{"id":255287,"date":"2009-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-01-10T08:01:29","modified_gmt":"2017-01-10T02:31:29","slug":"mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATE: 08\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nWrit Petition(MD) No.7683 of 2009\nand\nM.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009\n\nMathina Maharibha \t\t\t\t.. Petitioner.\n\nVersus\n\n1. The District Collector cum\nInspector of Panchayats,\nMadurai District, Madurai.\n\n2.The Block Development Officer\n(Village Panchayats),\nMadurai East Panchayat Union,\nMadurai District.\t\t\t\t.. Respondents.\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling\nfor the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his\nprocedings in Na.Ka.No.2724\/2009\/A4, dated 21.7.2009, and the consequential\norder passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.2130\/2009\/Thi.3, dated 23.7.2009\nand quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to handover the\nentire account books and cheque book to the petitioner.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...  Mr.K.Mahendran\n^For Respondents...  Mr.S.C.Herold Singh (R1)\n\t\t     Government Advocate\n\t\t     Mr.M.Saravana Kumar (R2)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
\ncounsels appearing for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The petitioner has stated that she had been elected as the Vice
\nPresident of Mathur Village Panchayat, during the year, 2006. She has been
\ncarrying on the functions, as the Vice President of the said Panchayat, from the
\nyear 2006. One Thanga Pandian, who is a permanent panchayat clerk in Mathur
\nVillage Panchayat and who has been in service for more than 16 years, has been
\nguiding the petitioner in carrying on her duties. While so, the Government of
\nIndia had introduced the “National Rural Employment Guarantee Act<\/a>“, through
\nwhich the “National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme” had been formulated.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The petitioner had also stated that Mathur Village Panchayat had been
\nselected for the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee
\nScheme, during the financial year, 2008-2009 and funds had been allotted for the
\nimplementation of various development works in the village panchayat. Since the
\npetitioner was not fully conversant with the rules and regulations applicable to
\nthe functioning of the village panchayat and due to the fact that the petitioner
\nbeing a muslim lady,  various functions and works had been entrusted to the
\npanchayat clerk, Thangapandian, during the month of March, 2009. Accordingly,
\nvarious works were being allotted to the panchayat clerk, by the second
\nrespondent. The cheques for the works carried out were being signed by the
\npetitioner and the president of the village panchayat, namely, Elango. The
\npetitioner, as well as the President of the village panchayat, were under the
\nbelief that the release orders produced by him were genuine. Without suspecting
\nany malpractice, the petitioner and the President of the village panchayat had
\nbeen signing the cheques for the works alleged to have been carried out. There
\nwere no complaints, whatsoever, either from the beneficiaries or from the
\ngeneral public. Therefore, the petitioner was under the impression that the
\nfunctions and the works, carried on by the panchayat clerk, were in order.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. While so, the Deputy Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat),
\nMadurai East Panchayat Union, had conducted an inspection, on 15.4.2009, in
\nMathur Village Panchayat. At the time of the inspection, the petitioner, as well
\nas the panchayat clerk, Thangapandian, were present and they had fully co-
\noperated with the Deputy Block Development Officer concerned, to conduct his
\ninspection. During the inspection, the Deputy Block Development Officer had
\nfound out certain irregularities in the release orders issued on behalf of the
\nvillage panchayat and in the consequential payment of funds, through the cheques
\nsigned by the petitioner. It had been found that Thangapandian had prepared
\nbogus release orders said to have been given by the second respondent. He had
\nalso been maintaining a bogus bank account.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The petitioner had stated that Thangapandian, apprehending that a
