{"id":140079,"date":"2007-01-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-06T17:45:42","modified_gmt":"2018-09-06T12:15:42","slug":"n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                    Dated : 09.01.2007\n\n                          Coram\n\n         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU\n\n                   W.P.No.35621 of 2005\n                           and\n                W.P.M.P.No.38428 of 2005\n                            \n                            \nN.Mohanam \t\t\t\t...Petitioner\n\n\n                           Vs.\n\n\n1.Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee\nAdi Dravidar Welfare Department,\nChennai - 600 009.\n\n2.District Collector,\nChennai.\n\n3.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,\nSouthern Sector, Chennai,\nRepresented by GGM\/Basin Manager,\nCauvery, Chennai.   \t\t\t...Respondents\n\n\n\nWRIT PETITION filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution\nof   India  praying  for  the  issuance  of  a    Writ  of\nCertiorari,   calling  for  the  records   pertaining   to\nproceedings  No.22394\/ADW-11\/2000 dated 27.06.2005  issued\nby the first respondent, quash the same.\n\n          For Petitioner :Mr.B.Ravi for\n                          M\/s.Hema Sampath\n\n          For R1&R2      :Mr.M.Dhandapani,AGP\n          For R3         :Mr.M.Vijayan for\n                          M\/s.Kins & Patridge\n\n\n\n                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            N.Mohanam   S\/o.  Late  Narasimhalu   is   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.   In order to avoid any confusion between  the<\/p>\n
petitioner and another person with the same name  Mohanam,<\/p>\n
the father’s name of the petitioner is noted.<\/p>\n
      2.    The  grievance of the petitioner is  that  the<\/p>\n
respondents came to perverse conclusion without any  basis<\/p>\n
that  the petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Tribe  and<\/p>\n
there by he was dismissed from the service.<\/p>\n
     3.   The petitioner is seeking for a direction by way<\/p>\n
of  writ  of certiorari and quash the proceedings  of  the<\/p>\n
first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The facts necessary for the disposal of the writ<\/p>\n
petition are:\n<\/p>\n
      According  to the petitioner, he belongs  to  Hindu-<\/p>\n
Konda  Kapus  community  and it is notified  as  Scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribe community.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Oil  and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the  third<\/p>\n
respondent herein invited applications for appointment  to<\/p>\n
various  posts  including Khalasi Grade III.   There  were<\/p>\n
eight  vacancies  and one vacancy was  earmarked  for  the<\/p>\n
scheduled Tribe candidates.  Accordingly the list was sent<\/p>\n
by  the Employment Exchange sponsoring 10 Scheduled  Tribe<\/p>\n
candidates  for  one post. The name of petitioner  is  one<\/p>\n
among the said 10 candidates.  However the petitioner  was<\/p>\n
not   selected  under  the  Scheduled  Tribe  quota.   The<\/p>\n
petitioner  was selected on merit in the open  competition<\/p>\n
and  his  employment is purely on the basis of  merit  and<\/p>\n
ability  as  he was selected under unreserved quota.   One<\/p>\n
Mr.J.Raman, whose name is shown at Sl.No.3 out  of  10  in<\/p>\n
the list is selected under the scheduled Tribe quota.<\/p>\n
       The  petitioner  was  appointed  as  Khalasi.   His<\/p>\n
probation was declared on 28.10.1985.  Thereafter  he  was<\/p>\n
upgraded and promoted upto the level of Operator Grade II.<\/p>\n
      While so, the third respondent for the reasons  best<\/p>\n
known to them called for the verification of the community<\/p>\n
certificate  of  the petitioner.  The petitioner  attended<\/p>\n
the  enquiry.   The  Record  Sheet  as  well  as  Transfer<\/p>\n
Certificate  of  the school discloses that the  petitioner<\/p>\n
belongs  to scheduled Tribe community.  A detailed  report<\/p>\n
was submitted by Revenue Officials.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      But  the third respondent dissatisfied with the same<\/p>\n
referred  those certificates to the second respondent  the<\/p>\n
District   Collector,  Chennai  for  further  verification<\/p>\n
doubting that the petitioner has impersonated and used the<\/p>\n
Community Certificate of another MOHANAM.<\/p>\n
      The  second  respondent vide his  proceedings  dated<\/p>\n
04.06.1998,  sent second report holding  that  the  school<\/p>\n
certificate of the petitioner is genuine and  as  per  the<\/p>\n
school   certificate,  he  belongs  to   Scheduled   Tribe<\/p>\n
community.  But the second respondent finally  noted  that<\/p>\n
the  petitioner do not belong to Scheduled Tribe community<\/p>\n
as school certificate has no probative value.<\/p>\n
     The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.20741 of<\/p>\n
1998. This Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal<\/p>\n
