{"id":268668,"date":"2004-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004"},"modified":"2016-05-29T22:15:22","modified_gmt":"2016-05-29T16:45:22","slug":"the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 14\/09\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN\n\nWrit Appeal No. 3437 of 2004\nand\nW.A.M.P.No. 6442 of 2004\n\nThe Government of Tamil Nadu\nRep. by its Secretary,\nHome Department,\nFort.St.George,\nChennai  600 009.                               .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Secretary\n    Review Committee on POTA,\n    Room No.246, Vigyan Bhavan Annexe,\n    New Delhi.\n\n2. R.R.Gopal @ Nakkeeran Gopal,\n    105, Jani Jahakhan Street,\n    Royapettah,\n    Chennai  600 014.\n\n3. A. Kamaraj\n\n4. S. Ramanathan\n\n                Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the\norder passed in W.P.No.26265 of 2004 dated 14.09.2004.\n\n\n!For Appellant ..  Mr.A.L.Somayaji,\n                Addl.Advocate General\n                Assisted by\n                Mr.V.Raghupathy,\n                Government Pleader, and\n                Mr.C.Mani Shankar,\n                Special Public Proseucotr\n\n^For 2nd Respondent..  Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.P.T.Perumal\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n<p>                This  writ  appeal  is  directed  against  the   order   dated<br \/>\n14.09.2004 rendered  by  the  learned  single Judge in W.P.No.  26265 of 2004.<br \/>\nThe matter arises under  <a href=\"\/doc\/1778\/\" id=\"a_1\">Prevention  of  Terrorism  Act<\/a>,  2002  (herein  after<br \/>\nreferred to  as &#8220;POTA&#8221;).  <a href=\"\/doc\/823094\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 60<\/a> of POTA, as originally enacted, contained<br \/>\nonly three sub-Sections and subsequently, sub-<a href=\"\/doc\/1888373\/\" id=\"a_2\">Sections 4<\/a> to <a href=\"\/doc\/1529086\/\" id=\"a_3\">7<\/a> were added by an<br \/>\namendment and they were subject of challenge before this Court in W.P.Nos.1238<br \/>\nto 1240 of 2003.  The respondents 2 to 4 were respondents  too  in  the  above<br \/>\nwrit petitions  along with others.  The Division Bench of this Court, to which<br \/>\none of us (Chief Justice) was a party, upheld the constitutional  validity  of<br \/>\nSub-<a href=\"\/doc\/1888373\/\" id=\"a_4\">sections  4<\/a>  to  <a href=\"\/doc\/1529086\/\" id=\"a_5\">7<\/a>  as  introduced  by <a href=\"\/doc\/110162683\/\" id=\"a_6\">Central Act<\/a> 4 of 2004 by explaining<br \/>\nSub-section (7) to the effect that if the  Review  Committee  finds  no  prima<br \/>\nfacie  case  in the criminal proceedings under POTA, then the State Government<br \/>\nis bound by the said decision and <a href=\"\/doc\/1037589\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 321<\/a> of Code  of  Criminal  Procedure<br \/>\n(in short  &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_8\">Cr.P.C<\/a>&#8216;)  has to be followed.  The said judgment has been reported<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/762707\/\" id=\"a_9\">GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU v.  UNION OF  INDIA<\/a>  (2004  (1)  CTC  641).    The<br \/>\njudgment of this High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.  There are two sets of respondents.  In the one, where Mr.Vaiko and<br \/>\nothers  were  the accused, charge sheets were laid and the charges were framed<br \/>\nafter rejecting the arguments of the above accused that no case was  made  out<br \/>\nfor framing  the charges.  That order declining to discharge the above accused<br \/>\nand consequently, framing the charges had  become  final.    Taking  the  said<br \/>\nfactual  matrix  into  consideration, and making a distinction as to status of<br \/>\ncriminal cases before framing of charges, and after framing of  the  same,  it<br \/>\nwas  held that after the charges are framed, there is no question of discharge<br \/>\nfrom the prosecution, as the question of discharge arises before  the  charges<br \/>\nare  framed  and after the charges are framed, if the prosecution is withdrawn<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1037589\/\" id=\"a_10\">Section 321<\/a> Cr.P.C, it amounts to acquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.   In  this  case,  the stage of the prosecution did not travel that<br \/>\nlong, as the Supreme Court stayed the filing of the charge sheet and still the<br \/>\nsaid stay is in operation.  While staying the filing of the charge sheet for a<br \/>\nstipulated time, the Supreme Court directed the Review Committee for POTA to<br \/>\nsubmit its  report,  latest  by  30.09.2004.    