{"id":185369,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-23T15:29:06","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T09:59:06","slug":"j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 22\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\nW.P.(MD).No.4571 of 2010\nW.P.(MD).No.4907\nand\nW.P.(MD).No.5001 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2010\n\n\nJ.Jeyaseelan\t\t\t... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4571\/2010\n\nC.Sengodan\t\t\t... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4907\/2010\n\nK.Boopathy\t\t\t... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5001\/2010\t\t\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector -cum-\n   Regional Transport Authority,\n   Tuticorin.\n\n2.The Secretary,\n   Regional Transport Authority,\n   Tuticorin.\t\t\t... Respondents in all W.Ps.\n\n\nPRAYER in  W.P.(MD)No.4571\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the\nrespondents to permit the petitioner's bus bearing Registration No.TN-69-R-3682\nplying on the route Kovilpatti to Thoothukkudi via Kamanayanpatti,\nPasuvanthunai, Ottapidaram and Puthiamputhur upto old bus stand via new bus\nstand even between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m., every day.\n\nPRAYER in  W.P.(MD)No.4907\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the\nrespondents to permit the petitioner's buses bearing Registration Nos.TN-\n69\/T\/5577 and TN-69\/AZ\/1122 on the routes Sankarankovil to Tuticorin (Via)\nKovilpatti, Thiruvenkadam etc. &amp; Tuticorin to Masarpatti (Via) Kovilpatti,\nIrkkankudi, etc. to ply upto old bus stand via new bus stand even between 06.00\na.m. to  06.00 p.m. every day.\n\nPRAYER in  W.P.(MD)No.5001\/2010\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the\nrespondents to permit the petitioner's bus bearing Registration No.TN\/67\/AA 5577\non the route Tuticorin to Sivakasi (Via) Kovilpatti, Satur etc. to ply upto old\nbus stand via new bus stand even between 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. every day.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar\n\t\t      Special Government Pleader\n\n*******\n<\/pre>\n<p>:COMMON  ORDER<br \/>\n*********<\/p>\n<p>\t\tHeard Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioners and  Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar, learned Special Government Pleader<br \/>\nappearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. In these Writ Petitions, the prayer is to permit the petitioners,<br \/>\nwho are the stage carriage permit holders plying from various places to<br \/>\nThoothukudi, to go upto old bus stand via new bus stand between 06.00 a.m. to<br \/>\n06.00 p.m. every day. While the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4571 of 2010 is a<br \/>\nstage carriage permit holder in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration<br \/>\nNo.TN-69-R-3682 plying on the route from Kovilpatti to Thoothukkudi via<br \/>\nKamanayanpatti, Pasuvanthunai, Ottapidaram and Puthiamputhur, the writ<br \/>\npetitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4907 of 2010 is a stage carriage permit holder<br \/>\noperating two stage carriage permits covered by the vehicles bearing<br \/>\nRegistration Nos.TN-69\/T\/5577 and TN-69AZ\/1122 on the routes Sankarankovil to<br \/>\nTuticorin (Via) Kovilpatti, Thiruvenkadam etc. &amp; Tuticorin to Masarpatti (Via)<br \/>\nKovilpatti, Irkkankudi, etc., the writ petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5001 of 2010 is<br \/>\na stage carriage permit holder operating the vehicle bearing Registration<br \/>\nNo.TN\/67\/AA 5577 on the route Tuticorin to Sivakasi (Via) Kovilpatti, Satur etc.<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The common grievance of these petitioners is that the permit<br \/>\ngranted to them to ply and reach the destination at Thoothukudi is to terminate<br \/>\nat old bus stand. However, when a new bus stand was constructed by the<br \/>\nMunicipality, a restriction was sought to be imposed by the respondents that the<br \/>\nbuses reaching Thoothukudi bus stand are to terminate at new bus stand, which<br \/>\nhas been constructed, during day time 06.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m., while during<br \/>\nnight time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they are permitted to reach the old bus<br \/>\nstand after touching the new bus stand. This conduct of the respondents is<br \/>\nchallenged in these Writ Petitions on the ground that when the original permit<br \/>\ngranted in their favour permits them to terminate at old bus stand, the<br \/>\nrestriction imposed to the above said effect that during day time 06.00 a.m. to<br \/>\n06.00 p.m., that permit holders are to terminate at new bus stand and it is only<br \/>\nduring  night time 06.00 p.m. to 06.00 a.m., they should reach the old bus stand<br \/>\nis arbitrary, especially when the State Transport Corporations are permitted to<br \/>\nreach the old bus stand even during day times.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. It is seen that earlier as per the direction given in a batch of<br \/>\nWrit Petitions in W.P.Nos.13229 of 1992, etc., the first respondent has<br \/>\nconducted an enquiry by giving opportunity to the stage carriage operators and<br \/>\nothers and in his proceedings dated 16.10.1999, he has taken such decision. The<br \/>\nsaid decision taken by the first respondent came to be challenged before this<br \/>\nCourt by one of the stage carriage permit holders in W.P.No.1155 of 2005 and<br \/>\nthis Court, by an order dated 03.07.2007, on the request of the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner, giving opportunity to the petitioner to make a<br \/>\nrepresentation to the appropriate authority, has dismissed the Writ Petition. It<br \/>\nis relevant to point out that when such order was passed, the learned counsel<br \/>\nhas brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the State Transport<br \/>\nUndertakings, they are permitted to terminate at old bus stand even during day<br \/>\ntimes and that right has been denied to the stage carriage permit holders, who<br \/>\nhave been granted permit to terminate at old bus stand and it was, in those<br \/>\ncircumstances, this Court has permitted the petitioner to make a representation<br \/>\nto the Regional Transport Authority. Based on the said observation of this<br \/>\nCourt, it is seen that the said writ petitioner has made a representation to the<br \/>\nRegional Transport Authority as early as on 01.08.2007 bringing to the notice of<br \/>\nthe authority that there cannot be a differential treatment between the State<br \/>\nTransport Undertakings and the Stage carriage permit holders and also making out<br \/>\na case that the public are affected because of the prevention of the stage<br \/>\ncarriage permit holders from terminating their vehicles in the old bus stand<br \/>\nduring the day times.  