{"id":201175,"date":"2004-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"modified":"2016-03-26T00:52:00","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T19:22:00","slug":"srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","title":{"rendered":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 18\/02\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\n\nWrit Petition No. 13415 of 1997\nand\nW.P.M.P.No. 21531 of 1997\n\n\nSrinivasamurthy, (Minor),\nrepresented by next friend and\nguardian K.N. Raghavendra Rao,\n12, I Main Road, Balaji Nagar,\nAnakaputtur, Chennai-70. .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Public (Electricity) Department,\n   Madras-9.\n\n2. The Chairman,\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Chennai-2.\n\n3. The Assistant Engineer,\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity System,\n   Pammal, Chennai. .. Respondents.\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of  India,  for\nissuance of a Writ of Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\n\nMr.  C.L.  Vijayaraghavan:- For petitioner.\n\nMr.  G.  Vasudevan for T.N.E.B.:-For Respondents.\n\nMr.  O.  Venkatachalam:- Arbitrator.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  petitioner,  who  is  a  minor, has filed the above Writ Petition<br \/>\nthrough his father claiming compensation of  Rs.10  lakhs  for  the  injuries,<br \/>\nmental  agony  and sufferings undergone by him on account of the electrocution<br \/>\nwhich took place on 11-12-95 at about 1.3 0 P.M.    at  Door  No.7,  Vasudevan<br \/>\nStreet, Pasumpon   Nagar,  Pammal,  Chennai-75.    Considering  the  grievance<br \/>\nexpressed and in the light of the factual details referred to, this  Court  on<br \/>\n14-10-99 appointed  one  Mr.    Mohamed  Khan,  retired  District  Judge as an<br \/>\nArbitrator to consider the claim of the petitioner and the  defence  taken  by<br \/>\nthe respondentElectricity  Board.   In the said order of reference, this Court<br \/>\ndirected the Arbitrator to submit an  award  with  regard  to  the  negligence<br \/>\naspect and quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner.  Pursuant to the<br \/>\ndirection, both  parties  participated  in  the  arbitration proceedings.  The<br \/>\narbitrator Mr.   Mohamed  Khan,  after  observing  all  formalities,  examined<br \/>\nP.Ws.1, 2,  3  and  4 and recorded their evidence on different dates.  At that<br \/>\nstage, unfortunately the said arbitrator expired.  Thereafter, by order  dated<br \/>\n8-12-2000, this Court appointed Mr.  O.  Venkatachalam, retired District Judge<br \/>\nas  arbitrator  to  continue  the said proceedings from the stage at which the<br \/>\nprevious arbitrator left the matter and to submit award with  respect  to  the<br \/>\naspects already  referred  to.    It  is further seen that after observing all<br \/>\nformalities, the present arbitrator examined P.W.5,  doctor  who  treated  the<br \/>\npetitioner.  The  petitioner  closed  his side with P.W.5.  On the side of the<br \/>\nrespondents, one T.V.  Perumal, Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Pammal was<br \/>\nexamined as R.W.1 and they also closed their evidence.   Considering  all  the<br \/>\nmaterials  i.e.,  oral  and  documentary evidence, the arbitrator, by an order<br \/>\ndated 4-4-2002, submitted a report holding that due to electrocution that  too<br \/>\ndue  to  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  Electricity Board, the petitioner<br \/>\nsustained injuries due to electrocution and on taking note  of  100  per  cent<br \/>\ndisability, disfiguration, tender age, etc., he quantified the compensation at<br \/>\nRs.8,00,000\/-  with  interest  at  12 per cent per annum from 13-8-96, date of<br \/>\nnotice till 4-4-20 02 and 18 per cent per annum from that date till  the  date<br \/>\nof payment, and also awarded cost of Rs.5,000\/- towards.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The only point for consideration in this writ  petition  is,  whether  the<br \/>\nconclusion holding that Electricity Board alone was negligent for the incident<br \/>\nand  quantifying  the  compensation  amount  to  the  extent of Rs.8 lakhs are<br \/>\nsustainable?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  It is relevant to point out that when the above writ petition  posted  for<br \/>\norders on 7-2-2004 pursuant to the report submitted by the arbitrator, learned<br \/>\ncounsel  appearing  for Electricity Board by relying on a decision in the case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/78791\/\">Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v.  Sumathi,<\/a> reported in 2000  AIR  SCW  1717,<br \/>\nwould  contend  that  appointment of arbitrator to go into the incident is not<br \/>\nmaintainable and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.  In  this  regard,<br \/>\nit is relevant to refer that when this Court considering the factual assertion<br \/>\nand  other prima facie material inclined to appoint an arbitrator on 14-10-99,<br \/>\nno such objection was raised by the respondents.  Even  after  appointment  of<br \/>\nMr.   