{"id":190021,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-06-16T21:14:42","modified_gmt":"2015-06-16T15:44:42","slug":"d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 08\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.6071 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nD.Devaraj                                          ...     Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   Rep by its Secretary to Government,\n   Department of Rural Development,\n   Secretariat,\n   Chennai.\n\n2.The Inspector of Panchayat &\n   The District Collector,\n   Sivagangai District,\n   Sivagangai.\n\n3.The Tahsildhar,\n   Sivagangai Taluk,\n   Sivagangai District.                             ...    Respondents\n\n\n\n\t\nWrit Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for\nthe records relating to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his\nproceedings No.Na.Ka.A7\/Vu.E(Vuu)\/681\/2007, dated 10.06.2009 and the\nconsequential notification No.VI(2)\/314\/2009, dated 11.06.2009 published in the\nTamil Nadu Government Gazette, dated 24.06.2009 and quash the same as illegal\nand consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to restore the petitioner to his\noffice as President of Arasanoor Village Panchayat.\n\n!For Petitioner          ...  Mr.M.Ramadhas\n^For  Respondents        ...  Mrs.R.Anitha\n                              Additional Govt.Pleader\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner was elected as President of Arasanoor village Panchayat
\nin Sivagangai Panchayat Union, Sivagangai District. The election was held in the
\nyear 2006.  In respect of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed
\nby the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, by his proceedings, dated 08.02.2008
\nunder Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act,1994  framing the following
\ncharges:\n<\/p>\n
\ti.The Government has allotted Rs.2.30 lacs for laying Sembur Colony Cement
\nroad and that money ought to have been disbursed after calling for tenders and
\nthe completion of work  or  after assignment of the work down.  But the
\npetitioner without following that procedure and contravening the guidelines of
\nthe Government and without getting prior permission from the technical experts,
\nsanctioned Rs.2.75 lacs as advance even before the completion of the work. Thus,
\nhe has paid in excess a sum of Rs.71,568\/- caused loss of that amount.\n<\/p>\n
\tii.For the year 2005-2006, Rs.1,03,700\/- was allotted for two projects and
\nthe petitioner spent Rs.41,036\/- for other purposes by contravening the
\nguidelines of the 12th Financial Commission contrary to the guidelines
\nprescribed by the 12th Finance Commission and thus caused loss of Rs.41036\/- .\n<\/p>\n
\tiii.The petitioner spent a sum of Rs.1,15,088\/- without getting prior
\npermission from the Panchayat or without getting any tender or preparation of
\nbill and without any Panchayat resolution and thus has misappropriated the said
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv.As per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, for any expenses exceeding
\nRs.500\/- the payment can be made after getting necessary prize list and estimate
\nand the amount shall be only paid by cheque.  But in respect of three  items, he
\nspent a sum of Rs.47,350\/- without getting permission from the technical expert
\nor estimate and thus caused Rs.47,350\/- to the Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
\tv.The petitioner has failed to follow the procedures and acted for his
\npersonal benefit.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The petitioner submitted his reply, which was received by the 2nd
\nrespondent on 03.03.2008 and in that reply, he has given his explanation for
\nvarious charges.  In respect of charge No.1, he has stated that the work was
\nentrusted to the contractor, Mr.C.Palanisamy after calling for tenders and after
\nmeasurements were taken on the completion of the work a sum of Rs.2,29,432\/- was
\npaid to the contractor. In respect of charge No.2 he has stated that a sum of
\nRs.1,03,700\/- was spent as per the guidelines of the 12th Finance Commission.
