{"id":213439,"date":"2007-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-26T11:41:17","modified_gmt":"2015-03-26T06:11:17","slug":"ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 30\/10\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nC.M.A.No.1648 of 1999\n\n\nPonnusamy\t\t\t.. \tAppellant\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.The Chief Secretary to Government,\n  St.George Fort,\n  Chennai.\n\n2.Thirumal,\n  Sales Tax Officer,\n  Srirangam,\n  Multistoried Building,\t\n  Mannarpuram.\n\n3.The Deputy Commissioner,\n  Sales Tax,\n  Trichy Town,\n  Trichy.\t\t\t.. \tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against\nthe judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.904 of 1994 on the file of the\nMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli,\ndated 29.10.1998.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t   \t...\tMr.M.Velusamy\t\t\t\n\n\n^For Respondent\t   \t...\tMr.So.Paramasivam,\n\t\t\t\tAGP(CS) for R1\n\t\t\t\tAGP(T) for R3.\n\t\t\t\tR2 - given up.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful claimant as his claim for<br \/>\ncompensation for Rs.1,00,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh only) was rejected by the Motor<br \/>\nAccidents Claims Tribunal &#8211; Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli, vide<br \/>\njudgment and decree dated 29.10.1998, in M.C.O.P.No.904 of 1994, on the ground<br \/>\nthat the accident was not proved by the claimant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The gist and kernel of the case of the appellant is to the effect that<br \/>\nhe went to Sivakami Cinema Theatre to witness a film for the first show i.e,<br \/>\nbetween 06.00 p.m, and 09.00 p.m.  After witnessing the film for about half an<br \/>\nhour, he came out of the auditorium and was lying abetting the office room in<br \/>\nthe premises of the cinema theatre.  At that time, the Sales Tax Jeep bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TTG-4078(G) carrying the officials concerned which came there<br \/>\nearlier in connection with ticket checking while going out, ran over the<br \/>\nappellant. The F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.723 of 1992 under Sections 279 and<br \/>\n337 I.P.C in connection with the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. During trial, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined<br \/>\nand Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 to<br \/>\nR.W.3 were examined and Ex.R.1 was marked on the side of the respondents and<br \/>\nEx.C.1 was also marked as a Court document.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Being aggrieved by, the order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed this<br \/>\nappeal on the following main grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Tribunal did not take into consideration the evidence of P.W.3 to<br \/>\nP.W.5 who spoke in support of the case of the appellant.  Even though P.W.3, the<br \/>\nSub Inspector of Police who investigated into the matter implicated the driver<br \/>\nof the said vehicle belonging to the Government, yet he was not believed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The points for consideration are:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Whether the accident occurred inside the Cinema Theatre during the<br \/>\nCinema hours and whether the respondents&#8217; vehicle bearing registration No.TTG-<br \/>\n4078(G) caused the accident?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) What was the nature of the injury sustained and what should be the<br \/>\nquantum of compensation to be awarded?\n<\/p>\n<p>Point No:(i)<\/p>\n<p>\t8. At the outset itself, I would like to point out that if a case is a<br \/>\nbogus one, then certainly it should be dismissed without any hesitation and even<br \/>\naction should be taken as against such false claimant under the criminal law and<br \/>\nthere should be no second thought over it.  However, a genuine claim should not<br \/>\nbe discarded on mere conjectures and surmises.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Here, P.W.1 the injured who happened to be the claimant, in his<br \/>\ndeposition clearly and categorically without any embellishment, detailed and<br \/>\ndelineated, narrated and described the incident as found set out in his claim<br \/>\npetition.  The place of occurrence was inside the Cinema theatre.  Since the<br \/>\noccurrence took place during cinema hours, it must be construed as a public<br \/>\nplace.  Had really he wanted to claim compensation by hook or by crook from the<br \/>\nGovernment vehicle, he might not have chosen the Cinema theatre as the venue of<br \/>\nthe accident.  He might have even resorted to picking and choosing some insured<br \/>\nvehicle in collusion with the owner of it as it had been done in various cases<br \/>\nwhich are now under the investigation of C.B.I as per the direction of the<br \/>\nPrincipal Bench of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The status of the appellant is only that of a poor barber and he is<br \/>\nnot a man having any political influence or any other social support to file a<br \/>\nfalse claim.  Without mincing words, P.W.1 in his deposition  would narrate that<br \/>\non 26.10.1992 at about 09.00 hours, while he was lying near the office room of<br \/>\nthe cinema theatre inside the theatre premises, the said jeep belonging to the<br \/>\nrespondents came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and ran<br \/>\nover him, causing grievous injuries to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. P.W.4 and P.W.5, the then Watchmen of that theatre also would speak<br \/>\nabout the fact that the said jeep actually came into the theatre carrying the<br \/>\nofficials concerned for ticket checking purpose.  In fact, P.W.5, the eye-<br \/>\nwitness to the occurrence would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 in all<br \/>\nmaterial aspects relating to the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The Tribunal has not given satisfactory reasons for rejecting the<br \/>\nnarration of P.W.1 as well as P.W.5, the eye-witness to the occurrence.  