\ncomplaint would be lodged against him, by the petitioner, had remitted a sum of
\nRs.2,50,701\/-, on 17.3.2009, and remitted a sum of Rs.36,768\/-, on 18.3.2009,
\namounting to a total sum of Rs.2,87,469\/-. Thereafter, Thangapandian, had been
\nsuspended, on 5.6.2009, and a complaint had been preferred before the police, on
\n19.6.2009. Since the amount mentioned in the complaint was more than Rs.50,000\/-
\n, the Sub Inspector of Police concerned had returned the complaint stating that
\nit should be given to the District Crime Branch. Therefore, a complaint had been
\nsubmitted to the second respondent. Thus, it could be clearly seen that there
\nwas no intention on behalf of the petitioner to misappropriate the funds of the
\nNational Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. It had also been stated that the Deputy Block Development Officer
\nconcerned, after verifying the relevant records, had submitted a report to the
\nsecond respondent stating that the panchayat clerk, namely, Thangapandian, was
\nthe only person responsible for the misappropriation of the funds. A criminal
\ncomplaint had also been lodged against Thangapandian, on the file of the
\nDistrict Crime Branch. Since the Inspector of Police concerned, who had arrested
\nand remanded Thangapandian, after registering a case, had included the name of
\nthe petitioner. Therefore, she had obtained an anticipatory bail from the
\nDistrict Sessions Court, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. While so, the second respondent had sent letters, in Letter
\nNos.12\/2009\/Thi.6, dated 19.6.2009, 2.7.2009 and 16.7.2009, to the first
\nrespondent, stating that the petitioner had colluded with the panchayat clerk
\nand had misappropriated the funds of the National Rural Employment Guarantee
\nScheme. Based on the said letters the first respondent, by his proceedings, in
\nNa.Ka.No.2724\/2009\/A4, dated 21.7.2009, had directed the second respondent to
\nstop the cheque issuing powers of the petitioner. The second respondent had also
\nissued the proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.2130\/2009\/Thi., dated 23.7.2009, directing
\nthe writ petitioner to handover all the records, including the account books and
\nthe cheques relating to the said village panchayat. Pursuant to the said
\nproceedings issued by the second respondent all the relevant records had been
\nhanded over to the second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has
\npreferred the above writ petition, under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned counsel, Mr.Mahendran, appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioner had submitted that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are
\narbitrary, illegal and void. The said orders have been passed by the
\nrespondents, without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners.
\nFurther, the orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the dictum laid
\ndown by this Court in the cases, reported in S.Udayakumar V. Dist. Collector-
\ncum-Inspector of Panchayats (2009(5) MLJ 537), Pugazhendran, President,
\nBrammapuram Village Panchayat, Katpadi Panchayat Union, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore
\nDistrict Vs. B.G.Balu and others (2005(1) CTC 545) K.Valarmathi Vs. The District
\nCollector, Coimbatore District and others (2006(2) L.W. 19).\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the
\nrespondents had failed to comply with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats
\n(Control of Emergency Powers of Collector or Inspector) Rules, 2001. He had
\nfurther submitted that the respondents ought not to have invoked Section 203 of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, as it should have been made use of only
\nunder extraordinary circumstances. The impugned orders have been passed contrary
\nto Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the
\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has
\nbeen stated that the petitioner, had been elected as the Vice President of
\nMathur Village Panchayat, during the year, 2006. Having assumed charge of the
\npost of Vice President of the Village panchayat, she should have known the rules
\nand regulations and the procedures which govern the panchayat adminsitration.
\nShe cannot plead ignorance of such rules and regulations and procedures, by
\nwhich she is bound in her functions, which are highly responsible in nature.
