{"id":191831,"date":"2010-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-08T18:43:47","modified_gmt":"2016-08-08T13:13:47","slug":"p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD).Nos.12651 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009\n\n\nP.Krishna Moorthy \t\t\t. . Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector,\n  Madurai District,\n  Madurai.\n\n2.The Senior Regional Manager,\n  TASMAC,\n  Madurai Region,\n  Madurai.\n\n3.The District Manager,\n  TASMAC,\n  Madurai District,\n  Madurai.\n\n4.P.K.Chandrasekar\t\t\t. . Respondents\t\t\t\t\t\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to\nconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2009 and pass order to\nshift the TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.5274 situating the the Kanchivanamswamy\nTemple at Melur to some other place.\n\n!For Petitioner     ... Mr.K.Mahendran\n^For Respondents    ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu for R1\n\t\t        Special Government Pleader\n\t\t\t Mr.V.Karthikeyan for R2 & R3\n\t\t\t Mr.S.Palanivelu for R4\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction
\nto the respondents 1 to 3 to consider his representation dated 24.08.2009 and
\nthe consequent direction to shift the TASMAC Retail Vending Shop No.5274
\nsituated in the  Kanchivanamswamy Temple at Melur to any other place.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. When the matter came up on 04.12.2009, the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the respondents 1 to 3 takes notice and private notice was ordered to the
\nfourth respondent. Subsequently, on 01.04.2010, this Court directed the first
\nrespondent, the District Collector, to depute his officials to inspect the shop
\nand find out whether the shop is situated near a temple as well as the Girl’s
\nschool and to submit a report. Subsequently an Advocate Commissioner was also
\nappointed on 13.04.2010 to inspect the sites and take measurements in the
\npresence of the petitioner as well as the officials of the respondent
\ndepartment. By a further order dated 21.05.2010, this Court directed to produce
\nthe entire files in order to ascertain whether the shop was situated in a
\nGovernment Poromboke land.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The third respondent, the District Manager, TASMAC, Madurai District,
\nfiled a counter affidavit dated 29.06.2010. A reference was made to the report
\nof the Advocate Commissioner, wherein it was found that from the shutter of the
\nshop to the front main entrance of the temple is 76.0 meters. If it measured on
\naerial direction it is 60.6 meters and from the shop to the western side
\ncompound wall of temple it is 57.0 meters and from backside wall of bar to
\nwestern side compound wall of the temple it is 52.0 meters. Likewise, the
\nGovernment Girls Higher Secondary School is situated at 95.0 meters. From the
\nshop to the front compound wall of Government Girls Higher Secondary School is
\n78.0 meters.\n<\/p>\n
\t 4. On the strength of the report, the third respondent contended that the
\nshop is not located within the prohibited distance as per Rule 8 of the Tamil
\nNadu Liquor Retail Vending (in Shops and Bars) Rules, 2003 and therefore, he
\nrequested for dismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The rental agreement produced shows that the shop is located in the
\nproperty belonging to the Kanchivanasamy Temple and the Ambaalakars did not have
\nany qualms to let out the Tasmac shop and the bar in the temple land.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Mr.K.Mahendran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that
\napart from Rule 8, in which a shop must not be located within a prohibited
\ndistance, he also made reference to the various complaints to the authorities by
\nthe village people. One such representation dated 24\/08\/2009 signed by several
\nresidents of the villagers. It was forwarded to the respondents, and the
\nacknowledgement receipt was also enclosed in the type set of papers. Similarly a
\nreminder was also sent on 09.10.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  The substance of the complaint was that the TASMAC shop was located on
\nthe road leading to bus stand on the main road and near the Government Girls
\nHigher Secondary School and the local people are suffering due to the customer,
\nafter getting fully drunk lying in road margin nudely and the girls are mainly
\ndisturbed by seeing such sceptical view.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In the counter filed by the third respondent except a reference was
\nmade to that representation, there is no denial of the allegations made therein.
\nTheir hyper technical stand was that the shop was located beyond the prohibited
\ndistance from the school and temple. The allegations made in the representation
\nforwarded to the respondents, had not been replied till date though it is a
\nserious case involving public interest.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. It is not as if only in cases relating to the rules for location of
\nshop being infringed, relief can be given by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. A Division Bench of this Court presided by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J vide
\nJudgment THE TAMIL NADUS STATE MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED V. R.M. SHAH & ORS<\/a>
\nreported in 2010 (2) CWC 337 (DB), dealt with  similar cases and in paragraph 9
\nto 17 it was observed as follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“9.It is true that the retail vending rules provide that no shops shall be
\nestablished within a distance of 50 metres in Municipal Corporations and
\nMunicipalities and 100 metres in other areas, from any place of worship or
\neducational institutions. However, that does not mean that the liquor shops so
\nestablished would get a licence automatically to cause nuisance to the local
\npeople. The prescription of distance for opening the Bar is a matter between the
\nstate and the excise licensees. Merely because the shop is situated beyond the
\ndistance stipulated in the rules it cannot be said that there would be no
\nnuisance to the people of that area. The distance rule takes care of only the
\nplace of worship or educational institutions. It does not say that the liquor
\nshops should be away from residential houses. The nuisance created by the
\ndrunkards would extend even beyond the safety area prescribed under the rules.
