{"id":254268,"date":"2008-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-10T21:00:53","modified_gmt":"2017-03-10T15:30:53","slug":"r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/11\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.8942 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008\n\nR.Athi\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.The District Collector,\n  Inspector of Panchayats,\n  Ramanathapuram District,\n  Ramanathapuram.\n\n2.The Block Development Officer,\n  Nainar Kovio, Paramakudi Taluk,\n  Ramanathapuram District.\n\n3.The Tahsildar,\n  Paramakudi Taluk,\n  Ramanathapuram District.\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India,\npraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining\nto the impugned removal order made in Na.Ka.Aa3\/667\/08 dated 05.09.2008 passed\nby the 1st respondent and the consequential notification No.VI(2) 733\/2008 at\npage No.551 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24.09.2008 made by the 1st\nrespondent, quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan\n\t\t    Senior counsel for\n\t\t    Mr.V.Janakiramulu\n\t\t\t\t\n^For RR1 and 2\t... Mrs.V.Chellammal\n\t\t    Spl.Govt.Pleader\n\nFor Respondent\t... Mr.R.Manoharan\nNo.3\t\t    Government Advocate\n\t\t\t\t\t  * * * *\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis writ petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to
\nthe impugned removal order made in Na.Ka.Aa3\/667\/08 dated 05.09.2008 passed by
\nthe first respondent and the consequential notification No.VI(2) 733\/2008 at
\npage No.551 of Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 24.09.2008 made by the first
\nrespondent and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.V.Chellammal, learned
\nSpecial Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and
\nMr.R.Manoharan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the third respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition as stood
\nexposited from the affidavit accompanying the writ petition could succinctly and
\nprecisely, tersely and briefly be set out thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe petitioner is the deseated President of Kottakkudi Village Panchayat
\nof Nainar Kovil Panchayat Union.  Accounts of the said Panchayat were inspected
\nby the Block Development Officer concerned, who submitted the report to the
\nfirst respondent viz., the District Collector\/Inspector of Panchayats,
\nRamanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram that the petitioner as President of the
\nPanchayat incurred expenditure over and above the limit prescribed for the
\nPanchayat.  Consequently, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner
\nleveling as many as eight charges, for which the petitioner gave his reply.  The
\nmatter was placed before the Panchayat.  Out of six councilors, five voted in
\nfavour of the petitioner.  Even then, the District Collector passed the impugned
\norder deseating the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Impugning and challenging the said order, this writ petition is
\nfocussed on various grounds interalia thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tAbsolutely there is no element of misappropriation involved in this case.
\nOut of good faith and to meet the needs of the public, such expenditures were
\nincurred.  The charges were not grave enough for deseating him and the District
\nCollector also without applying his mind, passed the said order.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing
\nreliance on the grounds as found set out in the affidavit accompanying the writ
\npetition, would develop his arguments to the effect that this is not a case of
\nmisappropriation; the petitioner even though apparently seems to have violated
\nthe financial restrictions, yet it was done purely out of good faith and for the
\npurpose of meeting the immediate requirements of the public.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Inviting the attention of this Court to the counter filed by the first
\nrespondent viz., the District Collector, the learned Special Government Pleader
\nwould develop his arguments to the effect that the impugned order of the
\nDistrict Collector is a discernible one and the violations committed by the
\npetitioner are found detailed and delineated therein; the petitioner as elected
\nrepresentative of the people should have conducted himself adhering to the
\nprovisions of law, but he throwing to winds, acted at his whims and fancies and
\nindulged in exceeding the financial limits.  Accordingly, she prayed for the
\ndismissal of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that instead
\nof availing the effective alternative remedy as contemplated under Section
\n205(12) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, the petitioner straight away
\nfiled the writ petition, which is untenable.  She also placed reliance on the
\ndecision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2006 in W.A.No.98 of
\n2006.  An excerpt from it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In the premises aforesaid, the liberty given to the appellant to work out
\nhis right under Section 205(12) of the Act by the learned Single Judge in the
\norder dated 14.02.2006 made in W.P.N.7452 of 2005, in our considered opinion,
\ndeserves interference as the only remedy available to the appellant in the
\nstatute is to work out his right under Section 219 of the Act, inasmuch as
\nSection 205(12) of the Act only empowers the Government to grant appropriate
\ninterim order pending the proceedings for cancellation of notification in the
\ncase of removal of the President suo motu, purportedly by exercising the power
