{"id":243238,"date":"2003-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003"},"modified":"2019-02-01T03:11:22","modified_gmt":"2019-01-31T21:41:22","slug":"p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 19\/11\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI\n\nH.C.P.NO.542 OF 2003\n\n\nP. Santhammal,\nW\/o. late Purushothaman         ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. STATE  rep. by its Secretary\n   to Govt.,\n   Prohibition &amp; Excise Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai 9.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Police,\n   Greater Chennai,\n   Egmore, Chennai 600 008.             ..  Respondents\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for  the\nissuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.S.  Swamidoss Manokaran\n\nFor Respondents        :  Mr.M.K.  Subramanian\n                Government Advocate\n                (Criminal Side)\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 present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of<br \/>\nthe detenu, who is now in incarceration pursuant to the order of the detention<br \/>\npassed  by  the  second respondent on 9.1.2003 under Section 3(1) of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest<br \/>\nOffenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders  and  Slum  Grabbers  Act,  1982<br \/>\n(Tamil  Nadu Act 14 of 1982), hereinafter called as the Act, on the allegation<br \/>\nthat the detenu is a Goonda<\/p>\n<p>        3.  In the grounds of detention, reference has been  made  to  several<br \/>\npast  incidents  of alleged involvement of the detenu in commission of several<br \/>\ncrimes punishable under Sections 379 and 392 IPC.   The  allegations  indicate<br \/>\nthat  those  occurrences  had  taken  place  within the jurisdictions of Gudur<br \/>\npolice station and Nellore police station, which are  within  the  territorial<br \/>\njurisdiction of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  not  Tamil  Nadu.    In  the  aforesaid<br \/>\nbackground, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner  is<br \/>\nto  the  effect  that since the past occurrences relating to adverse cases had<br \/>\noccurred within  the  jurisdiction  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  not  within  the<br \/>\nterritorial  jurisdiction  of Tamil Nadu, the allegations in those cases could<br \/>\nnot have been considered for the purpose of  passing  the  impugned  order  of<br \/>\ndetention.   It is the further submission of the learned counsel that if those<br \/>\nallegations are ignored, except the  ground  case,  which  allegedly  occurred<br \/>\nwithin the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu, there are no other incidents before the<br \/>\ndetaining  authority  to  come  to a conclusion that the detenu was a habitual<br \/>\noffender or Goonda as defined under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Such a contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nis not acceptable.  The order of preventive detention is passed on  the  basis<br \/>\nof apprehension in the mind of the detaining authority that a person is likely<br \/>\nto commit  offences  of  a  particular  type  in future.  For considering such<br \/>\nprobability, the past records of the person is taken into consideration.  Even<br \/>\nthough it may be assumed for this case that the ground case, on the  basis  of<br \/>\nwhich  the  order  of  preventive  detention  is  passed, should be within the<br \/>\nterritorial jurisdiction of the detaining authority (even such supposition may<br \/>\nnot be correct), there is no warrant for the submission that the past  history<br \/>\nrelating  to the commission of offences, apart from the ground case, should be<br \/>\nin respect of offences within the territorial jurisdiction  of  the  detaining<br \/>\nauthority.   If such a supposition would be accepted, a person having criminal<br \/>\npropensity, may go on committing offences successfully within the  territorial<br \/>\njurisdiction  of  different  authorities  and  with  a  view to commit further<br \/>\noffences with impugnity, would  claim  protection  on  the  pretext  that  the<br \/>\ndetaining authority  has no territorial jurisdiction.  The detaining authority<br \/>\ntakes a decision to pass the order of  preventive  detention  because  of  the<br \/>\nlikelihood or the apprehension that such person, if not detained, is likely to<br \/>\ncommit offences  of  a  particular type in future.  There is no requirement in<br \/>\nlaw that the offences allegedly committed in the past by the concerned  person<br \/>\nshould  be  committed  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority or for that  matter  within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  the<br \/>\nconcerned State.  The first contention is therefore not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The second contention is relating to alleged delay in disposal of<br \/>\nthe representation made on behalf of  the  detenu.    From  the  materials  on<br \/>\nrecord,  it  is apparent that the representation of the detenu was received on<br \/>\n14.2.03 and without any further delay, promptly, the remarks were  called  for<br \/>\non  the  same  day  and  on  the receipt of the remarks within three days, the<br \/>\nmatter was placed before the appropriate authority, who has  disposed  of  the<br \/>\nrepresentation without  any further undue delay.  Therefore, it cannot be said<br \/>\nthat  there  has  been  any  unexplained  delay  in  the   disposal   of   the<br \/>\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is<br \/>\nto the effect that even though an application  for  bail  had  been  filed  on<br \/>\nbehalf  of the detenu and such application was pending, in the order passed by<br \/>\nthe detaining authority, there is no reference to filing of  such  application<br \/>\nfor bail.  It has been further submitted that even assuming that non-reference<br \/>\nto the bail application by the detaining authority is of no consequence, since<br \/>\nsuch  a  bail  application  had  been  filed,  the  contents  of the said bail<br \/>\napplication should have been placed before the detaining authority.  Similarly<br \/>\nsuch bail application and the fact that on  10.1.2003,  bail  order  has  been<br \/>\npassed,  should  have been brought to the notice of the Advisory Board and the<br \/>\norder of preventive detention is vitiated by non-application of  mind  of  all<br \/>\nthe  relevant  factors  by  the detaining authority initially and the Advisory<br \/>\nBoard subsequently.