{"id":192899,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2018-06-04T10:14:50","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T04:44:50","slug":"thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.55 of 2009\n\nThirumalai Thevar\t           ..    Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,\n  Home (Public Law and Order-F) Department,\n  Fort St. George,\n  Chennai - 9.\n2.The Commissioner of Police,\n  Tirunelveli City,\n  Tirunelveli.\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Tirunelveli Town,\n  Tirunelveli.\t\n4.The Secretary to Government of India,\n  Ministries of Home Affairs,\n  Department of Internal Security,\n  North Block,\n  New Delhi.\t\t\t   ..   Respondents\n\n\tR4 Impleaded as per the orders\n\tof the Hon'ble Court made in\n\tM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009 in H.C.P.\n\tNo.51 of 2009 vide orders dated\n\t27.07.2009 by RBIJ, RMJ.\n\t\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of\nthe 2nd Respondent in 06\/NSA\/2008 dated 28.11.2008 and quash the same and to\ndirect the Respondent to produce the body of the detenu Mani @ Subramanian, aged\n28 years, S\/o. Thirumalai Thevar before this Hon'ble Court and set him at\nliberty, now detained at Central Prison Palayamkottai.\n\t\n!For petitioner    \t    ... Mr.R.Appavu Rathinam\n^For respondents 1 to 3     ... Mr.N.Senthur Pandian                      \t\n                                Additional Public Prosecutor\nFor 4th respondent\t    ... Mr.D.Sivaraman\n\t\t                Central Government Standing Counsel\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J)<\/p>\n<p>\tChallenging the order of the detention, the fahter of the detenu has filed<br \/>\nthe petition.  The detenu was detained by the second respondent Commissioner of<br \/>\nPolice by his detention order No.06\/NSA\/2008 dated 28.11.2008, under Section (2)<br \/>\nof Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act 65\/1980) read with<br \/>\nthe order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1170\/Public (Law and Order &#8211; F)<br \/>\nDepartment, dated 10.10.2008 under Sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged and stressed five grounds<br \/>\nin support of his stand to show that the detention order is vitiated.  According<br \/>\nto him there is no disturbance to public order.  So, the stand of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority that the detenu has to be detained with a view to prevent him from<br \/>\nacting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in future is<br \/>\nnot correct.  In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\ncited the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Dipak Rose v. State of W.B.<br \/>\nreported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases 43 and in Angoori Devi v. Union of<br \/>\nIndia reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT 371 and argued that there is no<br \/>\ndisturbance to public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In Dipak Rose v. State of W.B. reported in (1973) 4 Supreme Court Cases<br \/>\n43 the charge was that the petitioner kidnapped one Kashinath Saha of West<br \/>\nPutiary, P.S. Behala and killed him at K.M.Naskar Road, P.S.Jadavpur and there<br \/>\nby created panic and terror in the locality.  The Honourable Supreme Court was<br \/>\nof the view that two individuals who were the victims of the alleged two<br \/>\nassaults, and therefore, do not appear to be relevant grounds affecting the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order for which only the power of detention under the Act<br \/>\nis intended to be used.  In that case it was further observed by the Honourable<br \/>\nApex Court that every assault in a public place like a public road and<br \/>\nterminating in the death of a victim is likely to cause horror and even panic<br \/>\nand terror in those who are the spectators.  But that does not mean that all of<br \/>\nsuch incidents do necessarily cause disturbance or dislocation of the community<br \/>\nlife of the localities in which they are committed.  There is nothing in the two<br \/>\nincidents set out in the grounds in the present case to suggest that either of<br \/>\nthem was of that kind and gravity which would jeopardise the maintenance of<br \/>\npublic order.  So, since there was no disturbance to public order the detention<br \/>\norder was set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In Angoori Devi v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SUPREME COURT<br \/>\n371 the offence has been set to be committed under Section 392 r\/w 34.  So, the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court was of the view that there is no disturbance to public<br \/>\norder.  Further, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the impact on &#8220;public<br \/>\norder&#8221; and &#8220;law and order&#8221; depends upon the nature of the act, the place where<br \/>\nit is committed and motive force behind it.  If the act is confined to an<br \/>\nindividual without directly or indirectly affecting the tempo of the life of the<br \/>\ncommunity, it may be a matter of law and order only.  But where the gravity of<br \/>\nthe act is otherwise and likely to endanger the public tranquillity, it may fall<br \/>\nwithin the orbit of the public order.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. So far as this case is concerned, learned Additional Public Prosecutor<br \/>\npointed out that it is case of communal class between two groups.  One Chellappa<br \/>\nwas murdered due to property dispute and the detention order would show that the<br \/>\naccused and the Chellappa belonged to different communities.  As a result of the<br \/>\nmurder of Chellappa, even the tempo of the life of general public was disrupted<br \/>\nat Bharathiyar Street, Tirunelveli Town and surrounding areas.  Further the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order was disturbed in the whole area.  People inhabiting<br \/>\nat Bharathiyar street stayed inside their homes fearing danger to their lives.<br \/>\nTense situation prevailed between the particular two caste people in Tirunelveli<br \/>\nTown.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. No doubt, Tirunelveli Town is a tense place and any incident relating<br \/>\nto caste will lead to disturbance of the public order.  Hence, considering the<br \/>\npresent case, the conclusion of the detaining authority that he has to be<br \/>\ndetained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order in future is correct.  So, the above ground urged by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful to him.  So the<br \/>\nsubstantive satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nthe detaining authority&#8217;s satisfaction that there is possibility of the detenu<br \/>\ncoming out on bail is not established.  It is settled law that there must be<br \/>\nsome material to hold that there is possibility of the detenu coming on bail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that<br \/>\n&#8221; I am aware that Thiru. Mani alias Subramanian is now at Central Prison,<br \/>\nPalayamkottai as remand prisoner and that he has filed a bail application before<br \/>\nthe District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Crl.M.P.no.4390\/2008 on<br \/>\n25.11.2008 in connection with the case in Tirunelveli Town Police Station Crime<br \/>\nNo.954 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on 27.11.2008.  I am also aware that<br \/>\nthere is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail<br \/>\napplication before the same or higher court in connection with the above case,<br \/>\nsince in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned court or higher<br \/>\ncourt.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In this case bail application was dismissed on 17.11.2008 and the detention<br \/>\norder was passed on 28.11.2008.  