{"id":167701,"date":"2005-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005"},"modified":"2018-07-23T12:19:18","modified_gmt":"2018-07-23T06:49:18","slug":"tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 19\/04\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE            \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         \n\nWrit Appeal No.717 of 2005 \nand \nWrit Petition No.7388 of 2005\n\n\nTamilaga Asiriyar Koottani\nrep. by the General Secretary\nV. Annamalai \nNo.52, Nallathambi Street,\nTriplicane,\nChennai-5.                      .. Appellant\/petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Government of Tamil Nadu \n    rep. by its Secretary,\n    School Education Department,\n    Fort St. George,\n    Chennai-9.\n\n2.  The Director of Elementary Education,\n    College Road,\n    Chennai-6.\n\n3.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Thanjavur District,\n    Thanjavur.\n\n4.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.\n\n5.  The District Elementary Educational\n     Officer,\n    Perambalur District at Ariyalur.\n\n6.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Ariyalur District, Ariyalur.\n\n7.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Virudhunagar District,\n    Virudhunagar.\n\n8.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.\n\n9.  The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.\n\n\n\n10. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Dindigul District, Dindigul.\n\n11. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Ramnad District, Ramnad.\n\n12. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer,\n    Salem District, Salem.\n\n13.  The District Elementary Educational  Officer,\n    Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.\n\n\n14.  The District Elementary Educational\n     Officer,\n     Trichy District, Trichy.\n\n15.  The District Elementary Educational Officer,\n     Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.\n\n16. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer, Nagai District, Nagai.\n\n17. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.\n\n18. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer, Karur District, Karur.\n\n19. The District Elementary Educational\n    Officer, Dharmapuri District,\n    Dharmapuri.\n\n\n20. Tamil Nadu Primary and Middle School \n    Graduate Teachers Association\n    rep. by its\n    General Secretary C.Sekar\n    No.3\/52, Vivekananda Street,\n    Gandhi Nagar,\n    Vepur, Vellore District.             .. Respondents in both\n                                            the writ appeal and\n                                            the writ petition\n\n\n        Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters  Patent  against  the\norder  passed in W.P.M.P.No.8069 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.812 of 2005 in W.P.No.    \n7388 of 2005 dated 30.3.2005.\n\n\n        Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India\npraying  for  the  issue  of  writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from\nimplementing the G.O.Ms.No.13 School Education (C2) Department dated  9.2.2005   \ntill the  end  of  the  academic  year  2004-05  i.e.    31.5.2005 and issue a\nconsequential direction to the respondents to consider the  grievance  of  the\nelementary  school  Head Masters working in the upgraded middle Schools as per \nG.O.Ms.No.135 dated 23.8.2002 for replacement, transfer and  postings  in  the\nmonth of June 2005. \n\n\n!For appellant\/         ::  Mr.  R.  Saseetharan\npetitioner\n\n^For respondents                ::  Mr.  P.S.  Sivashanmugasundaram\n1 to 19                 Additional Govt.  Pleader\n\nFor respondent          ::  Mr.  Elanthiriyan\n20for M\/s.  Sai, Bharath & Ilan\n\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nThe Honourable The Chief Justice)<\/p>\n
        This  writ  appeal  has been filed by an Association calling itself as
\nTamilaga Asiriyar Koottani.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The  writ  petition  was  filed  for  a  mandamus  forbearing  the
\nrespondents   from   implementing   the  G.O.Ms.No.13  School  Education  (C2)
\nDepartment dated 9.2.2005 till the end of the academic year 2004-05 i.e.    31
\n.5.2005  and  for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the
\ngrievance of the elementary school Head Masters working in the upgraded middle
\nschools as  per  G.O.Ms.No.39  dated  21.3.2002  and  G.    O.Ms.No.135  dated
\n23.8.2002 for replacement, transfer and postings in the month of June 2005.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  As  per  G.O.Ms.No.    13, 676 elementary schools were upgraded as
\nmiddle schools and directions were given to fill up the post of Headmasters in
\nsuch upgraded middle schools from the Headmasters in elementary schools on the
\npay scale of Rs.5300-150-8300 and B.T.  Assistants and Tamil teachers  on  the
\npay scale of Rs.5500-200-9000.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In our opinion, the appellant had no locus standi to file the writ
\npetition or this writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   A  Division  Bench  of  this Court in Formation of Indian Network
\nMarketing Association, Chennai vs.  M\/s.  Apple  FMCG  Marketing  Pvt.    Ltd.
