{"id":203368,"date":"2007-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007"},"modified":"2016-03-03T03:06:54","modified_gmt":"2016-03-02T21:36:54","slug":"m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 17\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU\n\n\nW.P(MD)No.4683 Of 2004\n\n\t\t\t\t\nM.Rajapandian\t\t\t\t     ..\t\tPetitioner\n\n\nvs.\n\n\n1. The Tamil Nadu Khadi and\n   Village Industries Board,\n   represented by its Board of\n   Directors,\n   Kuralagam,\n   Chennai-108.\n\n2. The Chief Executive Officer,\n   Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village\n   Industries Board,\n   Kuralagam,\n   Chennai- 600 108.\n\n3. The Assistant Director of Khadi and\n   Village Industries Board,\n   Ramanathapuram\t\t\t      ..\tRespondents.\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records\npertaining  to the impugned order of the first respondent in Khadi Board\nProceeding(MS)No.66, dated 1.12.2004 and the order of the second respondent\npassed in Na.Ka.No.61393\/2000\/E3 (1) dated 15,.11.2002, and to quash the same\nand consequently direct the respondents to provide the petitioner with all\nmonetary attendant benefits, pay the pension and Pensionary benefits due to the\npetitioner from the date of eligibility with interest till date of realisation\n\n\n\n!For Petitioner   \t...\tMs.VeeraKhadiravan\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMs.S. Packiaraj\n2 and 3\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner in the present writ petition challenges the orders passed<br \/>\nby the respondent Board, Chief Executive Officer dated 15.11.2004 dismissing him<br \/>\nfrom service and confirmed by the Board&#8217;s appellate order dated 01.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioner joined as a Khadi Assistant in the respondent Board in<br \/>\nthe year 1975.  At the relevant time, the petitioner served in the sales depots<br \/>\nat Paramakudi, and Parthibanoor at Ramanathapuram District.  During that time,<br \/>\non the basis of a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Board certain<br \/>\nirregularities were found which resulted in chargesheeting the petitioner vide<br \/>\ncharge memo dated 09.12.2000.  The petitioner submitted his explanation dated<br \/>\n18.05.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Thereafter, an Assistant Director was appointed to conduct an enquiry<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner and in the  enquiry no witnesses were examined and no<br \/>\ndocuments were filed and he merely took into account the explanation submitted<br \/>\nby the petitioner.  Even after the Enquiry Officer&#8217;s report was given the<br \/>\npetitioner was not supplied with a copy of the enquiry report and finally on the<br \/>\nbasis of enquiry officer&#8217;s report (Assistant Director) dated 19.01.2001 the<br \/>\npetitioner was dismissed from service by an order dated 15.11.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.  In that order it was informed that he can file an appeal to the<br \/>\nGovernment Khadi Department against the order of dismissal.  Accordingly, the<br \/>\npetitioner filed an appeal in terms of those Statutory Rules.  Subsequently, the<br \/>\nrule under went modification where instead of the Tamil Nadu Government, the<br \/>\nKhadi and Village Industries Board was made as an appellate authority. Since the<br \/>\npetitioner appeal dated 04.01.2003 was not heard immediately the petitioner<br \/>\nfiled a present writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.883 of 2004.  This<br \/>\nCourt without going into the merits of the case, by an order dated 31.08.2004<br \/>\ndirected the appeal which was forwarded to the Board by the Government, to be<br \/>\ndisposed of after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.  The Board on receipt of the said order appointed an enquiry officer.<br \/>\nThe enquiry officer put questions to the petitioner and recorded the same. On<br \/>\nthe basis of this record, his appeal was rejected by the orders of the Board and<br \/>\nwas communicated by the Chief Executive Officer.  As against the said order<br \/>\nconfirming the original dismissal, the present Writ Petition has been filed by<br \/>\nthe petitioner as noted already.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard the arguments of Mr.Veerakathiravan, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner and Mr.S.Packiaraj, the learned counsel for the second and third<br \/>\nrespondents and have perused the records.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board was created under the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1959 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of<br \/>\n1959). In respect of the service conditions of the employees of the Board<br \/>\nstatutory rules have been framed under Section 30 of the said Act.  