{"id":247092,"date":"2009-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-05T09:19:03","modified_gmt":"2015-04-05T03:49:03","slug":"zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/04\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.625 of 2008\n\nZainambu                     ..    Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The District Collector and\n  District Magistrate,\n  Tirunelveli District,\n  Tirunelveli.\n\n2.The Secretary to the Government,\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,\n  Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.\n\n3.The Inspector of Police,\n  Shencottai Police Station,\n  Tirunelveli District.       ..   Respondents\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a\nWrit of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu\nnamely Durai @ Mydeen before this Court who is now detained in the Central\nPrison, Palayamkottai in pursuant to the detention order passed by the 1st\nrespondent M.H.S.Confdl.No.69\/2008 dated 28.4.2008 to call for the records and\nquash the same and release the detenu at liberty forthwith.\n\n!For petitioner ... Mr.N.Mohideen Basha\n^For respondents... Mr.N.Daniel Manoharan                       \t\n\t\t    Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Writ Petition challenges the order of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n28.4.2008 made in M.H.S.Condfl No.69\/2008 whereby the order of detention was<br \/>\nmade under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities<br \/>\nof Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic<br \/>\nOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nAct 14 of 1982) against the detenu terming him as a &#8220;Drug Offender&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looked into<br \/>\nthe affidavit filed in support of the petition and also the counter affidavit<br \/>\nfiled by the State.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Admittedly, pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority that the detenu, husband of the petitioner herein was involved in two<br \/>\nadverse cases viz., in Crime No.36 and 37 of 2006 both under Sections 8(c) r\/w<br \/>\n20(b)(ii)(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act registered in<br \/>\nShenkottai Police Station and Crime No.834 of 2007 under Sections 8(c) r\/w<br \/>\n20(b)(ii)(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and involved in one<br \/>\nground case in Crime No.126 of 2008 under the same provisions of the Act, the<br \/>\ndetaining authority after recording satisfaction that the activities of the<br \/>\ndetenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and public health<br \/>\nmade the order under challenge terming the detenu as a &#8220;Drug Offender&#8221; as<br \/>\ndefined under the Act, which is the subject matter of challenge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of detention on<br \/>\nthe following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Firstly, as per the available materials, it could be seen that the<br \/>\ndetenu was arrested in Crime No.126 of 2008 by Shenkottai Police Station on<br \/>\n12.4.2008.  According to the arrest card, he was found in possession of ganja<br \/>\nweighing 1 kg and 130 grams.  As per the order, it could be seen that he was<br \/>\ntaken to the Police Station and thereafter, the case came to be registered in<br \/>\nCrime No.126 of 2008.  Surprisingly, the arrest card, which came into existence<br \/>\nat the place of arrest, contain Crime Number and thus, it would be indicative of<br \/>\nthe fact that the fact of arrest and recovery could not have taken place as<br \/>\nfound in the order of detention.   If to be so, the detaining authority should<br \/>\nhave called for an explanation from the sponsoring authority but failed to do<br \/>\nso.  Consequently, even as per the arrest card in Crime No.126 of 2008, the<br \/>\ntotal quantity of ganja that was recovered was 1 kg and 130 grams but the<br \/>\nanalyst report reveals that the quantity received for analysis was 1 kg and 340<br \/>\ngrams and the detaining authority should have called for explanation how this<br \/>\ndiscrepancy crept in but did not do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) The order under challenge came to be passed on 28.4.2008.  The matter<br \/>\nshould be placed for the purpose of consideration before the Advisory Board<br \/>\nwithin a period of three weeks but the Board itself was constituted only on<br \/>\n12.6.2008 and the Advisory Board also considered and passed orders on 16.6.2008.<br \/>\nThe law of preventive detention mandates that the materials should be placed<br \/>\nbefore the Advisory Board for the purpose of consideration within a period of<br \/>\nthree weeks but it was not done so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Lastly, there was inordinate delay in considering both the<br \/>\nrepresentations made.  All the grounds referred to above would be sufficient to<br \/>\nset aside the order of the detention, according to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent\/State on the<br \/>\nabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. As stated above, the order under challenge would clearly indicate that<br \/>\nthe detaining authority had considered all the materials available before<br \/>\nrecording his subjective  satisfaction that the detenu should be termed as a<br \/>\n&#8220;Drug Offender&#8221; since he was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case.<br \/>\nThe ground case was registered in Crime No.126 of 2008 by the Shenkottai Police<br \/>\nStation on 12.4.2008.  