{"id":130541,"date":"2003-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003"},"modified":"2019-03-26T09:38:56","modified_gmt":"2019-03-26T04:08:56","slug":"m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 26\/09\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 12396 of 2003\nand\nW.P.M.P.No. 15573\/2003 and W.V.M.P.Nos. 1088 and 940\/2003\n\nM. Subramanian.                        .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Secretary to Government,\n   Local Administration Department,\n   Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n   Udayarpalayam, Perambalur District.\n\n3. Chandrahasan.\n   (3rd Respondent was impleaded as per Order\n    of Court dated 15-7-2003)            .. Respondents.\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of\na Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n\nFor Petitioner     ::   Mr.  Vijaynarayan for\n                        Mr.  G.R.  Swaminathan:-\n\n\nFor Respondents 1 and 2 ::  Mr.  R.  Muthukumaraswami, Addl.  Advocate\n                            General, assisted by Mr.  V.  Subbarayan,\n                            Spl.Govt., Pleader\n\n\nMr.  S.  Muthukrishnan:- For 3rd Respondent.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>By consent of all the parties main  writ  petition  itself  is  taken  up  for<br \/>\ndisposal.   Aggrieved  by  the  order  of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.32 Rural<br \/>\nDevelopment (C1) Department dated 17-4-2003, removing the petitioner from  the<br \/>\npost  of Chairman, Panchayat Union Council, Sendurai, Perambalur District, the<br \/>\npetitioner  has  filed  the  above  writ  petition  to  quash  the  same   and<br \/>\nconsequently  direct  the  first  respondent-Government  to  reinstate  him as<br \/>\nChairman, Sendurai Panchayat Union Council.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The case of the petitioner is briefly state hereunder:<br \/>\nAccording to him, he was elected  as  Chairman  of  Sendurai  Panchayat  Union<br \/>\nCouncil on  31-10-2001.    A  written  notice  of  intention  to make a motion<br \/>\nexpressing want of confidence in him was delivered to the  Revenue  Divisional<br \/>\nOfficer, Udayarpalayam.    Subsequently  a meeting was convened on 10-12-2002.<br \/>\nIn the meanwhile, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.    41401\/2002  assailing<br \/>\nthe  amendment made in Section 212 of the Panchayats Act and the same has been<br \/>\nadmitted by this Court.   The  proceedings  removing  him  from  the  post  of<br \/>\nChairman were  fully  video  taped.   Prescribed statutory procedures were not<br \/>\nfollowed.  The motion laid against him was defeated.  This was duly  announced<br \/>\nby the  Revenue Divisional Officer.  Thereafter, the vested interests who were<br \/>\nagainst him instigated a pandemonium and in  the  process  the  no  confidence<br \/>\nmotion was  put  to vote for the second time.  This is illegal and against all<br \/>\nprinciples of democracy.  The papers had since been forwarded to the Secretary<br \/>\nto Government.  He had lodged complaint stating that there was double  voting.<br \/>\nSince  he  apprehended that he may not be allowed to prove this allegation, he<br \/>\nfiled Writ Petition No.  3490\/2 003 before this Court and this Court  directed<br \/>\nthe  first  respondentGovernment  to  give  him  an  opportunity of hearing on<br \/>\n17-2-2003.  He appeared in person and produced the  video  tapes.    It  could<br \/>\nclearly  be  seen  that there was twice voting and that in the first round the<br \/>\nmotion was defeated.  Yet the first respondent had issued  the  impugned  G.O.<br \/>\nwithout   even   considering   or   adverting   to  his  objections  In  these<br \/>\ncircumstances, in the absence of any alternative or  effective  remedy,  filed<br \/>\nthe present writ petition for quashing the said impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Special  Secretary  to  the  Government,  Rural  Development  Department,<br \/>\nChennai-9 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated  that  the  Union<br \/>\nCouncil  Members  of  the  Panchayat  Union, Sendurai have decided to bring no<br \/>\nConfidence motion against M.  Subramanian, Chairman, Panchayat Union  Council,<br \/>\nSendurai and  obtained  signatures from 16 Union Councillors.  Out of 16 Union<br \/>\nCouncillors, three of them together have presented the memorandum  before  the<br \/>\nRevenue Divisional Officer, Udyarpalayam on 1-11-2002 along with 9 allegations<br \/>\nand  show  cause  notice  under Section 212(3) of the Tamilnadu Panchayat Act,<br \/>\n1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 21 of  1994)  (in  short  the  Act)  was  issued  to  the<br \/>\npetitioner-Chairman,  Sendurai  Panchayat  Union  along  with  a  copy  of the<br \/>\nallegation on 8-11-2002, asking him to give his  statement  in  reply  to  the<br \/>\ncharges within   7  days  from  its  receipt.    The  petitioner  offered  his<br \/>\nexplanation on 16-11-2002.  The allegation of the councillor and vice chairman<br \/>\nis that the petitioner  failed  to  carry  out  the  duty  cast  upon  him  in<br \/>\nadministration  of panchayat union as per the said Act and Rules and failed to<br \/>\ngive proper respect to the councillors and Vice-Chairman.   