{"id":188984,"date":"2004-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004"},"modified":"2017-04-10T14:49:45","modified_gmt":"2017-04-10T09:19:45","slug":"r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 31\/08\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nHABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 516 OF 2004\n\nR.Raji                                         ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.     The Government of Tamil Nadu\n        Represented by Secretary to Government\n        Prohibition and Excise Department\n        Fort St. George\n        Madras - 600 009\n\n2.      The Commissioner of Police\n        Greater Chennai\n        Chennai.                                     ... Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,  for\nissuance  of  a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing to produce the records of the\nsecond respondent pertaining to the detention order made  in  Memo  No.40\/2004\ndated  31.3.2004 in detaining the detenu Ravi alias Yasin under Tamil Nadu Act\n14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents  to  produce  the\nsaid  detenu,  namely,  Ravi alias Yasin, confined at Central Prison, Chennai,\nbefore this Court and set him at liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Ms.R.Subadra Devi\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam\n                Government Advocate (Criminal Side)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The wife of the detenu has filed this petition challenging  the  order<br \/>\nof  detention  dated  31.3.2004  in  and  by which the detaining authority has<br \/>\ndetained her husband by name Ravi alias Yasin as Goonda under the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nPrevention  of  Dangerous  Activities  of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest<br \/>\noffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders  and  Slum  Grabbers  Act,  1982<br \/>\n(Tamil Nadu  Act  14  of  1982).    The ground case referred in the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention relates to an occurrence that took place on 24.02.2004 for which  he<br \/>\nwas charged  for  various  offences,  namely,  341,  397 and 506(ii) IPC.  The<br \/>\npetitioner has twelve adverse cases to his credit  all  for  various  offences<br \/>\nunder IPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well<br \/>\nas the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking<br \/>\nus  through  the  grounds of detention and the available materials, has raised<br \/>\nthe following contentions:  (i) Inasmuch as the detaining authority has failed<br \/>\nto take note of the dismissal of bail application on 08.3.2004, the  order  of<br \/>\ndetention  is  liable  to be quashed on the ground of non-application of mind;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Inasmuch as there is discrepancy in the recovery of  gold  ornaments  and<br \/>\nthe  same was not verified\/ ascertained, the detaining authority has committed<\/p>\n<p>an error  in  passing  the  order  of  detention;  (iii)  There  is  delay  in<br \/>\nconsidering  the  representation  of the detenu; and (iv) Arrest of the detenu<br \/>\nwas not intimated to his family members.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      Insofar as the first contention,  namely,  non-application  of<br \/>\nmind  by  the  detaining  authority, is concerned, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, by drawing  our  attention  to  paragraph  4  of  the  grounds  of<br \/>\ndetention,  would  submit that inasmuch the bail application of the detenu was<br \/>\ndismissed on 08.3.2004, the said vital fact has not  been  considered  by  the<br \/>\ndetaining authority while passing the order of detention.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nhas  also produced copy of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 08.3.2004<br \/>\ndismissing the bail application of the detenu and two  others.    However,  in<br \/>\nparagraph  4  of  the  grounds  of  detention,  the  detaining  authority  has<br \/>\nspecifically stated that he is aware that Ravi  alias  Yasin  (detenu)  is  in<br \/>\nremand  and there is imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for the<br \/>\noffences under Sections 341, 397 and 506(ii) IPC by filing bail application in<br \/>\nthe Court.  He also referred to the fact that if he  comes  out  on  bail,  he<br \/>\nwould  indulge  in  further  activities,  which  would  be  prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order.  Though the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner  submitted  that  the detaining authority has not taken note of the<br \/>\ndismissal of the bail petition dated 08.3.2 004,  as  rightly  argued  by  the<br \/>\nlearned  Government  Advocate  that merely because the detaining authority has<br \/>\nnot referred to the dismissal of the bail petition dated 08.3.2004, it  cannot<br \/>\nbe construed that the detaining authority has not applied his mind.  According<br \/>\nto  him, first of all, there is no need to refer the said aspect and secondly,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority was aware of the fact that on the date  of  detention,<br \/>\nthe  detenu was in remand, that is, in actual custody and he was also aware of<br \/>\nthe fact that by filing bail application, he  may  come  out  and  indulge  in<br \/>\nfurther  activities,  which  would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public<br \/>\norder.  In this regard, the learned Government Advocate very  much  relied  on<br \/>\nthe decision  of  the  Apex  Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1715086\/\">ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK vs.  UNION OF<br \/>\nINDIA AND OTHERS<\/a> ((1992 ) 1 SCC 1).  In that case, while  considering  similar<br \/>\ncontention,  Their Lordships, after referring earlier decisions of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt, ultimately laid the following  principles.    Among  those  principles,<br \/>\nclause 3 and 4 are relevant for our case, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(1)    &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n(2)     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n(3)     If  the  detenu  has moved for bail then the application and the order<br \/>\nthereon refusing bail even if not placed before  the  detaining  authority  it<br \/>\ndoes not  amount  to  suppression  of  relevant  material.    The  question of<br \/>\nnon-application of mind and satisfaction being impaired does not arise as long<br \/>\nas the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in actual<br \/>\ncustody.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)     Accordingly, the non-supply of the copies of bail application  or  the<br \/>\norder  refusing  bail  to the detenu cannot affect the detenu&#8217;s right of being<br \/>\nafforded a reasonable opportunity guaranteed under Article 22(5)  when  it  is<br \/>\nclear that the authority has not relied or referred to the same.<br \/>\n(5)     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<br \/>\n(6)     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      It  is clear from the above dictum that even in the absence of<br \/>\nreference to the order dismissing the bail application, it does not amount  to<br \/>\nsuppression  of relevant material so long as the detaining authority was aware<br \/>\nof the fact that the detenu was in actual custody.  