{"id":20939,"date":"2006-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-11-02T19:04:39","modified_gmt":"2014-11-02T13:34:39","slug":"nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 27\/02\/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATH KUMAR\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.1213 of 2005\n\nNagalakshmi                                             .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. The District Magistrate and\n    District Collector,\n   Nagapattinam District,\n   Nagapattinam.\n\n2. The Secretary to Government\n    of Tamilnadu, Prohibition\n   and Excise Department\n   Fort St. George, Madras-9.                   .. Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying\nfor the issuance of writ of Habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce\nthe  detenu, namely, Ravi S\/o.Otcha Thevar, before this Court, who is detained\nas  per  the  order  of  detention  passed  by   the   first   respondent   in\nC.O.C.No.32\/2005  dated  29.10.2005 and confined at Central Prison, Trichy and\nset him at liberty and further direction to call for the records  relating  to\nthe above said order and quash the same.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.K.Manivasakam\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam\n                Govt.  Advocate (Crl.side)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by P.  SATHASIVAM,J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The  petitioner,  wife of the detenu, who was detained as a bootlegger<br \/>\nunder Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 29.10.2005,  challenges<br \/>\nthe same in this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard Mr.Manivasakam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<br \/>\nand  also  Mr.Abudu  Kumar  Rajarathinam,  learned  Government  Advocate (Crl.<br \/>\nSide).\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  At the foremost, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that<br \/>\nthere is delay  in  disposal  of  the  representation  of  the  detenu.    The<br \/>\nparticulars  furnished  by  the  learned  Government  Advocate  show  that the<br \/>\nrepresentation was received by the Government on  21.11.2005,  remarks  called<br \/>\nfor  on  22.11.2005, remarks received on 29.11.2005 and the file submitted for<br \/>\norders on 30.11.2005, Under Secretary and the Deputy Secretary dealt with  the<br \/>\nsame  on 1.12.2005 and finally the Minister for Prohibition and Excise, passed<br \/>\nan order on 2.12.2005.  Rejection letter was prepared on 7.12.2005,  the  same<br \/>\nwas  sent  to  the detenu on 8.12.2005 and served to the detenu on 10.12.2005.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner submitted  that  though  the  Minister  has<br \/>\npassed  an  order on 2.12.2005, there is no reason to take time till 7.12.2005<br \/>\nfor preparation of the rejection letter.  If the intervening holidays, namely,<br \/>\n3.12.2005 and 4.12.2005, are excluded, then we are of the view that  the  time<\/p>\n<p>taken  for  preparation  of  the  rejection  letter comes within the permitted<br \/>\nperiod of three days.  Accordingly, we find that there is no  undue  delay  as<br \/>\nclaimed by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner next contended that<br \/>\nin the affidavit of the sponsoring authority dated  20.10.2005,  there  is  no<br \/>\nreference  to  the  remand  extension order that was passed on 24.1 0.2005 and<br \/>\naccording to him, in the absence of any material, the detaining  authority  is<br \/>\nnot justified  in  passing  the  detention  order.    With  regard to the said<br \/>\ncontention, learned Government Advocate  has  informed  this  Court  that  the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority, by his affidavit dated 27.10.2005 (second affidavit) has<br \/>\nfurnished  those  details  and  the  same were taken into consideration by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  In the light of the same, in view of the fact  that  the<br \/>\nsame is available in the records, we find no merit in the argument advanced.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Next, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing our<br \/>\nattention  to the reference made in paragraph 3 (drug substance) and paragraph<br \/>\n4 (poisonous substance) would contend that in the light of the discrepancy and<br \/>\nin the absence of any proper explanation, the detention order is liable to  be<br \/>\ninterfered with.    We  are  unable  to  accept the said contention, since, as<br \/>\nrightly pointed out by the learned Government  Advocate,  what  is  stated  in<br \/>\nparagraph  3  is  the confessional statement of the accused\/detenu and not the<br \/>\nobservation of the detaining authority.  On the other hand, in paragraph 4  of<br \/>\nthe  grounds  of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu<br \/>\nis a bootlegger for possession and selling  of  arrack  mixed  with  poisonous<br \/>\nsubstance  in  contravention  of the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act,<br \/>\n1937, thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order<br \/>\nand public health.  In the light of the fact that the earlier statement refers<br \/>\nto the confessional statement of the detenu and not that of the  view  of  the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority,  we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed  out  that  though<br \/>\nthe  bail  petition  of  the detenu was dismissed on 17.10.2005, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has passed  the  detention  order  only  on  29.10.2005.    In  such<br \/>\ncircumstances,  there  is no imminent possibility of the detenu to come out on<br \/>\nbail.  Here again, the perusal of paragraph 5  of  the  grounds  of  detention<br \/>\nmakes  it  clear  that  the  detaining authority was aware of all the relevant<br \/>\nmaterials,  namely,  that  the  detenu  was  remanded   at   Central   Prison,<br \/>\nTiruchirappalli,  by the order of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam,<br \/>\nupto 24.10.2005 and further extended till 7.11.2005.  He was also aware of the<br \/>\nfurther  information  that  the  detenu  has  moved  a  bail  application   in<br \/>\nCrl.M.P.No.6051  of  2005 in respect of Crime No.1449 of 2005 and the same was<br \/>\ndismissed on 17.10.20 05  by  the  Judicial  Magistrate  No.II,  Nagapattinam.<br \/>\nHowever,  after taking note of all these aspects and considering the fact that<br \/>\nby filing another bail application, it would be possible  for  the  detenu  to<br \/>\ncome  out on bail and after finding that there is imminent possibility, in the<br \/>\nlight of his past activities as well as if he  comes  out  on  bail,  he  will<br \/>\nindulge  in  such  further  activities,  which  will  be  prejudicial  to  the<br \/>\nmaintenance of public order and public health,  the  detaining  authority  has<br \/>\npassed the  impugned  detention  order.    Here  again,  we  find  no error or<br \/>\ninfirmity in such conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Finally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no  one<br \/>\nwas intimated   regarding  the  passing  of  the  detention  order.    Learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate, by placing the records, informed this Court that the wife<br \/>\nof the  detenu,  namely,  Nagalakshmi,  who  is  the  petitioner  herein,  was<br \/>\nintimated  even  on  30.10.2005  whereas  the  detention  order  was passed on<br \/>\n29.10.2005.  In such circumstances, the said contention is also liable  to  be<br \/>\nrejected and it is, accordingly, rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any merit in<br \/>\nthis petition.  Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>sra<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary,<br \/>\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nProhibition and Excise Department<br \/>\nFort St.  George,Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Magistrate and<br \/>\nDistrict Collector,<br \/>\nNagapattinam District,<br \/>\nNagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Superintendent<br \/>\nCentral Prison, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n<p>(in duplicate for communication to detenu)<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Joint Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nPublic (Law &amp; Order),<br \/>\nFort St.George,<br \/>\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 27\/02\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATH KUMAR Habeas Corpus Petition No.1213 of 2005 Nagalakshmi .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Nagapattinam [&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-20939","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>Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - 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\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-02T13:34:39+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-02T13:34:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":928,\"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\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-02T13:34:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - 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\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-02T13:34:39+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-02T13:34:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006"},"wordCount":928,"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\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006","name":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-02T13:34:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagalakshmi-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-27-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagalakshmi vs The District Magistrate And on 27 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/20939","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=20939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}