{"id":262391,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-09T05:52:02","modified_gmt":"2016-12-09T00:22:02","slug":"g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nW.P.(MD)No.1020  of 2007\n\n1.G. Karupiah\n2.Seetha Lakshmi                                           ...   Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Secretary, Public Works Department,\n   Government of Tamil Nadu,  Chennai-09.\n2.The Chairman,  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.\n3.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.\n4.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n   Virudhunagar District.                                  ...  Respondents\n\n\tWrit Petition has been filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents\nto pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000\/- each to the petitioners by way of compensation for\nthe death of Mrs. Veerayeeammal, who is the mother of the petitioners herein,\nwho lost her life due to electrocution.\n\n!For Petitioner       ...  Mr.G.Marimuthu\n^For Respondents No.1 ...  Mr.Pala Ramasamy,\n                           Special Government Pleader\nFor respondents 2 to 4...  Mr.Suresh Kumar\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2.The petitioners are the legal heirs of Mrs.Veerayeeammal, who  filed<br \/>\nthis writ petition, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000\/- each for the death of<br \/>\ntheir mother, Mrs.Veerayeeammal, due to electrocution .\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3.The specific case of the petitioners is that on 17.05.2005, when their<br \/>\nmother, Mrs.Veerayeeammal was working in the field of one Mr.Rajagopal along<br \/>\nwith one another woman viz., Mrs.Mariammal, the electric over head wire snapped<br \/>\nand fell on the  earth and it had also fallen on the petitioners&#8217; mother and she<br \/>\nwas electrocuted. Despite, best treatment given in the Government Rajaji<br \/>\nHospital, Madurai, she died on 18.05.2005.  The petitioners contended that the<br \/>\naccident took place due to the negligence on the part of the respondents in not<br \/>\nkeeping the electric lines in proper safety form and the respondents failed to<br \/>\ntake necessary precautions, safety and security measures.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4.The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board filed the counter affidavit admitting<br \/>\nthat the said Mrs.Veerayeeammal, died due to electrocution,  while she was<br \/>\nworking in the cotton crop field at Chathirareddiyarpatti village, Virudhunagar<br \/>\nDistrict, but pleaded that she got electrocuted due to her negligence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.It is further submitted by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that they<br \/>\nare properly maintaining the electric lines and the deceased alone was<br \/>\nresponsible for the accident and hence, they are not liable. Further, they also<br \/>\nquestioned the maintainability of the writ petition for claiming compensation<br \/>\nand according to the respondents, under <a href=\"\/doc\/1712542\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia,  the petitioners are not entitled to file the writ petition for claiming<br \/>\ncompensation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t6.During the course of argument, Mr.Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent 2 to 4 submitted that the writ petition is not<br \/>\nmaintainable as disputed facts are involved in this case and therefore, as per<br \/>\nthe judgment reported in 2000(1)SCC 543 and 2005(6) SCC page 156, the Court<br \/>\nshould not entertain the writ petition and ought to have dismissed the same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t7.On the other-hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners<br \/>\nsubmitted that the writ petition is maintainable and the facts are not disputed<br \/>\nand in similar cases, the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court have held that<br \/>\nthe writ petition is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t8.Before going into the issue, whether the writ petition is maintainable<br \/>\nor not, it is better to look into the facts involved in this case.  It is<br \/>\nadmitted that the deceased was working in the cotton field on the date of<br \/>\naccident i.e. on 17.05.2005, and died on 18.05.2005 in the Rajaji Government<br \/>\nHospital, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t9.It is seen from the FIR, which was given by the deceased that at about<br \/>\n8.20 A.M, while she was plugging the cotton, she met with an accident by coming<br \/>\ninto contact with live wire, which was hanging in a low position in the field<br \/>\nand she was thrown away and sustained injuries all over the body.  The post-<br \/>\nmortem certificate also proves that the deceased died of extensive burn injuries<br \/>\nof about 90%.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t10.Therefore, it is seen from the F.I.R and post-mortem report that the<br \/>\ndeceased died due to electrocution and from the statement of the deceased made<br \/>\nin the F.I.R the electric over head lines were found hanging in a low position<br \/>\nand she accidentally came into conduct with the overhead wire and as a result of<br \/>\nthat she was thrown away.  From this, it is made clear that the electric over<br \/>\nhead wires were not fixed in a position beyond the reach of the human being and<br \/>\nthe over head wires were loosely fitted so as to make it possible for any person<br \/>\nto touch the wire either wantonly or accidently.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t11.In the counter statement, the respondents only stated that the deceased<br \/>\ninvited the accident and there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity<br \/>\nBoard.   Though, in the writ petition, the Electricity Board alleged that the<br \/>\neclectic wire had fallen on the head of the deceased, it is seen from the FIR<br \/>\nthat the wire were hanging in a low position and the deceased came into conduct<br \/>\nwith the overhead wire accidentally.  Therefore, it is proved by the petitioners<br \/>\nthat the wires were not properly maintained by the Electricity Board and as a<br \/>\nresult of that, the deceased came into conduct with the over head line and got<br \/>\nelectrocuted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t12.At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 91 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Rules.  Rule 91 deals with safety and protective devices: Every over<br \/>\nhead electric wires carrying heavy load of electricity are highly dangerous.<br \/>\nGreat care and caution are expected in laying, installing and maintaining over<br \/>\nhead lines by the Board.  The measures for protecting over head lines are<br \/>\nprescribed in Rule 91. Every over head line, which is not covered with<br \/>\ninsulating material and which is erected over any part of a street be protected<br \/>\nwith device approved by the Inspector for rendering the line electrically<br \/>\nharmless in case it breaks.  The over-head line in the deceased farm snapped and<br \/>\nfell down and continued to be alive.  In the absence of any proof that there had<br \/>\nbeen no negligence or carelessness in installation and maintenance of the<br \/>\ntransmission lines over the deceased&#8217;s form. it must be held that the accident<br \/>\nhappened because of negligence of the Board  [A.I.R.1984 Madras 201 in the case<br \/>\nof <a href=\"\/doc\/1088478\/\" id=\"a_2\">Nirmala vs.T.N. Electricity Board<\/a>].