\nDepending on the panchayat clerk and entrusting the entire functions and the
\nworks in his hands amounted to dereliction of her duties, for which she could be
\nheld liable.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. As per the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme the second
\nrespondent had issued the release orders. However, the petitioner had verified
\nand signed the nominal muster roll and had checked the release order at the time
\nof the issuing of the cheques. However, the petitioner had concealed the said
\nfacts, for reasons best known to her. It had been found that only the excess
\namounts had been drawn through cheques, besides the amounts due to the
\nbeneficiaries, by committing forgery. Therefore, there has been no complaint
\nfrom the beneficiaries. No action had been taken against the errant clerk,
\nexcept suspending him from service, on 5.6.2009. Later, a complaint had been
\nlodged before the District Crime Branch since the amount involved is in excess
\nof Rs.50,000\/-. In fact, the inspection had been conducted, on 15.4.2009, in
\nMathur Village Panchayat, only by the Deputy Block Development Officer (National
\nRural Employment Guarantee Scheme), Madurai East Panchayat Union and not by the
\nDeputy Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat), as alleged by the
\npetitioner. In the report submitted by the Deputy Block Development Officer
\n(National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme) to the second respondent it has
\nbeen stated that forged released orders had been prepared by the Panchayat
\nclerk, with the help of the petitioner. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,86,131\/- had
\nbeen misappropriated.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. It has been further stated that the petitioner had been given
\nsufficient opportunity to submit her explanation. A show cause notice had been
\nissued to her, as well as to the Panchayat Clerk, Thangapandian, by the Block
\nDevelopment Officer (Village Panchayat) Madurai East, in his letters
\nRc.No.180\/09\/T6, dated 15.4.2009, 21.5.2009 and 29.5.2009. No reply had been
\nreceived from the petitioner, as well as the panchayat clerk, till date. The
\norder passed by the first respondent and the consequential order passed by the
\nsecond respondent, are well within the rules and the provisions of the Tamil
\nNadu Panchayats Act, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The petitioner cannot claim that principles of natural justice had
\nbeen violated, since she had been given sufficient opportunity to putforth her
\ncase. However, she had not attended the enquiry, nor had she submitted a reply.
\nAs such the impugned order had been passed only in accordance with Section 203
\nof the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, after affording sufficient opportunity
\nto the petitioner. However, neither the petitioner, nor the panchayat clerk,
\nThangapandian, had availed the opportunities given to them, to defend
\nthemselves.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It has been further stated that a Vice President of a Village
\nPanchayat is appointed, as its Executive Officer, as per G.O.(Per) No.225
\nR.D.(E1) Department, dated 15.10.1996. Thereby, the petitioner is responsible
\nfor the financial transactions of the village panchayat. Since the petitioner
\nhad misappropriated more than a sum of rupees  Rs.2,50,000\/-, the respondents
\nhad to invoke Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. It has also
\nbeen stated that the second respondent has the responsibility of inspecting the
\npanchayat in the capacity of a Block Development Officer, as also that of a
\nDeputy Block Development Officer, as per G.O.(Per) No.238 R.D (E5) Department,
\ndated 25.7.1997, and G.O.(Per) No.264 R.D. Department, dated 21.12.1999.
\nFurther, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, provides the
\nrole to the Block Development Officer (Village Panchayat) to perform the
\nstatutory functions, instead of the elected office bearers of the village
\npanchayats, when they fail to perform their assigned duties, in the right
\nmanner, in accordance with law. Sections 200 and 201 of the Tamil Nadu
\nPanchayats Act, 1994, stipulates that necessary records may be inspected, during
\ninspection and to take charge of the records from the elected representatives.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. It has also been stated that the Assistant Director (Audit) had been
\nappointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged misappropriation of
\nfunds by the petitioner. He had sent a show cause notice, on 14.7.2009, asking
\nthem to attend the enquiry scheduled to be held, on 20.7.2009. However, the
\npetitioner has not appeared before the enquiry officer on the said date.
