{"id":19624,"date":"2007-06-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007"},"modified":"2014-08-29T06:21:35","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T00:51:35","slug":"kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  06\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nWRIT PETITION (MD) No.4498 of 2007\nand\nM.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2007\n\nKumar alias Nainar Kumar \t\t..   Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.State of Tamilnadu,\n  Rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n  Cooperation, Food and Consumer\n   Protection Department,\n  Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.\n2.The Additional Director General of Police,\n  Civil Supplies,\n  E.V.R.Periyar Maaligai,\n  Nandhanam, Chennai - 600 035.\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Civil Supplies CID,\n  Thirunelveli,\n  Thirunelveli District.\n4.The Inspector of Police,\n  Civil Supplies CID,\n  Kuzhithurai, Nagercoil,\n  Kanyakumari District.\t\t\t..   Respondents\n\n\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to\nissue a Writ of Declaration declaring the provisions of Clause 6(4) of Tamil\nNadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order,\n1982 is illegal, unenforceable, ultravires and against constitution of India\ninsofar as the petitioner is concerned.\n\n\n!For petitioner\t: Mr. R.shanmuga Sundaram\n                  Senior Counsel for\n                  Mr.S.Ravi\n\n^For respondents : Mr. D.Sasi Kumar,\n                   Government Advocate\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner, who is a rice mill owner and a wholesale dealer in rice,
\nfaced with a criminal prosecution, has made a desperate attempt to challenge the
\nClause 6(4) of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by
\nCard System) Order, 1982 as ultra vires of the Essential Commodities Act 1955
\n(Central Act 10 of 1955) and the Removal of (licensing requirements, stock
\nlimits and movement restriction) on specified Foodstuffs Order, 2002 in this
\nWrit Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard the arguments of Mr. R. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel
\nappearing for Mr. S.Ravi, learned  counsel for the petitioner and have perused
\nthe records.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the writ petitioner’s rice mill was
\nraided by the respondents 3 and 4 on  9.4.2007 and 80 bags of rice, each bag
\nweighing 70 kgs, which were distributed through Public Distribution System (PDS)
\nwas recovered from the mill.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  According to the petitioner, the rice mill was owned by the petitioner
\nand the same was leased out to one Raja and he is carrying on rice mill and rice
\nbusiness.  On 5.4.2007, 100 bags of rice, which were transported towards the
\nsaid rice mill in a lorry for polishing was also seized by the respondents and a
\ncriminal case in Crime No.69\/2007 was registered for contravention of para 6 of
\nSub-para 4 of the  of Tamil Nadu Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of
\nDistribution by Card System) Order, 1982 hereinafter referred to as “1982 Tamil
\nNadu Order”\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Even for the seizure of rice bags from the rice mill, another criminal
\ncase has also been registered and the petitioner was shown as accused No.2.  The
\npetitioner further states that the case was foisted against him and he was not
\npresent in the scene of occurrence and the respondent No.3 demanded some illegal
\ngratification and in that process, third respondent and fourth respondent are
\nacting contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. With reference to the second incident, a second case in Crime
\nNo.70\/2007 was registered against the petitioner.  As against the registration
\nof the criminal cases, the petitioner has moved the Criminal Court for bail and
\nwith reference to the release of rice in two crime Nos. viz., 69\/2007 and
\n70\/2007, already two writ petitions have been filed before this Court being
\nW.P.No.4295 of 2007 and 4294 of 2007 and they are pending.  With reference to
\nthe seizure of the lorry, one Sudhan has filed another Writ Petition in
\nW.P.No.4105 of 2007 and the same is also pending before this Court.  The
\npetitioner being inspired by the pendency of a Writ Petition pending in this
\nCourt filed by some third party (W.P.No.9571 of 2005), challenging the vires of
\npara 6.4 of the 1982 Tamil Nadu Order has come forward to file the present Writ
\nPetition so that if the said order is struck down, he can escape from the
\ncriminal prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
\n“1982 Tamil Nadu Order” issued by the State Government was issued in pursuance
\nof Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, (hereinafter called as
\nE.C.Act) read with Central Government’s notification in GSR No.800 dated
\n9.6.1978 and the “1982 Tamil Nadu Order” cannot stand and it has been allegedly
\nrepealed by 2002 order issued by the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Central Government
\nhaving regard to the liberalisation of the economy has done away with
\nrestriction imposed on free movement of essential commodities and rice is also
\none of the essential commodities and there is no prohibition for taking rice
\nfrom one place to another and in the absence of any valid law or control order,
\nthe respondents cannot harass the persons like the petitioner with criminal
\nprosecution.  Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on merits, the
\npetitioner has got an excellent case and that he can prove that the rice was
\npurchased in the open market and that the petitioner cannot be accused of
\ncornering the rice distributed through Public Distribution System (PDS).  Under
\nthe circumstances, learned Senior Counsel submits that in the absence of a fresh
\nControl Order issued by the Government of India, para 6.4 of the “1982 Tamil
\nNadu Order” cannot stand on its own.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. When pointed out that no person has vested right to purchase the rice
\ndistributed through PDS, which is subsidised by both Central Government and
\nState Government, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the persons who are
\nincharge of the Fair Price Shops (FPS) can be proceeded with for any violation
\nof the guidelines issued under PDS Scheme and therefore, the petitioner cannot
\nbe harassed on the allegation of dealing with PDS.  He also pointed out that the
\nState Government is not in helpless situation as in the absence of “1982 Tamil
\nNadu Order”, the normal criminal law (such as proceedings under Section 420 IPC)
\ncan be pressed into service against any person who commits the offence of
\ncheating.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel, it
\nis necessary to refer to para 6 of the “1982 Tamil Nadu Order” order in its
\nentirety.\n<\/p>\n
6. Supply of Scheduled Commodities – (1) No person shall obtain in any scheduled
\ncommodities on a family card unless he-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) registers himself with an authorised dealer, and\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Complies with any other directions which may be issued in this behalf
\nby the Government, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection,
\nthe Collector, the Authorised Officer, or the Inspecting Officer as the case may
\nbe.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) The authorised dealer with whom the family card is registered shall on
\nproduction of such card by the holder, make necessary entries in the card and
\nsupply the scheduled commodities not exceeding the quantities for which he is
\neligible.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) The authorised dealer shall not supply the scheduled commodities
\nagainst any family card not registered with him or to non-card holder.