\nunder Section 219 of the Act.  We, therefore, do not find any merit in the
\ncontention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the second respondent
\nought not to have issued the notification dated 27.07.2005 in consequence of the
\nproceedings dated 3.7.2005, without exercising the power conferred under Section
\n205(12) of the Act to postpone the date of removal of the President from the
\noffice of the Panchayat specified in the notification.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Whereas the learned senior counsel for the petitioner by way of
\ntorpedoing and pulverizing the arguments of the learned Special Government
\nPleader, would put forth his arguments to the effect that when there is flagrant
\nviolation of principles of natural justice in deseating the petitioner by the
\nCollector and that too when there is no proper application of mind on the part
\nof the District Collector in passing the impugned order, straight way a writ
\npetition would lie.  The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would cite
\nthe following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in support of his
\ncontentions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others<\/a>
\nreported in (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases 1.  An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“Constitution of India – Art. 226 –<\/a> Maintainability – Alternative
\nremedy\/Exhaustion of remedies – Nature of rule of – Existence of alternative
\nstatutory remedies, held, is not a constitutional bar to High Court’s
\njurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction – Further held, the alternative
\nremedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies: (i) where the
\nwrit petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where
\nthere is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or
\nthe proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is
\nchallenged – Hence, where the show-cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade
\nMarks under S.56(4) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act<\/a>, 1958 was challenged
\nby a writ petition on the grounds that the notice was wholly without
\njurisdiction, held, High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition at the
\ninitial stage without examining that contention – Trade and Merchandise Marks
\nAct<\/a>, 1958, Ss.56(4) and 2(1)(x) – Notice under S.56(4) – Writ petition against –
\nMaintainability – Administrative Law – Natural justice – Notice – Show-cause
\nnotice – Writ petition against – Maintainability – In limine dismissal of –
\nWhether justified”.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) State of H.P. and others v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and another<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3938; An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“24. If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and others<\/a>
\n(AIR 1985 SC 1147) the appeal is from “Caesar to Caeser’s wife” the existence of
\nalternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.  In the
\ninstante case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they
\nthought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious.  Though the High
\nCourt did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that
\nalternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition.  Since the
\nHigh Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory
\nremedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court to
\nconsider the question again.  When the High Court had entertained a writ
\npetition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while
\ndealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised
\nunless the High Court’s reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to
\nbe palpably unsound and irrational.  Similar view was expressed by this court in
\nFirst Income Tax Officer, Salem v. M\/s.Short Brothers(P) Ltd<\/a>. (1966(3)SCR 84)
\nand State of U.P. and others v. M\/s.Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd<\/a>. (1977(2)SCC 724).
\nThat being the position, we do not consider the High Court’s judgment to be
\nvulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed.  There are two
\nwell recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies.
\nFirst is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of
\nlaw which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the
\nHigh Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent
\nwithout a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full
\ncourse.  Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has
\nbeen made in violation of the principles of natural justice.  We may add that
\nwhere the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an
\nappropriate case can entertain a writ petition”.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Harbanslal Sahnia and Another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others<\/a>
\nreported in (2003)2 Supreme Court Cases 107.  An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“Constitution of India – Art. 226 –<\/a> Maintainability – Alternative remedy-
\nExhaustion of remedies – Rules of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability
\nof an alternative remedy – Held, the said rule is of discretion and not one of
\ncompulsion – Contingencies in which High Court could exercise its writ
\njurisdiction in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, stated …”\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd<\/a>. reported in (2005) 8
\nSupreme Court Cases 242.  An excerpt from it would run thus:
\n\t“17. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.