\nIn respect of charge No.3, he has stated that after getting price list and after
\ngetting permission from the Panchayat, expenses were incurred and in respect of
\ncharge No.4, he has also stated that only after getting the Panchayat permission
\nand after getting the price list, expenses were incurred and on certain
\noccasions having regard to the emergency nature of expenses, he incurred
\nexpenses and latter got ratification from the Panchayat and therefore, he has
\nstated in his reply that he has not acted contrary to the provisions of the
\nPanchayat Act or he has not committed anything illegal and due to his
\ninexperience some defects might have been committed by him in the procedural
\nmatters and he assured that he will not do the same in future.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The 2nd respondent after the receipt of the explanation given by the
\npetitioner directed the Block Development Officer, Sivagangai Panchayat to
\nconduct enquiry and the Block Development Officer, by his report, dated
\n05.03.2008 recommended the 2nd respondent to accept the explanation given by the
\npetitioner and relieve him from all the charges.  The recommendation of the
\nBlock Development Officer was mainly based on the submission of the petitioner
\nin his explanation that due to inexperience and lack of proper education and
\nknowledge some defects had occurred and on that ground, according to the opinion
\nof the Block Development Officer, the petitioner be relieved from all the
\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The 2nd respondent not being satisfied with the explanation given by the
\npetitioner, directed the Tasildhar, to convene a meeting of the Panchayat as per
\nSection 205(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panahayct At and as provided under that
\nsection, the Tasildhar, Sivagangai, convened the meeting of the members of
\nArasanoor Village Panchayat on 26.06.2008 at 11.00 A.M. On that day, out of nine
\nmembers, 7 members were present excluding the petitioner and the Tasildhar
\nexplained to the members present about the charges levelled against the
\npetitioner and the reply given by the petitioner, sought the opinion of the
\nmembers, whether the petitioner can be removed from the post of President.  Out
\nof seven members 4 members viz.,V.G.Ramachandran, R.Amutha, M.Karuppiah and
\nK.Banumathi recommended the removal of the President and three members viz.,
\nK.Jayabalan, K.Meenakshi and M.Dinakar  recommended that the petitioner can be
\nallowed to continue in the post of President.  The 2nd respondent after going
\nthrough the report of the Tasildhar passed the impugned order, dated 10.06.2009
\nremoving the petitioner from the post of President in the Arasanoor Panchayat
\nUnion and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette, dated 24.06.2009.
\nThe petitioner challenged the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in removing him
\nfrom the post of President and also consequently, the Government Notification,
\ndated 26.06.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.At the time of admission, Mrs.R.Anitha, the learned Additional
\nGovernment Pleader, took notice for the respondents and submitted that the writ
\npetition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got alternative remedy by
\nfiling the revision under 219 of Tamil Nadu Pachayat Act and it has also been
\nheld before the Divisional Bench of this Honourable Court in W.A.(MD)No.98 of
\n2006 dated 13.03.2006 in the matter of Sivaperumal vs.1.The Government of Tamil
\nNadu rep. by Secretary to Government,Rural Development Department, Chennai, 2.
\nThe District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Tirunelveli District,
\nTirunelveli, 3.The Tahsildar, Tirunelveli Taluk, Tirunelveli District. She
\nfurther submitted that the Collector has acted in accordance with the provisions
\nof the Act and after being satisfied about the illegalities and mis-
\nappropriation committed by the petitioner, he came to the conclusion that the
\ncharges levelled against the petitioner were proved and thereafter, directed the
\nTasildhar to convene the meeting of the Panchayat to ascertain the views of the
\nmembers of the panchayat and therefore, has taken proper decision and the order
\nof the 2nd respondent cannot be questioned and proper reasons have been stated
\nby the respondents for arriving at the conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Ramadhas vehemently
\ncontended that the Block Development Officer, who conducted the initial enquiry
\nhas recommended to the Collector, the 2nd respondent herein, to withdraw the
\ncharges and therefore, the 2nd respondent\/Collector ought to not have proceeded
\nfurther and accepted the recommendation of the Block Development Officer and
\ndropped the further proceedings against the petitioner.  He further submitted
\nthat in the meeting of the Panchayat members convened by the Tasildhar, out of
\nseven members, four members supported him and only 3 members recommended for his
\nremoval. But in the impugned order, it is stated that 6 members recommended for
\nhis removal and only one person opposed for the removal of the petitioner from
\nthe post of President and therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is not
\nlegally correct.  As the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed
\nthe recommendation of the members in the meeting held by the Tasildhar called
\nfor the entire file and the same was produced by the learned Additional
\nGovernment Pleader and I perused the same.  It is seen from the minutes of the
\nPanchayat members meeting held on 26.06.2008 , seven members were present and
\nthe petitioner was also present and out of the members K.Jayabalan, K.Meenakshi
\nand M.Dinakaran recommended the retention of the petitioner as President and the
\nmembers R.Amutha, VG.Ramachandran, M.Karuppaih and K.Banumathi voted for the
\nremoval of the petitioner from the post of President.   Therefore, out of seven
\nmembers, 4 members  cast their votes for the removal of the petitioner and 3
\nmembers against that. The majority of the members present in the meeting voted
\nagainst the petitioner and recommended his removal.  Therefore, the contention
\nof the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that 4 members supported him
\nis not correct.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Further it is seen from the records that the second respondent has
\ngiven finding in respect of different charges and found that the charges are
\nproved and passed the final order.  This is evident from the report of the 2nd
\nrespondent, dated 04.06.2009.  Thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the
