Apart from that, it is needless to say that, in order to satisfy the<br \/>\nlegal requirement, copy of the arrest memos which were the relied on documents<br \/>\nin this case, should have been supplied but not supplied, which would make the<br \/>\norder defective.  On both the grounds, the order of detention is liable to be<br \/>\nset aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside.  The detenu<br \/>\nis directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in<br \/>\nconnected with any other case.  The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional Secretary,<br \/>\n  Government of India,<br \/>\n  Ministry of Consumer Affairs,<br \/>\n   Food and Public Distribution<br \/>\n  (Department of Consumer Affairs),<br \/>\n  Room No.270, Krishi Bhavan,<br \/>\n  New Delhi &#8211; 110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary,<br \/>\n  Government of Tamilnadu,<br \/>\n  Co-operation, Food and Consumer<br \/>\n   Protection Department,<br \/>\n  Secretariat, Chennai &#8211; 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Commissioner of Police<br \/>\n  Tiruchirapalli City,<br \/>\n  Tiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  CS.CID, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/06\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY H.C.P.(MD) No.357 of 2010 Paritha .. Petitioner vs 1.The Additional Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department [&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-124515","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - 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\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T13:52:30+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\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T13:52:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":899,\"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\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T13:52:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - 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\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T13:52:30+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\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T13:52:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010"},"wordCount":899,"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\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010","name":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T13:52:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paritha-vs-the-additional-secretary-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paritha vs The Additional Secretary on 29 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/124515","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=124515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124515\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}