{"id":134273,"date":"2005-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-30T17:52:23","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T12:22:23","slug":"m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 22\/11\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN         \n\nWP.NO.37608 OF 2005    \nand \nWPMP.No.40317 of 2005    \n\nM.Sathyanathan                 ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Collector,\n   Kancheepuram District,\n   Kancheepuram  \n\n2. The Assistant Director,\n   (Geology &amp; Mines),\n   Kancheepuram District        ..  Respondents\n\nPRAYER :-  Petition filed under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor petitioner ::  Mr.R.Sugumaran\n\nFor respondents ::  Mr.R.Vijayakumar,G.A. \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The question that arises in this writ petition is,<br \/>\n&#8220;Whether it is obligatory on the part of the District Collector to grant lease<br \/>\nin favour of the petitioner being the second highest  bidder  when  the  first<br \/>\nhighest  bidder fails to perform his part of contract in terms of Rule 8(7) of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules,  1959,  without  resorting  to<br \/>\ncalling for fresh tenders?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  petitioner,  having  considerable experience in the field of<br \/>\nstone quarrying, participated in the tender-cum-auction process called for  by<br \/>\nthe  respondents,  in  respect  of  the  stone  quarry  No.2  in  S.No.139  in<br \/>\nThalakkanancheri village,  Tambaram  taluk.    In  the   said   auction,   one<br \/>\nMrs.Prabavathy  Durairaj  was  the  highest  bidder and the petitioner was the<br \/>\nsecond highest bidder.  Since the said Mrs.Prabavathy Durairaj  has  not  paid<br \/>\nthe  remaining 90% of the bid amount within the stipulated period, her bid was<br \/>\nimpliedly cancelled automatically as per the terms of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Minor<br \/>\nMineral Concession  Rules,  1959  (  for  short, &#8220;the Rules&#8221;).  Therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner, being the second  highest  bidder,  made  a  representation  dated<br \/>\n18.08.2004,  before  the  first  respondent,  requesting to accept his bid and<br \/>\nexecute the lease deed in his favour.  However, the first respondent issued  a<br \/>\nNotification  dated  2.11.2005  calling  for  fresh  tenders in respect of the<br \/>\nimpugned stone quarry, which  is  challenged  in  the  present  writ  petition<br \/>\nseeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said Notification in so<br \/>\nfar as it relates to issuance of lease in respect of the impugned stone quarry<br \/>\nand  to  direct  the  first  respondent  to consider the representation of the<br \/>\npetitioner dated 18.08.2004 in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Mr.R.Sugumaran,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner<br \/>\nchallenges the impugned Notification on the following two grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<p>i)  The  District  Collector  ought to have granted the lease in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioner being the second highest bidder, since the highest bidder  has  not<br \/>\npursued the lease by paying the balance bid amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>ii)  The  District  Collector  erred  in  calling  for  fresh tenders, without<br \/>\ndisposing the petitioner&#8217;s representation seeking to confirm the  bid  in  his<br \/>\nfavour.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   On  the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader taking<br \/>\nnotice on behalf of the respondents  justified  the  action  of  the  District<br \/>\nCollector in  issuing  the  impugned  notification.    According  to  him, the<br \/>\nconfirmation of the second highest bid  is  not  automatic  in  view  of  Rule<br \/>\n8(6)(b) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Before going into the question involved in the writ petition it is<br \/>\nprofitable  to  refer  to the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, which<br \/>\nare relevant for the purpose of this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;8(6)(a).  Where only one tender application is received for an area, if there<br \/>\nis no one to bid in the auction, the District Collector may grant the lease in<br \/>\nfavour of the single applicant if in his  opinion  the  annual  tender  amount<br \/>\noffered  by  the  applicant is reasonable in the circumstances of the case and<br \/>\nthe grant of the lease to the applicant will be in the  interests  of  mineral<br \/>\ndevelopment.  