{"id":233041,"date":"2004-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004"},"modified":"2016-09-17T00:59:42","modified_gmt":"2016-09-16T19:29:42","slug":"k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:06\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN\n\nWRIT PETITION NO.8850 OF 1999\n\n\n1.  K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri\n2.  T.L. Veerakumar\n3.  S. Dhanapalan\n4.  K. Chidambaram\n5.  N. Nandagopalan\n6.  A. Chakkaravarthi\n7.  G. Rajan Babu\n8.  M. Pattaiyan\n9.  Bellie Bojan\n10. R. Parimanam\n11. M.V. Ramachandran\n12. Mohamed Sirajudeen Meera            ..  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by the Secretary to Govt.,\n   Home Department,\n   Fort St. George,\n   Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Registrar,\n   Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal,\n   Chennai 600 010.\n\n3. V.P. Rathinasenan\n   Prosecutor for Disciplinary Proceedings\n   Office of the Deputy Superintendent\n      of Police,\n   Vigilance and Anti Corruption\n   Vellore\n\n4. M.N. Balasubramanian,\n   Legal Adviser,\n   Office of the Drug Controller,\n   D.M.S. Compound, Madras.\n\n5. Abdul Aziz,\n   Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.I,\n   Addl. Chief Metropolitan\n     Magistrate Court, Egmore,\n   Chennai 600 008.\n\n6. Nandakumar,\n   Assistant Public Prosecutor Gr.I,\n   XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court,\n   Kelleys, Madras.\n\n7. S. Venkatraman\n   Assistant Public Prosecutor,\n   XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court,\n   Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.\n\n8. D. Amalathithan,\n   Legal Adviser to\n   Director of Agriculture, Ezhilagam,\n   Chennai.                     ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\nthe issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\n\nFor Petitioners        :  Mr.N. Anand Venkatesh\n\nFor Respondent-1       :  Mr.S.V. Duraisolaimalai\n                           Govt. Advocate\nRespondents 3-4 :  Mr. Vijayakumar\n\nRespondent-7    :  Mr.D. Shanmugham\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>        Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        Prior  to  17.11.1984,  the  Assistant Public Prosecutors in the State<br \/>\nwere functioning in  two  separate  units.    The  post  of  Assistant  Public<br \/>\nProsecutors  in  mofussil  were governed by the Special Rules in Class XLIX of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu General Service, whereas the Assistant  Public  Prosecutors  in<br \/>\nMadras City were governed by Class XXXIV of the Tamil Nadu Government Service.<br \/>\nThe   Government  decided  that  both  the  Units  should  be  integrated  and<br \/>\naccordingly orders were issued in G.O.Ms.    No,.2603  Home  dated  17.11.1984<br \/>\nintegrating the Assistant Public Prosecutors in Madras City and in Mofussil as<br \/>\none unit  and  framed  common  Special  Rules in Class XLIX.  In the aforesaid<br \/>\nG.O., the seniority was fixed with reference to the date of appointment in the<br \/>\nCategory of Assistant Public Prosecutors Gr.II and accordingly the  Government<br \/>\nby  letter  No.15560A\/Courts  VI\/  86-6 dated 4.8.1986 a Provisional Seniority<br \/>\nList of Gr.I and Gr.II Assistant Public Prosecutors was published.    At  that<br \/>\nstage,  the  present  respondents  3  &amp;  4  challenged  the  above Provisional<br \/>\nSeniority List in W.P.No.8394 of 1988.  such writ petition was transferred  to<br \/>\nthe Tribunal and renumbered as T.A.No.326 of 199 4.  Similarly, W.P.No.3552 of<br \/>\n1985  was  filed  challenging  such  seniority  list,  which  was subsequently<br \/>\ntransferred and renumbered as T.A.No.32 5 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  Tribunal  on  consideration  of  the  relevant   facts   and<br \/>\ncircumstances, disposed of both the applications with the following directions<br \/>\n:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        32.   With  the  above  observations,  T.A.325\/94  and T.A.326\/94 are<br \/>\nordered as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        The respondents are directed to prepare and publish the seniority list<br \/>\nof All Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade-I and II  for  the  State  of  Tamil<br \/>\nNadu, taking into account the following directions:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)  The  Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I (Metro) appointed before<br \/>\nthe issuance of G.O.Ms.No.2603, Home, dated 17.11.84 shall be placed higher in<br \/>\nseniority than Assistant Public Prosecutor-I in the Mofussil.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II (Metro) appointed before the<br \/>\nissuance of  G.O.Ms.No.2603,  Home,  dated  17.11.84  shall  be  placed  below<br \/>\nAssistant Public Prosecutor-I in the Mofussil in seniority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)  Assistant  Public  Prosecutor Grade-II (Metro) appointed before<br \/>\nthe issuance of G.O.Ms.No.2603, Home, dated 17.11.84  shall  be  placed  above<br \/>\nAssistant Public Prosecutor-II in the Mofusill in seniority.