So, on the next day of the dismissal of the<br \/>\nbail application, the detention order was clamped on the detenu on the ground<br \/>\nthat there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.  There must be<br \/>\nsatisfactory and acceptable materials on record to enable to detaining authority<br \/>\nto arrive at the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming<br \/>\nout on bail by filing another bail application.  We perused the materials<br \/>\ncarefully and meticulously and the respondent is unable to say any ground or<br \/>\nmaterial to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no material to arrive<br \/>\nat the subjective satisfaction.  So, the subjective satisfaction arrived on the<br \/>\nnext day of the dismissal of the bail application is not correct.  Hence, the<br \/>\norder of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Another ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that<br \/>\nthere is violation of Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980.  Section<br \/>\n3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980 reads as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;3(5) When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this<br \/>\nsection, the State Government shall, within seven days, report the fact to the<br \/>\nCentral Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made<br \/>\nand such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a<br \/>\nbearing on the necessity for the order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Relying on this, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the<br \/>\nState Government did not report the fact to the Central Government within seven<br \/>\ndays from the date of approval.  According to him, the detention order was<br \/>\npassed on 28.11.2008 but the State Government did not sent the same to the<br \/>\nCentral Government within seven days. To support his contention, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner relied on the decision of this Honourable Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/583493\/\">K.K.Sheik<br \/>\nMohideen v. State of Tamil Nadu<\/a> reported in (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1375.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The claim of the counsel for the petitioner is reputed by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional Public Prosecutor by pointing out that the detention order was<br \/>\napproved on 08.12.2008 and it was received by the Central Government on<br \/>\n11.12.2008.  So, the State Government send a report to the Central Government<br \/>\nwithin seven days from the date of approval.  So, this ground is not helpful to<br \/>\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Another ground raised on the side of the petitioner is that the F.I.R.<br \/>\nin Crime No.954 of 2008 was registered on 12.10.2008, but in page No.13 of the<br \/>\nbooklet filed by the respondents reveals that the F.I.R. was registered on<br \/>\n22.10.2008, which creates confusion in the mind of the detenue. We perused the<br \/>\ncopy of the F.I.R., wherein it is stated that the F.I.R. was registered on<br \/>\n12.10.2008.  But in page No.13, in the penultimate paragraph of the F.I.R., it<br \/>\nis stated that F.I.R. is dated 22.10.2008.  So, the material supplied to the<br \/>\naccused would create doubt in his mind. There is no satisfactory explanation on<br \/>\nthis aspect from the respondents. Hence, the detention order is liable to be set<br \/>\naside on this ground also.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat the accused surrendered before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,<br \/>\nChennai on 14.10.2008 as per the endorsement made in the Surrender Petition in<br \/>\npage No.115 of the booklet and the learned Magistrate directed to produce the<br \/>\ndetenu on 20.10.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.  But the<br \/>\nRemand Extension Report in page No.133 of the booklet reveals that the detenu<br \/>\nwas produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli only on<br \/>\n22.10.2008.  Hence, on 21.10.2008, the detenu was in custody without any legal<br \/>\nsanction and the same was not explained in the ground of detention and which was<br \/>\nnot explained in the ground of detention and which was not considered by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority while arriving the subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court<br \/>\nin Mahalakshmi v. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in  (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl.)<br \/>\n1634, wherein this Court has held that any variation in the date of occurrence<br \/>\nand preparation of observation mahazar and seizure mahazar is likely to cause<br \/>\nconfusion in the mind of the detenu, such mistake cannot be termed as trivial<br \/>\ntypographical error.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In this case also, in the copy of the surrender petition furnished to<br \/>\nthe petitioner there is a request to produce the detenu before the Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli on 20.10.2008, but the accused was produced before<br \/>\nthe Magistrate only on 22.10.2008.  It would cause confusion in the mind of the<br \/>\ndetenu.  There is no satisfactory explanation on the side of the respondent.<br \/>\nHence, on the grounds Nos.2, 4 and 5 the detention order is liable to set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of<br \/>\ndetention in No.06\/NSA\/2008 dated 28.11.2008, passed by the second respondent is<br \/>\nquashed.  The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is<br \/>\nrequired in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>sj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Home (Public Law and Order-F) Department,<br \/>\n  Fort St. George,<br \/>\n  Chennai &#8211; 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli City,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli Town,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Secretary to Government of India,<br \/>\n  Ministries of Home Affairs,<br \/>\n  Department of Internal Security,<br \/>\n  North Block,<br \/>\n  New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.(MD) No.55 of 2009 Thirumalai Thevar .. Petitioner vs 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home (Public Law [&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-192899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-04T04:44:50+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\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T04:44:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1875,\"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\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-04T04:44:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 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":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-04T04:44:50+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\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T04:44:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":1875,"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\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009","name":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of ... on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-04T04:44:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thirumalai-thevar-vs-the-secretary-to-government-of-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thirumalai Thevar vs The Secretary To Government Of &#8230; on 28 August, 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\/192899","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=192899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}