If the District Collector is not satisfied in the above aspects,<br \/>\nhe  may  reject the application communicating the reasons therefore in writing<br \/>\nto the applicant and issue fresh notification in the District Gazette  calling<br \/>\nfor re-tender applications for the area concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)  Where  two  or  more applications, are received for an area, the District<br \/>\nCollector shall, ordinarily, grant the quarrying lease to the applicant who is<br \/>\ndeclared as the offerer of the highest bid amount  or  highest  tender  amount<br \/>\nwhichever is greater;\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided  that  where the District Collector is satisfied that the highest bid<br \/>\namount or tender  amount  fetched  for  an  area  is  not  reasonable  in  the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the  case,  it  is open to the Collector to reject the said<br \/>\noffer and refuse to accept the payment of 10 per cent of the bid amount\/tender<br \/>\namount and the District Collector may order to bring the quarry for re-auction<br \/>\ncum tender process.  In such a case it is not necessary to pass  any  separate<br \/>\norder for rejection of the highest bid\/tender offer.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c) to (f) xxxxxxx<\/p>\n<p>(7)  Where  the  District  Collector  has  granted  a  quarrying  lease  to an<br \/>\napplicant, if  the  applicant  fails  to  produce  the  original  challan  for<br \/>\nremittance  of  the amounts specified in the lease granting map of the area or<br \/>\nfails to produce the signed copy of the demarked map of the area or  fails  to<br \/>\nproduce  the  required  stamp  papers for preparing the lease deed or fails to<br \/>\nexecute the lease deed within the stipulated time, the District Collector  may<br \/>\ncancel  the  order granting the lease to the defaulter and forfeit the earnest<br \/>\nmoney deposit and all amounts paid by him to the State  Government.    In  the<br \/>\ncase of an area for which there are two or more applicants, after cancellation<br \/>\nof  an  order  granting  the  quarrying  lease  to the defaulter, the District<br \/>\nCollector may grant the quarrying lease in favour of the  next  below  highest<br \/>\nbidder or  tenderer,  subject to the provisions of sub-rule 6(b).  If the next<br \/>\nhighest bidder or tenderer is not communicating  his  acceptance  of  such  an<br \/>\noffer  of  the  District Collector within ten days from the date of receipt of<br \/>\nthe District Collector&#8217;s offer,  the  District  Collector  shall  issue  fresh<br \/>\nNotification  in  the  District Gazette calling for re-tender applications for<br \/>\nthe area concerned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Now, let us consider the rival submissions of  both  the  parties.<br \/>\nAccording  to  the  learned counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 8(7) of the<br \/>\nRules, the word &#8216;may&#8217; employed in the expression, &#8220;the District Collector  may<br \/>\ngrant  the  quarrying  lease  in  favour  of  the next below highest bidder or<br \/>\ntenderer&#8221;, should be read as &#8220;shall&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is true that though the word  &#8216;may&#8217;  might  connote  merely  an<br \/>\nenabling  or  permissive  power  in the sense of the usual phrase &#8220;it shall be<br \/>\nlawful&#8221;, it is also capable of being construed as referring to  a  compellable<\/p>\n<p>duty,  particularly  when  it  refers to a power conferred on a court or other<br \/>\njudicial authority, however, it depends upon the interpretation of statute  in<br \/>\neach case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   It  is well-settled principle of interpretation that a statute is<br \/>\nto be interpreted on its plain  reading;  in  the  absence  of  any  doubt  or<br \/>\ndifficulty  arising  out of such reading of a statute defeating or frustrating<br \/>\nthe object and purpose of an enactment, it must be read and understood by  its<br \/>\nplain reading.    However,  in  case  of  any  difficulty  or doubt arising in<br \/>\ninterpreting a provision  of  an  enactment,  courts  will  interpret  such  a<br \/>\nprovision  keeping  in  mind the objects sought to be achieved and the purpose<br \/>\nintended to be served by such a provision so as to advance the cause for which<br \/>\nthe enactment was brought into force.  If two  interpretations  are  possible,<br \/>\nthe one which promotes or favours the object of the Act and purpose it serves,<br \/>\nis to  be  preferred.   At any rate, in the guise of purposive interpretation,<br \/>\nthe courts cannot rewrite a statute.  A purposive interpretation may permit  a<br \/>\nreading  of  the  provision consistent with the purpose and object of the Act,<br \/>\nbut the Courts cannot legislate and enact the  provision  either  creating  or<br \/>\ntaking  away  substantial  rights  by  stretching  or  straining  a  piece  of<br \/>\nlegislation.  (vide:  Sri Ram Saha v.  State of W.B.  (2004) 11 SCC 5080).\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Further, as observed by Lord Campbell in Liverpool Borough Bank v.<br \/>\nTurner reported in (1861) 30 LJ Ch 379, no universal rule can be laid down  as<br \/>\nto  whether  mandatory  enactments  shall  be  considered  directory  only  or<br \/>\nobligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience.  It is the duty  of<br \/>\nCourts  of  Justice  to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by<br \/>\ncarefully attending to the whole scope.