before the first respondent,  the State Scrutiny Committee<\/p>\n
Adi   Dravidar   Welfare  Department.    Accordingly   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  filed an appeal and the first respondent  vide<\/p>\n
proceedings  No.22394\/ADW-11\/2000  dated  27.06.2005  held<\/p>\n
that the allegation of the third respondent regarding  the<\/p>\n
genuineness  of the school certificate is not  established<\/p>\n
and  there  is no impersonation and the school certificate<\/p>\n
is  genuine.  But strangely the first respondent confirmed<\/p>\n
the  proceedings of the second respondent holding that the<\/p>\n
school  certificate has no probative value to confirm  the<\/p>\n
community  certificate and the Community Certificates  are<\/p>\n
bogus.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The  said  order  is  impugned  in  this  writ<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.   Counter<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the first and second respondents<\/p>\n
filed counter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The counter is filed by the Secretary to Government,<\/p>\n
Adi  Dravidar  and Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat.<\/p>\n
It  is  stated  in  the counter that  the  petitioner  has<\/p>\n
obtained  two  community certificates from the  Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Purasawalkam  –  Perambur Taluk that he belongs  to  Konda<\/p>\n
Kapus  Scheduled Tribe community. Based on  the  Community<\/p>\n
Certificate, he was promoted to the post of Khalasi Grade-<\/p>\n
II in the third respondent establishment,  even though his<\/p>\n
basic appointment was Grade-III Khalasi against unreserved<\/p>\n
quota.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       It  is  the  contention  of  the  respondents  that<\/p>\n
originally  the petitioner was recruited under  unreserved<\/p>\n
quota in the year 1984, but got promoted in the year  1989<\/p>\n
under reserved quota for scheduled Tribes.<\/p>\n
     It is stated that the second respondent herein caused<\/p>\n
verification  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Konda   Kapus<\/p>\n
Community  Certificate  issued  to  the  petitioner.   The<\/p>\n
Tahsildar,  Purasai-Perambur initially enquired  into  the<\/p>\n
matter  and  sent  a  report after  verifying  the  school<\/p>\n
records,  where  he  studied  and  after  conducting   the<\/p>\n
enquiries  in  the locality and the report discloses  that<\/p>\n
the petitioner belongs to Konda Kapus.<\/p>\n
     It is further stated in Para 4 of the counter that on<\/p>\n
the basis of the report of Tahsildar, Pursai Perambur, the<\/p>\n
District Collector, Chennai sent a verification report  to<\/p>\n
the  third respondent stating that the petitioner  belongs<\/p>\n
to  Konda Kapus community.  It is further stated that  the<\/p>\n
Deputy  Manager  of  the  third  respondent  establishment<\/p>\n
raised   doubts  about  the  veracity  of  the   community<\/p>\n
certificate produced by the petitioner and again  referred<\/p>\n
the  matter  doubting impersonation and in the  re-enquiry<\/p>\n
the  Tahsildar sent another report dated 18.05.1998 to the<\/p>\n
second  respondent after conducting discreet enquiry.   It<\/p>\n
is  stated  that  on the basis of re-enquiry  report,  the<\/p>\n
second   respondent  came  to  the  conclusion  that   the<\/p>\n
individual do not belong to Konda Kapus and declared  that<\/p>\n
the two community certificates were forged certificates as<\/p>\n
necessary  records  are  not  available  and  consequently<\/p>\n
cancelled  the  community  certificates  vide  proceedings<\/p>\n
No.P4\/63082\/97 dated 04.06.1998.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The  petitioner filed writ petition  and  thereafter<\/p>\n
made  an appeal before the first respondent. It is  stated<\/p>\n
that  the State Level Scrutiny Committee examined all  the<\/p>\n
relevant documents and  disclosed that the Primary  School<\/p>\n
Certificate  issued  by  the  Corporation  Middle  School,<\/p>\n
Sivarajapuram  shows that the petitioner’s  community  was<\/p>\n
entered  as  Konda  Kapus  and  it  is  listed  under  the<\/p>\n
scheduled Tribe.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In  Para  5  of the counter, it is stated  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s  mother Tmt.Savithri do not belong  to  Konda<\/p>\n
Kapus  community but belongs to Mudaliar community.  Hence<\/p>\n
verification process is confined only to the community  of<\/p>\n
his  father.  It is further stated that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
not  produced any documents relating to his father to show<\/p>\n
that  his father belongs to Konda Kapus community.   Until<\/p>\n
and  unless the community status of his father is properly<\/p>\n
arrived and confirmed, the petitioner cannot be treated as<\/p>\n
Konda  Kapus  community and since there is no  documentary<\/p>\n
evidence  relating to his father, the State Level Scrutiny<\/p>\n
