{"id":263089,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2014-04-07T17:06:02","modified_gmt":"2014-04-07T11:36:02","slug":"r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n            THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 29.1.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n\n                    W.P.No.15907 of 2001,\n          W.P.No.40827 of 2002,W.P.No.6081 of 2004\n\t                   and \n\t\t    W.P.No.7274 of 2006\n                              \n                              \n                              \nR.Kannan                                .. Petitioner in\n                                         W.P.No.15907 of 2001,\n                                         W.P.No.40827 of 2002 &\n                                         W.P.No.6081 of 2004\n\nC.Duraipandian                          .. petitioner in\n                                         W.P.No.7274 of 2006\n                              \n\t                    vs.\n\n\nThe Secretary to Government,\nSchool Education Department,\nFort St. George,\nchennai - 9                          .. 1st respondent<\/pre>\n
                                     in W.P.No.15907 of 2001<\/p>\n
The Director of School Education,
\nCollege Road,
\nNungambakkam, Chennai – 6.              .. 2nd respondent
\nin W.P.No.15907 of 2001,               1st respondent in W.P.No.40827 of 2002
\n                                       and W.P.No.6081 of 2004<\/p>\n
The District Educational Officer,
\nMadurai.                                 ..3st respondent
\n                                       in W.P.No.15907 of 2001,
\n                                       4th respondent in                                    \t\t\t\t   \tW.P.No.40827 of 2002 and
\n\t\t                       2nd respondent in W.P.No.6081 of 2004<\/p>\n
C.Duraipandiyan
\n(R.4 impleaded as per the order
\ndated 18.12.2001 in
\nW.M.P.No.35537 of 2001)              .. 4th respondent in
\n                                        W.P.No.15907 of 2001
\n                  \t\t\tand 5th respondent in W.P.No.40827 of 2002<\/p>\n
The Joint Director of School
\nEducation (Higher Secretary),
\nCollege Road,
\nNungambakkam, Chennai – 6.           .. 2nd respondent in
\n                                        W.P.No.40827 of 2002<\/p>\n
The Chief Educational Officer,
\nMadurai                               .. 3rd respondent
\n                                     in W.P.No.40827 of 2002<\/p>\n
The Government of Tamil Nadu,
\nrep. by its Secretary,
\nCommercial Taxes Department,
\nChennai – 600 009.                   .. 1st respondent in
\n                                         W.P.No.7274 of 2006<\/p>\n
The Inspector General of Registration,
\nSanthome High Road, Chennai – 600 028  .. 2nd respondent in
\n                                           W.P.7274 of 2006<\/p>\n
R.Kannan                               .. 3rd respondent
\n                                      in W.P.No.7274 of 2006<\/p>\n
     These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226<\/a> of the
\nConstitution of India as stated therein.<\/p>\n
W.P.No.15907 of 2001:\n<\/p>\n
       For petitioner  :  Mr.G.Masilamani
\n                          Senior Advocate for
\nMr.G.K.R.Pandian<\/p>\n
       For respondents :  Mr.C.Thirumaran
\n                          Government Adv ocate
\n                          for R1 to R3
\n                          Mr.K.Doraisami, Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
\t\t\t  M\/s.Muthumani Doraisami for R4
\n\t\t\t  W.P.No.6081 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\n
            For petitioner  :  Mr.G.Masilamani
\n                               Senior Advocate for
\n\t\t\t\tMr.G.K.R.Pandian<\/p>\n
             For respondents :  Mr.C.Thirumaran
\n                                Government Advocate for R1<\/p>\n
W.P.No.40827 of 2002:\n<\/p>\n
        For petitioner  : Mr.G.Masilamani
\n                          Senior Advocate for
\n\t\t\t  Mr.G.K.R.Pandian<\/p>\n
       For respondents :  Mr.C.Thirumaran
\n                          Government Advocate for R1 to R4
\n                         Mr.K.Doraisami, Senior Advocate for
\n                         M\/s.Muthumani Doraisami for R5<\/p>\n
W.P.No.7274 of 2006:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        For petitioner  :  Mr.K.Doraisami, Senior Advocate
\n                           M\/s.Muthumani Doraisami<\/p>\n
        For respondents :  Mr.C.Thirumaran
\n                           Government Advocate for R1 & R2