\nThereafter, the Assistant Director (Audit) had gone to the panchayat office, on
\n21.7.2009, and he had made an inspection of the concerned records, in the
\npresence of the petitioner. Thereafter, he had submitted a report, on 21.7.2009,
\nstating that Panchayat Funds had been misappropriated, to the tune of
\nRs.2,86,131\/- and he has requested the District Collector to take appropriate
\naction against the petitioner and against the Panchayat Clerk concerned. Based
\non the report of the Assistant Director (Audit) charges had been framed against
\nher and a show cause notice had been issued by the District Collector, the first
\nrespondent herein, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action should
\nnot be taken against her, under Section 205(1) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
\n1994, in his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.2724\/09\/A4, dated 25.7.2009. The said
\nprocedure is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and therefore, the
\nwrit petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, is is
\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the following
\ndecisions in support of his contentions:\n<\/p>\n
\t1) In S.Udayakumar V. District Collector-cum-Inspector of Panchayats<\/a>
\n(2009(5) MLJ 537), it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The power given to the Collector or Inspector was an emergency power to
\ndo certain acts in the interest of the panchayat. It was not an ordinary power
\nto interfere in the affairs of the village panchayat. In case the village
\nPanchayat President or Executive Authority makes default in performing nay of
\nthe duties imposed by or under the provisions of the Act,t he Inspector was
\ngiven powers under Section 204<\/a> of the Act to take appropriate action. The
\nCollector or Inspector was not obliged to use the emergency powers as a routine
\nmeasure. There was nothing mentioned in Section 203<\/a> of the Act which authorises
\nthe Collector to divest the President of his cheque signing powers  during the
\npendency of a proceeding under Section 205<\/a> of the Act. The President would be
\ndivested of his powers only in th event of an order passed under Section 205(11)<\/a>
\nof the Act. Unless and until a notification was issued under Section 205(11)<\/a> of
\nthe Act, the President has tobe permitted to exercise his powers as a President
\nof the panchayat. The charge against the petitioner was not something related to
\nhis failure to sign the cheque along with the Vice President. The charges were
\nacts of misappropriation warranting action under Section 205<\/a> of the Act. By way
\nof the impugned proceeding, the Collector, in exercise of the powers under
\nSection 203<\/a> of the ACt, has divested the petitioner of his power to sign the
\ncheque along with the Vice President. Not even a notice was issued to the
\npetitioner before issuing such proceedings. It was only as a consequential
\nproceedings initiated under Section 205<\/a> of the Act, the Collector has issued the
\nimpugned proceedings divesting the petitioner of his power to sign the cheque.
\nIn any case, before divesting the petitioner of his power to sign the cheque,
\nreasonable opportunity should have been given to him. It is not as if the momen
\naction under Section 205<\/a> of the Act was taken against the President, he should
\nbe divested of the power to sign cheques. Section 203<\/a> of the Act is not intended
\nfor suchpurposes. It was only to tide over an emergency situation, power is
\ngiven to the Collector under Section 203<\/a> of the Act. The said power cannot be
\nused in an ordinary situation. In any case, there was a clear violatin of
\nprinciples of natural justice also, as the petitioner was not given notice
\nbefore divesting him of the power to sign the cheques.”\n<\/p>\n
\t2) In W.P.No.4310 of 2009 (Kasi Rajan Vs. The District Collector and
\nothers), this Court, by its order, dated 16.9.2009, by relying on the various
\ndecisions of the Courts of law had held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In view of the decisions referred to above, the law on the subject is
\nwell settled that such power vested with the ward member of the village
\npanchayat to act as a co-signatory to the cheques to be signed for and on behalf
\nof the panchayat cannot be taken away without affording an opportunity and
\nwithout issuing a notice. Admittedly, in the instant case, no notice has been
\nissued to the petitioner before the impugned was passed. Therefore, on this sole
\nground alone, the petitioner has to succeed and accordingly, the writ petition
\nis allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to
\nthe first respondent to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner clearly setting
\nout the allegations against the petitioner and the reason why the first
\nrespondent proposes to invoke power under Section 206<\/a> of the Act and thereafter,
\nthe petitioner shall be entitled to submit his objections and the first
\nrepondent after considering his objections shall pass appropriate orders, on
\nmerits and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within
\na period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of
\nthe respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the
\nconsidered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to
\ngrant the reliefs, as prayed for by her. Even though various grounds had been
\nraised by the petitioner, in challenging the impugned orders passed by the
\nrespondents, the main ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
\nthat the petitioner had been divested of her power to sign the cheques on behalf
\nof Mathur Village Panchayat, without being given an opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. While perusing the records placed before this Court, on behalf of the
\nrespondents and in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in
\nthe above writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner had been given
\nsufficient opportunity to put forth her case, in respect of the charges levelled
\nagainst her. Even though notices had been sent to her, on 15.4.2009, 21.5.2009
\nand 29.5.2009, by the second respondent, which she had also received, asking her
\nto submit her explanation and to appear in person, along with the relevant
\nrecords, she has not chosen, either to submit her explanation or to appear in
\nperson, along with the relevant records, as required by the second respondent.