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It is of course true that in the order of detention, it  has  been<br \/>\nrecited  almost  by  rote   I am aware that Thiru Prabhu @ Gunji Prabhu is in<br \/>\nremand and there is imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for  the<br \/>\noffences  under  Sections  341, 332, 336, 392,427 an 506(2) IPC by filing bail<br \/>\napplication in the Court.  The fact that by such  order  of  detention  dated<br \/>\n9.1.2003,  bail  application  had  already  been  filed and stood adjourned to<br \/>\n10.1.2003, does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  The contents of such bail application would  have  obviously  some<br \/>\nbearing  in  the  matter  relating  to  passing  of  the  order  of preventive<br \/>\ndetention.  This would indicate that all the relevant  materials,  which  were<br \/>\navailable  before  the  detention  order is passed, were not placed before the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  Even assuming that this would not  have  the  effect  of<br \/>\nvitiating  the order of detention, the mere fact that the contents of the bail<br \/>\napplication and the fact that the order granting bail was passed on  10.1.2003<br \/>\nwere  not  placed  before  the  Advisory  Board  nor  placed  before the State<br \/>\nGovernment for consideration of the representation.  It is of course true that<br \/>\nthere is  no  binding  proposition  which  says  that  contents  of  the  bail<br \/>\napplication  must  be  accepted  to  be true by the detaining authority or the<br \/>\nAdvisory Bard of the State Government while considering the bail  application.<br \/>\nBut there cannot be any dispute regarding the proposition that the contents of<br \/>\nthe  bail  application are of some relevance while considering the question of<br \/>\npassing of the order of detention or confirming the order of detention by  the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board or consideration of the representation by the State Government.<br \/>\nNon-placement  of  the  application  for  bail and even the result of the bail<br \/>\napplication   before   the   concerned   authorities   would   tantamount   to<br \/>\nnon-application  of  mind  of  the  relevant  facts  and  circumstances, thus,<br \/>\nvitiating the order of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  In the case reported in 1986 SCC (Cri) 535 <a href=\"\/doc\/844118\/\">(ANANT SAKHARAM RAUT v.<br \/>\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER), the Supreme Court<\/a> observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         .  .  .  We have gone through the detention order carefully.   There<br \/>\nis  absolutely  no mention in the order about the fact that the petitioner was<br \/>\nan undertrial prisoner, that he was arrested  in  connection  with  the  three<br \/>\ncases, that the applications for bail were pending and that he was released on<br \/>\nthree successive  days  in the three cases.  This indicates a total absence of<br \/>\napplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority while  passing  the<br \/>\norder of detention.<\/p>\n<p>                9.   Similar  view  had  been expressed by a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court in the decision reported in 1999(2) <a href=\"\/doc\/1352246\/\">MWN (Cr.)17 (MAHINDER PAL SINGH<br \/>\nSACHDEV,COFEPOSA DETENU, CENTRAL PRISON, CHENNAI v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REP.<br \/>\nBY SECRETARY TO GOVT., PUBLIC (SC) DEPT., CHENNAI AND ANOTHER),<\/a> wherein it was<br \/>\nobserved that all aspects, even the aspect that would have  arisen  after  the<br \/>\norder  of detention, which has got some relevance, should be placed before the<br \/>\nAdvisory Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.  Following the ratio of the  aforesaid  decision,  in  our<br \/>\nopinion,  the order of preventive detention is vitiated on account of the fact<br \/>\nthat all the relevant facts were not placed before the detaining authority and<br \/>\nsubsequently before the Advisory Board.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.  For  the  aforesaid  reasons,  the  preventive  order  of<br \/>\ndetention cannot  be  sustained and is hereby quashed.  The detenu is directed<br \/>\nto be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection  with  some<br \/>\nother case.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Secretary to Govt.,<br \/>\nProhibition &amp; Excise Department,<br \/>\nFort St.  George, Chennai 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner of Police,<br \/>\nGreater Chennai,<br \/>\nEgmore, Chennai 600 008.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\nHigh Court,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Superintendent,<br \/>\nCentral Prison, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V. MASILAMANI H.C.P.NO.542 OF 2003 P. Santhammal, W\/o. late Purushothaman .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. STATE rep. by its [&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-243238","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - 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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-31T21:41:22+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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T21:41:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1426,\"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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\",\"name\":\"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-31T21:41:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - 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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-31T21:41:22+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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T21:41:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003"},"wordCount":1426,"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\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003","name":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-31T21:41:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-santhammal-vs-state-rep-by-its-secretary-on-19-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Santhammal vs State Rep. By Its Secretary on 19 November, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/243238","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=243238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}