{"id":21433,"date":"2004-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004"},"modified":"2015-05-25T23:33:33","modified_gmt":"2015-05-25T18:03:33","slug":"union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 29\/11\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA         \nAND  \nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR             \n\nWRIT PETITION NO.25329 OF 2002     \n\n\n1. Union of India,rep. by the\n     Divisional Railway Manager,\n   Southern Railway, Madurai.\n\n2. Assistant Personnel Officer,\n   Madurai Division,\n   Southern Railway, Madurai.\n\n3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,\n   Madurai Division,\n   Southern Railway, Madurai.\n\n4. Assistant Commercial Manager,  \n   Madurai Division,\n   Southern Railway, Madurai.           ..  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   Madras Bench, \n   Chennai 600 104.\n\n2. A. Thangavelu,\n   S\/o. Arthanari Asari,\n   c\/o.R. Ganesh,\n   No.20, Sarojini Street,\n   Thallakullam Post,\n   Madurai 625 002.                     ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioners        :  Mr.R.  Thyagarajan\n                Senior Counsel for\n                        Mr.V.R.  Gopalan\n\nFor Respondent-2       :  Mr.K.  Chandru\n                        Senior Counsel for\n                        Mr.R.Rengaramanujam\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>(The order of the Court was made by P.K.  MISRA, J)<\/p>\n<p>        The  Union  of India and its subordinate officers of the Railways have<br \/>\nfiled  this  writ  petition  against  the  order   passed   by   the   Central<br \/>\nAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No.753 of 2001 dated 12.2.2002, where under the<br \/>\nTribunal  has  quashed  the  order  dated  27.4.2000  discharging  the present<br \/>\nRespondent No.2 from service.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The present Respondent No.2 was appointed as a Lascar in April,  1<br \/>\n998 and  in  August, 1998 he was conferred temporary status.  On 5.11.1 999, a<br \/>\ncharge memo was issued against the present Respondent No.2 on  the  allegation<br \/>\nof  unauthorised  absence  from  his  service  from  18.1.199  9 to 27.4.2000.<br \/>\nSubsequently, an enquiry was conducted and  the  Enquiry  Officer  found  that<br \/>\nRespondent No.2  was  guilty  of the charges.  Such report was communicated to<br \/>\nRespondent No.2.   At  that  time,  he  has  submitted  a  representation  for<br \/>\nproduction  of  muster  rolls  covering  the  entire  period  of  the  alleged<br \/>\nunauthorised absence.    While  the  matter  stood  thus,  on  3.3.2000,   the<br \/>\ndisciplinary  authority  withdrew  the  enquiry report and ordered for a fresh<br \/>\nenquiry.  On 15.3.2000, the enquiry officer recorded a finding indicating that<br \/>\nthe charges have been proved.  At that stage, Respondent No.2 was  allowed  to<br \/>\nrejoin on  23.4.2000.   However, just a few days thereafter, he was discharged<br \/>\nfrom service as per order dated 27.4.2000.  The relevant portion of  the  said<br \/>\norder is to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8230;  Sr.    Divisional  Commercial  Manager,  Madurai,  vide his note<br \/>\nNo.U\/C.325\/Sr.DCM\/Misc.  dated 26.4.2000, has advised that the  said  Shri  A.<br \/>\nThangavel  has  been  unauthorisedly  absenting  from  duty  since 18.01.19 99<br \/>\nonwards  and  that  his  performance   as   Sub.Bungalow   Lascar   is   quite<br \/>\nunsatisfactory  and hence he does not require the services of the said Shri A.<br \/>\nThangavel.\n<\/p>\n<p>        WHEREFORE,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  his<br \/>\nengagement, the   said  A.    Thangavel  who  has  not  worked  for  one  year<br \/>\ncontinuously, is discharged from his engagement as  Sub.Bungalow  Lascar  with<br \/>\nimmediate effect.   He shall be paid a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay<br \/>\nplus allowances for a period of 14 days, calculated at the same rate at  which<br \/>\nhe  was  drawing  then  immediately  before  his discharge, in lieu of 14 days<br \/>\nnotice period.<\/p>\n<p>        Thereafter, the present Respondent No.2 preferred  appeal  before  the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority.     However,  since  the  appeal  had  remained  pending,<br \/>\nRespondent No.2 filed O.A.No.27 of 2001, which was  disposed  of  on  8.1.2001<br \/>\ndirecting the  authorities  to  dispose the appeal dated 24.5.2000.  Following<br \/>\nthe aforesaid direction,  the  Appellate  Authority  passed  the  order  dated<br \/>\n12.3.2001   confirming   the  earlier  order  of  discharge  dated  27.4.2000.<br \/>\nRespondent No.2 filed O.A.No.753 of  2001,  which  has  been  allowed  by  the<br \/>\nTribunal.  