{"id":2428,"date":"2004-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-24T18:56:44","modified_gmt":"2018-03-24T13:26:44","slug":"masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:  29\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION No.8013 OF 1997\n\n\n1.  Masilamani, S\/o.Kuppan\n\n2. Poongavanam,\n   S\/o. Masilamani                      ..  Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Madras 6.\n\n2. Annammal,\n   W\/o. Manavalan                       ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for\nthe issuance of Writ of declaration as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.P.  Mani\n\nFor Respondent-1       :  Mr.P.  Rathinavelu\n                        Govt.  Advocate\n\n\nRespondent-2    :  No Appearance\n                   Mr.P.V.S. Giridhar\n                   Amicus Curiae\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>        In the present writ  petition,  the  petitioners  have  prayed  for  a<br \/>\ndeclaration  that  Section  4-A(3)  of  the  Workmens  Compensation  Act, 1923<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is ultra vires  against  public  interest<br \/>\nand  offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the order dated<br \/>\n3.7.1996 passed by the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labour-I  (Respondent  No.1)<br \/>\npursuant to the aforesaid Act is illegal, void and unenforceable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  facts  in  brief  are as follows :Respondent No.2 herein had<br \/>\nfiled W.C.No.83 of 1995 before the Respondent No.1 claiming  compensation  for<br \/>\nthe  death  of  her  husband  alleging that the latter had died in an accident<br \/>\narising out of and in course  of  his  employment  under  the  petitioners  on<br \/>\n24.4.1993.   The  first respondent under the impugned order, allowed the claim<br \/>\nand directed :  to remit the amount of Rs.65,541\/- (Rupees sixty five thousand<br \/>\nfive hundred and forty one only) within 30 days from the date  of  receipt  of<br \/>\nthe  order  by  way  of  Demand  Draft in favour of the Deputy Commissioner of<br \/>\nLabour-I, Madras 6, failing which 50% penalty and 6% interest from the date of<br \/>\naccident on the amount of Rs.65,541\/- would be ordered to be recovered.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In the present writ  petition,  the  validity  of  the  provisions<br \/>\ncontained  in  Section  4-A(3) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 has been<br \/>\nchallenged.  Since there was no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2, Thiru<br \/>\nP.V.S.  Giridhar was appointed as Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Even though in the writ petition the legality of the order of  the<br \/>\nCommissioner has been challenged on merits by contending that the accident had<br \/>\nnot  arisen  out  of  and  in  course  of  employment, learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners has not pursued such a submission at the time of  hearing  of  the<br \/>\nwrit  petition,  obviously  because such question cannot be raised in the writ<br \/>\npetition and has to be challenged only in the regular appeal  as  contemplated<br \/>\nunder Section  30  of the Act.  Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised<br \/>\nthe question  of  the  validity  of  Section  4-A(3)  of  the  Act.    In  the<br \/>\nalternative,  he  has  submitted that at any rate, the Commissioner should not<br \/>\nhave directed payment of 50% of the compensation amount  as  penalty,  without<br \/>\ngiving  opportunity  of  hearing  to the present petitioners on that aspect as<br \/>\nenvisaged under 4-A(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        5.  The provisions contained in Section 4-A(3) of  the<br \/>\nAct are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        4-A.  Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default. (1)<br \/>\n&#8230;     (2) &#8230; (3)   Where   any   employer  is  in  default  in  paying  the<br \/>\ncompensation due under this Act within one month from the date  it  fell  due,<br \/>\nthe Commissioner shall  (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the<br \/>\namount  of  the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per<br \/>\ncent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending<br \/>\nrates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government,  by<br \/>\nnotification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and    (b) if, in his<br \/>\nopinion,  there  is  no  justification for the delay, direct that the employer<br \/>\nshall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest  thereon,  pay  a<br \/>\nfurther sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed<br \/>\nunder clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to  the  employer  to<br \/>\nshow cause why it should not be passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Explanation.-  For  the  purposes  of this sub-section, scheduled bank<br \/>\nmeans a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve<br \/>\nBank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934).    (3-A)  The  interest   payable   under<br \/>\nsub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependant, as the case may<br \/>\nbe, and the penalty shall be credited to the State Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        6.  A mere perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it<br \/>\nclear  that  before  passing  any order regarding penalty, the Commissioner is<br \/>\nrequired to give a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause as  to<br \/>\nwhy such  an order regarding payment of penalty should not be passed.  This is<br \/>\nvery clear from the proviso to Section 4-A(3).  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this<br \/>\nposition has also been emphasised by Justice K.P.  Sivasubramaniam in 2000 (1)<br \/>\nLLJ 137 <a href=\"\/doc\/614183\/\">(MANAGEMENT OF  DEVI  PRESS,  MADRAS  v.    S.    SELVARAJ).  The<\/a> said<br \/>\ndecision of the learned single Judge has also been cited with  approval  by  a<br \/>\nDivision Bench  of  this  Court reported in 2004(2) L.L.N.  401 (MANAGEMENT OF<br \/>\nM\/s.  MAHALAKSHMI BUILDERS, MADRAS v.  A.  GOVINDASAMY).\n<\/p>\n<p>                        7.  In the present case, admittedly before giving  the<br \/>\ndirection  in  the main order itself, no opportunity to show cause, as already<br \/>\nindicated, has been given.  The direction  regarding  payment  of  penalty  is<br \/>\ntherefore unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        8.  Mr.P.V.S.    Giridhar,  the learned Amicus Curiae,<br \/>\nhas submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.  Law is  well<br \/>\nsettled that a writ petition may not be entertained when an alternative remedy<br \/>\nis available.   In the present case, there being alternative remedy available,<br \/>\nit is the contention of the learned  Amicus  Curiae  that  the  writ  petition<br \/>\nitself is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        9.   