{"id":194536,"date":"2007-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007"},"modified":"2016-10-18T18:18:46","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T12:48:46","slug":"g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 04.12.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n                             AND\n            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\n                              \n                    H.C.P. No.1319 of 2007\n                              \n\n\n\nG.Sumathi                   \t\t\t\t..Petitioner\n                              \n\n          Vs.\n\n\n1.  The Secretary to Government\n    Home, Prohibition & Excise Department\n    Fort St.George\n    Chennai 9.\n\n2.  The District Collector and District Magistrate\n    Villupuram District\n    Villupuram.               \t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\nPRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India to issue Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n\n\n\n          For Petitioner  :  Mr.K.Gandhikumar\n\n          For Respondents :  Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl. Public Prosecutor\n                              \n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)<\/p>\n
      The  second  respondent herein  clamped  an  order  of<\/p>\n
detention  as against the detenu, son of the petitioner,  as<\/p>\n
the  said  authority arrived at the subjective  satisfaction<\/p>\n
that  the  said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained<\/p>\n
under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous<\/p>\n
Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest  Officers,<\/p>\n
Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic Offenders, Sand  Offenders,  Slum<\/p>\n
Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act  14  of<\/p>\n
1982).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.1. The order of detention dated 29.5.2007 was passed<\/p>\n
on  the  basis of ground case that occurred on 30.4.2007  at<\/p>\n
about 10.00 a.m. It is stated that on the said day, when one<\/p>\n
Saravanan  and his friends were having tea, the detenu  came<\/p>\n
there, started wordy altercation with Saravanan and demanded<\/p>\n
money.   When Saravanan refused, the detenu took Veecharuval<\/p>\n
and  threatened to kill him. When Saravanan further  refused<\/p>\n
to  give money, the detenu attacked him with Veecharuval  on<\/p>\n
his  neck  and  right  leg  and caused  serious  injury  and<\/p>\n
snatched Rs.650\/- from Saravanan.  When friends of Saravanan<\/p>\n
intervened, the detenu picked up soda bottles and hurled the<\/p>\n
same  against the public. The public who were  at  the  spot<\/p>\n
noticing  the atrocious activities ran for safer places  out<\/p>\n
of  fear  of danger to their lives and properties.   On  the<\/p>\n
same  day, the detenu was arrested in connection with  three<\/p>\n
cases  in Crime Nos.251, 323 and 335 of 2007 on the file  of<\/p>\n
Villupuram Town Police Station.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.2.  The detaining authority also took not  of  three<\/p>\n
adverse  cases  pending  against the  detenu,  viz.,   Crime<\/p>\n
Nos.520  of  2006, 251 and 323 of 2007 all on  the  file  of<\/p>\n
Villupuram  Town Police Station for the offences  punishable<\/p>\n
under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 506(ii)  and<\/p>\n
307  IPC    read with Section 3 of the Explosive  Substances<\/p>\n
Act, 1908.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.3.   The detaining authority, having satisfied  that<\/p>\n
the  detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial<\/p>\n
to maintenance of public order, passed the impugned order.<\/p>\n
      3.  Challenging the said detention, the mother of  the<\/p>\n
detenu   has  come  forward with the present  Habeas  Corpus<\/p>\n
Petition  seeking a writ of habeas corpus to  call  for  the<\/p>\n
records in C2\/22763\/2007, dated 29.5.2007 on the file of the<\/p>\n
second  respondent herein, to quash the same as illegal  and<\/p>\n
to  consequently  direct  the  respondents  to  produce  the<\/p>\n
detenu,  now  confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore,  before<\/p>\n
this Court and to set him at liberty.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Heard  the learned counsel for the petitioner  and<\/p>\n
Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for  the<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for  the  petitioner is that there is considerable delay  in<\/p>\n
considering the representation and the same has rendered the<\/p>\n
detention illegal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.1.  Before  delving into the issue relating  to  the<\/p>\n
delay  as contended above, it would be apt to refer the  law<\/p>\n
on the point.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.2.  Article  22(5)  of  the  Constitution  of  India<\/p>\n
suggests  that the obligation of the government is to  offer<\/p>\n
the detenu an opportunity of making a representation against<\/p>\n
the order, before it is confirmed according to the procedure<\/p>\n
laid  down  under the relevant provisions of law, vide  K.M.<\/p>\n
Abdulla Kunhi v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .<\/p>\n
     6.3. The right to representation under Article 22(5) of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution  of  India includes right  to  expeditious<\/p>\n
disposal by the State Government. Expedition is the rule and<\/p>\n
delay  defeats mandate of Article 22(5) of the  Constitution<\/p>\n
of  India,  vide Ram Sukrya Mhatre v. R.D. Tyagi,<\/a> 1992  Supp<\/p>\n
(3) SCC 65.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.4. Any inordinate and unexplained delay on the  part<\/p>\n
of  the Government in considering the representation renders<\/p>\n
the   detention  illegal,  vide  Tara  Chand  v.  State   of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan,<\/a> (1980) 2 SCC 321 and Raghavendra Singh v. Supdt.,<\/p>\n
Distt. Jail,<\/a> (1986) 1 SCC 650.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.5.  It  is  a  constitutional  obligation  of   the<\/p>\n
Government to consider the representation forwarded  by  the<\/p>\n
detenu without any delay. Though no period is prescribed  by<\/p>\n
Article 22 of the Constitution for the decision to be  taken<\/p>\n
on  the  representation, the words “as soon as  may  be”  in<\/p>\n
clause  (5)  of  Article  22 convey  the  message  that  the<\/p>\n
representation should be considered and disposed of  at  the<\/p>\n
earliest. But that does not mean that the authority is  pre-<\/p>\n
empted from explaining any delay which would have occasioned<\/p>\n