\nChennai  and  others (Writ Appeal No.688 of<\/a> 2005 dated 7.4.2005) has held that
\nsuch writ appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of  lack  of  locus
\nstandi (vide  paragraphs  6  to 13).  In paragraph – 6 of the said judgment it
\nwas observed :-\n<\/p>\n
” It is well settled that ordinarily a writ petition or writ appeal  can  only
\nbe filed by someone who is personally aggrieved”.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In  Indian  Sugar  Mills Association Vs.  Secretary to Government,
\nAIR 1951 All 1 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held (vide  paragraphs
\n10 and 11) :-\n<\/p>\n
                ”  The  further  argument  is  that  any  person,  whether his
\ninterests are directly affected or not, can file  an  application  challenging
\nany  Act  of the Legislature or the order of the Government on the ground that
\nit is ultra vires.  In this connection we cannot  do  better  than  quote  the
\ndecision  of  the  learned Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States in
\nCommonwealth of Massachusetts V.  Andrew W.Mellon, 262 U.S.    447:67  Lawyers
\nEdn.  1078, Sutherland, J.  who delivered the opinion of the Court quoted with
\napproval the remarks  of  Thomson,  J.   with whom Story, J.  concurred, which
\nwere as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                        “It is only where the rights of  persons  or  property
\nare  involved,  and when such rights can be presented under some judicial form
\nof proceedings, that courts of justice can interpose relief.”\n<\/p>\n
        Dealing with the question whether a single tax-payer can challenge the
\nenforcement of a Federal Appropriation Act on the ground that it  was  invalid
\nand would increase the burden of his taxes, the learned Judge observed:\n<\/p>\n
                “His  interest  in  the moneys of the treasury-partly realised
\nfrom taxation and partly from other sources-is shared with millions of others;
\nis comparatively  minute  and  indeterminable;  and  the  effect  upon  future
\ntaxation of any payment out of the funds so remote, fluctuating, and uncertain
\nthat no basis is afforded for an appeal to the preventive powers of a Court of
\nequity??If  one  tax-payer  may champion and litigate such a cause, then every
\nother tax-payer may do the same, not only in respect to the statute  hereunder
\nreview, but also in respect of every other appropriation Act and statute whose
\nadministration  requires the outlay of public money, and whose validity may be
\nquestioned.  The  bare  suggestion  of  such  a  result,  with  its  attendant
\ninconveniences, goes far to sustain the conclusion which we have reached, that
\na suit of this character cannot be maintained.”\n<\/p>\n
        Those remarks are with reference to  a  suit.    They  are  much  more
\napplicable  to  proceedings  under Article 226 which are of a summary and of a
\ncoercive nature without providing for a normal trial  or  a  right  of  appeal
\nexcept  in  those  cases where a substantial question of interpretation of the
\nconstitution arises.  This Court is  being  flooded  with  applications  under
\nArticle  226  of the Constitution which is seriously affecting the normal work
\nof the Court.  We feel that the time has come  when  we  may  point  out  that
\nArticle  226  of  the  Constitution was not intended to provide an alternative
\nmethod of redress to the normal process of a decision in an action brought  in
\nthe usual  courts established by law.  The powers under this Article should be
\nsparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have
\nbeen seriously infringed and he has no  other  adequate  and  specific  remedy
\navailable to him”.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  No doubt, the law has developed since the above decision was given
\nby  the  Allahabad High Court in the year 1951, yet it must be reiterated that
\nthe development in the law relating to locus standi  in  writ  petitions  only
\ncarved out some exceptions to the main rule which has been stated correctly by
\nthe  Allahabad  High  Court, and it is not that this main rule itself has been
\ntotally abolished.  Exceptions remain exceptions, and do not become  the  main
\nrule.   Hence,  we  must reiterate that ordinarily a writ petition can only be
\nfiled by a person who is personally aggrieved.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  In Vinoy Kumar Vs.  State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC  1739  the  Supreme
\nCourt observed (vide paragraph-2):-\n<\/p>\n
                “Generally  speaking,  a  person shall have no locus standi to
\nfile a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or
\nhis fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor
\nis there any imminent danger of such rights  being  invaded  or  his  acquired
\ninterests have  been violated ignoring the applicable rules.  The relief under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour
\nof the person invoking the jurisdiction.  The exception to the general rule is
\nonly in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of  habeas  corpus  or  quo
\nwarranto or  filed  in  public interest.  It is a matter of prudence, that the
\nCourt confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or
\nlegal injuries caused to a particular person or  his  fundamental  rights  are
\nviolated,  and  not  to  entertain  cases of individual wrong or injury at the
\ninstance of third party where there is an  effective  legal  aid  organization
\nwhich can  take  care  of such cases.  Even in cases filed in public interest,
\nthe Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third  party
\nonly  when  it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden
\nis threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason  or
\npoverty,  helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged
\nposition, unable to approach the Court for relief (emphasis supplied).”\n<\/p>\n
9.  In State of Orissa Vs.  Ram Chandra Dev & Another, AIR  1964  SC  685  the
\nSupreme Court observed (vide paragraph – 8):-\n<\/p>\n
                “But  though  the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
\n226 is wide in that  sense,  the  concluding  words  of  the  article  clearly
\nindicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of
\na  party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right
\nis illegally invaded or threatened.  The existence of  a  right  is  thus  the
\nfoundation of a petition under Article 226”.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Similarly,  in  Gadde  Venkateswara Rao Vs.  Government of Andhra
\nPradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 (vide paragraph- 8) the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “The right that can be enforced under Article 226  also  shall<\/p>\n
ordinarily  be  the  personal  or individual right of the petitioner himself (
