{"id":139374,"date":"2008-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-02T01:12:54","modified_gmt":"2014-12-01T19:42:54","slug":"t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 12\/08\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU\n\nWRIT PETITION Nos.5446 to 5449 of 2008\nand\nWRIT PETITION No. 5698 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD).Nos.1,1,1,1 &amp; 2,2,2,2\n\nT.Shanmugam\t\t\t...\tPetitioner in W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449\nS.Perumal\t\t\t...\tPetitioner in W.P.No.5698 to 5449\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Commissioner,\n  Panchayat Union,\n  Usilampatti, Madurai.\t \t ... Respondents in all WPs<\/pre>\n<p>2.Balasubramani\t\t \t &#8230; Respondent in W.P.No.5446\/08\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Sumathimanickam\t\t &#8230; Respondent in W.P.No.5447\/08\n<\/p>\n<p>4.Kumar\t\t\t\t &#8230; Respondent in W.P.No.5448\/08\n<\/p>\n<p>5.Sumathi Manickam\t\t &#8230; Respondent in W.P.No.5449\/08<\/p>\n<p>PRAYER IN W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449 of 2008<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified<br \/>\nMandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first<br \/>\nrespondent in ref.Na.Ka.No.1743\/05\/A7 dated 13.06.2008 and quash the same and<br \/>\nconsequently direct the first respondent to give the bid in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioner on the basis of the petitioner&#8217;s highest bid of Rs.600\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>W.P.No.5698 of 2008<\/p>\n<p>Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call<br \/>\nfor the records relating to the impugned tender notification of the respondent<br \/>\nin ref.Na.Ka.No.1743\/05\/A4 dated 23.05.2008 as published in &#8220;Dinamalar&#8221; Tamil<br \/>\nDaily dated 08.06.2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent<br \/>\nherein to publish the tender notification for 192 shops belonging to the<br \/>\nrespondent with sufficient time, make wide publicity to reach the public well in<br \/>\nadvance, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers and follow the<br \/>\nprocedures as contemplated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Transparency in<br \/>\nTender Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>!For petitioners &#8230; Mr.S.Revathy<br \/>\n^For Respondent\t &#8230; Mr.F.Deepak<br \/>\n   \t\t     (W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449\/08)<br \/>\n\t\t     Mr.Veera.Kathiravan<br \/>\n\t\t     (W.P.No.5698 of 2008)<br \/>\nFor R.1\t\t &#8230; Mr.E.R.Gurubalachandran<br \/>\n\t\t     (in all the petitions)<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n<p>\tIn W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449 of 2008 the petitioner is one Shanmugam who<br \/>\nchallenges the Auction Notice of the first respondent  order dated 13.06.2008 in<br \/>\nallotting one of the shops constructed by the first respondent in favour of the<br \/>\nsecond respondent in each of the writ petitions on rental basis.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.These writ petitions were not admitted and the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nfirst respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit.  Accordingly, a<br \/>\ncounter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.In W.P.5698 of 2008, the petitioner is one S.Perumal  who was also<br \/>\nchallenging the public notice issued by the first respondent inviting the public<br \/>\nto offer their tender in respect of 192 shops constructed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent Panchayat Union with the loan provided by the NABARD.  The writ<br \/>\npetition was admitted on 27.06.2006 and an interim stay was also granted on the<br \/>\nsame day  without aware of the fact that pursuant to the notice, shops have been<br \/>\nallotted to the successful tenderers.  When this was brought to the notice of<br \/>\nthe Court, the interim stay granted by this Court was suspended by a further<br \/>\norder dated 08.07.2008.  Even in this writ petition a counter affidavit has been<br \/>\nfiled by the first respondent along with a typed set of papers.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The brief facts leading to the batch of cases are as follows:<br \/>\n\tThe first respondent \/ Panchayat Union constructed 200 commercial shops<br \/>\nafter getting loan from NABARD.  After completing of the construction of the<br \/>\nshop, a decision was taken on 23.05.2008 to go in for public tender for the<br \/>\nallotment of the shops.  A wide advertisement was made in the &#8220;Dinamani News<br \/>\nPaper&#8221; which is a leading Tamil Daily on 08.06.2008.  In that advertisement, it<br \/>\nwas clearly stated that the successful tenderers will be given allotment of the<br \/>\nshops on licence and on monthly rental basis licence from 01.07.2008 to<br \/>\n30.06.2001 for a period of three years.  Apart from several other conditions, it<br \/>\nwas also indicated that the successful tenderer should retain the shop in his<br \/>\npersonal possession and he should not give the shop by sub-lease or on rental to<br \/>\nany other person.  It was also indicated that the size of the shop was 10 ft by<br \/>\n8 ft and the minimum rental fixed by the Government was Rs.320\/- per month per<br \/>\nshop.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The first respondent had stated in their counter affidavit that pursuant<br \/>\nto the advertisement, there were 431 applicants and after scrutiny of all the<br \/>\nTender Forms, 187 persons were selected for grant of allotment of shops on their<br \/>\nbeing successful.  