We have  already  referred<br \/>\nto  the statement made in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, which amply<br \/>\nshow that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu was in<br \/>\nremand and by filing bail application, he may come out and indulge in  further<br \/>\nactivities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  In<br \/>\nthe light of the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to above and in view<br \/>\nof  the  factual  information  as  seen  from  paragraph  4  of the grounds of<br \/>\ndetention, we are unable to accept the first contention raised by the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      Coming  to  the  second contention, namely, discrepancy in the<br \/>\nrecoveries made, it is true that in the requisition for remand, the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority, namely, Inspector of Police, Elephant Gate Police Station,  in  the<br \/>\npenultimate  paragraph,  has  stated that based on the confession statement of<br \/>\nthe accused, 6-3\/4 sovereigns of Gold were recovered.  This is clear from page<br \/>\n120 of the booklet supplied to the detenu.  The learned counsel appearing  for<br \/>\nthe  petitioner,  by drawing out attention to page 99 of the booklet, Form 95,<br \/>\nwould contend that in the light of the list of properties seized and  referred<br \/>\ntherein  and  in  view  of  the  discrepancy,  without proper explanation, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority has passed the order  of  detention,  which  vitiates  the<br \/>\nsame.  For this, the learned Government Advocate, after taking us through page<br \/>\nNos.   49,  57,  68  and  99 of the booklet, would submit that if the quantity<br \/>\nreferred therein are added, there cannot be any discrepancy as claimed by  the<br \/>\nlearned counsel  for  the  petitioner.   He also points out that the reference<br \/>\nmade at page No.99 relates to one Crime No., namely, 118 of 2004.  As  rightly<br \/>\npointed  out  by  the learned Government Advocate, if we consider the recovery<br \/>\nmade in al the four cases, we are of the view that there is no discrepancy and<br \/>\nthe  detaining  authority  has  not  committed  any  error  in  arriving   his<br \/>\nconclusion.  Accordingly, we reject the second contention also.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      Regarding  the  third contention, namely, delay in considering<br \/>\nthe representation of the detenu, the particulars  furnished  by  the  learned<br \/>\nGovernment   Advocate  show  that  the  representation  was  received  by  the<br \/>\nGovernment on 20.4.2004, remarks were called on  21.4.2004  and  remarks  were<br \/>\nreceived from the sponsoring authority on 27.4.2004.  Thereafter, the file was<br \/>\nsubmitted  to  the  Under  Secretary and the Deputy Secretary on 29.4.2004 and<br \/>\nfinally, the Minister for Prohibition  and  Excise  has  passed  an  order  on<br \/>\n30.4.2004 rejecting  the  representation  of the detenu.  The rejection letter<br \/>\nwas prepared on 03.5.2004 and ultimately, the same was served on the detenu on<br \/>\n05.5.2004.  Though it is  stated  that  there  was  delay  in  preparation  of<br \/>\nrejection  letter  after  the  order  was  passed  by  the competent authority<br \/>\nrejecting the representation of the detenu on 30.4.2004, in view of  the  fact<br \/>\nthat  in between 30.4.2004 and 03.5.2004, two holidays intervened, that is, on<br \/>\n01.5.2004 and 02.5.2004, being Saturday and Sunday, we are of the view that it<br \/>\ncannot be  claimed  that  there  was  unreasonable  delay  in  preparation  of<br \/>\nrejection letter.  Accordingly, we find no force in the third contention also.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      Finally, regarding the last contention that the fact of arrest<br \/>\nof  the detenu was not intimated to the family members, the learned Government<br \/>\nAdvocate produced a file, which shows that the wife  of  the  detenu,  namely,<br \/>\nRaji, was  intimated  on 02.4.2004.  Hence, the said contention is also liable<br \/>\nto be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid<br \/>\nground for  interference.    Accordingly,  the  Habeas  Corpus   Petition   is<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>gri<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.      The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n        Prohibition and Excise Department<br \/>\n        Fort St.  George<br \/>\n        Madras &#8211; 600 009<\/p>\n<p>2.      The Commissioner of Police<br \/>\n        Greater Chennai<br \/>\n        Chennai<\/p>\n<p>3.      The Superintendent<br \/>\n        Central Prison<br \/>\n        Chennai<\/p>\n<p>4.      The Joint Secretary to Government<br \/>\n        Public (Law and Order)<br \/>\n        Fort St.  George<br \/>\n        Madras &#8211; 600 009<\/p>\n<p>5.      The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n        High Court<br \/>\n        Madras &#8211; 104<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 31\/08\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice P.SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 516 OF 2004 R.Raji &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to [&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-188984","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 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\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-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=\"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-10T09:19:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-10T09:19:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1426,\"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\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\",\"name\":\"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-10T09:19:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 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":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 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\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-10T09:19:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-10T09:19:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004"},"wordCount":1426,"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\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004","name":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-10T09:19:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-raji-vs-the-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-31-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Raji vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 31 August, 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\/188984","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=188984"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188984\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188984"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188984"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188984"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}