Respondents  2 to 4, who stand<br \/>\naccused in the prosecution case launched by the  State  under  POTA,  are  now<br \/>\nrequired  to participate in the proceedings before the Review Committee, which<br \/>\nis slated for enquiry from 16.09.2004 onwards.  The POTA-Review  Committee  is<br \/>\nbound  to  submit  its  report in accordance with the directive of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt and the respondents 2 to 4 are entitled to participate and project their<br \/>\nrights for wriggling out of the prosecution and for that purpose, they require<br \/>\nthe documents, which are being  relied  upon  by  the  State  for  prosecuting<br \/>\nrespondents 2 to 4.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        4.  The writ petition has been filed assailing the requisition made by<br \/>\nReview Committee in issuing directions to furnish documents to  respondents  2<br \/>\nto 4.    The objections put forth by the State, which is the appellant herein,<br \/>\nbefore the learned Single Judge was that the  documents,  as  ordered  by  the<br \/>\nReview  Committee, cannot be furnished at this stage, because of the privilege<br \/>\nunder <a href=\"\/doc\/1158561\/\" id=\"a_11\">Section 30<\/a> of POTA and also because  criminal  procedure  code  is  made<br \/>\napplicable to POTA prosecutions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        5.  Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, has cited<br \/>\nthe  Full  Bench Judgment of this Court reported in SELVANATHAN @ RAGHAVAN Vs.<br \/>\nSTATE BY INSEPCTOR OF POLICE (1988  L.W.    (Crl.)  503)  in  support  of  his<br \/>\ncontention  that  prior  to  filing  of  the charge sheet in the Special Court<br \/>\ntrying respondents 2 to 4, the copies of the documents cannot be furnished  to<br \/>\nthem  as  it  would  prejudice the trial, which ultimately, will be adverse to<br \/>\npublic interest.  It is also stated that apart from respondents 2 to 4,  there<br \/>\nare other accused also and it is not at all desirable in the interest of the<br \/>\nprosecution to  furnish  the documents.  He, further, submitted that the order<br \/>\nof the Review Committee in directing furnishing of documents to respondents<br \/>\n2 to 4 is bereft of reasons and is thus no order in the eye of law.  For this<br \/>\nproposition, he has cited the judgment reported in STATE OF PUNJAB Vs.    BHAG<br \/>\nSINGH (2004 (1) SCC 547).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        6.  Countering the above arguments advanced  on  behalf  of  the  writ<br \/>\nappellant\/State,  Mr.Shunmugasundaram,  learned  senior  counsel appearing for<br \/>\nrespondents 2 to 4, submits that the stand of the appellant is  untenable  and<br \/>\nthat  Audi  Alteram Partem rule has got to be followed and cited the judgments<br \/>\nSWADESHI COTTON MILLS Vs.  UNION OF INDIA (1981 (1) SCC 664), STATE OF U.P Vs.<br \/>\nSHATRUGHAN LAL (1998 (6) SCC 651), DEEPAK PURI Vs.  STATE  OF  HARAYANA  (2000<br \/>\n(10) SCC 373) and <a href=\"\/doc\/762707\/\" id=\"a_12\">GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU v.  UNION OF INDIA<\/a> 2004 (1)<br \/>\nLW 5).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        7.  The learned single Judge did not decide the case on merits and<br \/>\ndismissed  the  writ  petition on the ground of matter being sub judice before<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court.  We do not concur with the approach of the  learned  single<br \/>\nJudge  for  the  reason  that  the  lis in the instant case is not the subject<br \/>\nmatter of the case pending before the Supreme Court.  The point  at  issue  is<br \/>\nwhether the documents as directed by the first respondent to be furnished to<br \/>\nrespondents  2  to  4  by the appellant can be ordered to be furnished at this<br \/>\nstage or not.  It is already stated above, there is no charge sheet under law.<br \/>\nEven if the charge sheet has been made ready, but the same has not been  filed<br \/>\ninto Court as contemplated under <a href=\"\/doc\/461024\/\" id=\"a_13\">Section 173(2)<\/a> Cr.P.C.  Without there<br \/>\nbeing  charge  sheet  the  question  of  framing  of charge does not arise and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1037589\/\" id=\"a_14\">Section 321<\/a> Cr.P.C has got no application to the facts of this case.  If  that<br \/>\nbe so, if the Review Committee takes a decision under sub-Section (4) of<br \/>\nPOTA that there is no prima facie case, then the same is binding on the State<br \/>\nGovernment because of the mandate contained in sub-clause (i) of sub-  Section<br \/>\n(5) thereof.    The  question  of  filing even the charge sheet may not arise,<br \/>\nshould the decision of the Review Committee be adverse to the appellant.    