Mohamed  Khan,  a  retired  District  Judge  to  go  into the claim, the<br \/>\nElectricity Board not only did not raise objection but also not challenged the<br \/>\nsaid order by way of an appeal.  On the other hand, they participated  in  the<br \/>\nproceedings  before  the  arbitrator without any hesitation and examined their<br \/>\nJunior Engineer as their witness to  highlight  their  defence.    In  such  a<br \/>\ncircumstance,  I am of the view that the judgment relied on by the respondents<br \/>\nfirst of all is subsequent order of this  Court  dated  14-10-99  and  in  any<br \/>\nevent,  in  view  of  the  conduct  of  the respondents in not challenging the<br \/>\nappointment and participating in the said proceedings they are  estopped  from<br \/>\nchallenging the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   Now  I  shall  consider  whether  the  finding  of  the arbitrator on the<br \/>\nnegligence aspect and quantum determined are acceptable or any modification is<br \/>\nrequired?\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  First I shall deal with the finding regarding negligence.  The  arbitrator<br \/>\nhas framed two points:- (1) Whether the accident mentioned by the claimant has<br \/>\noccurred in the manner as alleged by the claimant\/petitioner?  and (2) Whether<br \/>\nthere is negligence on the part of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board?\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing at No.12, First Main<br \/>\nRoad, Balaji Nagar, Anakaputhur,  Chennai-70.    In  the  year  1995,  he  was<br \/>\nstudying 7th Standard in Sri Sankara Vidyala, Pammal, Chennai-25.  On 11-12-95<br \/>\nat about 2.00 P.M.  while he was playing with his friend Subash on the terrace<br \/>\nof  the  ground  floor  bearing Door No.7-A, Vasudevan Street, Pasumpon Nagar,<br \/>\nPammal, Chennai, when he attempted to catch the ball from falling outside,  he<br \/>\ncame  into contact with live high tension electric conductor which was hanging<br \/>\nand passing close to the parapet wall.  Therefore, he was thrown  out  due  to<br \/>\nelectrocution and  fell  down  on  the  parapet  wall.   Immediately he became<br \/>\nunconscious and thereafter, he was rushed to General Hospital, Chennai.    For<br \/>\nseveral months  he  was given treatment in the said hospital.  Subsequently he<br \/>\nwas also given treatment in  the  Ramachandra  Medical  College  and  Research<br \/>\nInstitute, Porur.    It is his claim that due to negligence on the part of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board in positioning High Tension wire  (11  K.V)  such<br \/>\ngruesome accident  took  place.    On  the  other  hand, it is the case of the<br \/>\nrespondents that the live wires  were  laid  in  the  year  1987  as  per  the<br \/>\nElectricity rules.    The said house was constructed subsequently in violation<br \/>\nof the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act without proper building  plan,<br \/>\nthe span  length and the sag are within the permissible limit.  It is only due<br \/>\nto the negligence and the carelessness  on  the  part  of  the  owner  of  the<br \/>\nbuilding and the petitioner, the incident occurred and there was no negligence<br \/>\non the part of the Electricity Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   The  father  of  the  claimant,  who  was examined as P.W.1, narrated the<br \/>\nincident.  P.W.2, one Mari Ammal, who is living in a house about 30 feet  away<br \/>\nfrom  the  occurrence  place  and  who  actually witnessed the occurrence also<br \/>\nnarrated the accident.  Photographer, who had taken photos of  the  occurrence<br \/>\nplace, the  elevation and lay out of the street, was examined as P.W.3.  Apart<br \/>\nfrom these witnesses, two more witnesses were examined  on  the  side  of  the<br \/>\npetitioner.   The  Junior  Engineer  attached  to Pammal Electricity Board was<br \/>\nexamined as R.W.1.  The learned arbitrator discussed the evidence  let  in  by<br \/>\nboth  side  in  detail  and  found that at the time of the occurrence near the<br \/>\nhouse where the unfortunate incident  happened,  there  was  sagging  of  high<br \/>\ntension  wire and after the occurrence the Electricity Board has set right the<br \/>\nsame by erecting a new pole to avoid continuance of sagging because on account<br \/>\nof such sagging P,.W.4 was  dragged  and  thrown  out  being  caused  multiple<br \/>\ninjuries.  (Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<p>With  the  said  finding, the arbitrator has concluded that it was only due to<br \/>\nthe negligence on  the  part  of  the  Electricity  Board,  electrocution  has<br \/>\noccurred  and  on account of electrocution P.W.4 has sustained injuries in the<br \/>\nmanner as stated by him.  I concur with the  said  conclusion.    It  is  also<br \/>\nrelevant  to  note  that  having come to know about the occurrence immediately<br \/>\nafter the occurrence, the officials of the Electricity Board set right sagging<br \/>\nand the lines.  It is also relevant to note that  after  the  receipt  of  the<br \/>\nnotice   dated  13-8-96,  the  Electricity  Board  has  not  given  any  reply<br \/>\nrepudiating the contents thereof.  