\n                           Mr.G.Masilamani
\n                           Senior Advocate for
\n\t\t\tMr.G.K.R.Pandian for R3<\/p>\n
                   C O M M O N  O R D E R<\/p>\n
\t\t   W.P.No.15907 of 2001:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
Writ  of  Certiorari to call for the records on the file  of<\/p>\n
the    third    respondent   vide   his    proceedings    in<\/p>\n
Na.Ka.No.931\/Ah.3\/2001,    dated    24.8.2001    and     the<\/p>\n
consequential      order      vide      proceedings       in<\/p>\n
Na.Ka.No.931(2)\/Ah.3\/2001, dated  24.8.2001  and  quash  the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
W.P.No.40827 of 2002:\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
Writ  of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records  of<\/p>\n
the     second     respondent    vide    his     proceedings<\/p>\n
No.Thi.Mu.22946\/W12\/2002,   dated   22.10.2002    and    the<\/p>\n
consequential order passed by the fourth respondent vide his<\/p>\n
proceedings No.Mu.Mu.No.931\/Aa3\/2002, dated 1.11.2002, quash<\/p>\n
the  same and further to direct the respondents 1  to  4  to<\/p>\n
continue the direct payment of salary to the staffs  of  the<\/p>\n
School till the Statutory Appeal preferred by the petitioner<\/p>\n
on  behalf of the Educational Agency under Section 44(5)  of<\/p>\n
the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is disposed<\/p>\n
off in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
\n
W.P.No.6081 of 2004:\n<\/p>\n
\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
Writ  of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records  of<\/p>\n
the    second    respondent   in    his    proceedings    in<\/p>\n
Na.Ka.No.931\/B1\/2001, dated 5.12.2003, quash the same and to<\/p>\n
direct the second respondent to approve the re-nomination of<\/p>\n
the  petitioner as the Secretary of the School Committee  of<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School.<\/p>\n
W.P.No.7274 of 2006:\n<\/p>\n
      The writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a<\/p>\n
Writ  of  Certiorari to call for the records  of  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  in  G.O.Ms.(RT) No.1186\/2002, dated  27.12.2002,<\/p>\n
and  the  consequential order of the  second  respondent  in<\/p>\n
No.57706\/A1\/2002, dated 9.8.2005 and quash the same.<\/p>\n
      2. All the writ petitions are taken up together to  be<\/p>\n
heard  and  disposed  of, since they  pertain  to  connected<\/p>\n
issues.\n<\/p>\n
      3.  Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf  of<\/p>\n
the petitioners as well as for the respondents.<\/p>\n
      4. It is submitted by the petitioner, namely, R.Kannan<\/p>\n
in   W.P.No.15907  of  2001,  W.P.No.40827  of   2002    and<\/p>\n
W.P.No.6081  of  2004  that Muthuthevar Mukkulathore  Higher<\/p>\n
Secondary School, Madurai, was started in the year 1953.  In<\/p>\n
the  year,  1957,  Sri.K.Muthuthevar Mukkulathore  Secondary<\/p>\n
School  Trust (Educational Agency) was registered under  the<\/p>\n
Societies   Registration   Act<\/a>,  1860,   with   registration<\/p>\n
No.2\/1957.  Allegedly the Educational  Agency,  namely,  the<\/p>\n
above named Society, had become defunct, on 26.1.1983, under<\/p>\n
Section 44(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration,  Act<\/p>\n
1975.  However, the same was not known to the office bearers<\/p>\n
of the Educational Agency as well as the School Committee of<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School, Madurai.<\/p>\n
     5. On 6.6.1999, R.Kannan was unanimously elected as the<\/p>\n
Secretary    of    the    Educational    Agency,     namely,<\/p>\n
Sri.K.Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore  Secondary   School   Trust.<\/p>\n
Consequently,  R.Kannan was appointed as  the  Secretary  of<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School  Committee,<\/p>\n
on   17.2.2000.  On  29.2.2000,  the  District   Educational<\/p>\n
Officer, Madurai had approved the nomination of R.Kannan  as<\/p>\n
the Secretary of the said School Committee. On 14.2.2001,  a<\/p>\n
statutory appeal had been preferred, under Section 44(5)  of<\/p>\n
the  Tamil  Nadu Societies Registration Act,  1975,  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner, on behalf of the Educational Agency, against the<\/p>\n
order passed under Section 44(2) of the Tamil Nadu Societies<\/p>\n
