{"id":125006,"date":"2009-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-15T13:01:50","modified_gmt":"2017-11-15T07:31:50","slug":"ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/11\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No.8989 of 2009\n\n1. Ponnamaravathi Traders' Association\n   rep. by its Secretary\n   K.A.Karuppiah\n   Amarakandan Vadakkarai\n   Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District \t\t\t\n\n2. M.S.Murugappan\n    s\/o. M.Shanmugam Chettiar\n    Ambalavanar Mill\n    Anna Salai, Pon. Pudupatti Post\n    Pudukottai District \t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioners\n\nVersus\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n    rep. by its Secretary to Government\n    Municipal Administration and\n      Water Supply (Election Department)\n    Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009\n\n2. The District Collector\n    Pudukottai District\n\n3. The Executive Officer\n    Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat\n    Pudukottai District\n\n4. The President\n    Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat\n    Pudukottai District\t\t\t\t\t       .. Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\nseeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent 3 and 4 herein to\nreconsider the decision taken under resolution Nos.110, dated 28.7.2008, and\n130, dated 18.9.2008, as per resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, of the fourth\nrespondent herein.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.AL.Gandhimathi\n^For Respondents... Mr.Pala Ramasamy\n\t\t    Special Government Pleader\n\t\t    for R1 and R2\n\t\t    Mr.D.Gandhiraj\n\t\t    Government Advocate for R3 and R4\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of<br \/>\nmandamus to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to reconsider the decision taken<br \/>\nunder Resolution Nos.110, dated 28.7.2008, and 130, dated 18.9.2008, as per<br \/>\nResolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, of the fourth respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The first petitioner is an Association formed with the primary object<br \/>\nof working for the welfare of the traders and the public at large, especially,<br \/>\nwith a view to improve the trade in Ponnamaravathi area. The second petitioner<br \/>\nis the present President of the petitioner Association. The first petitioner<br \/>\nAssociation has 227 members. However, the present writ petition has been filed<br \/>\nonly on behalf of 64 members of the first petitioner Association, who are<br \/>\naffected by the commissions and omissions of the respondents in the matter of<br \/>\nrevision of the property tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It has been stated that the first respondent has proposed to direct the<br \/>\nlocal authorities to re-assess the property tax in all the areas in the State,<br \/>\nfrom 1.4.2008 and it had laid down guidelines for the purpose of re-assessment,<br \/>\nunder G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 23.6.2008. Under the said Government order, the first<br \/>\nrespondent had fixed the guidelines to reassess the property tax and water and<br \/>\nsewerage tax, in respect of all the local bodies and had also directed that the<br \/>\nlocal bodies can reassess the tax in accordance with the revenue and the<br \/>\nexpenses of the respective panchayats and municipalities. However, it had been<br \/>\ndirected that the maximum increase in respect of the residential buildings shall<br \/>\nnot be more than 25% and that it shall not be more than 100% in respect of the<br \/>\nindustrial buildings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It had also been stated that the increase shall not be more than 150%<br \/>\nin respect of the commercial buildings. As such, the first respondent had<br \/>\ndelegated the powers to re-assess the property tax and water and sewerage<br \/>\ncharges to the respective local authorities, as per the guidelines fixed under<br \/>\nthe Government order. It is clear that only the maximum limit has been<br \/>\nprescribed by the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and<br \/>\nWater Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In the meantime, the third respondent Panchayat, on 20.6.2008, had<br \/>\ndiscussed the issue of re-assessment of the properties and other taxes by<br \/>\nreferring to the letter, dated 12.2.2008, of the Commissioner of panchayats,<br \/>\nChennai. As such, under Resolution No.83, dated 20.6.2008, the third respondent<br \/>\npanchayat had resolved to fix the minimum tax as referred to, under the letter<br \/>\nof the Government. However, the third respondent panchayat on a perusal of the<br \/>\nGovernment order, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply<br \/>\n(Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, had once again held a meeting, on<br \/>\n28.7.2008, by placing both the letters, as well as the Government order. By a<br \/>\nresolution No.130, dated 18.9.2008, the council of the third respondent<br \/>\npanchayat had approved the Government order and had decided that the property<br \/>\ntax shall be fixed at the maximum limit, as referred to under the said<br \/>\nGovernment order, dated 23.6.2008. As such, the third respondent panchayat had<br \/>\ndecided to reassess the property tax and thereby had increased it by 150% for<br \/>\nall the properties covered under the ponnamaravathi panchayat. When the said<br \/>\nreassessment had been made public, there were many protest meetings requesting<br \/>\nthe third respondent panchayat to reconsider the decision of the panchayat.