{"id":222156,"date":"2009-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-17T00:58:58","modified_gmt":"2015-08-16T19:28:58","slug":"ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 17.11.2009\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR\n\nWrit Petition No.645 of 2006\n\n\nPonmudi.\t\t                                                 ... Petitioner \n\n\t\t                                vs.\t\t\t\t\n\n1.The District Collector,\n   Perambalur District.\n\n2.The Special Commissioner and \n   Commissioner of Revenue Administration,\n   Chepauk,\n   Chennai-5.                                                        ... Respondents\n\t\t\t\t       \n\n\tWrit Petition is filed under Article 226  of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari,  calling for records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu.A2\/8485\/2004 dated 5.2.2005 and Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)\/32715\/2005 dated 4.10.2005 respectively and quash the same.\t\t\t\n\n\tFor Petitioner       :   Mr.K.Venkatramani\n\n\tFor Respondents  :   Mr.V.Manoharan, \n\t\t\t\t    Government Advocate.    \t\t\t  \n-----\nO R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis Writ Petition is filed  to issue a Writ of Certiorari,  calling for records of the respondents in connection with the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in Pa.Mu.A2\/8485\/2004 dated 5.2.2005 and Na.Ka.No.Pani.3(2)\/32715\/2005 dated 4.10.2005 respectively and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Petitioner Ponmudi joined the services as direct recruit Junior Assistant on 28.10.1985.  After series of promotion, he reached the position of Deputy Tahsildar on 20.11.2003.  While he was working as a Deputy Tahsildar in the Taluk Office, Kunnam relating to electoral correction duty, he applied for medical leave from 15.2.2004 to 31.3.2004.  He submitted a medical certificate along with his leave application.  In his place another Deputy Tahsildar by name Thirugnanasundaram, was posted.  First respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the Medical Board, Perambalur and the Medical Board in its meeting held on 17.3.2004 certified that the petitioner was found fit to rejoin duty on 17.3.2004.    Petitioner after joining duty on 17.3.2004, applied earned leave from 18.3.2004 to 16.5.2004 and it was rejected.   The petitioner was called upon to undertake election work for the parliamentary election held in the year 2004.  The petitioner, however, did not rejoin duty and failed to undertake election work and therefore, the first respondent District Collector placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 6.4.2004.  Charges were framed under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.  An explanation  was submitted to the charge memo.  The Assistant Commissioner, Excise, Perambalur District was appointed as Enquiry Officer.  On completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved and   the matter was placed before the first respondent, who rejected the explanation of the petitioner.  The first respondent District Collector by his proceedings dated 5.2.2005 in Pa.Mu.(A2)\/8485\/04  imposed a punishment of postponement of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and also treated the period of suspension from 6.4.2004 to 6.7.2004 as punishment.     The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the second respondent was rejected.  The second respondent, however, directed the first respondent District Collector to treat the suspension period as valid leave period.  Aggrieved thereby, present writ  petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that  the petitioner was suffering from acute asthma and he has produced medical certificates before the enquiry officer   to show that he was suffering from asthma prior to taking medical leave and also after the report of medical board.  The fact that several certificates were produced   finds place in the enquiry officer’s report.  The respondents without considering the genuineness of the certificates and the nature of ailment suffered by the petitioner have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had disobeyed the direction issued by the higher authority and gone on leave and therefore, liable to be proceeded under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and appeal) Rules.  He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has shown material that even after the medical Board’s report the petitioner was suffering from asthma problem.  The enquiry officer, however, did not accept the stand of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the charges stand proved and the petitioner has declined to join the parliamentary election work in spite of specific direction issued on 22.3.2004 and  held that the petitioner is guilty of charges levelled.  The Disciplinary Authority while concurring with the findings of the enquiry officer rejected  the explanation of the petitioner and imposed the punishment viz., the postponement of increment by two years without cumulative effect.  The period of suspension was ordered to be treated as punishment. In appeal,  the second respondent, while confirming the finding of guilt, held that the  period of suspension will be treated as  duty period.  Challenging the same, present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.  Learned counsel contends that the first respondent, the disciplinary authority  and the second respondent, the appellate authority,  have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has submitted only medical slips to show that the petitioner was suffering from ailment even after clearance by the Medical Board.  They held that there is no material to differ with the finding of the enquiry officer.  This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is serious error as the authority has failed to consider the nature of the illness of the petitioner supported by certificates issued even after the medical board’s report.  Considering the nature of the disease  which attacks very frequently, the authorities ought not to have brushed aside the medical certificate issued subsequent to the medical board’s evaluation.  