Hence,  the  Union<br \/>\nCouncillors moved  No  Confidence  motion  against  the  petitioner.   The 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent issued a notice under Section 212  (4)  of  the  said  Act  to  the<br \/>\ncouncillors  fixing the date and time of the council meeting to be convened by<br \/>\nthe 2nd respondent under Section 212 (5) of the  Act.    At  this  stage,  the<br \/>\npetitioner filed  a  petition  challenging the notice dated 8-11-2002.  Though<br \/>\nthis Court has granted interim stay, the same has been vacated on  26-12-2002.<br \/>\nHence  the second respondent conducted, the no-Confidence Motion on 10-12-2002<br \/>\nafter giving appropriate notice to the petitioner and other  councillors.    A<br \/>\ndetailed   report  was  submitted  to  the  Secretary,  Rural  Development  on<br \/>\n10-12-2002 stating that 15 councillors out of 19 casted their vote  in  favour<br \/>\nof the  No-Confidence  motion  and  signed in the Minutes to that effect.  The<br \/>\npetitioner gave a representation against the Revenue Divisional Officer to the<br \/>\nGovernment stating that at the time of  conducting  No  confidence  motion  on<br \/>\nfirst  occasion,  when  the  voting  took  place  on 10-12-2002 the motion was<br \/>\ndefeated and subsequently, there was a pentemonium  and  it  is  claimed  that<br \/>\nthere  after  again  the motion was stated to have been passed and thereby the<br \/>\nNoConfidence motion said to have been passed is not in accordance with the Act<br \/>\nand the Rules and thereby is invalid.  Even the W.P.No.   3490\/2003  filed  by<br \/>\nthe  petitioner  has been disposed of by this Court on 5-2-200 3 directing the<br \/>\npetitioner to appear before the first respondent on 1 7-2-2003.   He  appeared<br \/>\non that  date  and  necessary opportunity was given to the petitioner.  He was<br \/>\nalso heard in person.  The cassette produced by the petitioner was  also  seen<br \/>\nby the  first  respondent.    The  petitioner  gave  in writing that the video<br \/>\ncassette was witnessed.  A report was called for from the District  Collector,<br \/>\nwho  submitted a report on 25-2-2003 stating that the voting took place in one<br \/>\nsitting and thereby no  confidence  motion  against  the  Chairman  should  be<br \/>\nconsidered  as  passed,  since  out of 19 councillors, 15 councillors voted in<br \/>\nfavour of No Confidence Motion and the No Confidence Motion has been passed as<br \/>\nper Act and Rules.  On receipt of the report, the first respondent  passed  an<br \/>\norder  on  13-03-2003  with  a  view  to  comply the order of this Court dated<br \/>\n28-02-2003.  After considering  all  the  materials  finally,  the  Government<br \/>\naccepted the  draft  Notification and passed the impugned order.  The same was<br \/>\ngazetted on 17-04-2003 removing the petitioner from the post  of  Chairman  of<br \/>\nthe  Panchayat Union council, Sendurai as per sub-section 13 of Section 212 of<br \/>\nthe Act.  As directed by this Court, the petitioner was heard in person.   His<br \/>\nvideo cassette  was  seen  in  his  presence.    After getting report from the<\/p>\n<p>District Collector,  the  Government  have  passed  the  order  on  17-4-2003,<br \/>\nremoving  the  petitioner  from the post of Chairman, Sendurai Panchayat Union<br \/>\nCouncil.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam, 2nd respondent herein  filed  a<br \/>\nseparate but identical counter affidavit as that of the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The third respondent has filed an affidavit stating that on 10-12-2002 no<br \/>\nconfidence meeting was held and it was supported by 15 members and opposed  by<br \/>\nfour members.  The second respondent properly recorded the minutes of the said<br \/>\nmeeting  and  all  the  members  of the Union council including the petitioner<br \/>\nsigned in the minutes in the presence of the second respondent  who  forwarded<br \/>\nthe same  to  the  first  respondent-Government for further action.  Since the<br \/>\nGovernment had not  acted  quickly,  he  filed  a  writ  petition  in  W.P.No.<br \/>\n6489\/2003  before  this Court seeking appropriate direction to the Government.<br \/>\nOn 28-2-2003 this Court directed the Government  to  pass  appropriate  orders<br \/>\nwithin three  weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.  Finally after<br \/>\nconsidering all the materials, the Government have passed the impugned  order.<br \/>\nAs  per  the  said  order,  in  the light of the removal of the President, the<br \/>\nVice-Chairman-Mrs.  R.  Lalitha had taken charge of the post  of  Chairman  on<br \/>\nthe same day   i.e.    on  17-4-2003.    There  is  no  illegality  warranting<br \/>\ninterference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  In the light of the above pleadings, I have  heard  Mr.    Vijaynarayanan,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for  the  eptitioner;  Mr.    R.    Muthukumaraswamy,  learned<br \/>\nAdditional Advocate  General  for  respondents  1  and  2;   and   Mr.      S.