Registration Act, 1975. An appeal was preferred,  on  behalf<\/p>\n
of  the  Educational Agency, to the Secretary to Government,<\/p>\n
Commercial Tax Department, under Section 37(3) of the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Societies  Registration Rules,  1978,  to  revive  the<\/p>\n
society.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.In the meantime, one C.Duraipandian, (petitioner  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.7274  of  2006)  had  forged  the  signature  of  the<\/p>\n
Educational   Agency’s   President,  M.Krishnamoorthy,   and<\/p>\n
fabricated  the  documents to start another Society  with  a<\/p>\n
similar  name  as  that of the earlier  Society,  which  was<\/p>\n
declared  as defunct. On 17.2.2001, a police  complaint  was<\/p>\n
given  by  M.Krishnamoorthy  against  C.Duraipandian  and  a<\/p>\n
criminal  case, under Sections 417<\/a>,467<\/a>, 468<\/a> and 471<\/a>  of  the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code, was registered against C.Duraipandian  in<\/p>\n
Thirunagar Police Station, Madurai, in F.I.R.No.60 of 2001.<\/p>\n
      7.On 11.5.2001, a show cause notice was issued by  the<\/p>\n
District Educational Officer, Madurai, on the basis  of  the<\/p>\n
complaint   given  by  C.Duraipandian  and  his  supporters.<\/p>\n
Therefore, on 21.5.2001, Kannan had given his explanation to<\/p>\n
the  District  Educational Officer, Madurai,  for  the  show<\/p>\n
cause  notice,  dated  11.5.2001, along  with  the  relevant<\/p>\n
supporting documents. An explanation had also been  sent  to<\/p>\n
the  Chief  Educational  Officer, Madurai,  along  with  the<\/p>\n
supporting  documents, on 8.8.2001. The District Educational<\/p>\n
Officer,  had  cancelled the approval  of  the  petitioner’s<\/p>\n
Secretaryship,  on 24.8.2001, and on the same  day,  he  had<\/p>\n
taken steps for direct payment of the salary to the Staff of<\/p>\n
the  School  by a separate order. The order of  cancellation<\/p>\n
and  the order to make the direct payment of salary has been<\/p>\n
challenged in W.P.No.15907 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\n
     8.On 11.3.2002, Kannan had sent a representation to the<\/p>\n
Director   of  School  Education  along  with  the  relevant<\/p>\n
documents   requesting   that   the   Society   started   by<\/p>\n
C.Duraipandian  should  not  be  accorded  sanction  as  the<\/p>\n
Educational Agency.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      9.A  writ  petition in W.P.No.40827 of 2002  had  been<\/p>\n
filed  against  the  order of the Joint Director  of  School<\/p>\n
Education, Chennai, approving the School Committee headed by<\/p>\n
Bhagiathammal as requested by C.Duraipandian,  thereby,  the<\/p>\n
Society  started  by C.Duraipandian had also  been  accorded<\/p>\n
sanction  as  the  Educational  Agency  of  the  School.  On<\/p>\n
1.11.2002,  the District Educational Officer,  Madurai,  had<\/p>\n
approved  C.Duraipandian  as the  Secretary  of  the  School<\/p>\n
Committee.  The School having been established in  the  year<\/p>\n
1953,  the  Educational  Agency,  namely,  Sri.K.Muthuthevar<\/p>\n
Mukkulathore   Secondary  School  Trust,   was   given   the<\/p>\n
Management  of  the School from 1957 to 2000  and  only  one<\/p>\n
Society was functioning after coming into force of the Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Registration Act, 1975. Due to non-filing of the audit<\/p>\n
return  by  the Society, under Section 16<\/a> of  the  Act,  the<\/p>\n
Society  was believed to have become defunct from  the  year<\/p>\n
1983.  However, this was neither known to the office bearers<\/p>\n
of   the  Society  or  the  School  Committee.  Whileso,  on<\/p>\n
17.2.2000,  R.Kannan  was  appointed  as  the  Secretary  of<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School Committee.<\/p>\n
     10.When it came to be known, steps were taken to revive<\/p>\n
the  defunct society. Since there was a delay in  preferring<\/p>\n
the  appeal  against  the  order declaring  the  society  as<\/p>\n
defunct,  G.O.Ms.No.1186,  Commercial  Tax  (M)  Department,<\/p>\n
dated  27.12.2002,  had  been passed  by  the  Secretary  to<\/p>\n
Government, Commercial Tax Department, condoning  the  delay<\/p>\n
and  exemption, under Rule 37(3) of the Tamil Nadu Societies<\/p>\n
Registration  Rules,  1978,  was  granted  to   prefer   the<\/p>\n
statutory appeal. The statutory appeal preferred by R.Kannan<\/p>\n
