{"id":177006,"date":"2004-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004"},"modified":"2014-11-19T19:34:08","modified_gmt":"2014-11-19T14:04:08","slug":"j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:  29\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM\n\nH.C.P.No.714 of 2004\n\nJ.Indira                               ..      Petitioner\n\n-vs-\n\n\n1.  The District Magistrate and\n   District Collector\n   Perambalur District\n   Perambalur.\n\n2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu\n   Prohibition &amp; Excise Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai-600 009.                     ..      Respondents\n\n\n        PRAYER:  Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\nfor  issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenu namely Jothi, who is\ndetained as per the order of detention  passed  by  the  first  respondent  in\nCr.M.P.No.  39\/2004 dated 21.5.2004 and confined at Central Prison Trichy, and\nset  him  at  liberty  and  for  a  further  direction to call for the records\nrelating to the above-said order and and set aside the same.\n\n\n!For Petitioner :       Mr.K.Manivasakam\n\n^For respondents :      Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam\n                        Govt.  Advocate (Criminal Side)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The wife of the detenu who has been detained as  a  Goonda  under  the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu  Act  14  of  1982  is  the  petitioner in the above Habeas Corpus<br \/>\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner   raised   the   following<br \/>\ncontentions which are dealt with below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   Learned  counsel  contends  that  though there is no delay in the<br \/>\ndisposal of the first representation, the second representation has  not  been<br \/>\nexpeditiously disposed.    We  have  seen the date particulars relating to the<br \/>\nsecond representation dated 23.6.2004.  The  representation  was  received  on<br \/>\n30.6.2004  and  remarks from the Collectorate were called for on the very next<br \/>\nday.  The communication was received by the Collectorate on  5.7.2004  and  on<br \/>\n6.7.2004, remarks  were  called  for  from  the  sponsoring  authority.    The<br \/>\nsponsoring authority furnished the remarks on 8.7.2004 and sent by post to the<br \/>\nGovernment and received by  the  Government  on  15.7.2004.    Thereafter,  on<br \/>\nconsideration  by  the  other  authorities, the representation was rejected on<br \/>\n20.7.2004.   Apart  from  the  fact  that  the  representation  is  a   second<br \/>\nrepresentation  and  no  fresh  points have been raised, we also find that the<br \/>\nrepresentation has been disposed of as expeditiously as possible.   Hence,  we<br \/>\nare unable to sustain the said contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Learned counsel also contends that the second representation given<br \/>\nby him was not placed before the Advisory Board and in this context, reference<br \/>\nis made to  the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.M.  ABDULLA KUNHI V.  UNION<br \/>\nOF INDIA (1991 Crl.L.J.  790).  We have perused  the  said  judgment  and  the<br \/>\nfacts  of the said decision discloses that the representation had been sent to<br \/>\nthe Government even before the convening of the Advisory Board and it is  only<br \/>\nin  those  circumstances,  the  Supreme Court had observed that the Government<br \/>\nshould have placed the representation before the Advisory Board.  In fact,  in<br \/>\nthe  judgment  itself,  it  is  made clear that if the representation had been<br \/>\nreceived by the Government after the Advisory Board had made its report,  then<br \/>\nthere  would  be  no  question  of  sending the representation to the Advisory<br \/>\nBoard.  Therefore, we are inclined to hold  that  the  said  judgment  is  not<br \/>\napplicable to the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Learned counsel next contends that no public order is involved in<br \/>\nthe offences for which the detenu had been charged  with.    All  the  adverse<br \/>\ncases relate  to  cases of theft under Section 379, I.P.C.  In the ground case<br \/>\nalone, the detenu has been charged under Sections 341, 384, 379  and  506(ii),<br \/>\nI.P.C.  We are unable to sustain the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner.   A perusal of the adverse cases disclose that the detenu has been<br \/>\nindulging in a series of theft cases of cycles and mopeds (TVS 50) and in  all<br \/>\neight  previous  cases, the trial had been completed and he has been convicted<br \/>\nand sentenced.  It is also seen that he has been operating  in  the  specified<br \/>\narea in  and around Trichy District.  It cannot be disputed that Section 3 79,<br \/>\nI.P.C.  falls under the category of offences as specified under  Section  2(f)<br \/>\nof the  Tamil  Nadu Act 14 of 1982.  Therefore, the contention that an offence<br \/>\nunder Section 379, I.P.C.  would not constitute  disruption  of  public  order<br \/>\ncannot be sustained.  The detenu has been committing offences in public places<br \/>\nand the repetition of the offences has been so frequent and the very fact that<br \/>\nhe  has  been convicted in as many as eight cases would be sufficient proof of<br \/>\ncausing disruption to the public order.  We already had an  occasion  to  deal<br \/>\nwith a  similar  issue in H.C.P.No.688 of 2004 <a href=\"\/doc\/858255\/\">(DHANDAPANI V.  COMMISSIONER OF<br \/>\nPOLICE, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER)<\/a> by order dated 23.9.2004.   Repeated  involvement<br \/>\nunder Section 379, I.P.C.  was held sufficient to invoke Act 14 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   Learned  counsel  further  contends  that  the  entire action was<br \/>\nvitiated due to mala fides and in this context, reference is made to paragraph<br \/>\n3 of the grounds of detention.  