{"id":190225,"date":"2010-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-28T20:17:04","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T14:47:04","slug":"t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDATED: 16\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU\n\nW.P.(MD)No.3997 of 2006\nand\nW.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.4194 and 4195 of 2006\n\nT.  Dhanasekaran,\nC\/24, Fort Station Road,\nThillai Nagar,\nTiruchirappalli.  \t\t\t...... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. Government of Tamil Nadu,\n     Rep. by Secretary to Government,\n     Revenue Department,\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n2. Secretary to Government,\n     Government of Tamil Nadu,\n     Municipal Administration and\n     Water Supply Department,\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n3. Director of Municipal Administration,\n     Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.\n\n4. Commissioner,\n     Tiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation,\n     Tiruchirapalli.\n\n5. The Assistant Commissioner,\n     K.Abishekapuram,\n     Trichy Municipal Corporation,\n     Tiruchirapalli.\n\n6. Member Secretary \/ Joint Director of Town\n     and Country Planning,\n     Tiruchirapalli Local Planning Authority,\n     Tiruchirapalli. \t\t\t...... Respondents\n\n\t\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for a Writ of Declaration, declaring Section 121 (4)(a) of the\nTiruchirapalli City Municipal Corporation Act and the consequential Notification\nof the fourth respondent dated 23.09.1994 published in the Trichy District\nGazette as unconstitutional ultra vires, illegal and void.\n\n!For Petitioner \t...  Mrs. N. Krishnaveni\n^For Respondents\t...  Mr.  D. Sasikumar for R-1 to R-3\n\t\t\t     Government Advocate\n\t\t\t     Mr. P. Srinivas for R-5\n- - - - - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe Constitutionality of Section 121(4)(a) of the Coimbatore City<br \/>\nMunicipal Corporation Act, which is applicable to the Tiruchirappalli Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation and the consequential order, levying property tax are under<br \/>\nchallenge in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe land comprised in S.No.17\/2 at Block No.36 Ward No.D,<br \/>\nK.Abishekapuram, Tiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation was originally owned by<br \/>\none S.Krishna Veni and S.Narayanan. There was a building on the said property<br \/>\nand for the same, property tax was imposed by the Tiruchirappalli Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation. While so, the original owners of the property appointed the<br \/>\npetitioner as a Power Agent by means of a necessary deed of Power of Attorney.<br \/>\nThe building was thereafter demolished and in its place a multi-storied new<br \/>\nbuilding was    constructed as per an approved building plan.  While so, the<br \/>\nfifth respondent \/ the Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.9707\/05\/A5 (Co-op) dated 21.03.2006<br \/>\nlevied a sum of Rs.61,762\/- as vacant land tax under Section 121(4)(a) of the<br \/>\nCoimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the<br \/>\nAct&#8221;), applicable to Tiruchirappalli municipal Corporation for the period<br \/>\nbetween 2005 and 2006. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner is before this<br \/>\nCourt with this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned provision<br \/>\nviz., Section 121(4)(a) of the Act, empowers the Municipal Corporation to impose<br \/>\ntax on the capital value and so the same is beyond the legislative competence of<br \/>\nthe State Legislature. According to the petitioner, taxes on capital value of<br \/>\nasset falls within Entry 86 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia, whereas the property tax leviable under authority of State Legislature is<br \/>\ntraceable to Entry 49 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\nIt is further contended that what is imposed under Section 121(4)(a) of the Act<br \/>\nis tax on capital value of assets and not tax on land and building. Thus,<br \/>\naccording to the petitioner, the impugned provision lacks legislative competence<br \/>\non the part of the State Legislature and therefore, the same is<br \/>\nunconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. It is contended by the respondent that the impugned provision<br \/>\nempowers the Municipal Corporation only to impose tax on vacant land and it<br \/>\ncannot be stated that it is a tax on capital value of assets. It is further<br \/>\ncontended that for the purpose of assessing the value of the property for the<br \/>\npurpose of determination of the vacant land tax, the capital value of the<br \/>\nproperty is taken into account as per the impugned provision  and thus, the said<br \/>\nprovision does not impose any tax on capital value of the assets.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. I have considered the above submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. Before going into the discussion on the subject, let us have a<br \/>\nglance through the impugned provision viz., Section 121(4)(a) of the Act, which<br \/>\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;Save as otherwise provided in clause (b), the council shall, in the<br \/>\ncase of lands which are not used exclusively for agricultural purposes and are<br \/>\nnot occupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to buildings, levy the property tax<br \/>\non the capital value of such lands at such percentages as it may fix which shall<br \/>\nnot exceed six percent of their capital value&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. A close reading of the said provision would make it ipso facto<br \/>\nclear that there is no levy of tax imposed on capital value of the asset. But,<br \/>\nas rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the capital<br \/>\nvalue of the land is taken only for the purpose of determining the tax to be<br \/>\nlevied for the said land. The said provision states that the property tax shall<br \/>\nnot exceed 6% of the capital value. This would only indicate that the capital<br \/>\nvalue of the property is only taken for the purpose of determining the quantum<br \/>\nof property tax and no tax is levied on the said capital value. Thus, the tax<br \/>\nimposed under the impugned provision is only on the land and not on the capital<br \/>\nasset as it is contended by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. In this regard, I may refer to the Constitution Bench Judgment of<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF URBAN LAND TAX MADRAS AND<br \/>\nOTHERS ETC., ..VS.. BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO., LTD., ETC., (A.I.R. 1970 S.