Regulation<br \/>\nNo.33 provides for procedure for conducting enquiry against its employees and<br \/>\nthe following is the procedure prescribed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;33(b)(i) In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of the<br \/>\nservice any of the penalities specified in items(iv),(vi),(vii) and (viii) in<br \/>\nregulation 28, the grounds on which  it is  proposed to take action shall be<br \/>\nreduced to the form of definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to<br \/>\nthe person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each<br \/>\ncharge is based and of any other circumstances which  it is proposed to take<br \/>\ninto consideration in passing orders on the case, He shall be required within a<br \/>\nreasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state<br \/>\nwhether he desires an oral enquiry or to be heardin person or both. An oral<br \/>\ninquiry shall be held if such an enquiry is desired by the person charged or is<br \/>\ndirected by the authority concerned.  Even if a person charged has waived an<br \/>\noral enquiry such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of<br \/>\ncharges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved<br \/>\nonly through the evidence of witnesses.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(At the enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations<br \/>\nas are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine<br \/>\nthe witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as<br \/>\nhe may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special<br \/>\nand sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness.)<br \/>\n\tAfter the enquiry has been completed the person charged  shall be entitled<br \/>\nto put in, if he so desires, any further written statement of his defence.<br \/>\nWhether or not the person charged desired or had an oral enquiry, he shall be<br \/>\nheard in person at any stage, if he desires before passing of final orders.  A<br \/>\nreport of the enquiry or person hearing as the case may be shall be prepared by<br \/>\nthe authority holding the inquiry or personal hearing whether or not such a<br \/>\nauthority competent to impose the Penalty.  Such report shall contain a<br \/>\nsufficient record of the evidence, if any, and a statement of the findings and<br \/>\nthe grounds thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. A perusal of the statutory Regulation clearly shows that the respondent<br \/>\nhad followed the procedure more in its breach than for its observance. After<br \/>\ncalling for explanation from the petitioner no worthwhile enquiry was conducted<br \/>\nby the Chief Executive Officer.  It is only when the petitioner sought for his<br \/>\nappeal to be disposed of it came before the Board. The Board instead of<br \/>\nexamining the records and remanding the matter for fresh disposal,<br \/>\nmisunderstood the scope of the direction given by this court and once again<br \/>\nappointed another enquiry officer to record the statement of the petitioner and<br \/>\ndisposed of the appeal.  When it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner Mr.Dhanaseelan states that whatever may be the defect in the original<br \/>\nenquiry the same had been cured at the appellate stage. This Court is unable to<br \/>\nagree with the said submission.  First of all it must be stated that a defective<br \/>\nenquiry cannot be cured by an effective appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Even other wise the contention of the petitioner in his appeal petition<br \/>\nwas that no enquiry was held against him in respect of the charges and he was<br \/>\nnot given copy of the statement recorded behind his back. Even after enquiry<br \/>\nofficer&#8217;s report he was not furnished with a copy before passing final orders.<br \/>\nThis contention of the petitioner was mistaken  by the Board to mean that he was<br \/>\ndemanding show cause notice on penalty.  The petitioner in his appeal memo did<br \/>\nnot demand any show cause notice on penalty.  But on the alternative he insisted<br \/>\nthat a charged officer was entitled for a copy of the enquiry report if the<br \/>\nenquiry officer was different from that of the disciplinary authority. This<br \/>\nposition of the  law is well settled by the judgement of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nRamzan Khan case and affirmed by a  Constitution Bench of the court vide its<br \/>\njudgement in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad .vs.B.Karunakar reported in<br \/>\n(1994 Supp (2) SCC 391).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. However, the learned counsel for the respondents persists that the<br \/>\npetitioner admitted the charges that there was no need to hold any enquiry.<br \/>\nFrom the explanation submitted by the petitioner I am unable to see that the<br \/>\npetitioner had ever accepted any of the charges.  On the contrary, he was only<br \/>\nprojecting his grievances that several other persons have also dealt with the<br \/>\nsale of Khadi at the relevant time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In any event, a perusal of the disciplinary authority&#8217;s  order as well<br \/>\nas the appellate authority&#8217;s order shows that the Board had not kept in mind the<br \/>\nstatutory Regulation made in this regard and it had not conducted any worthwhile<br \/>\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The Supreme court vide its judgement in Meenglas Tea Estate .vs. The<br \/>\nWorkmen reported in (AIR 1963 S.C. 1719)  answered a question as what is the<br \/>\nminimum requirement for conducting a departmental enquiry and the following<br \/>\npassages found in Paragraph 4 is usefully extracted below:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;(4) The Tribunal held that the enquiry was vitiated because it was not<br \/>\nheld in accordance with the principles of natural justice.  