was  allowed  by  the  Inspector  General  of  Registration,<\/p>\n
Chennai,  on 9.8.2005.  The said order, dated 9.8.2005,  has<\/p>\n
been challenged by C.Duraipandian in W.P.No.7274 of 2006.<\/p>\n
      11.With  regard  to  W.P.No.7274  of  2006,  the  main<\/p>\n
contention  put forth by the learned counsel  appearing  for<\/p>\n
the  petitioner  is that the impugned order  passed  by  the<\/p>\n
Inspector  General of Registration, Chennai, dated 9.8.2005,<\/p>\n
is  vitiated,  as  it is in violation of the  principles  of<\/p>\n
natural  justice.  While  passing the  impugned  order,  the<\/p>\n
Inspector  General  of  Registration,  Chennai,  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent  in  W.P.No.7274 of 2006, had not considered  the<\/p>\n
representations  of  the petitioner,  dated  15.6.2002,  and<\/p>\n
12.2.2003,  on  merits.  A mere reference  is  made  in  the<\/p>\n
impugned   order   with  regard  to  those  representations.<\/p>\n
Further,  the  petitioner had not  been  heard  or  given  a<\/p>\n
further opportunity of putting forth his contentions  before<\/p>\n
the  impugned order was passed. Therefore, according to  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  it  is  clear  that the  Inspector  General  of<\/p>\n
Registration,  had not applied his mind, while  passing  the<\/p>\n
impugned order, dated 9.8.2005. While he had referred to  26<\/p>\n
references  in  his order, both the representations  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner, dated 15.6.2002 as well as 12.2.2003,  have  not<\/p>\n
been included in the list of references. Even if it is taken<\/p>\n
to  be true that a notice had been sent to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
appear  for an enquiry before the impugned order was  passed<\/p>\n
and even in case, the petitioner had not appeared inspite of<\/p>\n
receiving  the said notice, it is the duty cast on  the  the<\/p>\n
Inspector  General of Registration, to consider the  written<\/p>\n
representations submitted by the petitioner  on  merits.  He<\/p>\n
has   also   submitted  that  G.O.Ms.(RT)   No.1186,   dated<\/p>\n
27.12.2002, had been passed by misconstruing the  provisions<\/p>\n
of  Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act,<\/p>\n
1975,  granting exemption of Section 37(3)<\/a> of  the  Act.  In<\/p>\n
such  circumstances, the order, dated 9.8.2005, is void  and<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      12.Another contention raised by the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
the   impugned  order  of  the  the  Inspector  General   of<\/p>\n
Registration,  Chennai,  dated  9.8.2005,  says   that   the<\/p>\n
Notification  issued, under Section 44  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Societies Registration Act, 1975, (hereinafter called as the<\/p>\n
Act)  dissolving  Sri  K.Muthuthevar Mukkulathore  Secondary<\/p>\n
School  Trust,  (Registration No.2\/1957)  is  unsustainable,<\/p>\n
since  the  Gazette  Notification was wrongly  issued  under<\/p>\n
clause 3 of Section 44<\/a> instead of clause 4 of Section 44<\/a>  of<\/p>\n
the  Act.   The  petitioner states  that  even  if  a  wrong<\/p>\n
provision  has been quoted, the second respondent  ought  to<\/p>\n
have taken into consideration the fact that the contents  of<\/p>\n
the  Gazette  Notification is only regarding the dissolution<\/p>\n
of  the Trust. If the reasoning of the Inspector General  of<\/p>\n
Registration,  Chennai,  is  accepted,  then   hundreds   of<\/p>\n
Societies  dissolved under the same Notification would  have<\/p>\n
to  be revived and it would cause a major chaos and it would<\/p>\n
amount to unsettling many settled issues.<\/p>\n
      13.The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai,  in<\/p>\n
his  impugned order, dated 9.8.2005, had primarily proceeded<\/p>\n
on the footing that there was no order of dissolution of the<\/p>\n
Society.  As the said Trust had continued to be in existence<\/p>\n
from  the time of its inception in the year 1957, there  was<\/p>\n
no  necessity  of  an  order to be  passed  in  the  appeal,<\/p>\n
reviving the said Trust, as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      14.  With regard to the issue of locus standi, it  was<\/p>\n
stated that R.Kannan, the third respondent in W.P.No.7274 of<\/p>\n
2006,  who  lacks the status to question the dissolution  of<\/p>\n
the Trust and for requesting restitution of the same,  since<\/p>\n