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>169) wherein the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court had to consider a similar challenge made<br \/>\nto an analogous provision in Madras Urban Land Tax Act. In the said case also it<br \/>\nwas contended that urban land tax is levied on capital value of lands which fall<br \/>\nsquarely within Entry 86 of List I. It was further contended that Entry 86 and<br \/>\n87 specifically exclude the State Legislature from taxing capital value of the<br \/>\nland and buildings under Entry 49 of List II. Negativing the said contention,<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;5. &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. The tax under Entry 86 proceeds on the principle of<br \/>\naggregation and is imposed on the totality of the value of all the assets. It is<br \/>\nimposed on the total assets which the assessee owns and in determining the not<br \/>\nwealth not only the incumbrances specifically charged against any item of asset,<br \/>\nbut the general liability of the assessee to pay his debts and to discharge his<br \/>\nlawful obligations have to be taken into account. In certain exceptional cases,<br \/>\nwhere a person owes no debts and is under no enforceable obligation to discharge<br \/>\nany liability out of his assets it may be possible to break up the tax which is<br \/>\nleviable on the total assets into components and attribute a component to lands<br \/>\nand buildings owned by an assessee. In such a case, the component out of the<br \/>\ntotal tax attributable to lands and buildings may in the matter of computation<br \/>\nbear similarity to a tax on lands and buildings levied on the capital or annual<br \/>\nvalue under Entry 49, List II. But in a normal case a tax on capital value of<br \/>\nassets bears no definable relation to lands and buildings which may or may not<br \/>\nform a component of the total assets of the assessee. But Entry 49 of List II,<br \/>\ncontemplates a levy of tax on lands and buildings on both as units. It is not<br \/>\nconcerned with the division of interest or ownership in the units of lands or<br \/>\nbuildings which are brought to tax. Tax on lands and buildings is directly<br \/>\nimposed on lands and buildings, and bears a definite relation to it. Tax on the<br \/>\ncapital value of assets bears no definable relation to lands and buildings which<br \/>\nmay form a component of the total assets of the assessee. By legislation in<br \/>\nexercise of power under Entry 86, List I tax is contemplated to be levied on the<br \/>\nvalue of the assets. For the purpose of levying tax under Entry 49, List II the<br \/>\nState Legislature may adopt for determining the incidence of tax the annual or<br \/>\nthe capital value of the lands and buildings. But the adoption of the annual or<br \/>\ncapital value of lands and buildings for determining tax liability will not make<br \/>\nthe fields of legislation under the two entries overlapping. The two taxes are<br \/>\nentirely different in their basic concept and fall on different subject-<br \/>\nmatters.&#8221;(Emphasis supplied)<br \/>\nThe law laid down by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the above said Judgment is<br \/>\nsquarely applicable to Section 121(4)(a) of the Act, which is impugned in this<br \/>\nwrit petition. As I have already concluded and as held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt, the vacant land tax is imposed only on the vacant land and not on the<br \/>\ncapital value of the asset and therefore the contention that the said provision<br \/>\nlacks legislative competence of the State Legislature must fail.  I hold that<br \/>\nthe impugned provision is Constitutional  and therefore, the same does not<br \/>\nrequire any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. Now, coming to the challenge to the impugned demand notice, in my<br \/>\nconsidered opinion, the petitioner has got to fail in this writ petition because<br \/>\nthere is a disputed question of fact. According to the impugned order of the<br \/>\nrespondent dated 21.03.2006, after demolishing the existing building, the land<br \/>\nwas kept vacant for the period between 2005 and 2006 and therefore for the said<br \/>\nperiod during which the land was vacant, the impugned order levying tax was<br \/>\nissued. It is contended by the petitioner that factually it is not correct.<br \/>\nAccording to him, during the said period, the old building was in existence for<br \/>\nwhich the property tax was collected by the Municipal Corporation. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner would submit that having collected the property tax<br \/>\nfor the building and the land, it is not legal to impose tax on vacant land. In<br \/>\nmy considered opinion, this disputed question of fact cannot be resolved in this<br \/>\nwrit petition. Whether, during the relevant period, the land was kept vacant or<br \/>\nthere was a building in existence, whether tax was imposed for the building<br \/>\ntogether with the land for the said period are all disputed questions of fact,<br \/>\nwhich can be resolved by the petitioner elsewhere by working out his remedies<br \/>\nunder the provisions of the Act or by making a representation to the Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation raising objection. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned demand<br \/>\nnotice also has to fail in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with<br \/>\nliberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies to challenge the correctness<br \/>\nof the demand of the vacant land tax in the manner known to law. However, there<br \/>\nwill be no order as to costs. The petitioner is also at liberty to make a<br \/>\nrepresentation to the Thiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation in this regard<br \/>\nwithin a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order<br \/>\nand if any such representation is made, having regard to the relevant Government<br \/>\nOrders and the provisions of<br \/>\nthe Act the Thiruchirapalli Municipal Corporation shall consider and dispose of<br \/>\nthe same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months<br \/>\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of the representation from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dpn\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n     Revenue Department,<br \/>\n     Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai &#8211; 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n     Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n     Municipal Administration and<br \/>\n     Water Supply Department,<br \/>\n     Fort. St. George, Chennai &#8211; 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Director of Municipal Administration,<br \/>\n     Chepauk, Chennai &#8211; 600 005.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU W.P.(MD)No.3997 of 2006 and W.P.M.P.(MD)Nos.4194 and 4195 of 2006 T. Dhanasekaran, C\/24, Fort Station Road, Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirappalli. &#8230;&#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. Government of [&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-190225","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>T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 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\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-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=\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T14:47:04+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T14:47:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1745,\"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\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\",\"name\":\"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T14:47:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 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":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 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\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T14:47:04+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T14:47:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010"},"wordCount":1745,"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\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010","name":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T14:47:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-dhanasekaran-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-16-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T. Dhanasekaran vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 November, 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\/190225","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=190225"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190225\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}