<br \/>\nMuthukrishnan for third respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  Mr.    Vijaynarayan,  learned  counsel for the petitioner, after taking me<br \/>\nthrough the impugned proceedings, would contend that the first respondent  has<br \/>\nnot  taken  into  account  the fact that there was twice voting on the subject<br \/>\nmotion on 10-12-2002.  He also contended that the first  respondent  ought  to<br \/>\nhave appreciated  the  pendency  of Writ Petition No.  41401\/2002 in which the<br \/>\nvery validity of the amendment to Section 212 is in question.    According  to<br \/>\nhim, no voter on any motion can be allowed to recall the vote already cast and<br \/>\nvote for the   second   time.      Refuting  the  said  contention,  Mr.    R.<br \/>\nMuthukumaraswamy, learned  Additional  Advocate  General,  after  placing  the<br \/>\nentire file relating to no confidence motion, report of the District Collector<br \/>\nand the order impugned, would contend that there is no violation of any of the<br \/>\nstatutory provisions as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  In the light of the specific claim of the petitioner with regard to the No<br \/>\nConfidence Motion moved against the petitioner, who was elected as Chairman of<br \/>\nSendurai Panchayat Union Council, apart from perusing the counter affidavit of<br \/>\nrespondents 1 and 2, I summoned the original File.  Pursuant to the direction,<br \/>\nlearned Additional  Advocate General has placed the relevant File.  It is seen<br \/>\nthat Panchayat Union Councillors of Sendurai Taluk had brought a no confidence<br \/>\nand removal motion against Chairman as early as June, 2002.   Inasmuch  as  no<br \/>\nconfidence  motion  cannot  be entertained for the first year of the office of<br \/>\nChairman as per the Act, the same was not permitted.  However, the councillors<br \/>\nboycotted the council meeting convened by the Chairman and meetings could  not<br \/>\nbe convened  on  12-08-2002 and 24-10 -2002 for want of quorum.  It is further<br \/>\nseen that as soon as the statutory one year period was passed, a no confidence<br \/>\nmotion was brought against the Chairman.  It is seen from the  report  of  the<br \/>\nDistrict  Collector,  Perambalur  District  that  after  completion of all the<br \/>\nformalities, the voting on the motion was scheduled on 10-12-2002.  There  was<br \/>\nno dispute  over  the following proper procedure on motion till voting.  It is<br \/>\nfurther seen that the confusion arose only on the day of voting.  According to<br \/>\nthe District Collector, a ballot paper was circulated which  has  two  columns<br \/>\nsaying &#8221;  ek;gpf;if cz;L or ek;gpf;if ,y;iy&#8221;.  The details about the motion or<br \/>\n(Nambikai on whom) were not on ballot paper.  No  Confidence  Motion  was  not<br \/>\nwritten on board.  It should have been read out, but Block Development Officer<br \/>\nsaid  that  he read only the statement of allegation and members were asked to<br \/>\nvote.  Since the ballot paper did not mention anything, the members as per the<br \/>\nindividual understanding voted.  The report further says that as soon  as  the<br \/>\ncounting  had  started the members started shouting saying that they had voted<br \/>\nagainst the Chairman i.e., what they meant by ticking means, they do not  have<br \/>\nconfidence in Chairman and not that they have no confidence in the motion.  As<br \/>\nthe  voting taken place under utter confusion and from the discussion with the<br \/>\nRevenue Divisional Officer, Block Development  Officer  and  councillors,  the<br \/>\nfirst  ballot  paper  cannot be taken as valid ballot because the ballot paper<br \/>\ndid not contain the details of the motion, nor the members were explained that<br \/>\nwhat they are voting for i.e., whether  they  are  voting  for  confidence  in<br \/>\nChairman or  for  no  confidence.    The  members realised that immediately as<br \/>\ncounting started and before the counting was over started demanding  that  the<br \/>\nvoting  cannot  be taken as voting against the &#8216;No Confidence motion&#8217; they had<br \/>\nvoted against the chairman.  The report shows that the process cannot be taken<br \/>\nas fair as the individual members were unaware of exact method of voting.   In<br \/>\nthose  circumstances,  a  new  ballot  paper  with exact details of motion was<br \/>\ncirculated and voting took place.  Thereafter, the members voted  against  the<br \/>\nChairman and  the  No Confidence Motion was passed.  Immediately a Minute Book<br \/>\nwas also signed by all the members.  This proves the fact that  no  confidence<br \/>\nmotion has  passed.   Learned Additional Advocate General has produced copy of<br \/>\nthe Minutes which contain signatures of all the members.  It  also  shows  the<br \/>\nacceptance of  result  of  voting.    The  petitioner herein-Chairman has also<br \/>\nsigned the Minutes Book and accepted the voting.  As  rightly  argued  by  the<br \/>\nlearned  Additional  Advocate  General, if he was in disagreement of motion or<br \/>\nprocedure, he should have refused to sign the Minute Book.  