he  could  not  have been made a member of a defunct  Trust,<\/p>\n
which  had  later  been  legally dissolved.  The  petitioner<\/p>\n
C.Duraipandian is the person, who is really aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
order, dated 9.8.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      15. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for  the<\/p>\n
third   respondent   has  submitted  that   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
C.Duraipandian cannot be taken to be an aggrieved person  or<\/p>\n
an  interested person, since he is not even a member of  Sri<\/p>\n
K.Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore Higher Secondary  School  Trust,<\/p>\n
registered  in the year 1957, under Registration  No.2\/1957.<\/p>\n
It  is  the petitioner, who has not come to this Court  with<\/p>\n
clean hands and that the writ petitions have been filed with<\/p>\n
a  malafide intention to appropriate the properties  managed<\/p>\n
by the Trust as well as the good will that has been created.<\/p>\n
     16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of R.Kannan<\/p>\n
had  contended that the petitioner C.Duraipandian could  not<\/p>\n
challenge the order, dated 27.12.2002, granting exemption to<\/p>\n
Sri   K.Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore  Secondary  School  Trust,<\/p>\n
(Registration No.2\/57) to file an appeal under Section 44(5)<\/p>\n
of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, since it<\/p>\n
would be hit by laches, as it is challenged after more  than<\/p>\n
three years from the date of such order.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      17. With regard to the order of the second respondent,<\/p>\n
dated 9.8.2005, which is also under challenge in the said<\/p>\n
writ  petition  in W.P.No.7274 of 2006, it is  contended  on<\/p>\n
behalf   of   the   third  respondent   therein   that   the<\/p>\n
representations said to have been made by the petitioner, on<\/p>\n
15.6.2002  and 12.2.2003 have been considered by the  second<\/p>\n
respondent   in  his  order,  dated  9.8.2005.  The   second<\/p>\n
respondent’s  order ought not be taken as a  judicial  order<\/p>\n
with  mathematical  accuracy and logical perfection  in  its<\/p>\n
findings.  It  is clear on the face of the  order  that  the<\/p>\n
representations  of the petitioner had been  considered  and<\/p>\n
there  was  enough application of mind on the  part  of  the<\/p>\n
second respondent. Further, it is contended on behalf of the<\/p>\n
third respondent that the second respondent, while disposing<\/p>\n
of  the  appeal, has given sufficient reasons for his  order<\/p>\n
stating  that  the Trust is found to have been  continuously<\/p>\n
functioning without any lapses, including regular accounting<\/p>\n
and  conducting  of   general body meetings,  based  on  the<\/p>\n
report submitted by the District Registrar, Madurai (South).<\/p>\n
Therefore,  it is not proper on the part of the  petitioner,<\/p>\n
C.Duraipandian,  to contend that the second  respondent  had<\/p>\n
not  come  to  any concrete conclusion in his  order,  dated<\/p>\n
9.8.2005, with regard to the above mentioned Trust. From the<\/p>\n
order, dated, 9.8.2005, passed by the second respondent,  it<\/p>\n
is  seen  that he has concluded by saying that there  is  no<\/p>\n
necessity  of  passing any order in the appeal reviving  the<\/p>\n
Trust, as it had never become defunct in the eye of the law.<\/p>\n
      18.It  was contended on behalf of C.Duraipandian  that<\/p>\n
the  appropriate Gazette Notification had not been published<\/p>\n
in  accordance  with  Section 44(4)<\/a>  of  the  Act,  enabling<\/p>\n
R.Kannan  to file an appeal under Section 44(5)<\/a> of the  Act.<\/p>\n
Publication of the Gazette Notification under Section  44(3)<\/a><\/p>\n
will  not enable him to file an appeal under Section  44(5)<\/a>.<\/p>\n
That  being  the position of law, as held by  the  Inspector<\/p>\n
General   of  Registration,  Chennai,  the  entire  exercise<\/p>\n
undertaken by R.Kannan leading up to the appeal, would  have<\/p>\n
been  redundant  and various other consequences  would  have<\/p>\n
arisen  in  such  a scenario. In order to settle  the  major<\/p>\n
issues,  it  was  necessary  for the  Inspector  General  of<\/p>\n
Registration, Chennai, to have taken a clear stand, one  way<\/p>\n
or  the other, by his order, dated 9.8.2005. However,  on  a<\/p>\n
careful  perusal  of  the second respondent’s  order,  dated<\/p>\n
