{"id":21788,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-16T00:57:58","modified_gmt":"2015-08-15T19:27:58","slug":"v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)NO.9378 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.9379 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.9380 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.9381 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.9382 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.10699 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.10700 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.10701 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.10702 of 2010\nW.P.(MD)NO.10703 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)NOs.1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1 and 2 of 2010\n\n\nV.Ananthi\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.9378 and\n\t\t\t\t\t   10699 of 2010\n\nAsikkul Kamila, A.\t\t\t..  Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.9379 and\n\t\t\t\t\t   10700  of 2010\n\nDharani\t\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.9380 and\n\t\t\t\t\t   10701 of 2010\n\nSaravanakumar\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.9381 and\n\t\t\t\t\t  10702 of 2010\n\nV.C.Vasudevan \t\t\t\t..  Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nod.9382 and\n\t\t\t\t\t  10703 of 2010\n\nvs\n\n\n1.The Registrar,\n   Alagappa University,\n   Karaikudi.\n2.The Controller of Examination,\n   Alagappa University,\n   Karaikudi.\t\t\t\t..  Respondents in<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.9378 to
\n\t\t\t\t\t   9382 of 2010<\/p>\n
1.The Director,
\n   Directorate of Distance Education,
\n   Alagappa University, Karaikudi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Controller of Examination,
\n   Alagappa University, Karaikudi. \t\t..  Respondents in
\n\t\t\t\t\t   W.P.(MD)Nos.10699 to
\n\t\t\t\t\t  10703 of 2010<\/p>\n
W.P.(MD)Nos.9378 to 9382 of 2010 have been preferred under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus
\nto call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent,
\ndated 20.05.2010 and to quash the same and to consequently direct the
\nrespondents to announce the result of the examination held in May, 2010.
\nW.P.(MD)Nos.10699 to 10703 of 2010 have been preferred under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for
\nthe records relating to the impugned notification dated nil published by the
\nsecond respondent in the University website in respect of re-examination of the
\ncancelled distance education examinations, May, 2010 at Palani Centre alone and
\nto quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioners  … Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan
\n^For Respondents  … Mr.V.Panneerselvam<\/p>\n
– – – –\n<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioners in both set of writ petitions are the same persons. In the
\nfirst writ petition, they are seeking to set aside the order of the respondent
\nUniversity, dated 20.5.2010, wherein the Chief Superintendent, Alagappa
\nUniversity, Distance Education Examinations at its Standard Matriculation
\nSchool, Palani was informed that the University examinations held in May, 2010
\nat the Palani Centre are cancelled due to mass copying as reported by the
\nSpecial Inspection Squad. The date of re-examinations was to be announced
\nsubsequently.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Notice of motion was ordered in these writ petitions. In the meanwhile,
\nthe same petitioners on coming to know from the University website wherein it
\nwas indicated that reexaminations were to be held at Palani and Vizianagaram
\ncentres from 25.8.2010, filed another set of writ petitions to quash the said
\nnotification. When those writ petitions came up on 18.8.2010, this court
\ndirected the second batch of cases to be heard along with the first batch of
\nwrit petitions. On notice from this court, the respondent University had filed a
\ncounter affidavit, dated 9.8.2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.It is seen from the records that the respondent University started
\nDistance Education Programme from the year 1992-1993. They had also obtained
\npermission from the Distance Education Council, New Delhi upto the academic year
\n2007-2008. Examinations by the University were conducted twice a year, i.e. in
\nMay and December. The examination centres were determined on the basis of
\nstudents strength from time to time and Palani became one of the centres. The
\nStandard Matriculation School at Palani was fixed as centre for conducting
\nexaminations in May, 2010. The theory part of the examinations for Under
\nGraduate Courses and Post Graduate Courses were held from 5.5.2010 to 14.5.2010
\nand from 5.5.2010 to 18.5.2010 respectively. It was also found out by the
\nUniversity that right from the commencement of the examinations, there has been
\ncomplaints of malpractices in that centre. Based on those reports, the
\nUniversity ordered the surprise squad to visit the centre. They also appointed
