{"id":197335,"date":"2007-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-06T21:49:22","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T16:19:22","slug":"y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 01\/10\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\n\nW.P (MD) No.3071 of 2004\n\n\n1.Y.Paul (Deceased)\n2.P.Sammanasu Mary\n3.Minor Arun Ajeet\n4.Minor Ajeetha\t\t...\t\tPetitioners\n\n(Petitioners 2 to 4 substituted as legal\n heirs of the deceased first petitioner\n vide order dated 31.7.2007 in M.P.\n No.1 of 2007)\t\t\n\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu\nRep. by its Secretary to Home Affairs\nFort St. George\nChennai\n\n2.The Superintendent\nOffice of the Commandant\nT.S.P. I Bn, Tiruchy\n\n3.The Commandant\nT.S.P. I Bn, Tiruchy\n\n4.The Enquiry Officer\nalias Assistant Commandant - III\nT.S.P. I Bn, Tiruchy\t... \t\tRespondents\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of\nCertiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records pertaining to the order\npassed by the third respondent in C.No.E2\/Pr.57\/2002 dated 21.9.2003 in pursuant\nto the proceedings of the third respondent and quash the same and direct the\nrespondents to give all service and monetary benefits to the petitioner.\n\n\n!For petitioner\t    \t...\tMr.UM.Ravichandran\n\t\n\n^For Respondents  \t...\tMrs.V.Chellammal, Spl. GP\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is a dismissed Police Constable and he challenges the order<br \/>\ndated 21.9.2003 passed by the third respondent.   During the pendency of the<br \/>\nwrit petition, the petitioner unfortunately passed away on 24.10.2006 and his<br \/>\nlegal heirs being  the wife and two minor children have been brought on record<br \/>\nas the petitioners 2 to 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tI have heard the arguments of Mr.UM.Ravichandran, learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner and Mrs.V.Chellammal, learned Special Government<br \/>\nPleader  representing the respondents and have perused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tThe deceased Y.Paul joined the third respondent Tamil Nadu Special<br \/>\nPolice as Grade II Constable on 01.11.1997 and while he was on duty on<br \/>\n02.9.2002, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner by one Thulasiraman at<br \/>\nThirukkokarnam Police Station for an alleged offence under Sections 294(b) and<br \/>\n323 IPC read with Section 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act.   A First<br \/>\nInformation Report was registered in Crime No.319 of 2002.    In view of the<br \/>\ncriminal complaint, he was placed under suspension by an order 09.9.2002 by the<br \/>\nthird respondent.   Subsequently, a charge was framed by the second respondent<br \/>\nbeing the appointing authority and Commandant of the Tamil Nadu Special Police.<br \/>\nThe petitioner was charged for not only committing a criminal offence but also<br \/>\nnot intimating the details of the case in Crime No.319 of 2002 to the higher<br \/>\nofficials.     Though the case against the petitioner was closed by the Court of<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate but the enquiry proceeded against the petitioner and he was<br \/>\nfound guilty by the Deputy Commandant, Tamil Nadu Special Police I Battalion,<br \/>\nTrichy, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer.   In that order, it was stated<br \/>\nthat the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence let in before the<br \/>\nEnquiry Officer.    Basing upon the said enquiry report, the third respondent<br \/>\npassed an order dated 18.8.2003 holding him guilty of the charges.    It was<br \/>\nalso mentioned that in respect of the enquiry report being furnished to him, the<br \/>\npetitioner did not give any further representation and his conduct is shown as<br \/>\nunbecoming of a public servant and under the influence of alcohol, he made an<br \/>\nattempt to attack the Station House Officer for which a case was registered<br \/>\nagainst him which resulted in imposition punishment of removal from service.  In<br \/>\nthe meanwhile, in the criminal case, since no final report was filed, the same<br \/>\nwas closed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, by an order dated 09.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tLearned counsel for the petitioner attacks the impugned order on the<br \/>\nground that the findings were rendered on the basis of witnesses, who were not<br \/>\neye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence; no medical report was called for to go<br \/>\ninto the question of finding the petitioner guilty of prohibition offence and<br \/>\nthe evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were contradictory and the criminal case was<br \/>\nalso dropped.   Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tA counter affidavit has also been filed by the third respondent<br \/>\nrefuting the allegations made by the petitioner.   It was stated that during the<br \/>\noral enquiry, the Department witnesses 1, 2 and 7 to 9 have deposed that the<br \/>\npetitioner had attacked the Sub-Inspector and other Police Constables when he<br \/>\nwas directed to be sent for medical test.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tWith reference to the petitioner not informing the higher officials<br \/>\nabout the pendency of the criminal case, the departmental witness No.3, viz.,<br \/>\nOfficer Commanding &#8220;B&#8221; Company has deposed against the petitioner.    He has<br \/>\nalso stated that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not contradictory.   On the<br \/>\ncontrary, they were complementary.    The petitioner has filed the minutes of<br \/>\nthe enquiry report and elaborately argued that the offence was not made out.<br \/>\nSo far as the charge regarding prohibition, no proper enquiry was held with<br \/>\nreference to the assault on the Station House Officer, the counsel submitted<br \/>\nthat there cannot be a charge under that head as it did not form part of the<br \/>\noriginal charge memo framed against the petitioner under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules dated 24.9.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tIt is true that the original charge memo did not contain a direct<br \/>\ncharge on this ground and merely referred to the said incident being subject<br \/>\nmatter of a criminal case.   