It is contended that<br \/>\nthis conclusion was erroneous.  But we have no doubt about its correctness.  The<br \/>\nenquiry  consisted of putting questions to each workman in turn.  No witness was<br \/>\nexamined in support of the charge before the workman was questioned.  It is an<br \/>\nelementary principle that a person who is required  to answer a charge must know<br \/>\nnot only the accusation is supported , he must be given a fair chance to hear<br \/>\nthe evidence in wupport of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way<br \/>\nof cross-examination as he desires.  The he must be given a chance to rebut the<br \/>\nevidence led  against him.  This is the barest  requirement of an enquiry of<br \/>\nthis character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the<br \/>\nresult of the enquiry can be  accepted.  A departure from this requirement in<br \/>\neffect throws the burden upon the person charged to repel the charge without<br \/>\nfirst making it out against him.  In the present case neither was any witness<br \/>\nexamined nor was any statements made by any witness tendered in evidence, the<br \/>\nenquiry, such as it was, made by Mr. Marshall or Mr. Nichols who were not only<br \/>\nin the position of judges but alo of prosecutors and witnesses.  There was no<br \/>\nopportunity to the persons charged to cross-examine then and indeed they drew<br \/>\nupon their own knowledge of the incident and instead cross-examined the persons<br \/>\ncharge.  This was such  a travesty of the principles of natural justice that the<br \/>\nTribunal was justified in rejecting the findings and asking the Company to prove<br \/>\nthe allegation against each workman de novo before it.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Under these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in setting<br \/>\naside the appellate order as well as the original order.  Accordingly, they are<br \/>\nset aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. The respondent Board<br \/>\nis at liberty to conduct an enquiry afresh in the manner known to law regarding<br \/>\nthe charges levelled against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had already reached<br \/>\nthe age of superannuation and therefore if at all any enquiry was conducted, the<br \/>\nsaid enquiry can be only with reference to fixation of an alleged loss committed<br \/>\nby the petitioner and he cannot be imposed with any penalty by a  disciplinary<br \/>\naction.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The  Board of Directors,<br \/>\n   The Tamil Nadu Khadi and<br \/>\n   Village Industries Board,<br \/>\n   Kuralagam,<br \/>\n   Chennai-108.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Chief Executive Officer,<br \/>\n   Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village<br \/>\n   Industries Board,<br \/>\n   Kuralagam,<br \/>\n   Chennai- 600 108.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Assistant Director of Khadi and<br \/>\n   Village Industries Board,<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17\/09\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. CHANDRU W.P(MD)No.4683 Of 2004 M.Rajapandian .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, represented by its Board of Directors, Kuralagam, Chennai-108. [&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-203368","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>M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 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\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-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=\"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1785,\"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\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\",\"name\":\"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 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":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 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\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007"},"wordCount":1785,"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\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007","name":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-02T21:36:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-rajapandian-vs-the-tamil-nadu-khadi-and-on-17-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Rajapandian vs The Tamil Nadu Khadi And on 17 September, 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\/203368","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=203368"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203368\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}