{"id":24073,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-29T08:46:48","modified_gmt":"2014-10-29T03:16:48","slug":"k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/11\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU\n\nW.P.(MD)NO.82 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010\n\nK.Shanmugam\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The Registrar,\n   State Chief Information Commissioner,\n   Tamilnadu Information Commission,\n   Chennai-18.\n2.The Principal Commissioner\/\n    The Special Commissioner,\n   Department of Commercial Taxes,\n   Chepauk,\n   Chennai-5.\n3.The Joint Commissioner,\n   Commercial Taxes,\n   Commercial Tax Buildings,\n   Dr. Thangaraj Salai,\n   Madurai-20.\n4.A.Fathimabee\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\nThis writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on\nthe file of the first respondent in case No.12050\/Enquiry\/09, dated 07.12.2009\nand to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and excess of jurisdiction.\n\n!For Petitioner   ... Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, SC\n\t\t      for Mr.S.Karunakar\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy for R-1\n\t\t      Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA for RR2 and 3\t\n\n- - - -\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging an order, dated<br \/>\n7.12.2009 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, wherein and by which<br \/>\nthe petitioner who is the Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad (Additional),<br \/>\nMadurai was directed to pay Rs.1000\/- as compensation to the fourth respondent<br \/>\nfor being dragged her unnecessarily to attend an enquiry and also personal<br \/>\nexplanation should be called for as to why penalty prescribed under the Act<br \/>\nshould not be imposed. Further, a direction was issued to frame a charge under<br \/>\nRule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Disciplinary &amp; Appeal) Rules<br \/>\nfor refusing to accept a RTI petition. It was found that there was failure to<br \/>\ndischarge duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Apart from the averments mentioned in the affidavit, in paragraph<br \/>\nNo.12(b) it was stated that he was not put on any notice and no opportunity was<br \/>\ngiven to put forth his case. The order is opposed to principles of natural<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The writ petition was admitted on 06.01.2010. Pending the writ petition,<br \/>\nan interim stay was granted initially for a limited period. Subsequently, it was<br \/>\nextended from time to time. On notice from this court, the third respondent has<br \/>\nfiled a counter affidavit, dated 04.10.2010. In the counter affidavit, the<br \/>\ndepartment contended that the action of the petitioner was against the spirit of<br \/>\nthe enactment. Pursuant to the direction of the Commission, the charge memo<br \/>\nunder Rule 17(b) was framed. But the petitioner is yet to submit his explanation<br \/>\nand he is reaching the age of superannuation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.In any event, the issue raised herein is no longer res integra. This<br \/>\nCourt in The Public Information Officer\/General Manager-in-charge, Villupuram<br \/>\nDistrict Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Tamil Nadu Information<br \/>\nCommission, Chennai and others in W.P.No.21441 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010 dealt<br \/>\nwith the similar issue. In paragraphs 17 to 23 this court held as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;17.In any event, a direction to recover the amount as penalty itself indicates<br \/>\nthat it is penal in nature and a further direction to take disciplinary action<br \/>\nwill result in their service career being jeopardised. Further, a day&#8217;s delay<br \/>\ninvolves penalty of Rs.250\/- and a maximum penalty is fixed at Rs.25000\/-.<br \/>\nTherefore, the Commission has discretion to order penalties ranging from<br \/>\nRs.250\/- to Rs.25000\/-. But, in all the five cases, only maximum penalties were<br \/>\nimposed on the petitioners. In some of the cases, direction to place them under<br \/>\nsuspension and to frame  charges under the relevant service rules have also been<br \/>\nrecommended. In each of the case, the petitioners have some plausible defence to<br \/>\nput forth. But no separate enquiries were conducted by the Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.Though Section 20 enjoins the Information Commission at the time of deciding<br \/>\nany complaint or appeal and also to decide the question of penalty, a careful<br \/>\nreading of the relevant provisions including first proviso to Section 20 will<br \/>\nshow that it obliges a reasonable opportunity of being heard on the question of<br \/>\npenalty and in recommending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It also<br \/>\nrequires the Commission to form an opinion about the conduct of an Information<br \/>\nOfficer. Therefore, it involves a separate action by the Commission against the<br \/>\nofficer concerned so that they can put forth their defence either about their<br \/>\nbona fides or plead for minimum penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>19.When minimum and maximum penalties have been prescribed, the proportionality<br \/>\nof such penalties can also be granted, which can be pleaded by any officer.