{"id":234319,"date":"2007-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-03T02:18:31","modified_gmt":"2014-05-02T20:48:31","slug":"v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED  : 12\/11\/2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n                Writ Petition No.4771 of 1999\n                              \n\n\n\nV.N.Muthusamy                                \t\t\t     ..Petitioner.\n\n\n          Versus\n\n                              \n1.  The Spl. Commissioner &amp; Commissioner of Revenue Administration\n    Chepauk,\n    Chennai 5.\n\n2.  The Additional District Magistrate,\n    Erode District\n    Erode.                            \t\t\t\t     ..Respondents.<\/pre>\n<p>Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution<br \/>\nof   India   praying  for  the  issuance  of   a   Writ   of<br \/>\nCertiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to<br \/>\nthe  proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 29.8.97,  made<br \/>\nin  Mu.Mu.64486\/97\/C3 and confirmed by the first  respondent<br \/>\nin    his    proceedings,    dated    21.9.98,    made    in<br \/>\nDis.RAV(2)16800\/98   (AA  230\/97),  quash   the   same   and<br \/>\nconsequently,  direct  the  respondents  to   consider   the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s application afresh for grant of licence to have<br \/>\nDBBL Gun.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<pre>      For petitioner     :  Mr.N.Manokaran\n\n      For respondents    :  Mr.V.Manoharan (R1)\n                            Government Advocate\n\n                              \n\n\n                         O  R D E R\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Heard,  Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel  appearing<\/p>\n<p>for   the   petitioner  and  Mr.V.Manoharan,   the   learned<\/p>\n<p>Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>      2.  It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent<\/p>\n<p>resident   of   Parayar   Koil  Thottam,   Arakkan   Kottai,<\/p>\n<p>Gopichettipalayam Taluk. The petitioner is owning  20  acres<\/p>\n<p>of  land  in  Arakkankottai Village, which is situated  very<\/p>\n<p>close   to   Sathyamangalam  Forest.   The   petitioner   is<\/p>\n<p>cultivating sugarcane, turmeric and other crops.  The  house<\/p>\n<p>of  the  petitioner is situated outside  the  village  in  a<\/p>\n<p>remote  place.  The  members  of  the  petitioner&#8217;s  family,<\/p>\n<p>including  his aged parents were living in the  said  house.<\/p>\n<p>The  petitioner had applied to the second respondent for the<\/p>\n<p>grant of a licence for a Double Barrel Breech Loaded gun for<\/p>\n<p>his personal safety and for crop protection. Pursuant to the<\/p>\n<p>application  made  by the petitioner, the second  respondent<\/p>\n<p>had  called  for a report from the Tahsildar, Gopi  and  the<\/p>\n<p>Superintendent  of  Police,  Erode  District.   Though   the<\/p>\n<p>Superintendent  of  Police, Erode, had  no  adverse  remarks<\/p>\n<p>against  the  petitioner for granting the  licence  and  the<\/p>\n<p>Tahsildar, Gopi, had submitted a report without any  adverse<\/p>\n<p>remarks  against the petitioner, the second  respondent  had<\/p>\n<p>rejected  the application by his order, dated 29.8.97,  made<\/p>\n<p>in   Mu.Mu.64486\/97\/C3.  The  petitioner  had  preferred  an<\/p>\n<p>appeal, dated 11.9.97, to the first respondent. By an order,<\/p>\n<p>dated  21.9.98, the first respondent had confirmed the order<\/p>\n<p>of  the second respondent, rejecting the application of  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. The main contention of the petitioner is that since<\/p>\n<p>no  adverse  remarks had been made against the  petitioner&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>request,  the respondents ought to have granted the licence,<\/p>\n<p>in  accordance with the provisions of law, as provided under<\/p>\n<p>Sections  13  and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959,  which  read  as<\/p>\n<p>follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          13.Grant of licences:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (1) An application for the grant of a licence<br \/>\n     under  Chapter  II shall be made to the  licensing<br \/>\n     authority and shall be in such form, contain  such<br \/>\n     particulars and be accompanied such fee,  if  any,<br \/>\n     as may be prescribed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>            (2)  On  receipt  of  an  application,  the<br \/>\n     licensing  authority shall call for the report  of<br \/>\n     the  officer  in  charge  of  the  nearest  police<br \/>\n     station on the application, and such officer shall<br \/>\n     send his report within the prescribed time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (2A)  The  licensing authority,  after  such<br \/>\n     inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and<br \/>\n     after  considering the report received under  sub-<br \/>\n     section   (2),   shall,  subject  to   the   other<br \/>\n     provisions  of this Chapter, by order  in  writing<br \/>\n     either  grant the licence or refuse to  grant  the<br \/>\n     same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           PROVIDED that where the officer in charge of<br \/>\n     the  nearest  police station  does  not  send  his<br \/>\n     report  on  the application within the  prescribed<br \/>\n     time,  the  licensing authority may, if it  deemed<br \/>\n     fit  make  such  order, after the  expiry  of  the<br \/>\n     prescribed time, without further waiting for  that<br \/>\n     report.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          (3) The licensing authority shall grant &#8211;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (a)  a  licence under Section  3  where  the<br \/>\n     licence is required-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                (i) by a citizen of India in respect of<br \/>\n     a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than<br \/>\n     twenty  inches in length to be used for protection<br \/>\n     or sport or in respect of muzzle loading gun to be<br \/>\n     used for bona fide crop protection:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           PROVIDED  that where having  regard  to  the<br \/>\n     circumstances of any case, the licensing authority<br \/>\n     is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be<br \/>\n     sufficient  for  crop  protection,  the  licensing<br \/>\n     authority  may grant a licence in respect  of  any<br \/>\n     other  smooth  bore  gun  as  aforesaid  for  such<br \/>\n     protection, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle<br \/>\n     or  an air rifle to be used for target practice by<br \/>\n     a  member  of  a  rifle club or rifle  association<br \/>\n     licensed or recognized by the Central Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (b)  a licence under Section 3 in any  other<br \/>\n     case or a licence section 4, Section5, Section  6,<br \/>\n     Section   10  or  Section  12,  if  