\n\t(4) No person shall purchase any scheduled commodity obtained on a family
\ncard.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the case, it is needless to
\npoint out that the State Government with effect from 3.6.2006 started
\ndistributing rice at subsidised rate at Rs.2 per Kg for the persons, who are
\nliving below the poverty line (BPL).  The said programme has been successfully
\nimplemented in the State of Tamil Nadu.  Under the circumstances, it has come to
\nnotice that the rice which is distributed through PDS is cornered by rice mafia
\nand are allowed taken to outside the State and are sold at a higher price and in
\nmany places, the rice is used as cattle feed;  it will defeat the very PDS.
\nTherefore, the State in order to avoid such misuse of PDS rice have been
\nresorting to para 6.4 of the “1982 Tamil Nadu Order”.  There is no vested right
\nto purchase rice, which are distributed through family cards.    It is because
\nof this stringent provision, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the vires of
\nthe said order so that he can have a cake-walk in the criminal prosecution
\nlaunched against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Though the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel are
\nattractive at the first blush, on a deeper consideration of the issue, it is
\nclear that para 6.4 of the “1982 Tamil Nadu Order” does not suffer from any
\ninfirmity and it did not get eclipsed because of the issuance of 2002 order by
\nthe Central Government issued under Section 3 of the E.C.Act. Paragraph 3,4 and
\n5 of the 2002 order reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t3. With the coming into effect of this Order any dealer may freely buy,
\nstock, sell, transport, distribute, dispose, acquire, use or consume any
\nquantity of wheat, paddy\/rice, coarse grains, sugar, edible oil seeds, edible
\noils, pulses, gur, wheat products (namely maida, rava, suji, atta, resultant
\natta and bran) and hydrogenated vegetable oil or vanaspathi and shall not
\nrequire a permit or license, therefor, under any order issued under the
\nEssential Commodities Act, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The provisions of this Order shall take effect notwithstanding anything
\nto the contrary in any Order made by a State Government before the commencement
\nof this Order except as respects anything done, or omitted to be done, there
\nunder before such commencement.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Issue of any order by the State Governments under powers delegated in
\nGSR 452 (E) dated the 25th October, 1972 issued by the Government of India in
\nthe then Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) and GSR 800 dt. the 9th
\nJune, 1978 issued by the Government of India in the then Ministry of Agriculture
\nand Irrigation (Department of Food) for regulating by licenses, permit or
\notherwise, the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or
\nconsumption of any of the commodities specified  in Clause 3 shall require the
\nprior concurrence of the Central Government.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Taking advantage of para 5 of the 2002 Order of the Central Government
\nwherein earlier order of 10th June 78 issued in GSR 800 has been referred, the
\nlearned Senior Counsel says once the Central Government Order is repealed, the
\nState Government’s Order which draws its power from it will therefore stand
\neclipsed. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that it is always open to
\nthe State Government to issue fresh orders with the prior concurrence of the
\nCentral Government in terms of para 5 of 2002 order.  In the absence of such
\nfresh notification, the old para 6.4 of “1982 Tamil Nadu Order” will stand
\nautomatically erased.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In fact para 6 of the said order clearly exempts the order of the
\nCentral Government made in 2001 relating to the PDS (Control).  The said para is
\nextracted below:\n<\/p>\n
\t“6. Nothing contained in this order shall affect the operation of the
\nPublic Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central
\nGovernment and orders of the State Governments issued in pursuance thereof.”