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  As held by the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1992131\/\">Mansukhlal Vithaldas  Chauhan  v.<br \/>\nState  of  Gujarat<\/a>  (1997)  7 SCC 622), what is determinative of the nature of<br \/>\nduty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme  of  the<br \/>\nstatute in  which  the duty has been set out.  Even if the duty is not set out<br \/>\nclearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as co-relative to a<br \/>\nright.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  Coming to the case on hand, Rule 8(7)  of  the  Rules  confers  a<br \/>\ndiscretion  on  the Collector to grant the lease to the next highest bidder in<br \/>\nthe event the highest  bidder  fails  to  produce  the  original  challan  for<br \/>\nremittance of  the amounts specified in the lease.  The power conferred on the<br \/>\nCollector is not obligatory  or  mandatory,  but  it  is  only  discretionary,<br \/>\nbecause  the  power  conferred under Rule 8(7) is subject to the provisions of<br \/>\nRule 8(6)(b) of the Rules, whereunder it is specifically provided that in such<br \/>\na case it is not necessary to pass any separate order  for  rejection  of  the<br \/>\nhighest bid\/tender offer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   I  am  therefore  unable to accept the contention of the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner that the word,  &#8216;may&#8217;  in  the  expression,  &#8221;  the<br \/>\nDistrict  Collector  may grant the quarrying lease in favour of the next below<br \/>\nhighest bidder or tenderer&#8221; found in Rule 8(7) of the Rules should be read  as<br \/>\n&#8216;shall&#8217;,  in  view of the plain reading of Rule 8(7) read with Rule 8(6)(b) of<br \/>\nthe Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  On the facts of the case, the Collector having satisfied  himself<br \/>\nthat  there  is no need to confirm the second highest bid, issued the impugned<br \/>\nnotification  calling  for  fresh  tenders,  as  the  real  intention  of  the<br \/>\nLegislature  in bringing the quarry in public auction is to augment the public<br \/>\nrevenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  The court can only direct the authority to exercise discretion  according<br \/>\nto  law,  but,  it  is not for the court to direct the authorities, on which a<br \/>\nstatutory discretion is vested, to exercise such discretion  in  a  particular<br \/>\nmanner.  (vide:<a href=\"\/doc\/1896849\/\">U.P.S.R.T.C.  v.  Mohd.  Ismail<\/a> reported in 1991(3) SCC 239).\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.   In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion<br \/>\nthat  the  District  Collector  has  the  discretion  to  issue  the  impugned<br \/>\nnotification  calling  for  fresh  tenders without considering the case of the<br \/>\npetitioner being the second highest bidder, and accordingly,  the  contentions<br \/>\nraised by  the  learned  counsel  for  the petitioner fail.  The writ petition<br \/>\nstands dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.  is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Collector,<br \/>\nKancheepuram District,<br \/>\nKancheepuram   <\/p>\n<p>2.  The Assistant Director,<br \/>\n(Geology &amp; Mines),<br \/>\nKancheepuram District <\/p>\n<p>Msk\/na <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/11\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN WP.NO.37608 OF 2005 and WPMP.No.40317 of 2005 M.Sathyanathan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram 2. The Assistant Director, (Geology &amp; Mines), Kancheepuram District .. [&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-134273","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>M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - 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-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-30T12:22:23+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=\"9 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-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T12:22:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1709,\"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-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\",\"name\":\"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T12:22:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - 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-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-30T12:22:23+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T12:22:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005"},"wordCount":1709,"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-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005","name":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T12:22:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sathyanathan-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Sathyanathan vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134273","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=134273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}