the  licensing<br \/>\n     authority is satisfied that the person by whom the<br \/>\n     licence   is  required  has  a  good  reason   for<br \/>\n     obtaining the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          14. Refusal of licences:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section  13,<br \/>\n     licensing authority shall refused to grant,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (a) a licence under Section 3, Section 4<br \/>\n     or  Section  5 where such licence is  required  in<br \/>\n     respect  of  any  prohibited  arms  or  prohibited<br \/>\n     ammunition;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               (b)  a  licence  in any other case under<br \/>\n     Chapter II,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (i)  where  such licence is  required  by  a<br \/>\n     person whom the licensing authority has reason  to<br \/>\n     believe-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                (1) to be prohibited by this Act or  by<br \/>\n     any  other  law for the time being in  force  from<br \/>\n     acquiring,  having in his possession  or  carrying<br \/>\n     any arms or ammunition, or<\/p>\n<p>               (2) to be of unsound mine, or<\/p>\n<p>               (3) to  be  for any reason unfit  for  a<br \/>\n     licence under this Act; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (ii) where the licensing authority deems  it<br \/>\n     necessary for the security of the public peace  or<br \/>\n     for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse<br \/>\n     to  grant any licence to any person merely on  the<br \/>\n     ground  that such person does not own  or  process<br \/>\n     sufficient property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>           (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to<br \/>\n     grant  a licence to any person it shall record  in<br \/>\n     writing  the reasons for such refusal and  furnish<br \/>\n     to  that person on demand a brief statement of the<br \/>\n     same unless in any case the licensing authority is<br \/>\n     of  the  opinion that it will not be in the public<br \/>\n     interest to furnish such statement.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      4.  Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned counsel  appearing  on<\/p>\n<p>behalf  of the respondents had contested the claims made  by<\/p>\n<p>the  petitioner and had submitted that the grant of  licence<\/p>\n<p>to the petitioner does not arise unless the petitioner could<\/p>\n<p>show  that there is such a necessity as required under  law.<\/p>\n<p>Since  the  petitioner had not proved before the authorities<\/p>\n<p>concerned that there was a real threat to the petitioner  or<\/p>\n<p>his properties as alleged, the authorities were justified in<\/p>\n<p>refusing   to  grant  the  licence  as  requested   by   the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had<\/p>\n<p>referred  to  an  order of this Court  made  in  K.Mani  Vs.<\/p>\n<p>District Revenue Officer, Madurai and another (2007 (1)  MLJ<\/p>\n<p>(Crl.)  339), wherein the impugned order challenged  in  the<\/p>\n<p>said writ petition had been set aside and the petitioner was<\/p>\n<p>permitted  to make a fresh application for grant of  licence<\/p>\n<p>to possess a gun as prescribed by law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      6.  The  learned counsel appearing on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n<p>respondents  had  submitted  that  the  facts  of  the  case<\/p>\n<p>referred  to  above would not be applicable to  the  present<\/p>\n<p>case.  Since  the  writ petitioner had not proved  that  the<\/p>\n<p>grant of licence to the petitioner is for a bonafide reason,<\/p>\n<p>the rejection of the request by the authorities concerned is<\/p>\n<p>valid in accordance with the provisions of law.<\/p>\n<p>      7.  Considering the submissions made  by  the  learned<\/p>\n<p>counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court  is<\/p>\n<p>of  the considered view that the petitioner has not made out<\/p>\n<p>sufficient  cause  or  reason to quash the  impugned  orders<\/p>\n<p>passed  by the respondents, as the onus is on the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>to  prove to the satisfaction of the respondents that it  is<\/p>\n<p>necessary  for him to possess a licence for a Double  Barrel<\/p>\n<p>Breech  Loaded  gun.  The respondents have  held,  by  their<\/p>\n<p>impugned orders, that the petitioner had not shown that such<\/p>\n<p>a  necessity had existed. However, it is made clear that  it<\/p>\n<p>is  open  to the petitioner to make a fresh application  for<\/p>\n<p>the  grant of licence for a Double Barrel Breech Loaded gun,<\/p>\n<p>as  provided under law and on the petitioner making such  an<\/p>\n<p>application,  the  authorities  concerned  are  expected  to<\/p>\n<p>consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and<\/p>\n<p>in  accordance with law, without being bound by the  earlier<\/p>\n<p>impugned orders passed by the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>      With  the above observations, the writ petition stands<\/p>\n<p>dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration<br \/>\n\tChepauk<br \/>\n\tChennai 5.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe Additional District Magistrate<br \/>\n\tErode District<br \/>\n\tErode.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 12\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4771 of 1999 V.N.Muthusamy ..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Spl. Commissioner &amp; Commissioner of Revenue Administration Chepauk, Chennai 5. 2. The Additional District Magistrate, [&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-234319","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>V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-02T20:48:31+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\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T20:48:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1378,\"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-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\",\"name\":\"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-02T20:48:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-02T20:48:31+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\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T20:48:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007"},"wordCount":1378,"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-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007","name":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; ... on 12 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-02T20:48:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-n-muthusamy-vs-the-spl-commissioner-on-12-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.N.Muthusamy vs The Spl. Commissioner &amp; &#8230; on 12 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234319","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=234319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}