If<br \/>\nthe Review Committee comes to a decision that there are no prima facie case in<br \/>\nprosecuting  respondents  2 to 4 under POTA, the same would have the effect of<br \/>\npreempting filing of the charge sheet.  The legal position has to be viewed in<br \/>\nthis context.  True, in the Full Bench judgment  SELVANATHAN  @  RAGHAVAN  Vs.<br \/>\nSTATE  BY  INSEPCTOR  OF  POLICE  (supra)  cited  by  Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned<br \/>\nAdditional Advocate General the legal principles have  been  stated  that  the<br \/>\naccused has no right to get documents before filing of the charge sheet.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">8.      But  the  fact  situation  coupled  with the legal implications in the<br \/>\ninstant case, are not present in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, which<br \/>\nis cited supra.  <a href=\"\/doc\/461024\/\" id=\"a_15\">Section 173(2)<\/a> Cr.P.C as interpreted by  this  Court  in  the<br \/>\nabove decision has to be understood for an ordinary criminal trial without the<br \/>\nintervention of  Review  Committee like the instant one.  The State Government<br \/>\ncannot wriggle out of the decision  of  the  Review  Committee  should  it  go<br \/>\nadverse to  it  that there is no prima facie case in the prosecution.  It does<br \/>\nnot matter, whether respondents 2 to 4 did not make  any  special  application<br \/>\nfor furnishing  the  copies.   The Review Committee, has ample powers to order<br \/>\nfurnishing copies when situation is brought to its notice.  The stand  of  the<br \/>\nappellant\/State,  if accepted, will result in violation of Audi Alteram Partem<br \/>\nrule.  Furnishing  of  documents  as  directed  by  the  Review  Committee  is<br \/>\nessential  and vital for effective representation by respondents 2 to 4, which<br \/>\nis the essence of POTA Review Committee\/ Enquiry.    Non-  furnishing  of  the<br \/>\nreasons  by  the Review Committee also do not come in the way of furnishing of<br \/>\ndocuments by the State, as the purport of directions of Review  Committee  has<br \/>\nto  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  not  the reasons for furnishing such<br \/>\ndocuments.  The  reasons  are  implicit  and  they  are  well  guided  by  the<br \/>\nprinciples of  natural  justice.    It  is undeniable that without there being<br \/>\ndocuments in the hands of respondents  2  to  4,  there  cannot  be  effective<br \/>\nrepresentation  by  respondents  2  to  4,  which  results  in  constitutional<br \/>\ninfraction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        9.  For these reasons, we uphold the order dated 11.09.2004 passed by<br \/>\nthe  Review  Committee  on  POTA and direct the appellant\/State to furnish the<br \/>\ndocuments to respondents 2 to 4, as directed by the Review Committee, by  2.00<br \/>\np.m.  tomorrow (15.09.2004).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        10.     The writ  appeal  is  disposed  of  accordingly.    No  costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, W.A.M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">Index:  Yes<br \/>\nLR Entry:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<br \/>\nPv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 14\/09\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, CHIEF JUSTICE and The Honourable Mr.Justice A.KULASEKARAN Writ Appeal No. 3437 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.No. 6442 of 2004 The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by [&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-268668","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>The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-29T16:45:22+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T16:45:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1442,\"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\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\",\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T16:45:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - 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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-29T16:45:22+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T16:45:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004"},"wordCount":1442,"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\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004","name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T16:45:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-government-of-tamil-nadu-vs-the-secretary-on-14-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/268668","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=268668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}