{"id":212282,"date":"2005-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005"},"modified":"2015-06-08T19:58:11","modified_gmt":"2015-06-08T14:28:11","slug":"m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 11\/11\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM         \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nW.P. No.41837 of 2002  \nand WPMP.No.61836 of 2002    \n\nM. Ganesan                                     .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. by its Secretary to Government\n   Commercial Taxes and Religious \n   Endowments Department  \n   Secretariat\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Inspector General of Registration\n   Santhome High Road  \n   Chennai 600 028.\n\n3. The Registrar\n   Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal\n   Chennai 600 104.                             .. Respondents\n\n                Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India\npraying  for  the  issuance  of  a  writ  of Certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor petitioner :  Mr.  A.  Amalraj\n\nFor respondents :  Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar \n                Government Advocate\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>(ORDER of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM,J.)      <\/p>\n<p>                Aggrieved by  the  order  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal, Chennai dated 26.11.2001 made in O.A.No.5906 of 1998, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas filed the above writ petition to quash the same as null, void, illegal and<br \/>\ninvalid and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to disburse arrears of<br \/>\nincrement  stopped pursuant to punishment order dated 15.04.1998 \/ 11.05.1998,<br \/>\napart from regulating the pay scale including all the increments together with<br \/>\npaper promotion as SubRegistrar Grade-I on  par  with  his  juniors  with  all<br \/>\nattendant benefits giving weightage to his pensionary benefits, etc.,<\/p>\n<p>                2.  According to the petitioner, he entered Government service<br \/>\nas  Section  Writer  on  07.09.1965  and  after  serving  in  the Registration<br \/>\nDepartment in various capacities, he retired from service, after attaining the<br \/>\nage of superannuation on 30.11.2001.  The second respondent in his proceedings<br \/>\ndated 21.10.1997, issued a charge memo under Rule  17(b)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nCivil  Services  (Discipline  and Appeal) Rules, 19 55 (in short &#8220;the Rules&#8221;),<br \/>\nalleging certain irregularities occurred in remittance  of  collection  amount<br \/>\ndue to  lack  of supervision in the remittance duty.  On receipt of the charge<br \/>\nmemo, he made a demand from the Sub-Registrar, Pallipalayam, requesting him to<br \/>\nfurnish certain documents,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  submit  an  effective<br \/>\nexplanation.   However, there was no response from him, and with the available<br \/>\nmaterials, he submitted his explanation \/ objection on 26.11.1997.  The second<br \/>\nrespondent  in  his  proceedings  dated  15.04.1998  \/   11.05.1998,   without<br \/>\nconducting any enquiry and giving opportunity to defend, as contemplated under<br \/>\nRule  17(b)  of  the  Rules,  has  straight-away issued an order of punishment<br \/>\nstopping increment for three years without cumulative effect.  Questioning the<br \/>\nsame, he filed O.A.No.5906  of  1998  before  the  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal, Chennai.    By  the  impugned  order dated 26.11.2001, the Tribunal,<br \/>\nafter  finding  that  there  is  no  procedural  irregularity  or  illegality,<br \/>\ndismissed his application; hence, the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Heard Mr.  A.  Amalraj, learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nand Mr.  E.  Sampathkumar, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2<br \/>\n.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner, after<br \/>\ntaking us through the charge memo, his explanation, final order dated  15.04.1<br \/>\n998  \/  11.05.1998  and the impugned order dated 26.11.2001, would submit that<br \/>\nhaving mentioned that action has to be taken under Rule 17( b) of  the  Rules,<br \/>\nthe  second  respondent  committed  an error in passing final order under Rule<br \/>\n17(a).  He also contended that even under Rule 17(a), in the light of the fact<br \/>\nthat the petitioner had demanded certain documents, which were  not  provided,<br \/>\nand submitted his explanation disputing the allegations, the second respondent<br \/>\nought to  have  conducted  an  enquiry  before  passing  the order.  The above<br \/>\nmaterial aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal and hence  committed<br \/>\nan error in dismissing his original application.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  On the   other  hand,  Mr.    E.    Sampathkumar,  learned<br \/>\nGovernment Advocate, would submit that action was initiated under  Rule  17(a)<br \/>\nand  before  passing  the  order  of punishment, petitioner was given adequate<br \/>\nopportunity and in fact he submitted his explanation and  the  same  was  duly<br \/>\nconsidered,  and  hence  there  are neither procedural lapses nor violation of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  We have carefully considered the materials placed and  the<br \/>\nrival contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   Coming to the first contention of the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioner, in the charge  memo  though  the  authority,  viz.,  Inspector<br \/>\nGeneral  of  Registration  referred  to  Rule  17(b), in the &#8220;Subject&#8221;, in the<br \/>\nconcluding paragraph, a reference was made only to Rule 17(a).   The  relevant<br \/>\nportion reads as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; vdnt.    mth;  kPJ  jkpH;ehL  Foikg;gzpahsh;  gzp (xG&#8217;;F kw;Wk; nky; KiwaPL)<br \/>\ntpjpfspd; tpjp 17(v)d; fPH; eltof;if vLf;f vz;zKs;sJ.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, the final order dated 15.04.1998 refers only Rule 17(a).   Therefore,<br \/>\nwe  are  satisfied that the action was taken against the petitioner only under<br \/>\nRule 17(a) and not under Rule 17(b).\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Coming to the other contention that even for minor penalty<br \/>\nunder Rule 17(a),  according  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner,<br \/>\nadequate  opportunity  has  to be given, for which, he relied on a decision of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court in the case of O.K.  Bhardwaj vs.  Union of  India  reported<br \/>\nin 2001  (9) SCC 180.  