Committee  was  unable  to accept the  contention  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner that he belongs to Konda Kapus community.<\/p>\n
      According to the respondents, various documents  are<\/p>\n
produced  before  the State Level Scrutiny  Committee  and<\/p>\n
they  are  the  School Certificate, Community  Certificate<\/p>\n
issued  by  the  Tahsildar,  Transfer  Certificate,   Self<\/p>\n
Affidavit filed etc. by the petitioner.<\/p>\n
     It is stated that the Anthropologist who examined the<\/p>\n
petitioner  has also reported that the petitioner  is  not<\/p>\n
aware  about the tribal characteristics of the Konda Kapus<\/p>\n
community.   Therefore the State Level Scrutiny  Committee<\/p>\n
concluded that the petitioner do not belong to Konda Kapus<\/p>\n
community.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Thus the main contention of the respondents is  that<\/p>\n
the  petitioner did not produce any certificate  to  prove<\/p>\n
that  his  father belongs to Konda Kapus  community.   But<\/p>\n
came  to  a  conclusion that the mother of the  petitioner<\/p>\n
belongs  to  Mudaliar Community and in fact  there  is  no<\/p>\n
document to come to the said conclusion.<\/p>\n
     The third respondent also filed a counter.<\/p>\n
     7.   Heard arguments on both sides.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.   The short point for determination is whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner belongs to Konda Kapus community or not.<\/p>\n
      9.   In a case of this nature, the Court is expected<\/p>\n
to  verify  the  documents  and  the  reports  of  revenue<\/p>\n
officials rather than the oral statements, the allegations<\/p>\n
and  the  counter allegations or the rival contentions  of<\/p>\n
the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.   The  most important document is  the  Transfer<\/p>\n
Certificate  of  the  petitioner.  The  original  Transfer<\/p>\n
Certificate is produced and it is issued by the Government<\/p>\n
of   Tamilnadu,  Department  of  School  Education.    The<\/p>\n
petitioner  studied  in  a  Government  Higher   Secondary<\/p>\n
School, Kodambakkam, Madras – 600 024. The Head Master  of<\/p>\n
school issued the Transfer Certificate on 26.12.1997.  The<\/p>\n
said certificate discloses the name of the petitioner, his<\/p>\n
date   of  birth  and  his  community  as  Indian,  Hindu,<\/p>\n
Kondakapus.   In  fact the genuineness of the  certificate<\/p>\n
has been admitted by the respondents even in their counter<\/p>\n
and  also  in  their report.  But this  document  was  not<\/p>\n
considered by giving a flimsy reasons.<\/p>\n
      11.  The next important document in the case is  the<\/p>\n
first   Enquiry report by the Tahsildar and  the  District<\/p>\n
Collector,   Chennai,  wherein  it  is  stated   that   an<\/p>\n
independent  enquiry and verification was carried  out  in<\/p>\n
the  matter  to know the genuineness or otherwise  of  the<\/p>\n
claim  the individual whether he belongs to Konda Kapus  –<\/p>\n
Scheduled  Tribe and enquiries confirmed that the  entries<\/p>\n
in  the  record  sheet  as  well as  transfer  certificate<\/p>\n
disclose  the petitioner as Konda Kapus and accordingly  a<\/p>\n
report  confirming the status of petitioner as a scheduled<\/p>\n
Tribe  had  been sent.  During the first enquiry  and  re-<\/p>\n
enquiry,   it  was  found  that  the  school  certificates<\/p>\n
produced   by   the  petitioner  are  bonafide   documents<\/p>\n
confirming to counterfoils of school records and they  are<\/p>\n
not  bogus as alleged by third respondent.  The report  in<\/p>\n
Para  5  of  the  proceedings  also  discloses  that   the<\/p>\n
allegation  that  there is mis-use  of  other  N.Mohanam’s<\/p>\n
certificate  by  the  petitioner is also  not  founded  on<\/p>\n
facts.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.   In  this case, there is one another person  by<\/p>\n
name  N.Mohanam  S\/o  of  Natesa  Mudaliar  studied  in  a<\/p>\n
different school whereas the petitioner N.Mohanam  S\/o  of<\/p>\n
M.Narasimhalu studied in the school concerned.<\/p>\n
      13.  The Collector has given a comparative table  of<\/p>\n
both as shown below:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    N.Mohanam ONGC         N.Mohanam UCO\n                                                Bank\n1. Father's   K.Narasimhalu               Natesa Mudaliar\nName\n2.Mother's    Savithri                    Vembuli\nname\n3. Community  Kondakapus                  Sengunthar\n                                        Mudaliar\n4. Native     Rangayapalli village        Arulappadi\nPlace         Pallipattu Taluk            Village\n                                        Thiruvannamali\n                                        Taluk\n5. Name       N.Mohanam                   N.Mohanamurthy\n6. School     1 to 8th Std.               1 to X Std.\n<\/pre>\n
             Corporation Middle School,  Govt. High
\n             Sivarajapuram, Chennai –    School, Katpadi.\n<\/p>\n
             12.