\nthe Registrar (In-charge), Dean-Research, Dean-College Development Council as
\npart of the Squad. They visited the centre on 15.5.2010 at 11.00 a.m. When the
\nsquad visited the ground floor of the building where examinations were
\nconducted, they found that there was mass copying going on in the centre. Even
\nby the seating arrangements made, two or three candidates can sit in a same
\nbench which will enable them copy from others. The squad also found that bribe
\namount of Rs.1000\/- per paper was given to the staff.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.It was also stated that the Hall Supervisor, i.e. B.Kaleeswari also gave
\na written statement, dated 15.5.2010 repented that mass copying was permitted by
\ncollecting money from the examinees. Another Hall Supervisor, i.e. L.Kalaimathi
\nalso gave her written statement acknowledging the fact of copying by students
\nwith their books. The Correspondent-cum-Principal of the School one Mrs.Vatsala
\nMuthukrishnan also accepted that mass copying was done in at least two halls. On
\nthe basis of the report of the Squad and taking into account the reputation of
\nthe University, the University decided to cancel the examinations conducted in
\nPalani centre. It is also stated that in order to maintain the standard of
\neducation and keeping the reputation of the University and confidence of general
\npublic, cancellation had taken place.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.However, the petitioner contended that only students in the ground floor
\nwere found copying and that cannot be taken as copying by all. The inspection
\nwas done only on 15.5.2010. If at all only that day’s examinations can be
\ncancelled and not the entire examinations undertaken by the petitioners. It was
\nalso stated that cancellation has been done in contravention of principles of
\nnatural justice. The petitioners were punished without being heard.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Mr.M.Gnanagurunathan, learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
\nhis contention, stated that mass copying is not defined anywhere. For the
\npurpose of defining the said term, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the
\nAllahabad High Court in Rajiv Ratna Shukla and another Vs. University of
\nAllahabad and others reported in AIR 1987 Allahabad 208. Reliance was placed
\nupon the following passage found in paragraph 5 of the said judgment which is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“5.Mass copying has not been defined in the Act or the Statute framed under the
\nUniversity Act. It has therefore to be understood in its common parlance. What
\ncould be considered mass copying cannot be laid down with mathematical
\nprecision. It has to vary and has to be decided on circumstances. It may be
\ncopying by a vast majority or on a massive scale or in such large proportion
\nthat it was not possible to check it…..”\n<\/p>\n
Hence it was stated that there was no mass copying found in the centre.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.For the purpose of reiterating their right to be heard before
\ncancellation, he also relied upon a judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in
\nBansal  Academy Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others reported in AIR 2006
\nChhattisgarh 85. He referred to the following passage found in paragraph 8 of
\nthe said judgment which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“8….It is trite that the impugned actions of the University authorities affect
\nthe interests and rights of the petitioners. The University having invited the
\napplications, having entered into a MOUs with the petitioner-Institutions
\nwhereby and whereunder the petitioner – Institutions were authorized to organize
\nthe courses and conduct examinations for the students admitted by them, having
\ndirected the petitioner-Institutions to make admissions before a cut-off date
\nprescribed by the University itself for the academic session 2005-2006, ought
\nnot have abruptly cancelled all the examinations organized and conducted by all
\nthe petitioners on the alleged ground of mass-copying. In the Notification
\nissued by the Registrar of the University dated 24-9-2005, except stating that
\nthe examinations are cancelled due to mass-copying, the details of mass-copying
\nare not set out. It is an admitted position that before the Director, Institute
\nof Distance Education issued letter dated 20.9.2005 and the Registrar of the
\nUniversity issued Notification dated 24.9.2005, none of the University
\nauthorities did issue any notice to the petitioner-Institutions to know or have
\ntheir say\/explanation with regard to the allegation of mass-copying. The action
\nof the University, therefore, amounts to condemning a person unheard. The action
\napparently is vitiated not only on account of violation of principles of natural
\njustice but also on account of violation of the mandates of Article 14, i.e.
\nfairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness….”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.However, this court is not persuaded to accept the contentions of the
\npetitioners in the light of the long line of decisions of the Supreme Court on
\nsimilar issue. It is worthwhile to refer to some of those decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In the earliest decision rendered in Bihar School Examination Board v.
\nSubhas Chandra Sinha<\/a> reported in (1970) 1 SCC 648, the Supreme Court held that
\nin case of examinations held to be vitiated, it is unnecessary to give notice
\nand the decisions of the educational authorities cannot be lightly interfered
\nwith. The following passages found in paragraphs 13 to 15 may be usefully
\nquoted:-\n<\/p>\n
“13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with
\nadoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a
\nvast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of
\ncharging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination
\nas ineffective for the purpose it was held. Must the Board give an opportunity
\nto all the candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was not
\nnecessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the
\nexaminations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one
\nwith unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was
\nvitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it
\nwould be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the
\nmatter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the
\ncandidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.\n<\/p>\n
14…… To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry
\nwould hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and
\nSchool Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural
\njustice and fair-play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we
\ndo not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an
\ninquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case,
\nhowever different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the
\nconduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of
\nevery person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a
\ncentre the whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to secure
\nsuccess in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful
\nonly at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must
\ndo something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry
\nwith a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the results
\nare withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on
\nwhich it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion
\nthat the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that
\nthe university’s appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do
\nfor the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even
\ntheir representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received
\nassistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury,\n<\/p>\n
15. We are satisfied that no principle of natural justice was violated in this
\ncase. The Board through its Chairman and later itself reached the right
\nconclusion that the examinations at this Centre had been vitiated by practising
\nunfair means on a mass scale and the Board had every right to cancel the
\nexamination and order that a fresh examination be held. There was no need to
\ngive the examinees an opportunity of contesting this conclusion because the
\nevidence in the case was perfectly plain and transparent. We therefore set aside
\nthe order of the High Court and ordered dismissal of the writ petition but made
\nno order as to costs.”\t\t\t\t(Emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Maharashtra State Board of
\nSecondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi<\/a> reported in (1991) 2 SCC
\n716 dealt with the scope of application of principles of natural justice. The
\nfollowing passage found in paragraph 22 may be usefully extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
\t“22. From this perspective, the question is whether omission to record
\nreasons vitiates the impugned order or is in violation of the principles of
\nnatural justice. The omnipresence and omniscience (sic) of the principle of
\nnatural justice acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant
\ninfraction of fair play. But the applicability of the principles of natural
\njustice is not a rule of thumb or a strait-jacket formula as an abstract
\nproposition of law. It depends on the facts of the case, nature of the inquiry
\nand the effect of the order\/decision on the rights of the person and attendant
\ncircumstances. It is seen from the record and is not disputed, that all the
\nstudents admitted the factum of fabrication and it was to his or her advantage
\nand that the subject\/subjects in which fabrication was committed belong to him
\nor her. In view of these admissions the Enquiry Officer obviously did not find
\nit expedient to reiterate all the admissions made. If the facts are disputed,
\nnecessarily the authority or the Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the
\nmaterial on record, should record reasons in support of the conclusion reached.
\nSince the facts are admitted, the need for their reiteration was obviated and so
\nonly conclusions have been stated in the reports. The omission to record reasons
\nin the present case is neither illegal, nor is violative of the principles of
\nnatural justice. Whether the conclusions are proved or not is yet another
\nquestion and would need detailed consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Further reiterating the same principles, the Supreme Court in Madhyamic
\nShiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti<\/a> reported in (1998) 9 SCC
\n236 observed in paragraph 2 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“2…. In the face of this material, we do not see any justification in the High
\nCourt having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the
\nexamination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the student community resorts
\nto such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward to
\ncontend that innocent students become victims of such misbehaviour of their
\ncompanions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left with no
\nalternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the
\nBoard to identify the innocent students from those indulging in malpractices.