Even  though,  as  a matter of fact, as a general<br \/>\nrule, the writ petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative  remedy<br \/>\nin  the present case, because of two special features, I am not dismissing the<br \/>\nwrit petition on the ground that the alternative remedy has not been availed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        10.  First of all, learned counsel appearing  for  the<br \/>\npetitioners has  challenged the validity of Section 4-A(3) of the Act.  Such a<br \/>\nquestion obviously could not have been  raised  in  the  appeal.    Therefore,<br \/>\nfiling of  the  writ petition cannot be faulted.  It is another matter that at<br \/>\nthe time of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the  petitioners<br \/>\nwas  not  able to point out any valid reason as to why the provision contained<br \/>\nin Section 4-A(3)  should  be  declared  as  ultra  vires.    The  legislative<br \/>\ncompetence to  enact  the  provision  is  not  in  dispute.  Even though it is<br \/>\ncontended that such a provision is a restriction on  fundamental  right  under<br \/>\nArticle  19(1)(g),  I do not think such a sweeping submission can be accepted.<br \/>\nThe Act has provided sufficient guidelines for exercise of power in the matter<br \/>\nrelating to imposition of penalty.  Such order itself is made appealable.  The<br \/>\nprovision does not give any arbitrary or unguided power to  the  Commissioner.<br \/>\nChallenge on the ground of invalidity of the provision has to be negatived.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        11.  A similar view has been expressed by the Punjab &amp;<br \/>\nHaryana High Court  in  1984  LAB.I.C.    80 (BARU RAM v.  THE LABOUR OFFICER,<br \/>\nSONEPAT AND OTHERS) and it is not necessary to replicate the reasons indicated<br \/>\nin the said decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        12.  The other reason  for  not  dismissing  the  writ<br \/>\npetition  on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is that the writ<br \/>\npetition itself has been entertained and kept pending for all these years.  If<br \/>\nsuch an objection would have been raised at  the  threshold,  the  petitioners<br \/>\nwould have  thought  of  availing  the  alternative  remedy.  Moreover, in the<br \/>\npresent case, the main contention is that the first respondent had  not  given<br \/>\nopportunity to  show  cause  as  envisaged  in  the Statute itself.  Where the<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice, particularly enshrined in  the  Statute  itself<br \/>\nare  not  followed, existence of an alternative remedy is not considered as an<br \/>\nabsolute bar and the High Court in its discretion, can entertain such  matters<br \/>\nnotwithstanding the   availability  of  alternative  remedy.    Moreover,  for<\/p>\n<p>considering the question, no factual dispute is involved and on  the  admitted<br \/>\nfacts,  appearing  from  the  impugned  order  itself, the order of penalty is<br \/>\npassed without complying with the statutory provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>                        13.  Learned Amicus  Curiae  has  suggested  that  the<br \/>\nmatter  relating  to  payment  of  penalty  can  be  reconsidered by the first<br \/>\nrespondent after complying with the provisions of the Act.    It  is  apparent<br \/>\nfrom the provision itself that penalty if any, is to be collected and credited<br \/>\nto the  State Government and the claimant would not be the beneficiary.  Since<br \/>\nthe defect relating to the imposition of  penalty  has  been  committed  by  a<br \/>\nquasi-judicial  authority  and  the  claimant  would  not  be benefited in any<br \/>\nmanner, I do not think it proper at this distant point of time to  remand  the<br \/>\nmatter for  fresh  enquiry  into the matter.  It is however made clear that if<br \/>\nthe amount is not deposited by the petitioners within four weeks, it would  be<br \/>\nopen to Respondent No.1 to initiate proceeding for imposition of penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   For  the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part<br \/>\nand the direction  regarding  payment  of  penalty  is  quashed.    The  other<br \/>\ndirection  regarding  compensation  amount,  including payment of interest, as<br \/>\nobserved by the first respondent, is confirmed.  The petitioners shall deposit<br \/>\nthe necessary amount before the appropriate authority within four weeks.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   I  must  place  on  record  my  appreciation  for  the  valuable<br \/>\nassistance rendered by Mr.P.V.S.  Giridhar, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  The office is directed to communicate the  result  of  this  writ<br \/>\npetition to  Respondent  No.2.   Respondent No.1 shall take steps to implement<br \/>\nthe order, if the compensation is not paid by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I,<br \/>\nMadras 6.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA WRIT PETITION No.8013 OF 1997 1. Masilamani, S\/o.Kuppan 2. Poongavanam, S\/o. Masilamani .. Petitioners -Vs- 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Madras 6. 2. [&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-2428","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>Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 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\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-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=\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-24T13:26:44+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\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-24T13:26:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1528,\"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\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-24T13:26:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 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":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 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\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-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":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-24T13:26:44+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\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-24T13:26:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004"},"wordCount":1528,"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\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004","name":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 29 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-24T13:26:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/masilamani-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-on-29-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Masilamani vs The Deputy Commissioner Of &#8230; on 29 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\/2428","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=2428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}