{"id":162932,"date":"2005-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005"},"modified":"2018-01-30T03:48:32","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T22:18:32","slug":"union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/10\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN  \n\nW.P.No. 11220  of 2002 \nand W.P.No.19751 of 2002  \n\nand W.P.M.P.No. 15158 of 2002  \n\n\nW.P.No. 11220 of 2002  \n1. Union of India, represented by the\n   Secretary, Ministry of Railways,\n   Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,\n   New Delhi-110 001.\n\n2. The General Manager, \n   Southern Railway,\n   Chennai-600 003. .. Petitioners.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   Madras Bench, \n   Chennai-104.\n\n2. J.K. Viswanathan. .. Respondents.<\/pre>\n
W.P.No.19751 of 2002
\nJ.K. Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
                                    .. Petitioner..\n<\/p>\n
                           Vs.\n<\/p>\n
1. Union of India, represented by the
\n   Secretary, Ministry of Railways,
\n   Railway Board, Rail Bhavan,
\n   New Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n
2. The General Manager,
\n   Southern Railway, Park Town,
\n   Chennai-600 003.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Registrar,
\n   Central Administrative Tribunal
\n   Additional Bench, Chennai-104.\n<\/p>\n
                                       .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution
\nof India (i) for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of first
\nrespondent in  O.A.No.   1155 of 2000 including the order dated 28-11-2001 and
\nquash the same; and (ii) for issuance of a Writ  of  Certiorarified  Mandamus,
\ncalling  for  records  pertaining to the portion of the order dated 28-11-2001
\nmade in O.A.No.  1155 of 2000 on the file  of  third  respondent  the  Central
\nAdministrative  Tribunal,  Madras  Bench modifying the punishment of dismissal
\nfrom services to  that  of  compulsory  retirement  and  quash  the  same  and
\nconsequently  direct  the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service
\nwith all the consequential benefits.\n<\/p>\n
!Mr.  V.G.  Sureshkumar:- For petitioner in W.P.No.
\n11220\/2002 and respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
19751\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
^Mr.  P.P.  Shanmugasundaram, senior counsel for
\nMr.  N.R.  Elango for petitioner in W.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
19751\/2002 and for 2nd respondent in W.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
11220\/2002.\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER
\n(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
        Since both the writ petitions filed against the very same order of the
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, dated 28-11-2001, they are being disposed  of
\nby the following common order.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   Aggrieved  by  the  order of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
\nMadras Bench dated 28-11-2001 made in O.A.No.  1155 of  200  0  modifying  the
\npenalty  of  dismissal  from  service  into  one of compulsory retirement with
\neffect  from  24-2-1999,  Ministry  of  Railways  and  Southern  Railway  have
\npreferred W.P.No.   11220\/2002.    Questioning  the  very  same  order  of the
\nTribunal modifying the punishment, the applicant, namely,  J.K.    Viswanathan
\nfiled W.P.No.    19751\/2002  praying  for  quashing  of the said order and for
\nconsequential direction to reinstate him into service with  all  consequential
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the
\nTribunal.  The applicant by name J.K.  Viswanathan was charge-sheeted  on  two
\ngrounds, namely, (i) that he was in dual employment when he engaged himself as
\nManager with  M\/s.    Kirloskar  Electric Company, Bangalore from 1-12-1995 to
\n8-1-1997 without prior permission; (ii) and that he had misused the Metal Pass
\non two occasions i.e., on 9-11-1995 and 10-11-1995.   A  full-fledged  enquiry
\nwas conducted and after the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had
\nheld both  the  charges  had  proved.    Though initially the General Manager,
\nSouthern Railway issued a show-cause notice, calling  upon  the  applicant  to
\nshow  cause why he should not be dismissed from service in view of the Service
\nRules applicable to the applicant, he (General Manager) forwarded  the  papers
\nto  the  Railway  Board\/di  sciplinary authority for passing appropriate order
\nbased on the enquiry report.    The  Railway  Board  had  imposed  penalty  of
\ndismissal from  service.   Thereafter, the appellate authority in consultation
\nwith the Union Public Service Commission, had rejected the appeal filed by the
\napplicant and confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority.  The order of
\ndismissal was challenged before the Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras
\nBench in O.A.No.  1155\/2000.  The Tribunal after recording the fact that there
\nis  no  dispute  regarding  the  enquiry and the manner in which findings were
\nrendered by the enquiry officer, taking note of  the  proportionality  of  the
\npunishment imposed on the applicant and considering his unblemished service to
\na span of 32 years, and all other circumstances, set aside the extreme penalty
\nof dismissal and converted into one of compulsory retirement.  Questioning the
\nsame,  the Railway administration as well as the applicant preferred the above
\nwrit petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Heard Mr.    V.G.    Sureshkumar,  learned  counsel  for   Railway
\nAdministration and Mr.    P.  Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the
\napplicant.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Mr.   V.G.    Sureshkumar,  learned  counsel   for   the   Railway
\nAdministration,  by  drawing  our  attention  to  Rule  10 of Railway Servants
\n(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and Rule 15 sub-rule (1) and sub-rule  (5)
\nof  the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, submitted that the Tribunal is
\nnot justified in interfering with the punishment and prayed for setting  aside
\nthe impugned order.      On  the  other  hand,  the  contention  of  Mr.    P.
\nShanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel for the applicant, is  that  inasmuch
\nas  the  General  Manager  has initiated the proceedings and issued show-cause
\nnotice and also forwarded the papers to the disciplinary  authority  with  his
\nrecommendation  for dismissal on the ground that he is not competent authority
\nunder the Rules, the ultimate penalty imposed by  the  disciplinary  authority
\nand modified  by  the  Tribunal  cannot  be sustained.  He also contended that
\ninasmuch as the applicant was not furnished with the copy of the report of the
\nUnion Public Commission\/Central Vigilance Commission, the order  of  dismissal
\nis  liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  We have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions  and  also
\nperused all the materials.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Inasmuch  as  the  applicant  had  no  grievance over the enquiry
\nproceedings as well as the findings rendered by the enquiry officer, there  is
\nno need  to traverse the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer.  The
\nfact remains that both the charges levelled against the appellant are found to
\nbe proved.  As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing  for  the  Railway
\nadministration,  if  the  disciplinary  authority  is  of the opinion that the
\npenalty warranted is such as is not within its competence, he has  to  forward
\nthe records of the enquiry to the appropriate disciplinary authority.  This is
\nevident  from  Rule  10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
\n1968.  It is not in dispute that the competent  authority  for  imposition  of
\npenalty  of  dismissal,  is the Railway Board; accordingly the General Manager
\nwho issued show cause notice conveying the proposed punishment  has  forwarded
\nall the  proceedings to the Railway Board for further action.  Ultimately, the
\nRailway Board considering all the materials,  including  the  gravity  of  the
\nproved charges, imposed the penalty of dismissal from service and the same was
\nupheld by  the  appellate  authority.    Learned counsel for the Railways also
\ncontended that inasmuch as the applicant engaged himself in a private concern,
\nnamely, M\/s.  Kirloskar Electric Company for the period  between  1-12-95  and
\n8-1-97  which  is  contrary  to  Rule  15  (1) and (5) of the Railway Services
\n(Conduct) Rules, 1966, the Railway Board is fully justified  in  imposing  the
\nextreme  penalty  of dismissal and according to him, the Tribunal committed an
\nerror in interfering with the punishment.  It is true that as  per  the  above
\nmentioned Rule, no railway servant shall, except with the previous sanction of
\nthe  Government,  engage directly in any trade or business or negotiate for or
\nundertake any other employment.  It is clear that without the sanction of  the
\nprescribed  authority,  no railway servant is permitted to undertake any other
\nemployment, when he was in service.   However,  as  rightly  observed  by  the
\ntribunal, except the above violation, there is no deficiency of service in the
\ncase  of  the  applicant,  more particularly when he had completed 32 years of
\nservice with an unblemished  record.    These  two  prime  aspects  have  been
\nconsidered  by the Tribunal which after finding that except the proved charges
\nno other short comings noticed in the discharge of his  duties,  modified  the
\npenalty of  dismissal  into  one  of  compulsory  retirement.  Inasmuch as the
\nTribunal has adduced acceptable reasons for such modification, we concur  with
\nthe   same   and   reject   the  argument  of  the  counsel  for  the  Railway
\nadministration.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  It is also relevant to note that when the Rule  does  not  empower
\nthe  General Manager to impose penalty of dismissal, as rightly pointed out by
\nthe Tribunal and argued by the learned senior counsel for the  applicant,  the
\nGeneral  Manager  ought not to have recommended the punishment of dismissal to
\nthe competent authority, namely, the Railway  Board.    In  other  words,  the
\nburden of awarding punishment lies on the Railway Board.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Now  we  shall  consider  whether  the  Tribunal  is justified in
\nmodifying the punishment?  In this regard, it is useful to refer the following
\nconclusion of the Supreme Court in B.C.    CHATURVEDI  v.    UNION  OF  INDIA,<\/a>
\nreported in (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 749:  (pp.18 and 22)<\/p>\n
“18.   A  review  of  the  above  legal  position  would  establish  that  the
\ndisciplinary   authority,   and  on  appeal  the  appellate  authority,  being
\nfact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with  a
\nview to  maintain discipline.  They are invested with the discretion to impose
\nappropriate punishment keeping  in  view  the  magnitude  or  gravity  of  the
\nmisconduct.   The  High Court\/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial
\nreview, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on  penalty  and  impose
\nsome other  penalty.   If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority
\nor the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the  High  Court\/Tribunal,
\nit  would  appropriately  mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary\/
\nappellate authority to reconsider the  penalty  imposed,  or  to  shorten  the
\nlitigation,  it  may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate
\npunishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.\n<\/p>\n
19 to 21.  xx xx<\/p>\n
22.  The aforesaid has, therefore, to be avoided and I have no  doubt  that  a
\nHigh  Court  would be within its jurisdiction to modify the punishment\/penalty
\nby moulding the relief, which power it undoubtedly has, in view of a long line
\nof decisions of this Court, to which reference is not deemed necessary, as the
\nposition is well settled in law.  It may, however, be stated that  this  power
\nof  moulding  relief  in  cases of the present nature can be invoked by a High
\nCourt  only  when  the  punishment\/penalty   awarded   shocks   the   judicial
\nconscience.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In STATE OF UP.  v.  JAIKARAN SINGH, reported in (2003) 9 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 228, it was held that,<\/p>\n
“Normally, the Court in  exercise  of  power  under  Article  22  6  does  not
\ninterfere  with the quantum of punishment alone if the charges are established
\nagainst the delinquent and there is no lacuna in the procedure adopted in  the
\ndepartmental proceedings.  But at times if the Court feels that the punishment
\ninflicted  is  grossly  unjust  and  shocks the conscience then in appropriate
\ncases the Court may interfere….”\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In Writ  Petition  No.   92\/98 dated 08-10-2001 (A.  RAMASWAMY v.