The Collector  has<br \/>\nalso  stated  in  his  report  that  both voting took place in one sitting and<br \/>\nbefore the second voting the members were not permitted to go out or relax  or<br \/>\ndiscuss.   The  Collector  has  concluded  that  out  of  ignorance,  lack  of<br \/>\nunderstanding and lack of clarity in ballot paper the confusion occurred.   He<br \/>\nalso  concluded  that  no  confidence  motion  against  the Chairman should be<br \/>\nconsidered as passed and the first vote cannot be considered as  valid  voting<br \/>\nfrom the  reasons  mentioned  above.  As observed earlier, I have verified all<br \/>\nthe records including the details of the Minutes which which would go to  show<br \/>\nthat  majority  of  more  than 2\/3rd of the councillors have voted against the<br \/>\nChairmanpetitioner as he lost  the  confidence  of  Panchayat  Union  council.<br \/>\nThough  the  notification  issued  by the first respondent-Government does not<br \/>\ndisclose all the details, the File produced by the Additional Advocate General<br \/>\nshows all the details and I am unable to accept the argument  of  the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   As  rightly  argued,  though  there  is  no  provision to hear the person<br \/>\nconcerned by the Government  while  considering  the  report  of  the  Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional  Officer under Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, in view<br \/>\nof the earlier direction of this Court dated 5-2-2003  in  W.P.No.    3490  of<br \/>\n2003,  the  Government  before  taking a decision on the report of the Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, the petitioner was given notice of  personal  hearing  and<br \/>\nhis  video  cassette was screened in the presence of the petitioner, Secretary<br \/>\nand Director of the Department.  Thereafter, the Government also called for  a<br \/>\nreport with  reference  to  the same from the District Collector.  Considering<br \/>\nall the materials and after affording opportun ity to the petitioner,  hearing<br \/>\nhis  objection  etc.,  after  satisfying  that  the  motion expressing want of<br \/>\nconfidence in M.  Subramanian, Chairman, Sendurai Panchayat Union Council  was<br \/>\ncarried  out  with  the support of 15 members out of sanctioned strength of 19<br \/>\nmembers  in  the  meeting  convened  by  the   Revenue   Divisional   Officer,<br \/>\nUdayarpalayam on 10-12-2002 after following the procedure specified in Section<br \/>\n212,  the  Government  issued  a Notification removing the petitioner from the<br \/>\noffice of the Chairman of Panchayat Union council, Sendurai.  I  am  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  the meeting was convened by the Revenue Divisional Officer in accordance<br \/>\nwith the statutory provision that no confidence motion was carried  out  by  a<br \/>\nmajority  of members and the same was approved by the Government by exercising<br \/>\npower under Section 212 of the Act and issued the impugned Notification.  I do<br \/>\nnot find any error or infirmity in the order impugned; consequently  the  Writ<br \/>\nPetition fails and the same is dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:-Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nLocal Administration Department,<br \/>\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,<br \/>\nUdayarpalayam, Perambalur District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 26\/09\/2003 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 12396 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.No. 15573\/2003 and W.V.M.P.Nos. 1088 and 940\/2003 M. Subramanian. .. Petitioner. -Vs- 1. The Secretary to Government, [&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-130541","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - 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\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-26T04:08:56+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\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T04:08:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2478,\"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\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\",\"name\":\"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-26T04:08:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - 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\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-26T04:08:56+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\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T04:08:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003"},"wordCount":2478,"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\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003","name":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-26T04:08:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-subramanian-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-26-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Subramanian vs The Secretary To Government on 26 September, 2003"}]},{"@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\/130541","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=130541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}