\n             9 to X Std.\n<\/p>\n
             Govt. High School,
\n             Kodambakkam, Chennai – 24.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.   Thus  there  is  a  confusion  for  the  third<\/p>\n
respondent  whether the petitioner,  who  is  the  son  of<\/p>\n
K.Narasimhalu   has   impersonated   and   produced    any<\/p>\n
certificate  belonging to N.Mohanam S\/o  Natesa  Mudaliar.<\/p>\n
In fact there is no reason to have any confusion.<\/p>\n
      15.   In  this  case,  the documentary  evidence  is<\/p>\n
available through the school certificates and they are  in<\/p>\n
favour  of  the  petitioner.  The local enquiries  by  the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar also are in favour of the petitioner.  They  are<\/p>\n
not taken into confidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.   However the report of the Collector  discloses<\/p>\n
that  the  two Community Certificates issued  by  the  two<\/p>\n
revenue  authorities appears to be  not  correct,  as  the<\/p>\n
respective files in which it is purported to be issued are<\/p>\n
not  available for verification and since those files  are<\/p>\n
not available, the Collector came to a conclusion that the<\/p>\n
certificates  are bogus.  It is a wrong conclusion.   This<\/p>\n
observation is bad and is liable to be rejected.   If  the<\/p>\n
files in the Government office are not available the truth<\/p>\n
and  the facts revealed through other public documents and<\/p>\n
Field Enquiry cannot be buried and rejected.<\/p>\n
      17.  I have minutely gone through the report of  the<\/p>\n
Collector,  which  is  the  basis  for  holding  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  do  not belong to Schedule Tribe  and  on  the<\/p>\n
basis of this proceedings, the first respondent issued the<\/p>\n
orders impugned in this writ petition.<\/p>\n
      18.   The orders of the Collector are not acceptable<\/p>\n
for three reasons:\n<\/p>\n
      The collector held that the mother of the petitioner<\/p>\n
belongs  to  Mudaliar  community,  whereas  there  is   no<\/p>\n
document  to prove the community of the father.   In  this<\/p>\n
case  even there is no document to prove the community  of<\/p>\n
the mother also.  It is on the basis of oral statement. In<\/p>\n
fact  the  revenue  authorities are the  proper  officials<\/p>\n
under  the Rules to decide the community of the individual<\/p>\n
as  per  their  record and enquiries.  When there  are  no<\/p>\n
documents  either to prove the community of the mother  or<\/p>\n
the  father, the Collector comes to a conclusion that  the<\/p>\n
mother belongs to Mudaliar community, whereas there is  no<\/p>\n
proof   with  regard  to  the  community  of  the  father.<\/p>\n
Therefore  a  perverse  finding  has  been  given  by  the<\/p>\n
Collector.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The other reason is that it is not for the Collector<\/p>\n
to  conclude that the School Records are not of  probative<\/p>\n
value.   In  fact, the school records are the  most  vital<\/p>\n
documents  whenever any student has been admitted  in  the<\/p>\n
school  either  at the elementary level  or  at  the  high<\/p>\n
school level. The community of the student will be entered<\/p>\n
in  the  school documents, so also the date of  birth  are<\/p>\n
entered in the school documents.  Basing on the entries of<\/p>\n
these  school  certificates, the  disputed  question  with<\/p>\n
regard  to  the  community or the date  of  birth  of  the<\/p>\n
individual  will be decided.  When the school certificates<\/p>\n
are  disclosing  that the petitioner belongs  to  Schedule<\/p>\n
Tribe  community,  it  is  absurd  for  the  Collector  to<\/p>\n
conclude  that  it  has  no  probative  value.   When  the<\/p>\n
Collector  has  found  that the  school  certificates  are<\/p>\n
bonafide documents and the petitioner has not misused  and<\/p>\n
not impersonated the correction,  ought to have issued the<\/p>\n
proceedings in favour of the petitioner, but he did not do<\/p>\n
so.   The  action of the Collector are highly questionable<\/p>\n
and he is cautioned to be more careful in future and avoid<\/p>\n
such mistakes.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Further the observations of the Collector that since<\/p>\n
the  records are not available in the Tahsildar’s  office,<\/p>\n
the community certificate issued by the Tahsilar are bogus<\/p>\n
is  not  in good spirit.  Can we disbelieve the truth,  if<\/p>\n
the  files  in  the  Collector  office  are  misplaced  or<\/p>\n
missing.  It is for the concerned Collector to answer  and<\/p>\n
rectify  the  mal administration.  It is nothing  but  bad<\/p>\n
governance and mal administration and such officials  must<\/p>\n
be properly instructed by the Chief Executive of the State<\/p>\n
to  apply proper judicial and administrative mind  and  do<\/p>\n