\nemphasis supplied), though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus
\nor quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified”.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In Sand Carrier’s Owners’ Union and Others Vs.  Board of Trustees
\nfor  the  Port  of  Calcutta, AIR 1990 Cal 176 it was observed by the Calcutta
\nHigh Court that “a Public Interest Litigation  can  be  moved,  where  persons
\nconcerned  for  whose  benefit  it  is  moved  are  socially and educationally
\nbackward, and Public Interest Litigation is also maintainable in cases such as
\nenvironmental pollution, etc.”\n<\/p>\n
However, it was also observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “The members of such association may be affected by  a  common
\norder  and  may  have  common  grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the
\nrights of the members, writ petition at the instance of  such  association  is
\nnot maintainable”.\n<\/p>\n
        Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed
\nby the Owners’ Union.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  A similar view has been  taken  in  Government  Press  Employees’
\nAssociation, Bangalore Vs.  Government of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mysore 25.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In Dr.Duryodhan Sahu Vs.  Jitendra Kumar Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 273
\nthe Supreme Court  observed  that  in  service  matters  PILs  should  not  be
\nentertained.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Subsequently,  in Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs.  State of W.B., (2004) 3
\nSCC 349 ( Vide Paragraph – 16) the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Though in Dr.    Duryodhan  Sahu  Vs.   Jitendra Kumar Mishra
\n(1998) 7 SCC 273 this Court held that in service matters PILs  should  not  be
\nentertained,  the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues
\nunabated in the courts and strangely are entertained.    The  least  the  High
\nCourts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision”.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   In our opinion, if any educational institution or Head Master or
\nTeacher is aggrieved by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 they can file
\na writ petition in this Court  challenging  the  same,  but  the  appellant  –
\nassociation had  no  locus  standi  in the matter.  It cannot be said that the
\neducational institutions or Head Masters are so poor that they are  unable  to
\napproach this Court.  If any particular educational institution or Head Master
\nhas  a  grievance  against  the impugned G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 9.2.2005 it is for
\nsuch person to  file  a  writ  petition  or  writ  appeal,  and  not  for  any
\nassociation.   The  writ  appeal  is  dismissed on the ground of lack of locus
\nstandi.  The writ petition is dismissed for the same reason.   W.A.M.P.No.1384
\nof 2005 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
Vu\/sm
\nCopy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary,
\nGovt.  of Tamil Nadu,
\nSchool Education Department,
\nFort St.  George,
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Elementary Education,
\nCollege Road,
\nChennai-6.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nThanjavur District,
\nThanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nCoimbatore District,
\nCoimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nPerambalur District at Ariyalur.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nAriyalur District, Ariyalur.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nVirudhunagar District,
\nVirudhunagar.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nTuticorin District, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nTirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nDindigul District, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n
11.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nRamnad District, Ramnad.\n<\/p>\n
12.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer,
\nSalem District, Salem.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The District Elementary Educational Officer,
\nThiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.\n<\/p>\n
14.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Trichy District, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Nagai District, Nagai.\n<\/p>\n
17.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Namakkal District, Namakkal.\n<\/p>\n
18.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Karur District, Karur.\n<\/p>\n
19.  The District Elementary Educational
\nOfficer, Dharmapuri District,
\nDharmapuri.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 19\/04\/2005 Coram THE HON’BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA Writ Appeal No.717 of 2005 and Writ Petition No.7388 of 2005 Tamilaga Asiriyar […]<\/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-167701","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 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\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-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=\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-23T06:49:18+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-23T06:49:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1843,\"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\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\",\"name\":\"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-23T06:49:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 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":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 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\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-23T06:49:18+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-23T06:49:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005"},"wordCount":1843,"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\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005","name":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-23T06:49:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tamilaga-asiriyar-koottani-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-19-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tamilaga Asiriyar Koottani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 April, 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\/167701","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=167701"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167701\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167701"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167701"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167701"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}