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iv)   The  seniority  of  Assistant  Public  Prosecutor  Grade-I  and<br \/>\nAssistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I  appointed  after  the  issuance  of  G.O.<br \/>\nMs.No.2603,  Home,  dated  17.11.84  shall  be in accordance with the dates of<br \/>\ntheir regular appointment in their respective posts.  Time 4 months.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  On the basis of the aforesaid directions of the  Tribunal,<br \/>\nthe  Government  subsequently  prepared  a  seniority list of Assistant Public<br \/>\nProsecutor Grade-I and Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The grievance of the present petitioners  is  that  though<br \/>\nsuch  petitioners  were beneficiaries of G.O.MS.No.2603 dated 17.11.1984, they<br \/>\nhad not been impleaded as parties in the litigations before the  Tribunal  and<br \/>\nby virtue of the subsequent order passed by the Government, their seniority in<br \/>\nthe Graduation  List has been adversely affected.  It is their contention that<br \/>\nsince they were necessary parties and had not been impleaded, the  Transferred<br \/>\nApplications should  have  been  rejected  by  the  Tribunal.    It is further<br \/>\ncontended that since the Government had  decided  to  merge  two  units  under<br \/>\nG.O.Ms.No.2603  dated 17.11.1984, there was no necessity nor any justification<br \/>\nfor the Tribunal to  give  preference  to  the  Assistant  Public  Prosecutors<br \/>\nappointed in the Metro.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   The Tribunal has traced in detail the history relating to<br \/>\nthe two Units and has rightly observed that the experience at the bar required<br \/>\nfor appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Mofussil was lower  than<br \/>\nthe  experience required for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor in the<br \/>\ncity of  Madras.    The  Tribunal  also  referred  to  the  fact  that  before<br \/>\nunification,  the  scale  of pay payable to the Assistant Public Prosecutor in<br \/>\nthe city of Madras was higher as compared to the scale of pay payable  to  the<br \/>\nAssistant Public  Prosecutor  in  the  Mofussil.    Keeping  in view these two<br \/>\nimportant aspects, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that while unifying the<br \/>\ntwo units,  the  seniority  should  not  have  been  fixed  on  the  basis  of<br \/>\nappointment  alone  and  the Assistant Public Prosecutors in Metro should have<br \/>\nbeen given weightage or preference.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  From the unchallenged materials, it is apparent  that  for<br \/>\nthe post of the Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I in Metro, one was required<br \/>\nto  have  experience  as an Advocate for a period of 10 years, whereas for the<br \/>\nAssistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I in Mofussil, the requisite experience  was<br \/>\n5  years  experience  and  similarly  for  the  post  of  the Assistant Public<br \/>\nProsecutor Grade-II in Metro, the experience required was 5 years, whereas for<br \/>\nsuch Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II in Mofussil, experience required was<br \/>\ntwo years.  The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion  that  when  both  the<br \/>\ncategories  were  integrated, the aforesaid significant factor should not have<br \/>\nbeen lost sight of.  Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect and  also  the  fact<br \/>\nthat the Assistant Public Prosecutors in Chennai were receiving higher salary,<br \/>\nthe  directions, which have already been extracted were issued by the Tribunal<br \/>\nwith enough justification.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  The contention of the learned counsel for the  petitioners<br \/>\nthat  the petitioners should have been impleaded as parties in the litigations<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal  even  though  attractive  on  the  face  of  it,  is  not<br \/>\nacceptable.   Essentially,  the  policy  of the Government in unifying the two<br \/>\nunits without giving proper attention to the principle relating  to  weightage<br \/>\nor seniority was the question before the Tribunal.  The State Government which<br \/>\nhad issued the  G.O.    was  made  as  a  respondent.  The policy of the State<br \/>\nGovernment was found defective, and  therefore,  a  direction  was  given  for<br \/>\nrectifying such  defects  in  the  manner  indicated by the Tribunal.  In such<br \/>\npeculiar circumstances, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal<br \/>\nmerely  on  account  of  the  fact  that  the  present  petitioners  were  not<br \/>\nspecifically impleaded.