Accordingly, I concur with the  finding  of<br \/>\nthe arbitrator on negligence aspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   Regarding  quantum,  though  the  petitioner has filed a claim before the<br \/>\narbitrator for Rs.18,80,600\/- on different heads, has restricted his claim  to<br \/>\nRs.10 lakhs.    It is seen from the evidence of P.W.4, injured himself that on<br \/>\naccount of the accident, his right hand was amputated and small toes  of  both<br \/>\nlegs,  left thigh, stomach, left side fact including eye, mouth, nose and chin<br \/>\nwere affected.  He could not attend the school for the academic years  1995-96<br \/>\nand 19  96-97 because of the said accident.  From June, 1997-98 re resumed his<br \/>\nstudies.  P.Ws.1, 2 and 5 corroborated the evidence  of  P.W.4  regarding  the<br \/>\ndamage of  his body.  He had taken treatment for about 3 months in the General<br \/>\nHospital and thereafter for about 15 days from Ramachandra Medical College and<br \/>\nResearch Institute, Porur where he was  also  subjected  to  plastic  surgery.<br \/>\nEx.P-18 summary of the treatment, M.O.1 photos, M.O.2 discharge summary, M.O.3<br \/>\ncertificate issued by P.W.5 and M.O.4 case sheet, bear testimony regarding the<br \/>\nnature of  treatment  given to him.  Regarding injuries, the evidence of P.W.5<br \/>\nis more valuable.  According to him, P.W.4&#8217;s right hand was amputated  and  he<br \/>\nwas operated on  his  left  thigh.  Skin grafting was done.  He further stated<br \/>\nthat after improving his general condition with adequate blood, he  was  taken<br \/>\nup for surgical reconstruction, they harvested skin graph from the right thigh<br \/>\nto cover  the  raw area on the left thigh and left side of the face.  As there<br \/>\nwas partial or marginal loss of graph, he was taken up again  for  re-graphing<br \/>\nof the  skin.   They found that there was deep involvement of bones especially<br \/>\non the toes of both legs except great toes which were  also  partly  involved.<br \/>\nThe gangrenous  parts  of  the toes in both feet were removed.  Four toes were<br \/>\nremoved from the left foot.  In the right foot two toes were removed  and  the<br \/>\ntip of  the  remaining toes also were removed.  Split skin graphs were done to<br \/>\nthe affected toes.  Surgery  was  taken  up  to  remove  the  nonviable  skull<br \/>\nbone-outer plate.  Left eyelid was also corrected with skin graph.  Left pinna<br \/>\nalso was  operated with primary closure of the wound.  Left shoulder, anterior<br \/>\nabdominal wall and both the feet were covered with skin graph and he was found<br \/>\nto have marginal raw areas due to partial loss of the graph over the  shoulder<br \/>\nand scalf  which  was  corrected by plastic surgery-scrapping.  P.W.5 has also<br \/>\nfound the following injuries on the petitioner\/claimant:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1) Post electrical burns on the left side of the face with charring.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) Charring on the left thigh due to electrical burns.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) Post electrical burns on anterior abdominal wall.\n<\/p>\n<p>4) Post electrical burns on the right upper limb with  exposed  bones  due  to<br \/>\nscar due to high voltage.\n<\/p>\n<p>5) Post electrical burns involving both feet and toes.\n<\/p>\n<p>6) Post electrical burns on the left shoulder.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.W.5  assessed  the disability to the extent of 100 per cent which is partial<br \/>\nand permanent.  As rightly observed by the arbitrator, the above details would<br \/>\ncategorically prove the magnitude of deformity, disability, mental agony, pain<br \/>\nand sufferings undergone by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  The various certificates, namely, Exs.  P-1 to P-1 3 would show  that  the<br \/>\npetitioner was a good sportsman and with the disability hereafter he cannot be<br \/>\na sportsman.  As rightly argued, he could not move in the public freely.  Exs.<br \/>\nP-14, A-15  and  A-17  photos would depict the magnitude of the deformity.  He<br \/>\nalso lost matrimonial prospects.  After analysing  the  oral  and  documentary<br \/>\nevidence, the arbitrator has opined that the petitioner is physically unfit to<br \/>\nearn income  and  he  is the walking corpse and he has become a wreak.  Though<br \/>\nthe petitioner has claimed Rs.5,00,000\/-  towards  permanent  disability,  the<br \/>\narbitrator has  fixed  Rs.3,00,000\/-.  Considering the evidence of the doctor,<br \/>\nhis assessment and disability certificate (100 per cent), I  am  of  the  view<br \/>\nthat the petitioner would be entitled a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- towards permanent<br \/>\ndisability.   As  against the claim of Rs.3,00,000\/- towards physical pain and<br \/>\nsuffering, the arbitrator has fixed Rs.1,00,000\/-.  The  petitioner  has  also<br \/>\nclaimed Rs.2,00,000\/-  for  disfiguration.    