in  the  disposal  of  the  representation.  The  court  can<\/p>\n
certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned  due  to<\/p>\n
permissible  reasons  or unavoidable causes.  If  delay  was<\/p>\n
caused   on  account  of  any  indifference  or   lapse   in<\/p>\n
considering  the representation, such delay  will  adversely<\/p>\n
affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it<\/p>\n
is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any,<\/p>\n
in  disposing of the representation. It is not enough to say<\/p>\n
that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well<\/p>\n
be  explained. So the test is not the duration or  range  of<\/p>\n
delay,  but  how it is explained by the authority concerned.<\/p>\n
Even  the  reason that the Minister was on  tour  and  hence<\/p>\n
there  was  a  delay  of  five  days  in  disposing  of  the<\/p>\n
representation was rejected by the Apex Court  holding  that<\/p>\n
when the liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of<\/p>\n
the  Constitution of India is involved, the absence  of  the<\/p>\n
Minister  at head quarters is not sufficient to justify  the<\/p>\n
delay,  since  the file could be reached the  Minister  with<\/p>\n
utmost  promptitude in cases involving the vitally important<\/p>\n
fundamental  right of a citizen, vide Rajammal v.  State  of<\/p>\n
T.N.,<\/a> (1999) 1 SCC 417.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     7. In the instant case, the impugned order of detention<\/p>\n
came  to be passed on 29.5.2007.  A representation was  made<\/p>\n
to  the Government on 23.8.2007 and the same was received by<\/p>\n
it  28.8.2007.  Remarks were called for from  the  detaining<\/p>\n
authority  on  29.8.2007 and the same was  received  by  the<\/p>\n
detaining  authority  on  7.9.2007.   Parawar  remarks  were<\/p>\n
called for from the sponsoring authority on 9.9.2007.   But,<\/p>\n
parawar remarks of the sponsoring authority were received by<\/p>\n
the  detaining  authority only on 21.9.2007, viz.,  after  a<\/p>\n
delay  of  nine  days, excluding three public holidays.  The<\/p>\n
delay,  as  indicated above, was highlighted by the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner. There is no convincing reply  on<\/p>\n
behalf  of the State for the said delay. We find some  force<\/p>\n
as   well  as  substance  in  this  contention.   There   is<\/p>\n
absolutely no explanation for this delay.<\/p>\n
     8. At this juncture, a reference to the decision of the<\/p>\n
Apex   Court  in  Kundanbhai  Dulabhai  Sheikh  v   District<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, (1996) 3 SCC 194 is apposite:<\/p>\n
   “In  spite  of  law  laid down above  by  this  Court
\n   repeatedly   over   the  past  three   decades,   the
\n   Executive,  namely,  the  State  Government  and  its
\n   officers  continue to behave in their old,  lethargic
\n   fashion  and  like  all other files  rusting  in  the
\n   Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism,
\n   the  representation made by a person deprived of  his
\n   liberty,  continue  to  be dealt  with  in  the  same
\n   fashion.  The  Government and its officers  will  not
\n   give  up  their  habit  of maintaining  a  consistent
\n   attitude  of lethargy. So also, this Court  will  not
\n   hesitate  in  quashing  the  order  of  detention  to
\n   restore the `liberty and freedom’ to the person whose
\n   detention  is allowed to become bad by the Government
\n   itself  on  account of his representation  not  being
\n   disposed of at the earliest.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  That apart, it is a settled law that there  should<\/p>\n
not be supine indifference, slackness or callous attitude in<\/p>\n
considering the representation. Any unexplained delay in the<\/p>\n
disposal  of  representation  would  be  a  breach  of   the<\/p>\n
constitutional imperative and it would render the  continued<\/p>\n
detention impermissible and illegal, vide K.M. Abdulla Kunhi<\/p>\n
v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 476 .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The  delay  which stands unexplained is fatal  to  the<\/p>\n
detention order attracting Article 22 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India  and  therefore,  the  petition  must succeed and  the<\/p>\n
same is ordered as prayed for.   The  detention order  dated<\/p>\n
29.5.2007 is set aside.   The detenu is directed to  be  set<\/p>\n
at  liberty  forthwith  unless his custody  is  required  in<\/p>\n
connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
sasi<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government
\n    State of Tamilnadu
\n    Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
\n    Fort St.George
\n    Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Collector and District Magistrate
\n    Villupuram District
\n    Villupuram.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Public Prosecutor
\n    High Court
\n    Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI H.C.P. No.1319 of 2007 G.Sumathi ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 9. 2. […]<\/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-194536","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - 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\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-18T12:48:46+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T12:48:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1325,\"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\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\",\"name\":\"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T12:48:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - 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\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-18T12:48:46+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T12:48:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007"},"wordCount":1325,"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\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007","name":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T12:48:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-sumathi-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Sumathi vs The Secretary To Government on 4 December, 2007"}]},{"@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\/194536","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=194536"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194536\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194536"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194536"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194536"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}