It was also stated by the first respondent that the public<br \/>\nnotice was published in the District Gazette on 29.05.2008. The conditions in<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.277, Rural Development Department, dated 04.11.2001 known as the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Panchayats (Procedure for conducting Public Auction of Leases and  Sales in<br \/>\nthe Panchayats) Rules 2001 had been scrupulously followed. The Panchayat Union<br \/>\npassed a resolution No.451 dated 13.06.2008 approving the allotment of shops in<br \/>\nfavour of various successful tenderers including the second respondent in each<br \/>\nof the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.It was stated by the first respondent that there is no infraction of any<br \/>\nRules in the allotment of any shops and petitioners in the both sets of writ<br \/>\npetitions were employees of one Jeyaraman, who had taken the lease of the old<br \/>\ndaily market and weekly market in Usilampatti and he has a monopoly control over<br \/>\nthe market for the more than 25 years.  Earlier, when the market were sought to<br \/>\nbe constructed, he had set up the petitioner&#8217;s grand mother of S.Perumal, (<br \/>\npetitioner in W.P.No.5698 of 2008) and she was also a licencee in the daily<br \/>\nmarket and filed a W.P.No.247 of 2004 before this Court to prevent the new<br \/>\nmarket complex and the same was dismissed.  Further the same Perumal&#8217;s paternal<br \/>\nuncle filed another W.P.754 of 2004 challenging the construction of the market<br \/>\nand that was also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Even the petitioner Shanmugam, (W.P.Nos.5446 to 5448 of 2008) was also<br \/>\nan employee of the said Jeyaraman.  It is also stated that these two writ<br \/>\npetitioners hail from Dindugal which is the native place of the said Jeyaraman<br \/>\nand they are not having any stake in Usilampatti to run any shop and they had<br \/>\nbeen set up by the said Jeyaraman. This counter affidavit filed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent 14.07.2008 is not challenged by the petitioners in these writ<br \/>\npetitions and they remained uncontrovered.  These five writ petitions are liable<br \/>\nto be dismissed on this short ground of lack of bona fides with exemplary costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.In the first four writ petitions the petitioner  Shanmugam claims that<br \/>\nhe had wanted to participate in the tender process and went to the place with<br \/>\nthe demand drafts drawn in favour of the Panchayat Union as required under the<br \/>\ntender notification.  But since he has become suddenly unwell he could not<br \/>\nparticipate in the tender on 11.6.2008, he had to leave the place.  But in his<br \/>\nletter dated 12.06.2008 sent to the first respondent he had given a different<br \/>\nstory about his non-participation on 11.06.2008. This glaring contradiction in<br \/>\nhis affidavit filed in support of the writ petition with the letter written on<br \/>\n12.06.2008 clearly shows that no credence can be given to the statement made by<br \/>\nthe petitioner and he has no regard for truth.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In the case of petitioner in W.P.5698 of 2006, he had not even made any<br \/>\nattempt to participate in the tender and he has filed the writ petition on the<br \/>\nbasis of some theoretical contentions, namely, that the procedure prescribed<br \/>\nunder the Tender Transparency Act was not followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.This contention was suitably answered by the first respondent in his<br \/>\ncounter affidavit by stating that the Panchayat Union is bound to follow the<br \/>\nspecific statutory rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon by<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in G.Babu Vs. A.Shankar and<br \/>\nOthers reported in (2008 3 MLJ 1098), in support of the propositions that when a<br \/>\nfraud is committed by the authorities, the Court should interfere with the<br \/>\naction taken by the authorities.  It is relevant to refer para:34 of the said<br \/>\njudgment, which is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;34.Whenever an allegation of malpractice in a tender process is brought<br \/>\nbefore a Court by the persons, who participated in the auction, the Court is<br \/>\nduty bound to unearth the bona fides of the persons, who advance their<br \/>\ncontentions, and, in that process, the Court has also to find out the gravity of<br \/>\nthe public interest involved in the matter and render real justice to the<br \/>\nparties concerned.  When a dispute between private individuals is before the<br \/>\nCourt, which is connected to the Government tender, the Court ought to be more<br \/>\nconscious so as to safeguard the public exchequer.  Even though the project in<br \/>\nquestion was commissioned and executed by a party to the ltitigation, the Court<br \/>\nis not fettered to mould the relief and grant it to the party or any person<br \/>\nentitled to it.  In that context, the prevailing cost of the product involved in<br \/>\nthe tender shall also be taken into account by the Court with the material<br \/>\navailable before it.  