\nTherefore, it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
\nfactum of location of the shop beyond the prohibited distance would not come to
\nthe rescue of the licensee of liquor shops in the event of there being perennial
\nnuisance to the residents of the area.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The appellant is right in their contention that there is nothing in
\nthe statute which prohibits conduct of liquor bar in residential zone. But such
\nabsence of restriction would not stand in the way of challenging the location of
\nliquor bars which causes nuisance to the residents of the area.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. It is a fact that some of the liquor shops are functioning from early
\nmorning till midnight without adhering to the time schedule. Therefore, the fact
\nthat the liquor shop has been functioning in the are for a considerable period
\ncannot be put against the public when they approach the authorities with
\ncomplaints of nuisance accompanied by a request to shift the liquor outlet. It
\nis not as if the liquor shop would earn business only if it located in a
\ncommercial or residential area.\n<\/p>\n
12. However, there is a word caution. The attempt of the public should not be to
\nshift the liquor shop in a selective manner. There should be public interest
\nbehind any such move. The request for such closure should not be with a hidden
\nagenda and the allegations of nuisance should not be at the instance of rival
\ntraders in liquor.\n<\/p>\n
13. There is nothing on record to suspect the bonafides of the respondents 1 to
\n4 in their request to shift the liquor Bar.\n<\/p>\n
14.Therefore we reject the contention of the appellant that no direction could
\nbe issued to sift the liquor shop in case the shop is located beyond the
\nprohibited distance.\n<\/p>\n
15.The right to life guaranteed under Art.21 would include ever aspect of life
\nso as to make the life real and meaningful. The right to lead a peaceful life
\nwithout any kind of nuisance has to be considered as one amount the many facets
\nof Article 21. India is a welfare state. The state is expected to promote the
\nwell being of its people. It is true that the State have to generate funds for
\nundertaking welfare measures. The trade in liquor otherwise known as Res-extra-
\ncommercium is a major source of revenue to the State. But the generation of
\nrevenue should not be at the expense of the peaceful life of the people.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 contains provisions for abatement
\nof nuisance. Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.(1) Whenever a District
\nMagistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate
\nspecially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the
\nreport of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if
\nany) as he thinks fit, considers.\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any
\npublic place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used
\nby the public; or(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping
\nof any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of
\nthe community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be
\nprohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the
\nkeeping thereof regulated; or\n<\/p>\n
(c)…..\n<\/p>\n
(d)…..\n<\/p>\n
(e)…..\n<\/p>\n
(f)…..\n<\/p>\n
Such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such
\nobstruction or nuisance or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any
\nsuch goods or merchandise, or owing, possessing or controlling such building,
\ntent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing
\nsuch animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner
\nas may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or
\nmerchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be
\ndirected; or<\/p>\n
16.Therefore in the event of there being a public nuisance in a particular area
\nthe people are not without a remedy. The nuisance caused to the public on
\naccount of the functioning of liquor shops would give a cause of action to the
\naffected people to approach the Magistrate under Sec.133 of Cr.P.C. or to take
\nother legal measures to abate such nuisance.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 133
\nof Cr.P.C. in Ratiam Municipal Council case (1980 (4) SCC 162). The Supreme
\nCourt held that Section 133 is categoric, although reads discretionary; and
\njudicial discretion when facts for its exercise are present, has a mandatory
\nimport. It was also held that discretion becomes a duty when the beneficiary
\nbrings home the circumstances for it benign exercise. The Supreme Court further
\nobserved thus;\n<\/p>\n
 9. So, the guns of Section 133 go into action wherever there is Public
\nnuisance. The public power of the magistrate under the Code is public duty to
\nthe members of the public who are victims of the nuisance, and so he shall
\nexercise it when the jurisdictional facts are present as here.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. With reference to the locus standi of such petitioners it was observed
\nas follows;\n<\/p>\n
\t“20. Therefore, we are of the considered view that any person who is
\ndeprived of peaceful life on account of the nuisance created by a liquor shop
\ncould challenge the action in locating the shop in a residential or semi-
\nresidential locality as offending the right to life guaranteed under Article 21
\nof the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that the liquor shop
\nsatisfies the distance criteria.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. In case the statutory authorities consider these local issues with a
\nsense of responsibility there would be no occasion for the common man to
\napproach the courts with Public Interest. Litigation adding numbers to the
\nHimalayan arrears in courts. The authorities should be sensitive to such issues
\nof public importance. They should also realize that the people of this great
\nnation are the political custodian of power and the Government is accountable to
\nthe people.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. In the light of the above, the petitioner has locus standi to file the
\nwrit petition. The serious allegations made in the writ petition by the
\nvillagers regarding the shop located closer to the Government Girls School
\n(located within 78 meters) creating problems for the school girls cannot be
\nbrushed aside. The fact that the distance between the shop and the Government
\nGirls School is 78 meters, may escape the rule relating to prohibited distance,
\nbut, the fact that hundreds of girl students are passing that shop every day and
\nthe bus stand was located nearby as well as the complaints made by the villagers
\nare not denied by the respondents and by the legal precedent set out by the
\nDivision Bench, this writ petition must be allowed. Accordingly, the writ
\npetition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to shift the TASMAC Retail Vending
\nShop No.5274 situating near the the Kanchivanamswamy Temple at Melur to any
\nother place within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
\nthis order. A compliance report must be sent to this Court by the first
\nrespondent (District Collector, Madurai) without fail. Consequently, connected
\nmiscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
jikr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector,
\n  Madurai District,  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Senior Regional Manager,
\n  TASMAC,  Madurai Region,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
3.The District Manager,
\n  TASMAC,
\n  Madurai District,
\n  Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD).Nos.12651 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009 P.Krishna Moorthy . . Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Senior Regional Manager, TASMAC, Madurai Region, Madurai. […]<\/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-191831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - 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\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-08T13:13:47+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-08T13:13:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2064,\"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\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\",\"name\":\"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-08T13:13:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 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":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - 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\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-08T13:13:47+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-08T13:13:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010"},"wordCount":2064,"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\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010","name":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-08T13:13:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-krishna-moorthy-vs-the-district-collector-on-18-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Krishna Moorthy vs The District Collector on 18 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\/191831","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=191831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}