\n2nd respondent removing the petitioner from the post of President. Therefore, a
\nperusal of the records would reveal that after giving an opportunity to the
\npetitioner and after following the procedures contemplated under Section 205 of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 the impugned order was passed by the 2nd
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Ramadhas submitted
\nthat as per the judgment reported in 2006(3) MLJ 537 in the case of J.Maria
\nSelvam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> represented by Secretary, Department of
\nLocal Administration and Rural Development and Another that there is no
\nalternative remedy available to the petitioner and the remedy provided under the
\nAct is not an effective appeal remedy and therefore, it cannot be contended that
\nthe appeal filed against the order of the 2nd respondent.  In that case reported
\nin 2006(3) MLJ 537, the learned judge has allowed the writ petition and set
\naside the order of the Inspector of Panchayat on the ground that out the total
\n13 members, 11 members have given their views in favour of the President and
\nthat was not properly appreciated by the Inspector of  Panchayat and the
\nInspector of Panchayat even did not discuss about the decision taken by the
\nPanchayat members in his order and the Inspector of Panchayat has relied upon
\nthe report of the Block Development Officer, which was obtained behind the back
\nof the petitioner therein and in that order, the Inspector of Panchayat did not
\nrefer to the explanation given by the petitioner and on that grounds set aside
\nthe order of removal. But in this case, the Block Development Officer has
\nrecommended the dropping of charges against petitioner not on valid
\nconsideration, but on the basis of the assurance given by the petitioner that
\ndue to his inexperience and lack of proper education that some defects had taken
\nplace and he would rectify them in future.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected the views of the
\nBlock Development Officer. Further as per the judgment cited by the petitioner,
\nthe request of the Block Development Officer need not be considered as per the
\nprovision of Section 205 of the Act. Further, in this case, the 2nd respondent
\nhas given reason for holding that charges were proved and also referred to the
\nreport submitted by the Tasildhar, Sivagangai and after considering all those
\nmaterials found that the petitioner has mis-appropriated a sum of of
\nRs.2,02,142\/- and taken final decision removing the petitioner from the post of
\nPresident as the petitioner has acted against the provisions under Section 46(E)
\nof the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act and in the interest of Panchayat administration
\nand public interest the decision to remove the petitioner from the post of
\nPresident of Arasanoor Panchayat union was taken. Therefore the decision
\nreported in 2006(3) MLJ 537 cannot support the case of the petitioner and the
\nfacts of that case is entirely different.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.Ramadhas submitted
\nanother judgment of this Court reported in 2009  Writ L.R.538 in the case of
\nS.Udayakumar vs. The District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats, Tuticorin
\nDistrict, Tuticorin and<\/a> 3 others and in that case also this court has set aside
\nthe order of the Inspector of Panchayat on the ground that the Inspector of
\nPanchayat does not  consider the opinion expressed by the members of the
\npanchayat and he has not stated for the reason of disagreeing with their
\nopinions and no opportunity was given to the petitioner therein and initiation
\nany proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.As stated supra, the facts of those cases are different and in this
\ncase sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to reply to the show
\ncause notice and the meeting of the Panchayat members was also convened and
\ntaken into consideration of the views of the Panchayat Union members and on the
\nbasis of the explanation given by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has taken
\nthe decision.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.It is seen from the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in
\nW.A.98 of 2006 in the case of Sivaperumal vs. The Government of Tamilnadu<\/a> re. by
\nSecretary to Government ,Rural Development, Chennai and 2 others, after quoting
\nthe various provisions under Section 205 of the Panchayat Act, the Honourable
\nDivision Bench has held that against the order of the removal of the President
\npassed by the Inspector of Panchayat exercising his power under Section 205(11)
\nof the Act, aggrieved party can invoke Section 219 of the Act and granted
\npermission to the appellate court under Section 219 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order of the 2nd
\nrespondent on the ground that the 2nd respondent has not given opportunity to
\nthe petitioner, while passing the order of removal and the Tasildhar only
\nobtained the views of the Panchayat under Section 205(8) of the Act and there is
\nviolation of 205(3) 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.It is seen from the provision of the 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat
\nAct that the Tasildhar should convene a meeting for the consideration of the
\nnotice and the explanation, if any and the proposal for the removal of the
\nPresident from the office of the village Panchayat at a time appointed by the
\nTasildhar and the said notice shall be served on the President and to all the
\nmembers of the village panchayat as per the 205(4) of the Act and as
\ncontemplated under Section 205(5) of the Act the Tasildhar shall preside at the
\nmeeting and the  Tasildhar should not allow any debate in that meeting and he
\nmust place the notice of the Inspector and explanation of the President and the
\nproposal for the removal of the President for the consideration of the members
\nunder Section 205(8) and 8A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.It is seen from the file submitted by the Additional Government Pleader
\nthat the Tasildhar has acted in accordance with the provision of the Act and it
\nis also not disputed by the petitioner in the affidavit that the Tasildhar has
\nnot acted in accordance with 205(3)(2) and 8(A) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Therefore, from the proceedings of the Tasildhar, I am of the view that
\nthe Tasildhar has acted in accordance with the provision of the Act and the
\nsecond respondent also passed the impugned order after taking into consideration