While doing so, the relative hardship among the private<br \/>\nparties may also be considered and the Court shall weigh the efforts made by the<br \/>\nparties to the said project and make good of them for the benefit of the party,<br \/>\nwho is eligible to it.  The similar projects are bound to be commercial<br \/>\ntransaction and it may be decided that the party, who has expended for the<br \/>\npurpose of contract, should get returns profitably.  The Court, on getting<br \/>\nsatisfied itself with grant of relief on public interest, shall overpower<br \/>\nprivate interest.  It may even prefer rational decisions at time, by imposing<br \/>\nstringent conditions, to be complied with by a party to the litigation, so as to<br \/>\nmake the ends of justice to meet.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.However, in the present case neither any malpractice is alleged nor<br \/>\nproved before this Court.  On the contrary, the petition has been set up his<br \/>\npawns to file this writ petition, to wreck vengeance on the Panchayat to torpedo<br \/>\na commercial shopping complex coming up in that area so that he can thrive with<br \/>\nhis monopoly control over the daily and weekly market, which benefit he has been<br \/>\nenjoying over the last 25 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon a<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court in Ganpatbhai Mahijibhai Solanki Vs. State of<br \/>\nGujarat and others reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 982 (Supreme Court). The following<br \/>\npassage found in para 13 is usefully extracted hereunder:-<br \/>\n&#8220;13.We are not oblivious of the fact that the authorities of the State have made<br \/>\na complete goof up with the situation.  By its action, it allowed subsequent<br \/>\nevents to happen, viz., sales of the lands have taken up, constructions have<br \/>\ncome up, but the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether<br \/>\neven in such a situation, this Court would allow a suppression of fact to<br \/>\nprevail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is now a well settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts.<br \/>\nIf an order is obtained by reason of commission of fraud, even the principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice are not required to be complied with for setting aside the<br \/>\nsame.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The petitioners have not shown commission of any fraud in the allotment<br \/>\nof the shops in favour of allottees.  In fact all the 187 allottees pursuant to<br \/>\nthe resolution of the Panchayat Union dated 13.06.2008 have taken over the<br \/>\nshops. But, however, they have also not been made as parties to these writ<br \/>\npetitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the procedure<br \/>\nadopted by the Panchayat Union in letting out the shops and the allegations of<br \/>\nmala fides have not been proved. Under the above circumstances, all the writ<br \/>\npetitions fail and accordingly will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.The petition filed by P.Shanmugam in W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449 of 2008 stand<br \/>\ndismissed with costs. He shall pay a sum of  Rs.4,000\/- as costs to the first<br \/>\nrespondent herein.  So also, the writ petition No.5698 of 2008 filed by<br \/>\nS.Perumal stands dismissed  with costs. He shall pay a sum of Rs.Rs.2000\/-to the<br \/>\nfirst respondent herein.  Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous<br \/>\npetitions were also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Commissioner,<br \/>\nPanchayat Union,<br \/>\nUsilampatti, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12\/08\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU WRIT PETITION Nos.5446 to 5449 of 2008 and WRIT PETITION No. 5698 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1,1,1,1 &amp; 2,2,2,2 T.Shanmugam &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.Nos.5446 to 5449 S.Perumal [&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-139374","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-01T19:42:54+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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T19:42:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1972,\"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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\",\"name\":\"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-01T19:42:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - 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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-01T19:42:54+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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T19:42:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008"},"wordCount":1972,"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\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008","name":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-01T19:42:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-shanmugam-vs-the-commissioner-on-12-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Shanmugam vs The Commissioner on 12 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139374","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=139374"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139374\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139374"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139374"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139374"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}