The order would read that at the time of intercepting the<br \/>\ndetenu, he was found in possession of ganja weighing 1 kg 130 grams and some<br \/>\nsample was taken over and then he was taken to the Shenkotta Police Station and<br \/>\nat 15.30 hours and the case came to be registered in Crime No.126 of 2008 under<br \/>\nSection 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances<br \/>\nAct.  It would be quite clear that at the place of arrest when he was<br \/>\nintercepted, he was found in possession of 1kg and 130 grams.  After seizure of<br \/>\nthe same under mahazar, he was taken to the Police Station and the  case came to<br \/>\nbe registered in Crime No.126 of 2008 under the provisions referred to above.<br \/>\nIt is needless to say that the Athatchi for recovery of contraband should have<br \/>\nbeen prepared only at the place of seizure and only thereafter, he should have<br \/>\nbeen brought to the Police Station and the case should have been registered but<br \/>\na perusal of the arrest card would indicate that it contained the crime number<br \/>\nand thus, preparation of arrest card at the place of seizure is highly doubtful.<br \/>\nAdded circumstances was that while so Shenkottai Police Station registered the<br \/>\ncase in Crime No.126 of 2008 pursuant to the seizure of 1 kg and 130 grams of<br \/>\nganja from the detenu at the place where he was intercepted.  Analyst report<br \/>\nreveals that the item which was placed for analysis was weighing 1 kg and 340<br \/>\ngrams and the quantity is found to be on the higher side.  In respect of this<br \/>\naspect, the detaining authority should have called for clarification before<br \/>\npassing the order but failed to do so.  This would be clearly indicative of the<br \/>\nfact of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Further, in the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority passed the order on<br \/>\n28.4.2008 and it should have been placed before the Advisory Board within a<br \/>\nperiod of three weeks for the purpose of consideration.   However, the Advisory<br \/>\nBoard itself was constituted only on 12.6.2008.  The order came to be passed on<br \/>\n16.6.2008.   The delay caused would amount to violation of the mandatory<br \/>\nprovisions of the law of preventive detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Added circumstances is the inordinate delay caused in considering the<br \/>\nrepresentations was unexplained.  Insofar as the first representation is<br \/>\nconcerned, it was made on 27.5.2008, the Hon&#8217;ble Minister for Public Works &amp; Law<br \/>\ndealt with it on 5.6.2008 and the rejection letter was prepared only on<br \/>\n10.6.2008 and thus, there was delay of 6 days  and since 7.6.2008 and 8.6.2008<br \/>\nwere found to be holidays, there was 4 days delay.  Apart from that in respect<br \/>\nof the second representation, remarks were called for on 16.6.2008 and the<br \/>\nremarks were received only on 23.6.2008.  Thus, there was 7 days delay, which<br \/>\nremain unexplained.  No doubt, this delay would cause prejudice to the interest<br \/>\nof the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Thus, all the above grounds of attack, in the considered opinion of the<br \/>\nCourt, would be sufficient to set aside the order of detention.  Hence, the<br \/>\norder of detention is set aside.   The detenu is directed to be set at liberty<br \/>\nforthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case in accordance<br \/>\nwith law.  The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Collector &amp;<br \/>\n  District Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli District,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary to the Government,<br \/>\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,<br \/>\n  Secretariat, Chennai &#8211; 600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Inspector of Police,<br \/>\n  Shencottai Police Station,<br \/>\n  Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/04\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL H.C.P.(MD) No.625 of 2008 Zainambu .. Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Secretary to [&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-247092","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>Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - 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\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-05T03:49:03+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\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-05T03:49:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1252,\"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\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-05T03:49:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - 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\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-05T03:49:03+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\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-05T03:49:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009"},"wordCount":1252,"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\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009","name":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-05T03:49:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zainambu-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-3-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Zainambu vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2009"}]},{"@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\/247092","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=247092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}