\nHence, the petitioner cannot claim that she has not been given suficient
\nopportunity to put forth her case, before the impugned orders had been passed.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. Further, it would not be open to the petitioner to take shelter under
\nthe guise of ignorance of the rules and regulations and the other statutory
\nprovisions applicable to the functioning of the village panchayat. By merely
\nsaying that due to her ignorance in carrying on her functions and the works
\nassigned to her, he had delegated his responsibilities to Thangapandian, who is
\na clerk in Mathur Village Panchayat, would not be of any help to the petitioner
\nin defending herself against the allegations of misappropriation of funds
\nallotted to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Even if certain
\nactions had been initiated against Thangapandian by suspending him from service
\nand by registering a complaint against him, such actions, by themselves, would
\nnot be sufficient proof of the innocence of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Handling of public funds casts a heavy responsibility on the
\npetitioner. Dereliction of her duties, in handling such responsibilities, would
\nbe a serious lapse. As such she would be fully responsible for the loss of
\nfunds, even if it may not, in the ultimate analysis amount to misappropriation
\nof funds. However, in the present case, certain serious charges had been
\nlevelled against the petitioner, including the misappropriation of government
\nfunds allotted to the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, by forging of
\nrecords and by issuing cheques based on bogus release orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. No doubt the truth, in repsect of the allegations levelled against the
\npetitioner, has to be ascertained by an impartial enquiry by the officers
\nconcerned, as provided under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act,
\n1994, and the rules framed thereunder, till such time the enquiry, in respect of
\nthe charges levelled against her, is not completed she would not be entitled to
\nhave the cheque signing power, as it would be improper and inappropriate in the
\ngiven circumstances of the case. It is for the authorities concerned to
\ninvestigate into the matter and to come to a fair conclusion, with regard to the
\nalleged misappropriation of funds.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
\nsupport of his contentions cannot come to the aid of the petitioner, since the
\nsaid decisions, cited supra, had been made in the facts and circumstances of
\nthose cases, especially, when the petitioner had been deprived of the cheque
\nsigning power, without the issuing of a notice to him, by the respondents and
\nwithout being given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. However, in the present case it is seen from the records available
\nthat notices had been issued to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to
\nwhy necessary action should not be initiated, based on the allegations levelled
\nagainst her. She had also been asked to appear in person, along with the
\nrelevant records. Even after the receipt of the said notices, the petitioner had
\nchosen not to appear in person before the respondents, for the necessary
\nenquiry. Further, no explanation had been submitted by her, to substantiate her
\nclaim that she is innocent.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Further, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the
\nfirst respondent, District Collector, cannot invoke the extraordinary power
\nvested in him, under Section 203 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994, cannot
\nbe countenanced, especially, in view of the fact that an allegation has been
\nmade that more than a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs had been misappropriated by the
\npetitioner, along with the clerk of the Mathur Village Panchayat, namely,
\nThangapandian. It is for the petitioner to prove that the allegations levelled
\nagainst her are without susbtance, by adducing sufficient evidence in support of
\nher claim, in the manner known to law. For the reasons stated above, the writ
\npetition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
\nConsequently, M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
csh<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The District Collector cum
\nInspector of Panchayats,
\nMadurai District, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Block Development Officer
\n(Village Panchayats),
\nMadurai East Panchayat Union,
\nMadurai District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATE: 08\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD) No.7683 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2009 Mathina Maharibha .. Petitioner. Versus 1. The District Collector cum Inspector of Panchayats, Madurai […]<\/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-255287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-10T02:31:29+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T02:31:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3544,\"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\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-10T02:31:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 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":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - 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\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-10T02:31:29+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T02:31:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009"},"wordCount":3544,"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\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009","name":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-10T02:31:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathina-maharibha-vs-the-district-collector-cum-on-8-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathina Maharibha vs The District Collector Cum on 8 December, 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\/255287","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=255287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}