\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO  GOVERNMENT,  DEPARTMENT  OOF
\nEDUCATION,  CHENNAI-9),<\/a>  a  Division  Bench of this Court, almost in identical
\ncircumstance and taking note of the fact that there was only a single instance
\nof proof of receipt of Rs.5,000\/- from a friend on the promise of getting  her
\nselected for the Teacher’ s post, that he also repaid the amount together with
\ninterest and he had put in 33 years of unblemished service and on the verge of
\nretirement, the said incident had taken place, accepted the plea for reduction
\nof  the  penalty  and  passed  an  order modifying the penalty of removal from
\nservice into one of compulsory retirement.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In view of the factual conclusion, namely, that  except  the  two
\ncharges,  no  other shortcoming has been noticed during the tenure of 32 years
\nof service rendered by the applicant and of the fact  that  he  had  no  other
\ndeficiency  in  service,  in  the  light  of  the  judicial pronouncements, as
\ndiscussed above, we hold that the Tribunal is fully justified in modifying the
\nextreme penalty of dismissal from service into one  of  compulsory  retirement
\nand no interference is called for at the instance of Railway administration.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   Coming to the claim of the applicant regarding non supply of the
\nAdvice tendered by UPSC and CVC, admittedly, there is no  rule  or  Government
\nOrder  mandating the department to supply copy of the Advice received by those
\nbodies.  As rightly pointed out by the Railway counsel, as well  as  concluded
\nby the Tribunal that both these bodies are entitled to submit their advice and
\nthe  fact  that  the copy was not furnished to the applicant would not vitiate
\nthe entire proceedings.  As rightly pointed out, the applicant had taken  part
\nin  the  enquiry  and  the  enquiry officer ultimately concluded that both the
\ncharges had proved.  As observed earlier, it is not the case of the  applicant
\nthat  the  enquiry  was not conducted in the manner known to law or he was not
\ngiven adequate opportunity  nor  the  findings  of  the  enquiry  officer  are
\nperverse.   In  such  circumstances,  in  the  absence  of  enabling  rule  or
\nnotification or order by the department or Government, it cannot be  contended
\nthat  due  to  non-supply  of  the advice tendered by UPSC and CVC, the entire
\nproceedings are vitiated.  The Tribunal properly considered  this  aspect  and
\nrightly rejected the claim of the applicant.  We are in
\nagreement with the said conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   With  regard  to the suggestion of the General Manager regarding
\nproposed punishment, as said earlier, after finding that the proper  authority
\nto  impose  penalty of dismissal is the Railway Board, the General Manager has
\nforwarded the entire records to the  said  authority  and  merely  because  he
\nsuggested  the  mode  of  punishment  to  be inflicted, the entire proceedings
\ncannot be quashed.  This aspect was also considered by the Tribunal and taking
\nnote of all the circumstances, including the past record  of  service  of  the
\napplicant,  the Tribunal rightly modified the penalty of dismissal into one of
\ncompulsory retirement.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Under  these  circumstances,  we  are  in  agreement  with   the
\nconclusion  arrived  at  by  the Tribunal and unable to accept the contentions
\nraised by the Railway Administration as well as the applicant.   Consequently,
\nboth the writ  petitions  are  dismissed.   No costs.  Connected miscellaneous
\npetition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
Internet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary, Union of India,
\nMinistry of Railways,
\nRailway Board, Rail Bhavan,
\nNew Delhi-110 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The General Manager,
\nSouthern Railway, Park Town,
\nChennai-600 003.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Registrar,
\nCentral Administrative Tribunal
\nAdditional Bench, Chennai-104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/10\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. KRISHNAN W.P.No. 11220 of 2002 and W.P.No.19751 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No. 15158 of 2002 W.P.No. 11220 of 2002 1. […]<\/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-162932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-29T22:18:32+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T22:18:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2292,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T22:18:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 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":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-29T22:18:32+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T22:18:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005"},"wordCount":2292,"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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005","name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T22:18:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-21-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 21 October, 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\/162932","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=162932"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162932\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}