It is  a relevant document for the purpose of considering the petitioner’s case for lesser punishment even if the charge of disobedience is upheld.  If they  had considered the  medical certificate   in the proper perspective, the bona fides of the petitioner’s claim  would be revealed and the disciplinary authority would have  not imposed such a harsh punishment that has been  imposed in this case.  He pleaded for leniency in the matter of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  Heard the learned Government Advocate, who reiterated the  findings of the enquiry officer, order of the first respondent, the disciplinary authority and the order of the second respondent, the appellate authority and referred to the counter and stated that  in the matter of imposing of punishment, it is desirable to leave the issue to the disciplinary authority who has to consider the merits of the charge and the explanation submitted.  He submitted that there is no scope of further reduction of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.  In the present case, the facts remains that the petitioner had proceeded on medical leave 31 days from 1.3.2004.  The Medical Board, however, found the petitioner fit to rejoin duty on 17.3.2004.  The petitioner after joining duty on 17.3.2004, once again applied earned leave from 18.3.2004 to 16.5.2004.  According to the petitioner, he availed earned leave on medical grounds.  The medical records  have been produced before the enquiry officer in the form of certificate along with  other bills which finds place in the findings of the enquiry officer. If the same is perused, it will establish to some extent the  bona fide in the case of the petitioner with regard to his absence from duty.  The petitioner could have submitted the medical records  or certificates to the District Collector when proceedings were issued on 22.3.2004 setting out the reasons for non joining duty which he failed to do resulting in the department taking the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.  On going though through the finding of the enquiry officer, the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, it is clear that the petitioner has already completed some election work and proceeded on medical leave.  Since his request was initially rejected as he was found fit by the medical board on 17.3.2004, the petitioner applied for earned leave from 18.3.2004 to 16.5.2004 for medical reasons.  This has not been properly considered by the authorities while considering the case of punishment since no plea on merits is canvassed on the delinquency.  The quantum of punishment imposed does not commensurate with the delinquency said to have been committed by the petitioner and that plea appears to be justified to some extent in view of the medical records produced and recorded by the enquiry officer.  The respondents have not considered the medical certificates produced prior to the medical board’s evaluation and also after the medical board’s report while considering the question of  punishment.  It can be taken as one  mitigating circumstance to consider  the petitioner’s plea for  leniency in the matter of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.  In such view of the matter, while upholding the finding of the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the delinquency charged, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as modified by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority, the first respondent District Collector to reconsider the plea of the petitioner for leniency in the matter of punishment.  The Writ Petition stands ordered to the extent indicated above.  The first respondent shall decide the quantum of punishment   after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity to put forth with the plea on merits.   No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:     No\t\t\t\t\t\t      17.11.2009\nInternet: Yes \t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\nts\nTo\t\t\t\t \n1.The District Collector,\n   Perambalur District.\n\n2.The Special Commissioner and \n   Commissioner of Revenue Administration,\n   Chepauk,\n   Chennai-5.   \n\nR.SUDHAKAR,J.,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nts\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     Order in\n                                                                   W.P.No.645 of 2006\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t     17.11.2009      \n\n\n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.11.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.645 of 2006 Ponmudi. … Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector, Perambalur District. 2.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. … Respondents Writ Petition […]<\/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-222156","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPonmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - 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\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-16T19:28:58+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T19:28:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1356,\"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\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T19:28:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - 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\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-16T19:28:58+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T19:28:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009"},"wordCount":1356,"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\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009","name":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T19:28:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponmudi-vs-the-district-collector-on-17-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponmudi vs The District Collector on 17 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/222156","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=222156"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222156\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}