\nTherefore, it is necessary to refer to some of the contents of the 2001 order of
\nthe Central Government relating to PDS.\n<\/p>\n
\tPara 6(4) of the order is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe authority or person, who is engaged in the distribution and handling
\nof essential commodities under the Public Distribution System, shall not
\nwilfully indulge in substitution or adulteration or diversion or theft of stocks
\nfrom central godowns to fair price shop premises or at the premises of the fair
\nprice shop.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation: For the purpose of this clause;\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) “diversion” means unauthorised movement or delviery of essential
\ncommodities released from central godowns but not reaching the intended
\nbeneficiaries under the Public Distribution System;\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) “Substitution” means replacement of essential commodities released
\nfrom the central godowns with the same articles of inferior quality for
\ndistribution to the intended beneficiaries under the Public Distribution System.\n<\/p>\n
Further para 9 provides for penalties clearly states violation of the 2001 order
\nincluding para 6 (extracted above) will be an offence under section 7 of the
\nE.C.Act.  The petitioner has been preciously charged only under that Section.
\nPara 10(3) empowers the authorities to search, seize, remove stock of essential
\ncommodities if there was a contravention of the 2001 order.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Even otherwise, the rice, which are issued through PDS to the holders
\nof family card under BPL stands on a different footing.  What is liberalised by
\n2002 order of the Central Government is only free movement of essential
\ncommodities, which includes rice and therefore, the State Governments are not
\nexpected to create any further bottlenecks. Therefore, the arguments of the
\nlearned Senior Counsel based on the doctrine of eclipse “1982 Tamil Nadu Order”
\nbased on the 2002 Central Government must fail.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. In the present case, the Court is concerned with the rice distributed
\nthrough PDS in which no person could have any free dealing as the rice is
\ndistributed after heavy subsidy given by the State and Central Government.  In
\nfact, the rice is released by the Central Government from the Central Stock held
\nby them to the States with a further subsidy given by both the Central
\nGovernment and the State Governments.  It is clear that it is a clause by
\nitself.  By the said process, families under BPL are identified and family cards
\nare issued with a strict monitoring by the authorities under the E.C.Act by the
\nvarious control orders issued by both State and Central Governments.  Therefore,
\nthe argument that “1982 Tamil Nadu Order” will stand erased in the light of
\nliberalisation done permitting free movement of essential commodities by 2002
\norder of the Central Government can have no application in the absence of any
\nexpress repeal of the “1982 Tamil Nadu Order”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The 2002 order of the Central Government is clearly confined to
\nRemoval of licensing requirement, stock limits and movement restriction imposed
\non specified food stuffs (which includes rice) is relatable only to the business
\nin dealing with those commodities and has nothing to do with the administration
\nof PDS.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. It must be stated that 2002, order of the Central Government
\nspecifically refers to the Public Distribution System Control Order 2001 and
\nvarious orders issued by the State Government in pursuance thereof.   Once it is
\nheld that the order issued by the State Government is valid order and it is not
\nget eclipsed by the issuance of 2002 notification, which only deals with free
\nmovement of essential commodities, which include rice and does not deal with
\nrice distributed through PDS System, the entire edifice built by the learned
\nSenior Counsel fails and therefore, the Writ Petition lacks any merits and shall
\nstand dismissed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. If the learned Senior Counsel’s argument is accepted, then it will not
\nonly defeat the very purpose of establishing PDS for the BPL families holding
\nfamily cards but it will likely to result in misuse of rice by rice mafia as the
\nPDS rice will be taken away to other rice starving States and will be sold at
\npremium frustrating the attempt of the State Government and Central Government
\nin cushioning the cost of living (CLI) of the poor people in this country.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Learned Senior Counsel’s argument that the petitioner had not
\npurchased PDS rice from PDS Shop and the petitioner had purchased the rice from
\nopen market, is only a defence available to him in the Criminal Court and the
\nsaid
\nK.CHANDRU, J
\ndefence cannot be gone into in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India.  Second argument that PDS is strictly monitored, and such
\ndiversion can be detected, is not available to the petitioner as it brings
\ntotally a different issue and it does not arise for consideration in this Writ
\nPetition.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Under the circumstances, the Writ Petition  is dismissed. No costs.
\nConsequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
asvm<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary to Government,
\n  The State of Tamil Nadu,
\n  Cooperation, Food and Consumer
\n   Protection Department,
\n  Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Additional Director General of Police,
\n  Civil Supplies,
\n  E.V.R.Periyar Maaligai,
\n  Nandhanam, Chennai – 600 035.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Civil Supplies CID,
\n  Thirunelveli,
\n  Thirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n
4.The Inspector of Police,
\n  Civil Supplies CID,
\n  Kuzhithurai, Nagercoil,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WRIT PETITION (MD) No.4498 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 Kumar alias Nainar Kumar .. Petitioner vs. 1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. […]<\/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-19624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 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\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-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=\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-29T00:51:35+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-29T00:51:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2431,\"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\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-29T00:51:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 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":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 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\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-29T00:51:35+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-29T00:51:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007"},"wordCount":2431,"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\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007","name":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-29T00:51:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kumar-alias-nainar-kumar-vs-state-of-tamilnadu-on-6-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kumar Alias Nainar Kumar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 6 June, 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\/19624","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=19624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}