In the said case, wherein the High Court has arrived at<br \/>\na proposition that in the case of minor penalties, it is not necessary to give<br \/>\nopportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also  not  necessary<br \/>\nto hear  him before awarding the penalty.  When the matter was taken up to the<br \/>\nSupreme Court, the  Hon&#8217;ble  Supreme  Court  has  not  agreed  with  the  said<br \/>\nproposition and observed that,<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;.   Even  in  the case of minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given to<br \/>\nthe delinquent employee to have his  say  or  to  file  his  explanation  with<br \/>\nrespect to the charges against him.  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>He also  relied  on  the  case  of  University  of Bihar vs.  Kamal Deo Thakur<br \/>\nreported in 2005 (9) SCC 278.  In that case, the first respondent  before  the<br \/>\nSupreme  Court  did not join duty at the transferred place despite publication<br \/>\nof notice in a  local  newspaper  and  on  the  failure  to  join  there,  the<br \/>\nUniversity (the  employer),  terminated him from service without enquiry.  The<br \/>\nSupreme Court held that the University ought to have conducted an enquiry  and<br \/>\ngiven an  opportunity to the first respondent to defend his case.  Inasmuch as<br \/>\nthe said case relates to termination of service, the  above  judgment  is  not<br \/>\nhelpful to  the  petitioner&#8217;s  case.   However, in the earlier judgment, viz.,<br \/>\n2001 (9) SCC 180 (cited supra), Supreme Court held that even in  the  case  of<br \/>\nminor  penalty,  an  opportunity should be given to the delinquent employee to<br \/>\nhave his say or submit him explanation with respect  to  the  charges  leveled<br \/>\nagainst him.   Rule 17(a) also provides that where it is proposed to impose on<br \/>\na member of a service of a person holding a civil post under the State any  of<br \/>\nthe  penalties specified in items (i), ( ii), (iii), (v) and (ix) in Rule 8 or<br \/>\nin Rule  9,  he  shall  be  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  making  any<br \/>\nrepresentation  that  he  may  desire to make and such representation, if any,<br \/>\nshall be taken into consideration before the order  imposing  the  penalty  is<br \/>\npassed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In the present case, it is not in dispute that pursuant to<br \/>\nthe  charge memo dated 21.10.1997, the petitioner submitted his explanation on<br \/>\n26.11.1997 and the same was considered in detail  in  the  final  order  dated<br \/>\n15.04.1998.   In  such  a  circumstance,  the procedure followed and the order<br \/>\npassed by the second respondent satisfied  the  mandate  provided  under  Rule<br \/>\n17(a) and also the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in 2001 (9) SCC 180.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   It is useful to refer the recent decision of the Supreme<br \/>\ncourt in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1400757\/\">Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur vs.  State Bank of India<\/a>  reported<br \/>\nin  2005  (1)  SCC 13, wherein their Lordships referred to the principles laid<br \/>\ndown in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/961662\/\">Union of India vs.  Jesus Sales  Corporation<\/a>  reported  in<br \/>\n1996 (4) SCC 69, which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;.   When  principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard<br \/>\nbefore an adverse order is passed on any appeal or application, it does not in<br \/>\nall circumstances mean a personal hearing.  The requirement is  complied  with<br \/>\nby affording an opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before<br \/>\nsuch  quasi  judicial authority, who is expected to apply his judicial mind to<br \/>\nthe issues involved.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, it is not a case of<br \/>\nno notice issued and no opportunity given  to  the  petitioner.    Though  the<br \/>\nTribunal  has not discussed all the above details and the order is very brief,<br \/>\nin the light of the above  reasons  we  do  not  find  any  valid  ground  for<br \/>\ninterference.    Consequently,  the  writ  petition  fails  and  the  same  is<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, connected WPMP., is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>kh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Government<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nCommercial Taxes and Religious<br \/>\nEndowments Department<br \/>\nSecretariat<br \/>\nChennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Inspector General of Registration<br \/>\nSanthome High Road<br \/>\nChennai 600 028.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Registrar<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal<br \/>\nChennai 600 104.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11\/11\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN W.P. No.41837 of 2002 and WPMP.No.61836 of 2002 M. Ganesan .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. The State 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-212282","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>M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - 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-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-08T14:28:11+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\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T14:28:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1328,\"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-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\",\"name\":\"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-08T14:28:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@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. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - 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-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-08T14:28:11+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\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T14:28:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005"},"wordCount":1328,"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-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005","name":"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-08T14:28:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-ganesan-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-11-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Ganesan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 November, 2005"}]},{"@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\/212282","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=212282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}