Over<br \/>\nand above that, P.W.3, the Sub Inspector of Police who investigated into the<br \/>\nmatter, had no axe to grind in the matter and he being a Government servant went<br \/>\nto the extent of implicating the driver of the Government vehicle without any<br \/>\nfear or favour.  Had there been no involvement of Government vehicle, he would<br \/>\nnot have gone to the extent of implicating him.  Unfortunately, the criminal<br \/>\ncase  registered did not culminate in filing a positive charge sheet before the<br \/>\nCourt as the limitation period was allowed to elapse.  Even after getting<br \/>\npermission, it could have been filed, but for reasons best known to the police,<br \/>\nthey never resorted to such a procedure as against the driver of the Government<br \/>\nvehicle.  The evidence of R.W.1, the officer in-charge of the jeep and the<br \/>\nR.W.2, the driver of the vehicle put across their  interested testimony.  R.W.3,<br \/>\nthe owner of the cinema theatre had danced to the tune of the Sales Tax<br \/>\nDepartment and hence, he was not helpful to the claimant in giving any version<br \/>\nin support of him.  It appears, the Tribunal very much concentrated on the log<br \/>\nbook wherein something had been written by the very driver of the offending<br \/>\nvehicle itself and one cannot expect that he should have written that log book<br \/>\nin a just and proper manner implicating himself.  For the purpose of fastening<br \/>\nthe responsibility on the driver in matters of this nature, absence of entry in<br \/>\nthe log book should not be taken as material one.  The Tribunal should not have<br \/>\nthrown the baby along with the bathe water.  Cutting across technicalities, in<br \/>\nmatters of this nature, the plight of the injured should be viewed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. From the perusal and discussion supra, I do not find that there was<br \/>\nany falsity in the claim of the petitioner and in such a case, the Tribunal in<br \/>\nmy opinion, could have very well awarded compensation fastening the<br \/>\nresponsibility on the driver of the Government jeep concerned for the accident.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is decided in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant\/claimant to the effect that due to the rash and negligent driving of<br \/>\nthe respondents&#8217; jeep by the driver concerned, the accident occurred even though<br \/>\nthe injured also contributed to some extent in causing the accident by his<br \/>\nnonchalant act of lying near the office room in cinema theatre.\n<\/p>\n<p>Point No:(ii)<\/p>\n<p>\t15. On the side of the appellant, a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- was claimed, but<br \/>\nin support of it, adequate materials have not been placed before the Tribunal.<br \/>\nThe fact remains that the appellant\/claimant who was expected to be in the<br \/>\nauditorium witnessing the film, had chosen to stay outside the auditorium and<br \/>\neven lying down near the office which apparently shows that he was also to some<br \/>\nextent responsible for contributing to the accident.  However, the driver of the<br \/>\njeep was not justified in driving the jeep in such a rash and negligent manner<br \/>\nin running over the claimant.  Hence, by way of striking a balance between the<br \/>\ntwo, I would like to take a cue from Sections 140  and 163-A of the Motor<br \/>\nVehicles Act, even though, the appellant himself had not invoked those<br \/>\nprovisions.  This Court in the interest of doing wholesome justice, could take a<br \/>\ncue from those provisions and award a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards grievous injury sustained  by  him.<br \/>\nThe  aforesaid  lumpsum  amount  of<br \/>\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be paid by the respondents<br \/>\nwithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order<br \/>\nand if it is not paid so in time, then that amount shall carry the interest at<br \/>\nthe rate of 7.5% per annum from this date.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb\t<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Chief Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n  St.George Fort,  Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Deputy Commissioner,<br \/>\n  Sales Tax,<br \/>\n  Trichy Town,<br \/>\n  Trichy.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>  Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli.\n<\/p>\n<p>  C.M.A.No.1648 of 1999<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30\/10\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.No.1648 of 1999 Ponnusamy .. Appellant Vs 1.The Chief Secretary to Government, St.George Fort, Chennai. 2.Thirumal, Sales Tax Officer, Srirangam, Multistoried Building, Mannarpuram. 3.The Deputy [&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-213439","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>Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 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\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-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=\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-26T06:11:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T06:11:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1443,\"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\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-26T06:11:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 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":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 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\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-26T06:11:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T06:11:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007"},"wordCount":1443,"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\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007","name":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-26T06:11:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponnusamy-vs-the-chief-secretary-to-government-on-30-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponnusamy vs The Chief Secretary To Government on 30 October, 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\/213439","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=213439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}