9.8.2005, it could be seen that new avenues have been opened<\/p>\n
by unsettling the settled position of facts and law.<\/p>\n
      19.The  learned  counsel appearing on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioner  R.Kannan  had  pointed  out  all  the   relevant<\/p>\n
provisions  of  the  Tamil Nadu Societies Registration  Act,<\/p>\n
1975, while stating that the Society in question was to have<\/p>\n
become  defunct under the relevant provisions and  the  only<\/p>\n
remedy  available was to revive the same in accordance  with<\/p>\n
the  provisions  of law. Therefore, the required  steps  had<\/p>\n
been  taken  to  revive  the Society,  after  obtaining  the<\/p>\n
necessary   leave  to  condone  the  delay  in  making   the<\/p>\n
application.  Once an order had been passed  to  revive  the<\/p>\n
Society, such revival would date back to its inspection,  as<\/p>\n
though  there  was no break in its continued  existence.  In<\/p>\n
accordance  with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu  Societies<\/p>\n
Registration Act, 1975, the Society was deemed to have  been<\/p>\n
dissolved,  since  it had not complied with  the  prescribed<\/p>\n
conditions  necessary  in law for its  continued  existence.<\/p>\n
However, when an appeal had been filed challenging the order<\/p>\n
of  dissolution of the Society, the Secretary Commercial Tax<\/p>\n
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, had passed G.O.Ms.(RT)<\/p>\n
No.1186,  dated  27.12.2002,  granting  exemption   to   the<\/p>\n
petitioner Trust to file an appeal to the Inspector  General<\/p>\n
of  Registration,  under Section 44(5)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
Societies Registration Act, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner<\/p>\n
had  made  a  representation to  the  Inspector  General  of<\/p>\n
Registration,  Chennai, against the removal of  the  Society<\/p>\n
from   the  list  of  Registered  Societies.  However,   the<\/p>\n
Inspector   General  of  Registration,   Chennai,   in   his<\/p>\n
proceedings  No.57706\/A1\/2002, dated  9.8.2005,  had  stated<\/p>\n
that  the  Society  in  question, namely,  Sri.K.Muthuthevar<\/p>\n
Mukkulathore  Higher Secondary Trust, Madurai,  Registration<\/p>\n
No.2\/1957, had never been validly removed from the  list  of<\/p>\n
registered  Societies, in accordance with the provisions  of<\/p>\n
law  and  therefore,  there was no need  for  an  appeal  or<\/p>\n
representation to challenge such removal of the Society from<\/p>\n
the  list  of registered Societies. In effect, by  the  said<\/p>\n
order,   dated   9.8.2005,   the   Inspector   General    of<\/p>\n
Registration,   Chennai,   had  recognised   the   continued<\/p>\n
existence   of   the   said  Society,  without   recognising<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School  Committee<\/p>\n
said  to  have  been  formed  on  5.1.2001  and  registered,<\/p>\n
subsequently, with Registration No.1\/2001 as stated  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner in W.P.No.7274 of 2006. Therefore, the said  writ<\/p>\n
petition  W.P.No.7274  of 2006, had been  filed  challenging<\/p>\n
both  the  Government  Order  in  G.O.Ms.R.T.No.1186,  dated<\/p>\n
27.12.2002  and  the order, dated 9.8.2005,  passed  by  the<\/p>\n
Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.<\/p>\n
      20.Now, the main question, which has to be decided  by<\/p>\n
this  Court  is  as  to which of the two  Societies  namely,<\/p>\n
Sri.K.Muthuthevar     Mukkulathore     Secondary      School<\/p>\n
Trust,(Registration No.2\/1957) and Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore<\/p>\n
Higher  Secondary School Committee (Registration No.1\/2001),<\/p>\n
is  the Society which would be recognised in the eye of  law<\/p>\n
to  be  the Educational Agency to administer and manage  the<\/p>\n
Muthuthevar Mukkulathore Higher Secondary School, Tirunagar.<\/p>\n
To  answer  the  said question, it has to be  found  whether<\/p>\n
Sri.K.Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore  Secondary   School   Trust,<\/p>\n
Madurai,  with  registration No.2\/1957, continued  to  be  a<\/p>\n
registered Society from its initial date of registration  or<\/p>\n
whether it had become defunct under Section 12 of the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Societies  Registration  Act,  1975,  and  thereafter,<\/p>\n
revived   by  subsequent  orders  passed  by  the  concerned<\/p>\n