<br \/>\nTherefore, it obliges the Commission to pass a separate order after issuing<br \/>\nseparate show cause notice to the information officer so as to enable them to<br \/>\nsatisfy the Commission with their defence.\n<\/p>\n<p>20.In one case, the writ petitioner was not the notified officer at the relevant<br \/>\ntime. But it is necessary that penalty should be imposed on a named officer, who<br \/>\nwas acting as the Information Officer at the relevant time. The imposition of<br \/>\npenalty and recommendation for disciplinary action can be taken on several<br \/>\ngrounds including the grounds of delay, malafide denial, incorrect or incomplete<br \/>\nor misleading information, etc. Therefore, in each of the cases, penalty has to<br \/>\nbe in proportion to the charge levelled against an information officer. Unless<br \/>\nthe officer concerned is personally notified with the proposal of the Commission<br \/>\nto impose a maximum penalty together with a direction to recommend disciplinary<br \/>\naction, imposition of penalty may not be legally valid. The impugned orders are<br \/>\nthus liable to be set aside both on the grounds of procedural violation and also<br \/>\non the question of proportionality of the penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>21.The Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1285195\/\">Om Kumar v. Union of India<\/a> reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386<br \/>\ndealt with the scope of judicial review over administrative action affecting<br \/>\nfundamental freedoms. The following passages found in paragraphs 54, 59 and 68<br \/>\nmay be usefully extracted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;54. Administrative action in India affecting fundamental freedoms has<br \/>\nalways been tested on the anvil of &#8220;proportionality&#8221; in the last fifty years<br \/>\neven though it has not been expressly stated that the principle that is applied<br \/>\nis the &#8220;proportionality&#8221; principle. For example, a condition in a licence issued<br \/>\nto a cinema house to exhibit, at every show, a certain minimum length of<br \/>\n&#8220;approved films&#8221; was questioned. The restriction was held reasonable (see <a href=\"\/doc\/293896\/\">R.M.<br \/>\nSeshadri v. Distt. Magistrate Tanjore27). Union of India<\/a> v. Motion Picture<br \/>\nAssn.28 also related, inter alia, to the validity of licensing conditions. In<br \/>\nanother case, an order refusing permission to exhibit a film relating to the<br \/>\nalleged obnoxious or unjust aspects of reservation policy was held violative of<br \/>\nfreedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) <a href=\"\/doc\/341773\/\">(S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan<br \/>\nRam29). Cases of<\/a> surveillance by police came up for consideration in Malak Singh<br \/>\nv. State of P&amp;H30. Cases of orders relating to movement of goods came up in<br \/>\nBishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P.31 There are hundreds of such<br \/>\ncases dealt with by our courts. In all these matters, the proportionality of<br \/>\nadministrative action affecting the freedoms under Article 19(1) or Article 21<br \/>\nhas been tested by the courts as a primary reviewing authority and not on the<br \/>\nbasis of Wednesbury principles. It may be that the courts did not call this<br \/>\nproportionality but it really was.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>59. But, in E.P. Royappa v. State of T. N.32 Bhagwati, J laid down another test<br \/>\nfor purposes of Article 14. It was stated that if the administrative action was<br \/>\n&#8220;arbitrary&#8221;, it could be struck down under Article 14. This principle is now<br \/>\nuniformly followed in all courts more rigorously than the one based on<br \/>\nclassification. Arbitrary action by the administrator is described as one that<br \/>\nis irrational and not based on sound reason. It is also described as one that is<br \/>\nunreasonable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>68. Thus, when administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article<br \/>\n14, the principle of primary review is for the courts by applying<br \/>\nproportionality. However, where administrative action is questioned as<br \/>\n&#8220;arbitrary&#8221; under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on<br \/>\nWednesbury principles applies.