\nof the various provisions of the Act and on the basis of the explanation given
\nby the petitioner and the report of the Tasildhar came to the conclusion that
\nthe petitioner has committed irregularities as stated in the charge memo and
\nalso stated the reason in the impugned order and passed the impugned order
\nremoving the petitioner from the post of President.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.As the 2nd respondent has passed the order after giving opportunity and
\nrecording the reason for the decision, this court sitting under Article 226 of
\nthe Constitution of India cannot go into veracity of the reasons given by the
\n2nd respondent and the scope of judicial review is also limited only to find out
\nwhether the process of decision making has been done properly or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2007(1)MLJ
\n306(SC) in the case of Jayrajbhal Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anilbhai Jayantibhai
\nPaten and others<\/a>, has held in para 18 as follows: ” it is manifest that the
\npower of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision
\nis illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience
\nof the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards,
\nbut no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be
\nevolved.  Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the
\nAuthority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and
\nthe indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the
\nindividual or society.  Though judicial restrain, albeit self-recognised, is the
\norder of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on
\nwholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the
\nrelevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have
\narrived at it on the given material, may be struck down.  In other words, when a
\ncourt is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its
\njurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene.  It is
\nnevertheless trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the
\ndeficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.It is further held in para 27 that ” there is substance in the
\nsubmission of the learned counsel. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR<\/a> 1996
\nSC 11; (1994)6 SCC 651:JT 1994 (4) SC 532, this court has observed that the
\njudicial restrain has two contemporary manifestations, namely, one, the ambit of
\njudicial intervention and the other, the scope of the court’s ability to quash
\nan administrative decision on its merits.  Judicial review is not concerned with
\nreviewing the merits of the decision in support of which the application for
\njudicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself.  Unless that
\nrestriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will, as opined in
\nChief Constable of the North Wales Police v, Evans (1982)3 All ER 141 at 154,
\n“under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping
\npower”, which is the case here.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.The principles of “Wednesbury unreasonableness” or irrationality,
\nclassified by LORD DIPLOCK as one of the grounds for intervention in judicial
\nreview, was lucidly summarised by LORD GREENE M.R. in Associated Provincial
\nPicture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corporation (1948)1 KB 223: (1947)2 All ER
\n680 as follows:  “… the court is entitled to investigate the action of the
\nlocal Authority with a view of seeing whether it has taken into account matters
\nwhich it ought not to take into account, or conversely, has refused to take into
\naccount or neglected to take into account matters which it ought to take into
\naccount. Once that question is answered in favour of the local Authority, it may
\nstill be possible to say that the local Authority, nevertheless, have come to an
\nconclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable Authority could ever have come to
\nit.  In such a case again, I think the court can interfere”.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.In this case, the 2nd respondent has followed all the procedures as
\ncontemplated under the Act and took into account, the relevant details as
\ncontemplated under the Act and hence, the decision of the 2nd respondent does
\nnot call for any interference in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.In fine, the writ petition is dismissed. However,the petitioner is at
\nliberty to approach the competent authority under 291 of the Act within a period
\nof one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently,
\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n   Rep by its Secretary to Government,
\n   Department of Rural Development,
\n   Secretariat,
\n   Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Inspector of Panchayat &
\n   The District Collector,
\n   Sivagangai District,
\n   Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Tahsildhar,
\n   Sivagangai Taluk,
\n   Sivagangai District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Additional Government Pleader,
\n    Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
\n    Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 08\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6071 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 D.Devaraj … Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Department of […]<\/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-190021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - 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\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-16T15:44:42+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T15:44:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3253,\"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\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-16T15:44:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - 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\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-16T15:44:42+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T15:44:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":3253,"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\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009","name":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-16T15:44:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-devaraj-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Devaraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/190021","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=190021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}