I  verified the medical records,<br \/>\nperiod of treatment, and the surgeries undergone.  His one side  of  the  face<br \/>\nhas been  completely  damaged.  He lost his right hand, and small toes on both<br \/>\nlegs.  His abdomen and left thigh were affected, his  eyes  are  half  closed;<br \/>\naccordingly  I  grant  a  sum  of  Rs.1,00,000\/-  towards  pain and suffering,<br \/>\ndisfiguration, loss of comforts etc.<\/p>\n<p>10.   The  petitioner  has  claimed  Rs.5,00,000\/-  towards  loss  of  earning<br \/>\ncapacity.   The  materials  placed  would  clearly  show that as on date he is<br \/>\nphysically handicapped.  He cannot earn with the help of limbs.    The  doctor<br \/>\nhas assessed  his  disability  to the extent of 100 per cent.  Considering the<br \/>\nsame, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by  granting  another<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/- towards  loss  of  earning capacity.  While disagreeing with the<br \/>\nvarious amounts granted by the arbitrator,  after  going  through  the  entire<br \/>\nevidence,   particularly   the   evidence  of  the  injured  petitioner-P.W.4,<br \/>\ndoctor-P.W.5, amputation of right hand, permanent disability to the extent  of<br \/>\n100  per  cent,  disfiguration  and  injuries in other parts of the body, I am<br \/>\nsatisfied that a sum of Rs.3,00,000\/- would meet the ends  of  justice.    The<br \/>\nrespondents\/Electricity  Board is directed to deposit the said amount within a<br \/>\nperiod of Four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order  to  the<br \/>\ncredit  of  the  above  proceedings  before the Registrar General, High Court,<br \/>\nMadras, failing which the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent<br \/>\nfrom the date of filing of the writ petition  i.e.,  27-8-1997  till  date  of<br \/>\ndeposit.   On  such deposit being made, the entire amount shall be invested in<br \/>\nthe Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Esplanade  Branch,  Chennai-104<br \/>\ninitially for  a  period  of three years and renewable thereafter.  The amount<br \/>\nshall be in investment at least for a period of 10 years.    During  the  said<br \/>\nperiod  of investment, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw accrued interest<br \/>\ndirectly from the Bank once in six months for his  day-to-day  expenses.    In<br \/>\naddition  to this, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000\/- to<br \/>\nMr.  O.  Venkatachalam, Arbitrator, towards his remuneration within  a  period<br \/>\nof Four weeks from to-day.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  Writ Petition  is  allowed  on the above terms.  No costs.  Consequently,<br \/>\nW.P.M.P.No.  21531 of 97 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:- Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to the Government,<br \/>\nPublic (Electricity) Department,<br \/>\nMadras-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Chairman,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\nChennai-2.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Assistant Engineer,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity System,<br \/>\nPammal, Chennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 18\/02\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM Writ Petition No. 13415 of 1997 and W.P.M.P.No. 21531 of 1997 Srinivasamurthy, (Minor), represented by next friend and guardian K.N. Raghavendra Rao, 12, I Main [&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-201175","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - 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\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-25T19:22:00+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\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-25T19:22:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"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\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\",\"name\":\"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-25T19:22:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - 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\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-25T19:22:00+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\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004","datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-25T19:22:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"},"wordCount":2396,"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\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004","name":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-25T19:22:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/srinivasamurthy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-18-february-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Srinivasamurthy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 2004"}]},{"@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\/201175","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=201175"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201175\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}