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Pursuant to the said request, the third respondent panchayat, by its<br \/>\nresolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, had decided to reconsider the earlier<br \/>\ndecision, taking into consideration the objections raised by the public.<br \/>\nHowever, the third respondent panchayat, without reconsidering the earlier<br \/>\nresolution, had, by a letter, dated 10.2.2009, informed the second respondent<br \/>\nthat the reassessment of the property tax had been made only in accordance with<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department,<br \/>\ndated 23.6.2008. However, due to the protests by the public including the bandh<br \/>\nheld on 26.12.2008, the third respondent panchayat had, resolved to reconsider<br \/>\nits earlier decision and therefore, it had requested the second respondent to<br \/>\nissue suitable orders to reassess the taxes. Since there was no response from<br \/>\nthe second respondent, the third respondent panchayat had informed the second<br \/>\nrespondent by its letter, dated 6.7.2009, that in spite of its letter, dated<br \/>\n10.2.2009, there was no approval from the first and second respondents for<br \/>\nreconsidering the earlier decision of the third respondent panchayat.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. On 23.4.2009, there was an inspection in the office of the District<br \/>\nCollector, Pudukottai, in respect of the collection of taxes in the respective<br \/>\npanchayats. Such an inspection had also been made at the office of the<br \/>\nPonnamaravathi panchayat and the Executive Officer of the Ponnamaravathi<br \/>\npanchayat was directed to reassess the taxes and to start collecting the same<br \/>\nwithout any default. However, due to the continuous protests from the public,<br \/>\nthe third respondent had once again requested the second respondent for suitable<br \/>\norders to reconsider its earlier decision. In spite of such a request having<br \/>\nbeen made, no approval had been given, either by the first respondent or by the<br \/>\nsecond respondent. Hence, the third respondent panchayat could not reconsider<br \/>\nits earlier decision to increase the taxes and therefore, individual notices had<br \/>\nbeen issued demanding the property tax at the increased rates. In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before<br \/>\nthis Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it<br \/>\nhas been submitted that the assessment of the tax is an individual assessment<br \/>\nand therefore, the present writ petition filed by the Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217;<br \/>\nAssociation is not maintainable in law. The Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat<br \/>\nprovides basic amenities to the public by laying roads, constructing drainages,<br \/>\nerecting street lights, providing water supply and other sanitary facilities.<br \/>\nDue to the increased cost of the construction materials, electricity charges,<br \/>\netc., the local bodies were not in a position to meet the regular expenses.<br \/>\nTherefore, there was the need for increase in the taxes being collected by the<br \/>\nPanchayat. In such circumstances, a Government order, in G.O.Ms.No.110,<br \/>\nMunicipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008,<br \/>\nhad been issued giving the guidelines for fixing the percentage of taxes to be<br \/>\ncollected by the local bodies. Based on the guidelines issued in the Government<br \/>\norder, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 23.6.2008 and in view of the directions issued, in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.150, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department,<br \/>\ndated 12.11.2007, and the proceedings of the Director of Town Panchayat, in<br \/>\nNa.Ka.No.335\/05E2, dated 12.2.2008, the Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat had passed<br \/>\nthe resolution No.83, on 20.6.2008. Even though certain representations had been<br \/>\nreceived from certain segments of the people of the Ponnamaravathi Town<br \/>\npanchayat, it was found that nearly 50% of the persons assessed to pay the<br \/>\nincreased tax had complied with the demands made by the Panchayat. The claims<br \/>\nmade by the petitioner have no legal basis and therefore, they are liable to be<br \/>\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the<br \/>\nGovernment order issued by the first respondent, in G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal<br \/>\nAdministration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, had only<br \/>\nfixed the guidelines and the powers had been delegated to the local authorities<br \/>\nto reassess the property tax, water and sewerage tax at the maximum permissible<br \/>\nlimits. However, the third respondent Panchayat, without considering the revenue<br \/>\nand expenses of the panchayat and without making its own assessment, had taken a<br \/>\ndecision to increase the property tax by 150%, without applying its mind,<br \/>\nproperly. In spite of repeated protests held by the public and the members of<br \/>\nthe petitioner Association, no decision had been taken, till date, to reconsider<br \/>\nthe said decision. The third respondent Panchayat has been waiting for the<br \/>\napproval of the first and the second respondents, even though it is neither<br \/>\nnecessary nor mandatory. However, without reconsidering the issue, the third<br \/>\nrespondent Panchayat had issued individual notices demanding payment of the<br \/>\nincreased property tax under the threat of coercive action.