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.Though in a given case, this Court can go into the proportionality of a<br \/>\npunishment, under normal circumstance, if the court is of the opinion that if a<br \/>\npunishment requires reconsideration, it should be remanded to the very same<br \/>\nauthority for reconsideration. This was made clear in Om Kumar&#8217;s case (cited<br \/>\nsupra). The following passages found in paragraphs 70 and 71 may be usefully<br \/>\nquoted below:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;70. In this context, we shall only refer to these cases. <a href=\"\/doc\/1572927\/\">In Ranjit Thakur<br \/>\nv. Union of India43<\/a> this Court referred to &#8220;proportionality&#8221; in the quantum of<br \/>\npunishment but the Court observed that the punishment was &#8220;shockingly&#8221;<br \/>\ndisproportionate to the misconduct proved. <a href=\"\/doc\/1508554\/\">In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of<br \/>\nIndia44<\/a> this Court stated that the court will not interfere unless the<br \/>\npunishment awarded was one which shocked the conscience of the court. Even then,<br \/>\nthe court would remit the matter back to the authority and would not normally<br \/>\nsubstitute one punishment for the other. However, in rare situations, the court<br \/>\ncould award an alternative penalty. It was also so stated in Ganayutham2.\n<\/p>\n<p>71. Thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that<br \/>\nwhere an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is<br \/>\nquestioned as &#8220;arbitrary&#8221; under Article 14, the court is confined to Wednesbury<br \/>\nprinciples as a secondary reviewing authority. The court will not apply<br \/>\nproportionality as a primary reviewing court because no issue of fundamental<br \/>\nfreedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context. The<br \/>\ncourt while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury<br \/>\nprinciples are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the<br \/>\nadministrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare<br \/>\ncases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary<br \/>\nproceedings and in the time taken in the courts, and such extreme or rare cases<br \/>\ncan the court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.&#8221;<br \/>\n\t(Emphasis added)<\/p>\n<p>23.In the light of the above, the impugned orders in all the writ petitions will<br \/>\nstand set aside. The Commission is hereby directed to give appropriate show<br \/>\ncause notices to the petitioners. After hearing them on the question of penalty<br \/>\nas well as on its recommendation to take disciplinary action against them, can<br \/>\npass an appropriate order. All the writ petitions will stand partly allowed and<br \/>\nto the extent indicated above&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.In the light of the above, the impugned order will stand set aside. The<br \/>\nwrit petition will stand allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Registrar,<br \/>\n   State Chief Information Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Tamilnadu Information Commission,<br \/>\n   Chennai-18.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Principal Commissioner\/<br \/>\n    The Special Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Department of Commercial Taxes,<br \/>\n   Chepauk,<br \/>\n   Chennai-5.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Joint Commissioner,<br \/>\n   Commercial Taxes,<br \/>\n   Commercial Tax Buildings,<br \/>\n   Dr. Thangaraj Salai,<br \/>\n   Madurai-20.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/11\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)NO.82 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 K.Shanmugam .. Petitioner vs 1.The Registrar, State Chief Information Commissioner, Tamilnadu Information Commission, Chennai-18. 2.The Principal Commissioner\/ The Special Commissioner, Department of [&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-24073","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.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - 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-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-29T03:16:48+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=\"9 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-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-29T03:16:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1623,\"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-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-29T03:16:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 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":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - 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-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-29T03:16:48+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-29T03:16:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":1623,"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-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010","name":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-29T03:16:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-shanmugam-vs-the-registrar-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 19 November, 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\/24073","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=24073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}