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t13.It is stated that every overhead line erected over any part of a street<br \/>\nor other public places shall be protected with device approved by the Inspector,<br \/>\nfor rendering the line electrically harmless, in case it breads.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t14.As stated supra, in this case, the over head line was found hanging<br \/>\nwithin the reach of a person and had it been fitted properly beyond the reach of<br \/>\nthe person, the accident could not have happened.  Further when a person came<br \/>\ninto contact with the over head wire accidentaly negligence can be presumed<br \/>\nagainst the Electricity Board as it is the duty of the Electricity Board to lay<br \/>\nthe overhead line beyond the reach of any person.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t15.Recently, this court has held in the case reported in 2008(4) LW 289 in<br \/>\nthe matter of <a href=\"\/doc\/162144195\/\" id=\"a_3\">Chairman Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Lalitha<\/a> &amp; two others ,<br \/>\nthe Board is liable to pay the compensation in such cases, on the basis of the<br \/>\nRule 91 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Rule 1956.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t16.According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this<br \/>\ncourt has no jurisdiction to entertain such cases and the negligence has to be<br \/>\ndecided in a court of law by adducing evidence and such disputed facts cannot be<br \/>\nentertained by this court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t17. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the<br \/>\njudgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2000(4) SCC 543, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/78791\/\" id=\"a_4\">Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Electricity Board vs. Sumathi and others<\/a> and in 2005(6) SCC 156 in the case<br \/>\nof SDO, GRID CORPORATION OF ORRISA LOTD AND OTHERS vs. TIMUDU ORAM. No-doubt, in<br \/>\nthose two cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the cases of<br \/>\ndisputed facts,  the court should not have entertained the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t18.But in the very same judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court has also<br \/>\nheld that when there is no dispute regarding the manner of extent or negligence,<br \/>\nthe writ petition is maintainable.  Further, the judgment reported in 2000(3)<br \/>\nSCC 754 in the case of Parvathi Devi and others vs. Commissioner of Police,Delhi<br \/>\nand others, it was held that once it is established that the death occurred on<br \/>\naccount of electrocution while walking on the road, necessarily the authorities<br \/>\nmust be held to be negligent and therefore, in the case in hand, it would be<br \/>\nNDMC who would be responsible for the death in question. Similarly, in the cases<br \/>\nreported in 2002(2)MLJ9 (S.C) in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/50693703\/\" id=\"a_5\">M.P.Electricity Board vs. Shail<br \/>\nKumari and others<\/a>, 2008(4)L.W.289 in the case of The Chairman,Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nElectricity Board, Madras-2 and one <a href=\"\/doc\/1071282\/\" id=\"a_6\">another vs. Mrs.Lalitha<\/a> and two others and<br \/>\n2008(3)MLJ 160 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/147386600\/\" id=\"a_7\">Lilly Stanislaus vs. Chairman, T.N.E.B.,Chennai<br \/>\nand others<\/a>, the Honourable Supreme Court and our Honourable High Court after<br \/>\nelaborately discussing the strict liability theory held that the writ petition<br \/>\nis maintainable.  Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the writ<br \/>\npetition is maintainable and the respondents are liable to pay compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t19.The next question that arises for consideration is what would be the<br \/>\namount of compensation that can be awarded by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t20.It is seen from the FIR that the deceased was working as agricultural<br \/>\ncoolie and she was aged about 53 years.  As an agricultural coolie, the decease<br \/>\nwould have earned Rs.1,500\/- per month and she would have a life span, even<br \/>\naccording to the petitioners for 10 more years. Hence, after deducting 1\/3rd<br \/>\ntowards the personal expenses, the deceased would have contributed Rs.1,000\/-<br \/>\nper month for her family and hence, compensation of Rs.1,00,000\/- would be the<br \/>\njust and proper compensation that can be awarded in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t21.Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay<br \/>\nRs.1 lac to the petitioners as compensation for the death of their mother,<br \/>\nwithin a period of  four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the<br \/>\norder, failing which the respondents are directed to pay interest at 6% from the<br \/>\ndate of date  of the accident.   No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">1.The Secretary, Public Works Department,<br \/>\n   Government of Tamil Nadu,   Chennai-09.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">2.The Chairman,  Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\n   Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">3.The Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\n   Electricity Avenue, 300, Anna Salai, Chennai-02.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">4.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,<br \/>\n   Virudhunagar District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.(MD)No.1020 of 2007 1.G. Karupiah 2.Seetha Lakshmi &#8230; Petitioners Vs. 1.The Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-09. 2.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Electricity [&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-262391","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>G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 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\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-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=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-09T00:22:02+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T00:22:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1603,\"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\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-09T00:22:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 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":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 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\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-09T00:22:02+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T00:22:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":1603,"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\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009","name":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-09T00:22:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-karupiah-vs-the-secretary-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G. Karupiah vs The Secretary on 28 October, 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\/262391","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=262391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}