\nOne may feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the
\nsituation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available
\nto it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to
\ncancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in
\ndoing so. This should serve as a lesson to the students that such malpractices
\nwill not help them succeed in the examination and they may have to go through
\nthe drill once again….”\t\t(Emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n
\t12.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel
\nManagement, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan
\nreported in (2009) 1 SCC 59 once again in paragraphs 12 and 27 reiterated the
\nsame principles. Those passages may be usefully extracted below:
\n“12. The learned Single Judge in the interim order has then emphasised on the
\nfact that the respondent had apologised and had confessed to the possession of
\nthe chit. In our opinion this again is a misplaced sympathy. We are of the firm
\nopinion that in academic matters there should be strict discipline and
\nmalpractices should be severely punished. If our country is to progress we must
\nmaintain high educational standards, and this is only possible if malpractices
\nin examinations in educational institutions are curbed with an iron hand.\n<\/p>\n
….\n<\/p>\n
\t“27. Before parting with this case, we would like to refer to the
\ndecisions of this Court which has repeatedly held that the High Court should not
\nordinarily interfere with the orders passed in educational matters by domestic
\ntribunals set up by educational institutions vide Board of High School &
\nIntermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad (AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 875) (vide AIR para\n<\/p>\n
12), J.P. Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University (1980 (3) SCC 418) (vide SCC
\npara 17 : AIR para 17), Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University (1986
\nSupp SCC 740) (vide SCC para 7 : AIR para 7). We wish to reiterate the view
\ntaken in the above decisions, and further state that the High Courts should not
\nordinarily interfere with the functioning and orders of the educational
\nauthorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory rule or legal
\nprinciple. Also, there must be strict purity in the examinations of educational
\ninstitutions and no sympathy or leniency should be shown to candidates who
\nresort to unfair means in the examinations.”     (Emphasis added)\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Very recently, the Supreme Court in All India Railway Recruitment Board
\nv. K. Shyam Kumar<\/a> reported in (2010) 6 SCC 614 in paragraphs 18 and 43 applied
\nthe Wednesbury principles while reviewing the decision of the authorities and
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“18. We are, in this case, primarily concerned with the question whether the
\nHigh Court was justified in interfering with the decision taken by the Board in
\nconducting a retest for those who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the
\nfirst written test and directing the Board to go ahead with the recruitment
\nprocess on the basis of the first written test against which there were serious
\nallegations of irregularities and malpractices……..\n<\/p>\n
   ……….\n<\/p>\n
43. We, therefore hold, applying the test of Wednesbury1 unreasonableness as
\nwell as the proportionality test, the decision taken by the Board in the facts
\nand circumstances of this case was fair, reasonable, well balanced and
\nharmonious. By accepting the third alternative, the High Court was perpetuating
\nthe illegality since there were serious allegations of leakage of question
\npapers, large scale of impersonation by candidates and mass copying in the first
\nwritten test.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In the light of the factual matrix and the legal precedents set out
\nabove, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petitions. Hence all the
\nwrit petitions will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions stand closed.\n<\/p>\n
vvk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Registrar,
\n   Alagappa University,
\n   Karaikudi.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Controller of Examination,
\n   Alagappa University,
\n   Karaikudi.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Director,
\n   Directorate of Distance Education,
\n   Alagappa University, Karaikudi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.9378 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.9379 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.9380 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.9381 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.9382 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.10699 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.10700 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.10701 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.10702 of 2010 W.P.(MD)NO.10703 of […]<\/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-21788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-15T19:27:58+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T19:27:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2954,\"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\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-15T19:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-15T19:27:58+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T19:27:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":2954,"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\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010","name":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-15T19:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ananthi-vs-the-registrar-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Ananthi vs The Registrar on 20 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/21788","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=21788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}