The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the order of discharge<br \/>\npassed  by  the  authority  has cast stigma on the present Respondent No.2 and<br \/>\nsuch order cannot be sustained.  The Tribunal has directed  that  the  present<br \/>\nRespondent No.2  should  be  reinstated  with all consequential benefits.  The<br \/>\nsaid order is being impugned in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Learned Senior counsel appearing for the  petitioners  has<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  since  an  order  of  discharge  simplicitor  was  passed  in<br \/>\naccordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement of employment, there<br \/>\nwas no illegality in such order and the Tribunal should  not  have  interfered<br \/>\nwith the order of discharge.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   Learned  Senior  counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 on<br \/>\nthe other hand has submitted that in the present case,  keeping  in  view  the<br \/>\nbackground  that  two  enquiries  had  been held and finding of guilt had been<br \/>\nrecorded, the order of  discharge  amounted  to  imposing  punishment  without<br \/>\nfollowing  the  principles  contained  in  Article  311(2) of the Constitution<br \/>\ninasmuch as no second show cause notice had been issued  to  Respondent  No.2,<br \/>\nand therefore, the order of discharge was illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  In (1999)  2  SCC  21  <a href=\"\/doc\/1876487\/\">(RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA v.  U.P.  STATE<br \/>\nAGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD.  AND ANOTHER),<\/a> it was observed :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        34.  But in cases where the termination is preceded by an enquiry and<br \/>\nevidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature  are<br \/>\narrived  at  behind  the  back of the officer and where on the basis of such a<br \/>\nreport, the termination order is issued, such an order will  be  violative  of<br \/>\nthe principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the enquiry is to<br \/>\nfind out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely<br \/>\nto gather  evidence for a future regular departmental enquiry.  In such cases,<br \/>\nthe termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and  will<br \/>\nbe punitive.    These  are  obviously  not cases where the employer feels that<br \/>\nthere is a mere cloud against the employees conduct but are  cases  where  the<br \/>\nemployer  has  virtually  accepted  the  definitive  and clear findings of the<br \/>\nenquiry officer, which are all arrived at behind the  back  of  the  employee-<br \/>\neven  though  such  acceptance  of  findings  is  not recorded in the order of<br \/>\ntermination.  That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely  the<br \/>\nmotive in such cases.<\/p>\n<p>                6.    Similar  principles  were  followed  in  the  subsequent<br \/>\ndecisions reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 <a href=\"\/doc\/1727116\/\">(DIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE  v.    SATYENDRA<br \/>\nNATH BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS) and<\/a> (2000 )<br \/>\n5 SCC 152 (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHAHI v.  STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS).\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.   Many of the earlier decisions were analysed and discussed<br \/>\nin the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 52  0<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/994313\/\">(PAVANENDRA NARAYAN  VERMA  v.    SANJAY  GANDHI  PGI  OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND<br \/>\nANOTHER),<\/a> upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned  Senior  Counsel<br \/>\nfor the  petitioners.    On  facts,  the  ratio  of  the  said decision is not<br \/>\napplicable.  Even in the said case, it was observed :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         21.  One of the judicially evolved tests  to  determine  whether  in<br \/>\nsubstance  an order of termination is punitive is to see whether whether prior<br \/>\nto the termination  there  was  (a)  a  full-scale  formal  enquiry  (b)  into<br \/>\nallegations  involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a<br \/>\nfinding of guilt.  If all three factors are present the termination  has  been<br \/>\nheld  to  be  puni  tive  irrespective  of  the form of the termination order.<br \/>\nConversely if any one of the three factors is  missing,  the  termination  has<br \/>\nbeen upheld.