authorities.  The  answer to the said  question  would  also<\/p>\n
depend   upon   whether   Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore   Higher<\/p>\n
Secondary School Committee, with registration No.1\/2001, had<\/p>\n
legally  and  validly  taken  over  the  administration  and<\/p>\n
management  of  Muthuthevar  Mukkulathore  Higher  Secondary<\/p>\n
School, Tirunagar, at that time the earlier society was said<\/p>\n
to  be  not  in  existence. All the  issues  involved  would<\/p>\n
possibly  be settled if the matter is remitted back  to  the<\/p>\n
Inspector  General of Registration, Chennai, to  decide  the<\/p>\n
matter afresh with regard to the legal position of the rival<\/p>\n
societies  which are in contention, after giving  sufficient<\/p>\n
opportunity  to  all the parties concerned. The  above  writ<\/p>\n
petitioners    are   given   liberty   to   make    detailed<\/p>\n
representations,   along   with  the   relevant   supporting<\/p>\n
documents,  in making their claims to the Inspector  General<\/p>\n
of  Registration, Chennai, within a period of two weeks from<\/p>\n
the  date of receipt of a copy of this order.  The Inspector<\/p>\n
General of Registration is directed to decide the issues  on<\/p>\n
merits  and  in  accordance with  law,  based  on  the  said<\/p>\n
representations, within six weeks from the date  of  receipt<\/p>\n
of   such  representations,  by  fixing  specific  dates  of<\/p>\n
hearing,  enabling  the  parties  to  participate   in   the<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      21.Therefore,  the  earlier order No.No.57706\/A1\/2002,<\/p>\n
dated   9.8.2005,  passed  by  the  Inspector   General   of<\/p>\n
Registration, Chennai, in this regard is set aside  and  the<\/p>\n
parties  are  to  maintain status quo as on today  till  the<\/p>\n
final  disposal of their representations by  the   Inspector<\/p>\n
General of Registration, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      22.With  the above directions, the writ petitions  are<\/p>\n
disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
\n
1. The Secretary to Government,
\n   School Education Department,
\n   Fort St. George,
\n   chennai – 9<\/p>\n
2. The Director of School Education,
\n   College Road,
\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6<\/p>\n
3. The District Educational Officer,
\n   Madurai<\/p>\n
4. The Joint Director of School
\n   Education (Higher Secretary),
\n   College Road,
\n   Nungambakkam, Chennai – 6<\/p>\n
5. The Chief Educational Officer,
\n   Madurai<\/p>\n
6. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n   rep. by its Secretary,
\n   Commercial Taxes Department,
\n   Chennai – 600 009<\/p>\n
7. The Inspector General of Registration,
\n   Santhome High Road, Chennai – 600 028<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.1.2007 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.15907 of 2001, W.P.No.40827 of 2002,W.P.No.6081 of 2004 and W.P.No.7274 of 2006 R.Kannan .. Petitioner in W.P.No.15907 of 2001, W.P.No.40827 of 2002 & W.P.No.6081 of 2004 C.Duraipandian .. […]<\/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-263089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - 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-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-07T11:36:02+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=\"17 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-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T11:36:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3425,\"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-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T11:36:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - 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-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-07T11:36:02+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T11:36:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":3425,"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-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007","name":"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T11:36:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-kannan-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Kannan vs The Secretary To Government on 29 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/263089","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=263089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}