\nreferring to harbanslal Sahnia held: (SCC pp.517-18, paras 22-23)
\n\t“22(24). … There are two well-recognised exception to the doctrine of
\nexhaustion of statutory remedies.  First is when the proceedings are taken
\nbefore the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a
\nparty aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on
\nthe ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until
\nthose proceedings run their full course.  Secondly, the doctrine has no
\napplication when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles
\nof natural justice.  We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse
\nof process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ
\npetition”.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Put simply and not to put too fine a point on it, it is a trite
\nproposition of law that even though an alternative remedy is available in a
\ncase, where principles of natural justice are found violated, then straight away
\na writ petition would be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The main thrust of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner is to the effect that this is a singularly singular case, wherein
\nabsolutely there is no element of misappropriation or charge of misappropriation
\nand it is only a mere violation of financial restrictions or ceilings imposed
\nunder the Government Orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted above upon the
\npurity of his client in public life, whereupon this Court raised a querry as to
\nwhether his client would be willing to deposit the excess amount of
\nRs.1,24,050\/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand and fifty only) for which,
\nthe learned senior counsel for the petitioner has come forward with the
\nsubmission that the petitioner would be ready to deposit such amount in the
\nPanchayat concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Wherefore a querry has been posed to the learned Special Government
\nPleader, as to whether there is any allegation of misappropriation as against
\nthe petitioner.  In which, she has stated that here the accusation is not
\nrelating to the misappropriation, but only relating to exceeding of the
\nfinancial limits as found prescribed in the Government Orders.  In the impugned
\norder itself, in the first page, the alleged excess amount is found listed:\n<\/p>\n
t.\tbrytpd tpguA;fs;\t\t\t\t\tTLjy;\nvz;.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tbrytpdk;\n\n<\/pre>\n
1.\tbfhl;lFo Bky;epiy ePh;j;Bjf;fj; bjhl;o gGJ bra;jy;\t6500
\n2\tBrJfhy; Bky;epiy ePh;j;Bjf;fj; bjhl;o TLjy; brytpdk;\t7300\n<\/p>\n
3.\tkfsph; Rfhjhu tshfk; gGJ\t\t\t\t3300\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBrJfhy; ifg;gk;g[ guhkhpg;g[\t\t\t\t9170\n<\/p>\n
5. \tbfhl;lFo Mjpjpuhtplh; fhydp rhiy Bkk;ghL\t\t4780\n<\/p>\n
6.\tKl;brofs; mfw;wpaJ\t\t\t\t\t32500\n<\/p>\n
7. \tFoePh; fpzWfs; Jhh;thh; bra;jy;\t\t\t\t44200\n<\/p>\n
8.\tbjUtpsf;F cjphpghfA;fs; thA;fpajpy; TLjy; brytpdk;\t16300
\n\tbkhj;jk;\t\t\t\t\t\t124050<\/p>\n
\t12. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that those items of expenditure
\nare all relating to absolute necessary and essential works.  The way in which
\nthe petitioner has come forward to bear brunt   would speak volumes that the
\nexcess amount incurred by him was purely out of necessity and that there is no
\nhidden agenda behind it.  Hence, in these peculiar circumstances, I am of the
\nconsidered view that the guarded discretion of the Court could be exercised in
\ngiving opportunity to the petitioner to continue as President subject to the
\nfollowing conditions, accordingly the direction would run thus:
\n\tWithin a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
\norder, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,050\/- (Rupees one lakh
\ntwenty five thousand and fifty only) in the account of the Panchayat, which
\nshall become part and parcel of the Panchayat fund and thereupon the first
\nrespondent, viz., the District Collector shall reinstate him in the same post of
\nPresident of the Panchayat immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.  No
\ncosts.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
smn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The District Collector,
\n  Inspector of Panchayats,
\n  Ramanathapuram District,
\n  Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Block Development Officer,
\n  Nainar Kovio, Paramakudi Taluk,
\n  Ramanathapuram District.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Tahsildar,
\n  Paramakudi Taluk,
\n  Ramanathapuram District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/11\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.(MD)No.8942 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 R.Athi … Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Inspector of Panchayats, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Block Development Officer, Nainar Kovio, […]<\/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-254268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-10T15:30:53+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T15:30:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2207,\"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\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\",\"name\":\"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-10T15:30:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-10T15:30:53+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T15:30:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008"},"wordCount":2207,"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\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008","name":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-10T15:30:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-athi-vs-the-district-collector-on-28-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Athi vs The District Collector on 28 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/254268","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=254268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}