The detaining authority has  stated  that  the<br \/>\ninvestigation  reveals  that  the detenu was affiliated to the erstwhile Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Liberation Army, a banned association, and on 29.4.2004, one Pandithurai,<br \/>\nappeared before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalavai, and  reported  that  on<br \/>\n15.4.2004 he went to Thalavai Village for his personal work in his TVS 50  TN<br \/>\n46   2093.    He had parked his two wheeler at Ramakrishna Petrol Bunk and on<br \/>\nhis return back, he found the detenu trying to commit theft of  that  vehicle.<br \/>\nWhen  he apprehended him, the detenu shouted authoritatively and threatened to<br \/>\nkill him by brandishing a knife.  The detenu is also alleged to have left  the<br \/>\nplace along  with  the robbed vehicle.  With the result, the First Information<br \/>\nReport was altered under Sections 341, 384, 379 and 506(ii), I.P.C.  According<br \/>\nto the learned counsel, the alteration of the charges would  reveal  that  the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority  was  not acting bona fide.  We are unable to accept such<br \/>\ncontention.  We do not find anything wrong in the alteration of the provisions<br \/>\nunder which the detenu was charged on the basis of the facts which  have  come<br \/>\nto light  on  subsequent  investigation.   The mere fact that the charges were<br \/>\naltered or added cannot be by itself proof of mala fides.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The further contention of the counsel for the petitioner  is  that<br \/>\nthe detenu could not have been available at large to commit the offences under<br \/>\nthe ground  case  which  is alleged to have taken place on 16.4.2004.  In this<br \/>\ncontext, reference is made to the eighth adverse case.  The order of detention<br \/>\nstates that with reference to the eighth adverse case in Crime No.10 of  2004,<br \/>\nthe  detenu  was  convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for<br \/>\ntwelve weeks by order dated 1.4.2004.  Therefore, the detenu  could  not  have<br \/>\nbeen charged  of  having  committed  any theft on 16.4.2004.  We are unable to<br \/>\nsustain the said contention also, having regard to the details  given  in  the<br \/>\ndetention order  itself.    Though  by  order  dated  1.4.2004  the detenu was<br \/>\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twelve weeks in Crime No.1 0 of<br \/>\n2004, it is stated clearly that the period of remand was set off under section<br \/>\n428 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the accused  underwent  the  period  of<br \/>\npunishment.   In  fact,  a perusal of the detenu&#8217;s own confession statement at<br \/>\npage 65 of the booklet discloses that after having suffered  imprisonment  for<br \/>\ntwelve  weeks  in  Crime  No.10  of 200 4, he had come out on bail and that on<br \/>\n15.4.2004, he had committed theft of the vehicle concerned TVS 50   TN  46<br \/>\n2093, on  15.4.2004.    Therefore,  we do not find any merit in the contention<br \/>\nraised by the counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The further contention is that no intimation was  given  regarding<br \/>\nthe arrest  of  the detenu to the blood relatives of the detenu.  A perusal of<br \/>\nthe records discloses that  intimation  was  duly  given  to  the  petitioner,<br \/>\nnamely, the wife of the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>        With the result, as we do not find any merit in any of the contentions<br \/>\nraised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the H.C.P.  is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>ksv<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Magistrate and<br \/>\nDistrict Collector<br \/>\nPerambalur District<br \/>\nPerambalur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nProhibition &amp; Excise Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Superintendent<br \/>\nCentral Prison<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>(in duplicate for communication to detenu)<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Joint Secretary to Government<br \/>\nPublic (Law &amp; Order)<br \/>\nFort St.  George<br \/>\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.K.MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM H.C.P.No.714 of 2004 J.Indira .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The District Magistrate and District Collector Perambalur District Perambalur. 2. The Secretary to Government [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-19T14:04:08+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-19T14:04:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1215,\"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\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\",\"name\":\"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-19T14:04:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-19T14:04:08+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-19T14:04:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004"},"wordCount":1215,"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\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004","name":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-19T14:04:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-indira-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Indira vs The District Magistrate And on 29 October, 2004"}]},{"@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\/177006","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=177006"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177006\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}