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that<br \/>\nthe  G.O.Ms.No.2603  dated 17.11.1984 having not been specifically challenged,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal should not have passed an order  virtually  modifying  the  G.O..<br \/>\nEven  though  there was no specific prayer for quashing the G.O., or modifying<br \/>\nthe G.O., the anomalous situation created by the G.O., was  the  main  subject<br \/>\nmatter  before the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be<br \/>\nillegal or arbitrary, merely  on  the  basis  of  such  technical  submission,<br \/>\nparticularly when the order passed by the Tribunal appears to be very fair and<br \/>\nreasonable, keeping in view the background and the historical perspective.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended<br \/>\nthat  the  order  of the Tribunal should have been brought to the knowledge of<br \/>\nall the persons and after giving them opportunity, the seniority  list  should<br \/>\nhave  been  prepared, more particularly when the previous provisional list has<br \/>\nbeen circulated.  This grievance of the petitioners can be mitigated by giving<br \/>\nopportunity to the petitioners or any other persons affected by the subsequent<br \/>\nseniority list to make suitable representation and if any such  representation<br \/>\nis  made,  the  same  should  be  considered  keeping  in  view the guidelines<br \/>\nindicated in the directions given by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   As  a  result,  while  upholding  the  decision  of  the<br \/>\nTribunal,  we  make  it  clear that it would be open to the petitioners or any<br \/>\nother aggrieved persons to make  representation  regarding  the  seniority  as<br \/>\npublished in Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.No.615 Home dated 26.5.1998 and in case such<br \/>\nrepresentation  would  be received by the authorities, such representation may<br \/>\nbe considered in the  light  of  the  directions  given  by  the  Tribunal  as<br \/>\ncontained in paragraph 32 of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   Subject  to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition<br \/>\nis dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The State of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nrep.  by the Secretary to Govt.,<br \/>\nHome Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George,<br \/>\nChennai 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Registrar,<br \/>\nTamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\nChennai 600 010.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:06\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN WRIT PETITION NO.8850 OF 1999 1. K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri 2. T.L. Veerakumar 3. S. Dhanapalan 4. K. Chidambaram 5. N. [&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-233041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 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\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-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=\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-16T19:29:42+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\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-16T19:29:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1358,\"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\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\",\"name\":\"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-16T19:29:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 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":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 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\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-16T19:29:42+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\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-16T19:29:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004"},"wordCount":1358,"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\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004","name":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-16T19:29:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-c-a-d-gnanagiri-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-6-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.C.A.D.Gnanagiri vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 October, 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\/233041","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=233041"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233041\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233041"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233041"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233041"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}