However, it remains a fact that in spite of such<br \/>\nrepresentations having been given as early as on 01.08.2007, the respondents<br \/>\nhave not passed any orders and it is the case of the petitioners, as submitted<br \/>\nby the learned counsel, that the Regional Transport Authority has not even<br \/>\nconvened the necessary meetings for the purpose of deciding the issue based on<br \/>\nthe representation stated above, which has resulted in depriving of the<br \/>\npetitioners in terminating at old bus stand, while the State Transports are<br \/>\nterminating at old bus stand during the day times, which affect the right of the<br \/>\npetitioners in carrying on that right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, while the<br \/>\nfirst respondent has chosen to state that the decision taken in the year 1999<br \/>\nwas due to the reason that at that time, a new bridge was under construction<br \/>\nand, therefore, in order to avoid traffic congestion, such decision was taken<br \/>\nnot permitting the stage carriage permit holders to terminate at old bus stand<br \/>\nduring the day times. However, during the night time, the traffic congestion was<br \/>\nnot difficult and, therefore, permitted them to go upto the old bus stand and<br \/>\nthat was the decision taking note of the public interest and also the<br \/>\nconvenience of the public at large, which is the basic object of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nMotor Vehicles Act, 1988. But, now the fact remains, as stated by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner, that the construction of the new bridge has come to<br \/>\nan end and in spite of it, an arrangement made in the year 1999 is continuing<br \/>\nand it is certainly distressing to note that in spite of the representations<br \/>\nhaving been made by the petitioners as early as in the year 2007, the<br \/>\nrespondents have not taken note of the change in situation, which is under<br \/>\nobligation under the Motor Vehicles Act, to perform.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also<br \/>\nsubmit that since the Regional Transport Authority has not taken note of the<br \/>\nchange of circumstances, in spite of lapse of two years, a direction should be<br \/>\ngiven permitting the petitioners to operate the vehicles during day times upto<br \/>\nthe old bus stand and that will be subject to the final decision, which may be<br \/>\ntaken by the Regional Transport Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. To decide about the convenience of public, it is eminently on the<br \/>\npart of the Regional Transport Authority who happens to be the District<br \/>\nCollector who has been entrusted with such duty. It is true that on the facts of<br \/>\nthe present case, when the Collector has taken a decision in the year 1999, the<br \/>\nbridge was under construction and, therefore, taking note of the public<br \/>\ninterest, such restriction came to be imposed. Of course, having realised the<br \/>\ncorrectness of that public issue, one of the petitioners, who have earlier<br \/>\napproached this Court, has withdrawn the said Writ Petition with a direction to<br \/>\nmake a representation and accordingly, a representation was made in the year<br \/>\n2007. Now that, it is not in dispute that the construction of the bridge is<br \/>\ncompleted, in all fairness, the Regional Transport Authority ought to have taken<br \/>\na decision by following the process which are contemplated under the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nMotor Vehicles Rules, especially Rule 245, the District Collector, the first<br \/>\nrespondent herein has not taken such decision, so far, for a period of two<br \/>\nyears. However, in my considered view, such delay on the part of the first<br \/>\nrespondent does not mean that this Court should give such direction, unless and<br \/>\nuntil the convenience of public which has to be decided by the District<br \/>\nCollector is ascertained.  Therefore, I am of the considered view that the first<br \/>\nrespondent should be directed to decide the issue at an early point of time and<br \/>\npending such decision, it will not be proper for this Court to exercise its<br \/>\ndiscretion permitting the petitioners to travel the destination upto the old bus<br \/>\nstand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. In such view of the matter, the Writ Petitions stand disposed of<br \/>\nwith a direction against the first respondent to consider the representations<br \/>\nmade by the petitioners dated 01.08.2007 seeking permission to terminate their<br \/>\nvehicles at old bus stand during day time as well as night time, as it is<br \/>\npermitted in respect of stage transport carriages and pass appropriate orders by<br \/>\nfollowing the procedure contemplated under the Rules and such orders shall be<br \/>\npassed by the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of<br \/>\nreceipt of a copy of this order. Making it clear that if such a decision is not<br \/>\ntaken within the stipulated time, it will be open to the petitioners to ply<br \/>\ntheir vehicles upto the old bus stand during day time as well as night time as<br \/>\nper their permit condition.  Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions<br \/>\nare closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Collector -cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>   Regional Transport Authority,<br \/>\n   Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary,<br \/>\n   Regional Transport Authority,<br \/>\n   Tuticorin.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD).No.4571 of 2010 W.P.(MD).No.4907 and W.P.(MD).No.5001 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2010 J.Jeyaseelan &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4571\/2010 C.Sengodan &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.4907\/2010 K.Boopathy &#8230; Petitioner [&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-185369","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.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - 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-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T09:59:06+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=\"9 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-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T09:59:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1522,\"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-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\",\"name\":\"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T09:59:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - 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-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T09:59:06+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T09:59:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010"},"wordCount":1522,"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-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010","name":"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T09:59:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-jeyaseelan-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Jeyaseelan vs The District Collector -Cum- on 22 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/185369","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=185369"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185369\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}