justice to the citizen more so to the under privileged.  I<\/p>\n
have  no  hesitation to condemn the approach of  Collector<\/p>\n
and  registry is directed to communicate this order to the<\/p>\n
Chief Secretary of the State for suitable action.<\/p>\n
      19.   The observations of the first respondent  that<\/p>\n
during the enquiry the petitioner was not able to give the<\/p>\n
tribal characteristics of the Konda Kapus Community during<\/p>\n
anthropological  examination is immaterial.   Should  they<\/p>\n
decide the issue on the basis of documents or as per their<\/p>\n
whims  and fancies.  The reasoning is totally misconceived<\/p>\n
and  is  created to reject the genuine claim of petitioner<\/p>\n
to get over the documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      20.   The  various observations made in the impugned<\/p>\n
order  are  not sustainable. They are not convincing.  The<\/p>\n
documentary   evidence  placed  before  the  State   Level<\/p>\n
Committee  and the said documents viz. School certificate,<\/p>\n
Community Certificate prima facie clearly established that<\/p>\n
the  petitioner belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community.<\/p>\n
The  earlier report of the revenue authorities confirm the<\/p>\n
same.  But  for  the  reasons  best  known  to  the  third<\/p>\n
respondent  further enquiry was held.  In  the  re-enquiry<\/p>\n
also,  it  was confirmed that the school certificates  and<\/p>\n
the  discreet  enquiries in the locality established  that<\/p>\n
the   petitioner  belong  to  Scheduled  Tribe  community.<\/p>\n
Despite of all this truthworthy evidence perversive orders<\/p>\n
are issued without any basis and on personal reasoning.<\/p>\n
      21.  Under those circumstances, the Court is of  the<\/p>\n
opinion that it is a fit case to allow the prayer  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner and to set aside the orders issued by the first<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      22.   In  the  considered opinion of the  Court,  an<\/p>\n
exemplary  cost  should  be  awarded  in  favour  of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner  against  the  respondents,  but  the   learned<\/p>\n
Government  Advocate made a sincere request not  to  award<\/p>\n
cost  because  the authorities have passed orders  without<\/p>\n
knowing  the  consequences and they have no  intention  or<\/p>\n
malice to pass any order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      23.   Considering  the same, the  writ  petition  is<\/p>\n
allowed  and  the order issued by the first respondent  is<\/p>\n
set    aside.     No   costs.    Consequently    connected<\/p>\n
miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
svki<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee
\n  Adi Dravidar Welfare Department,
\nChennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.District Collector,
\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,
\nSouthern Sector, Chennai,
\nRepresented by GGM\/Basin Manager,
\nCauvery, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Chief Secretary,
\nGovernment of Tamilnadu,
\nFort St. George,
\nChennai – 600 009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.01.2007 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU W.P.No.35621 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.No.38428 of 2005 N.Mohanam …Petitioner Vs. 1.Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny Committee Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Chennai – 600 009. 2.District Collector, […]<\/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-140079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-06T12:15:42+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T12:15:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2620,\"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\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\",\"name\":\"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T12:15:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-06T12:15:42+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T12:15:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007"},"wordCount":2620,"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\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007","name":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny ... on 9 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T12:15:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-mohanam-vs-tamil-nadu-state-scrutiny-on-9-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Mohanam vs Tamil Nadu State Scrutiny … on 9 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/140079","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=140079"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140079\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}