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted<br \/>\nthat by Resolution No.2, dated 29.1.2009, it had been resolved to reconsider the<br \/>\nproposal to increase the property tax. However, the said resolution had not been<br \/>\ngiven effect to. The learned counsel had also stated that neither in the<br \/>\nResolutions of the panchayat, dated 20.6.2008 and 28.7.2008, nor in the<br \/>\nResolution, dated 18.9.2008, any specific percentage of tax had been fixed. Even<br \/>\nthough the panchayat had resolved to reconsider its earlier decision to increase<br \/>\nthe tax, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water<br \/>\nSupply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008, it had not done so, in spite of the<br \/>\nprotests raised from various sections of the society. In fact, the town<br \/>\npanchayat council had not met to finally fix the percentage of the property tax.<br \/>\nTherefore, the increase of property tax is arbitrary, improper and invalid in<br \/>\nthe eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents had submitted that nearly 50% of the people of the ponnamaravathi<br \/>\ntown panchayat had, already, paid the increased tax, as per the resolutions<br \/>\npassed by the Panchayat council, in view of G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal<br \/>\nAdministration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department, dated 23.6.2008. He had also<br \/>\npointed out that most of the panchayats in Pudukottai and other Districts had<br \/>\npassed the resolution, in accordance with the guidelines given under<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department,<br \/>\ndated 23.6.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. He had also submitted that the contentions raised on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioners are incorrect and erroneous, since a specific resolution had been<br \/>\npassed to accept the maximum limit of tax proposed under the Government order in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.) Department,<br \/>\ndated 23.6.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for<br \/>\nthe parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners<br \/>\nhave not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in<br \/>\nthe present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The petitioners have not been in a position to show that the<br \/>\nresolution passed by the Panchayat council of Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat,<br \/>\napproving and accepting the guidelines for fixing the percentage of taxes to be<br \/>\nlevied under G.O.Ms.No.110, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Elec.)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 23.6.2008, is arbitrary and invalid. When most of the<br \/>\npanchayats in Pudukottai and other Districts had accepted the increased taxes to<br \/>\nbe reasonable, no proper reasons have been shown by the petitioners to challenge<br \/>\nthe resolutions passed by the panchayat council of Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat<br \/>\nfixing higher rates for payment of taxes.  Fixation of higher rates of taxes had<br \/>\nbeen justified in the various local bodies due to the escalation of costs in<br \/>\ntheir activities of providing the various amenities for the welfare of the<br \/>\npeople of the respective areas. It has also been seen that merely 50% of the<br \/>\npersons assessed for the payment of the increased taxes have already complied<br \/>\nwith the demands made by the Ponnamaravathi Town panchayat.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is liable to<br \/>\nbe dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected<br \/>\nM.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2009 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>lan<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n     The State of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\n      Municipal Administration and<br \/>\n      Water Supply (Election Department)<br \/>\n    Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Collector<br \/>\n    Pudukottai District<\/p>\n<p>3. The Executive Officer<br \/>\n    Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat<br \/>\n    Pudukottai District<\/p>\n<p>4. The President<br \/>\n    Ponnamaravathi Selection Grade Panchayat<br \/>\n    Pudukottai District<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/11\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.8989 of 2009 1. Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; Association rep. by its Secretary K.A.Karuppiah Amarakandan Vadakkarai Ponnamaravathi, Pudukottai District 2. M.S.Murugappan s\/o. M.Shanmugam [&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-125006","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>Ponnamaravathi Traders&#039; ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - 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\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#039; ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1913,\"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\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Ponnamaravathi Traders' ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ponnamaravathi Traders' ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - 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\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnamaravathi Traders' ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009"},"wordCount":1913,"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\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009","name":"Ponnamaravathi Traders' ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-15T07:31:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnamaravathi-traders-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnamaravathi Traders&#8217; &#8230; vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/125006","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=125006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}