{"id":20730,"date":"2009-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009"},"modified":"2014-08-24T14:04:31","modified_gmt":"2014-08-24T08:34:31","slug":"e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 15\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.642 of 2008\n\nE.Panchavarnam                ..    Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government,\n   Prohibition and Excise Department,\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,\n  Fort St.George,\n  Chennai - 9.\n\n2.The District Collector-cum-\n   District Magistrate,\n  Dindigul District,\n  Dindigul.                   ..   Respondents\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in detention\norder No.13\/2008 dated 16.6.2008 and quash the same and consequently, directing\nthe respondents to produce the detenu namely E.Ganesan, detained at Central\nPrison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.\n\n!For petitioner   ... Mr.V.Thirumal\n^For respondents  ... Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan                       \t\n\t\t      Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Writ Application challenges the order of the second respondent made<br \/>\nin Detention Order No.13\/2008 dated 16.6.2008, whereby the petitioner&#8217;s son,<br \/>\nE.Ganesan was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest<br \/>\nOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and<br \/>\nVideo Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a &#8220;Goonda&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The Court heard Mr. V.Thirumal, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, looked into the materials available including the order under<br \/>\nchallenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by<br \/>\nthe sponsoring authority that the detenu, E.Ganesan was involved in three<br \/>\nadverse cases viz., in Crime No.614\/2004  under Section 174 Cr.P.C. @ 302 IPC<br \/>\nregistered in Sempatty Police Station; Crime No.1018\/2007 under Section 379 IPC<br \/>\nregistered in Dindigul Town North Police Station; and Crime No.1092\/2007 under<br \/>\nSections 457, 511 @ 457, 380 IPC registered in Dindigul Town North Police<br \/>\nStation and in one ground case in Crime No.148\/2008 under Section 397 IPC<br \/>\nregistered in Ammayanaickanur Police Station, after going into the entire the<br \/>\nmaterials  pertaining to the cases referred to above, the detaining authority<br \/>\nformed his opinion that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order and that he should be detained under the provisions<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Act 14\/1982 terming him as a &#8220;Goonda&#8221; and accordingly, made<br \/>\nthe order, which is the subject matter of challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Mr.V.Thirumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his<br \/>\nsincere attempt assailing the order, brought to the notice of the Court, the<br \/>\nfollowing grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Firstly, the ground case was registered in Crime No.148\/2008 for the<br \/>\noccurrence that took place on 9.5.2008 and he was also arrested on the same day<br \/>\nunder Section 397 of the I.P.C.,.  He made a bail application in<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.836\/2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and<br \/>\nthe same was dismissed on 3.6.2008.   At that time, it was strongly opposed by<br \/>\nthe State that steps were taken to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act<br \/>\n14\/1982 in order to detain him as a &#8220;Goonda&#8221;.  Thus, it would be quite clear<br \/>\nthat the sponsoring authority prejudged the matter and also placed his<br \/>\nsubmission accordingly that detention order was likely to be passed.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it would suffice to set aside the order of detention.  In support<br \/>\nof his contention, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of a Division Bench<br \/>\nof this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1886049\/\">Ganesan v. State of Tamilnadu<\/a> represented by the Secretary,<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department, Chennai and another [2005 M.L.J (Crl.) 467].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Insofar as the ground case, which was registered in Crime<br \/>\nNo.148\/2008, was for a single alleged incident of robbery that had taken place<br \/>\nin a brick-kiln in a village where only four or five persons were involved in<br \/>\nmaking bricks and hence, it cannot be stated to have committed in the public<br \/>\nplace and affected the maintenance of public order and under the circumstances,<br \/>\nshowing the ground case as one of the reasons to invoke the Tamilnadu Act<br \/>\n14\/1982 was was not at all warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Thirdly, as per the materials available in the ground case in Crime<br \/>\nNo.148\/2008, out of 3 items, the subject matter of robbery, one was a 500 rupee<br \/>\ncurrency note.  The recovery would indicate Currency Note No.JCS 267415 whereas<br \/>\nForm No.95 actually sent to the Court would indicate the number of currency as<br \/>\nOED 485993.  Thus, one of the material objects was actually found to be<br \/>\ndifferent.  If to be so, a clarification should have been sought for by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority but not done so.  This is also indicative of the fact of<br \/>\nnon-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the discrepancy found in<br \/>\nthe F.I.R. and A.R.Copy would affect the order under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions and paid its anxious consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse<br \/>\ncases and in one ground case in Crime No.148\/2008 and it is also not in<br \/>\ncontroversy that he was arrested on 9.5.2008.  When he moved for bail before the<br \/>\nconcerned Court, it was strongly opposed by the State stating that the detenu<br \/>\nwas likely to be detained under the Tamilnadu Act 14\/1982 terming him as a<br \/>\n&#8220;Goonda&#8221; at the time even before the order of detention came to be passed.  It<br \/>\nwould be clearly indicative of the fact that the sponsoring authority prejudged<br \/>\nthe matter and placed the same and it would also be indicative of the mental<br \/>\nframe of the mind of the sponsoring authority that the detenu would be detained<br \/>\nunder the Act 14\/1982.  Under the circumstances, it would affect the order of<br \/>\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  Further, added circumstances is the non-application of mind on the<br \/>\npart of the detaining authority.  According to the allegation made in the ground<br \/>\ncase in Crime No.148\/2008, a 500 rupee note  was recovered and as per the<br \/>\n&#8220;Athatchi&#8221; found in page No.145 in the booklet, the currency note    contained<br \/>\nNo.JCS 267415 but when it was sent along with form 95 to the Court, the number<br \/>\nof currency note was mentioned as OED 485993.  If to be so, there is a vital<br \/>\ndifference in the property.  It could be stated that there is a material<br \/>\ndiscrepancy.  Under the circumstances, the detaining authority should have<br \/>\ncalled for a clarification. Under the circumstances, it is nothing but non-<br \/>\napplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\npetitioner, the alleged occurrence in the ground case had taken place in a<br \/>\nbrick-kiln in a village. It is not in controversy that in the brick-kiln, a few<br \/>\npersons were working but the detaining authority has observed that the act of<br \/>\nthe detenu would affect the public peace.  In the instant case, the incident had<br \/>\ntaken place in a brick-kiln in a village.  The Court cannot take it as the<br \/>\noccurrence would affect maintenance of public order and thus, it cannot be a<br \/>\nground to detain him under the Act 14\/1982 as a &#8220;Goonda&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. With regard to the discrepancy found in the F.I.R. and A.R.Copy, it can<br \/>\nbe explained by the complaint and not by the sponsoring authority and hence, it<br \/>\ncannot be treated as a ground of attack.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Under the circumstances, the grounds 1 and 3 as stated above would be<br \/>\nsufficient to set aside the order of detention.  Accordingly, the order of<br \/>\ndetention is set aside.  The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith<br \/>\nunless he is required in connection with any other case in accordance with law.<br \/>\nThe Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n   Prohibition and Excise Department,<br \/>\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Fort St.George,<br \/>\n  Chennai &#8211; 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector-cum-\n<\/p>\n<p>   District Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Dindigul District,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA H.C.P.(MD) No.642 of 2008 E.Panchavarnam .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, [&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-20730","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>E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - 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\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1185,\"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\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\",\"name\":\"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - 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\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009"},"wordCount":1185,"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\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009","name":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-24T08:34:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-panchavarnam-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.Panchavarnam vs The Secretary To Government on 15 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/20730","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=20730"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20730\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20730"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20730"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20730"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}