When a charged officer is not informed about the<br \/>\nspecific charge, the same cannot be taken into account to find the petitioner<br \/>\nguilty as it would amount to depriving the petitioner of defending himself in<br \/>\nthe enquiry and it is a denial of reasonable opportunity.    If the first charge<br \/>\nas framed is taken into account , then it only relates to committing of criminal<br \/>\noffence for which the petitioner has not been prosecuted and the criminal Court<br \/>\nhad closed the criminal case by order dated 09.9.2002.    Therefore, he was only<br \/>\nleft with charge of not informing the department immediately about the criminal<br \/>\ncase pending against him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tIt is seen from the records that the alleged incident had taken<br \/>\nplace on 02.9.2002 and a First Information Report was registered on 02.9.2002<br \/>\nitself and he was produced before the Police  Station at 19.00 hours and also<br \/>\ntaken to the Doctor at 11.30 pm in the night.    The fact that the First<br \/>\nInformation Report was registered against the petitioner shows that the<br \/>\nDepartment is aware of the criminal case against the petitioner and that cannot<br \/>\nbe a charge to be made against the petitioner that he did not inform the<br \/>\nsuperiors immediately within seven days.    The petitioner was suspended on the<br \/>\nground that a criminal case is pending against him shows that the Department was<br \/>\naware of the criminal case.    Therefore, holding the petitioner guilty of not<br \/>\ninforming the higher ups cannot be said to have been proved against the deceased<br \/>\nConstable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tWith reference to the first charge, as stated already, the only<br \/>\ncharge was that the criminal case was pending against him with reference to<br \/>\ncertain offences under IPC. Though the criminal case was closed, the petitioner<br \/>\nwas punished for the criminal offence of  prohibition.     The contention of the<br \/>\npetitioner that no charge was framed independently to go into the issue, viz.,<br \/>\nthe assault on Inspector of Police in the Station, merits acceptance.     The<br \/>\nrespondents have not taken note of the fundamental fact that without a charge,<br \/>\nthere cannot be an enquiry and  it would amount to depriving reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity given to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tUnder the circumstances, the impugned order removing the late<br \/>\nY.Paul, Constable, PC No.2316, from service is hereby set aside.    But, as he<br \/>\nhas already passed away on 24.10.2006, he could not be reinstated in service.<br \/>\nHowever, on account of the death of the first petitioner, his legal heirs are<br \/>\nalso liable to get the terminal benefits, such as, GPF, Grauity and Family<br \/>\nBenefit Fund.    Hence, the writ petition shall  stand allowed with the<br \/>\nfollowing directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tThe respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary payable to the<br \/>\ndeceased till his death, viz., 24.10.2006, to his legal heirs, viz., the<br \/>\npetitioners 2 to 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a<br \/>\ncopy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tThe respondents are also directed to pay the terminal benefits such as<br \/>\nGPF, Gratuity and Family Benefit Fund to the legal heirs of the deceased within<br \/>\na period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tThe respondents shall consider the case of P.Sammanasu Mary, widow of<br \/>\nPaul, for compassionate appointment as if he died in harness, as per the<br \/>\nGovernment Rules in existence and this exercise shall be done within a period of<br \/>\neight weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.<br \/>\nHowever, there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>gri<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.\tSecretary to Government<br \/>\n\tGovernment of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\n\tHome Department<br \/>\n\tFort St. George<br \/>\n\tChennai<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe Superintendent<br \/>\n\tOffice of the Commandant<br \/>\n\tT.S.P. I Bn<br \/>\n\tTiruchy<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe Commandant<br \/>\n\tT.S.P. I Bn<br \/>\n\tTiruchy<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe Enquiry Officer<br \/>\n\talias Assistant Commandant &#8211; III<br \/>\n\tT.S.P. I Bn<br \/>\n\tTiruchy\n\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01\/10\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P (MD) No.3071 of 2004 1.Y.Paul (Deceased) 2.P.Sammanasu Mary 3.Minor Arun Ajeet 4.Minor Ajeetha &#8230; Petitioners (Petitioners 2 to 4 substituted as legal [&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-197335","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>Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-06T16:19:22+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T16:19:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1336,\"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\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-06T16:19:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 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":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - 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\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-06T16:19:22+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T16:19:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007"},"wordCount":1336,"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\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007","name":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-06T16:19:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/y-paul-deceased-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-1-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Y.Paul (Deceased) vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 October, 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\/197335","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=197335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}