<\/p>\n<p>                8.   Following  the  ratio  of the aforesaid decisions, if the<br \/>\nfactual backdrop of the present case is analysed, there is no escape from  the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  in the present case the alleged misconduct of the Respondent<br \/>\nNo.2, remaining absent, was the foundation for the order of discharge  and  as<br \/>\nsuch,  since  the  order  of  discharge was without completing the enquiry and<br \/>\nwithout issuing second show cause notice, such order was illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  In the  impugned  order  of  discharge  itself,  there  is<br \/>\nreference to  unauthorised  absence  of  the  Respondent No.2.  A full-fledged<br \/>\ndisciplinary proceedings had been initiated, but for some unknown reasons, the<br \/>\nauthorities without concluding the enquiry in a manner known to  law,  allowed<br \/>\nthe  Respondent No.2 to join and passed the order of discharge within few days<br \/>\nthereafter.  Tenor of the order itself casts stigma.  Moreover, such order had<br \/>\nbeen preceded by two abortive disciplinary proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Keeping in view the aforesaid aspects, we agree with  the<br \/>\nconclusion  of  the  Tribunal  that  the  order  of  discharge  amounted  to a<br \/>\npunishment and was liable to be quashed as the principles  under  Article  311<br \/>\n(2) had not been followed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted<br \/>\nthat even assuming that the order of discharge was improper, the Tribunal  was<br \/>\nnot  justified  in  directing  reinstatement  with all consequential benefits,<br \/>\nincluding the backwages.  He has submitted that Respondent No.2 may be allowed<br \/>\nto rejoin, however, backwages should not be paid.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of  Respondent<br \/>\nNo.2,  on instructions from the Respondent No.2, who was present in Court, has<br \/>\nsubmitted that the Respondent No.2  should  be  reinstated  with  all  service<br \/>\nbenefits, save and except the payment of backwages.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case<br \/>\nand  keeping  in  view  the  fact  that  Respondent  No.2  was  absent  for  a<br \/>\nconsiderable  period  of  time  and  was somewhat responsible for the ultimate<br \/>\naction, he should not be allowed the benefit of backwages.   Accordingly,  the<br \/>\norder  of the Tribunal is modified and it is directed that the Respondent No.2<br \/>\nshall report before the third petitioner,  the  Senior  Divisional  Commercial<br \/>\nManager,  Madurai  Division, Southern Railway, Madurai on 10th December, 2004.<br \/>\nHe shall be deemed to be in service and the entire period shall be taken  into<br \/>\naccount  for  all service benefits such as seniority, increments, etc., but he<br \/>\nshall not be entitled to any backwages till he rejoins on 10.12.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, subject to<br \/>\nthe aforesaid direction.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  Union of India,rep.  by the<br \/>\nDivisional Railway Manager,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Assistant Personnel Officer,<br \/>\nMadurai Division,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,<br \/>\nMadurai Division,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  Assistant Commercial Manager,<br \/>\nMadurai Division,<br \/>\nSouthern Railway, Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/11\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25329 OF 2002 1. Union of India,rep. by the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Madurai. [&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-21433","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-25T18:03:33+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\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T18:03:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1468,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T18:03:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-25T18:03:33+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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T18:03:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004"},"wordCount":1468,"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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004","name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T18:03:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-29-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 29 November, 2004"}]},{"@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\/21433","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=21433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}