{"id":40852,"date":"2006-08-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006"},"modified":"2015-03-12T18:03:27","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T12:33:27","slug":"moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 31\/08\/2006\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\n\nH.C.P.(MD) No.206 of 2006\n\n\nMoun Mary\t\t\t\t.. \tPetitioner\n\n\nvs\n\n\n1.The District Collector and District Magistrate\n   Thoothukudi District\n   Thoothukudi\n2. The Secretary to Government\n   Food Co-operation and Consumer Protection\n   Department\n   Secretariat\n   Chennai\n3. The Additional Secretary to Government of\n   India\n   Department of Consumer Affairs\n   Room No.2720, Krishi Bhavan\n   New Delhi 110 001.\t\t\t.. \tRespondents\n\n\n\n\tHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia calling for the entire records pertaining to the detention order passed by\nthe first respondent in P.A. to D.S.O.Confdl.1\/2006 vide his order dated\n19.6.2006 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce\nthe body of person of the detenu by name one G.Kesavan, son of Gangadharan,\nbefore this Court and set him at liberty.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\tMr.R.Anand\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.N.Senthurpandian, A.P.P.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of this Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)<\/p>\n<p>\tSeeking to quash an order of the first respondent passed on 19.6.2006<br \/>\nterming the detenu Kesavan, as a &#8220;Black-Marketeer&#8221;, the petitioner, the wife of<br \/>\nthe detenu, has brought forth this petition for a writ of habeas corpus.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who elaborately<br \/>\nput forth the contentions.  The order under challenge is also looked into.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.As could be seen from the order, the detenu is a license holder for the<br \/>\ndistribution of kerosene supplied at 50 litres per day; but, on 18.3.2006, he<br \/>\nwas found in possession of 700 litres of Public Distribution System Kerosene.<br \/>\nThen, a case came to be registered against him.  Within a short span of three<br \/>\nmonths, he was found in possession of 1840 litres of PDS kerosene on 13.6.2006,<br \/>\nand the second case came to be registered.  On the recommendation made by the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority, the first respondent, the District Collector and District<br \/>\nMagistrate, Tuticorin District, passed an order of detention terming him as a<br \/>\nBlack Marketeer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The order under challenge is assailed by the petitioner on the following<br \/>\ngrounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) There was a delay noticed.  A representation was made by the detenu on<br \/>\n4.7.2006.  The remarks were called for on 7.7.2006, and they were received only<br \/>\non 13.7.2006.  Thus, there was a delay of 5 intervening days.  Subsequently, it<br \/>\nhas reached the Under Secretary on 14.7.2006, and it reached the hands of the<br \/>\nDeputy Secretary on 17.7.2006, and in between this, there was a delay of 3 days<br \/>\nnoticed.  Thus, the delay of five days at the first spell and three days at the<br \/>\nsecond spell remained unexplained.  Hence, it is fatal to the order impugned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) The remand report which was made before the Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nconcerned, was not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining<br \/>\nauthority.  Had it been placed, a copy of the same would have been served on the<br \/>\ndetenu, enabling him to make the representation effectively, but not done so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) On 19.6.2006, the impugned order was passed by the detaining<br \/>\nauthority, the first respondent.  From the perusal of the papers, it could be<br \/>\nseen that an amended order was passed by the authority on 26.6.2006.  A perusal<br \/>\nof the amended order would clearly show that it was not a mistake that has crept<br \/>\nin, and at four points, the amendments of the Sections have been made.  Thus, it<br \/>\nwould be indicative of the fact that when the order came to be passed by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority on 19.6.2006, there was no application of mind.  Had he<br \/>\napplied his mind, such an order could not have been passed on 19.6.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Apart from the above, so far as the amended order is concerned, the<br \/>\nsame was not placed before the Government at all.  An order approving the<br \/>\ndetention order, is passed by the Government on 29.6.2006.  A perusal of the<br \/>\nsame does not indicate that the amended order dated 26.6.2006 was placed before<br \/>\nthe Government.  Thus, what was approved by the Government was the original<br \/>\norder; but, the amended order did not reach the Government at all.  Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it has got to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is<br \/>\nof the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the order of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has got to be set aside.  So far as the first contention that there<br \/>\nwas a delay, the Court is unable to agree with the petitioner&#8217;s case.  Between<br \/>\n7.7.2006 and 13.7.2006, there were intervening holidays on 8.7.2006 and<br \/>\n9.7.2006, and thus, there was a delay of 3 days.  On the second spell also,<br \/>\nthere was a delay of 3 days.  This, in the opinion of the Court, was not a<br \/>\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Insofar as the second contention that the remand report was not placed<br \/>\nby the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, and had it been<br \/>\nplaced, a copy of the same would have been served on the detenu, and effective<br \/>\nrepresentation could have been made, the same cannot be a ground to set aside<br \/>\nthe order since the remand report was placed before the Judicial Magistrate for<br \/>\nthe purpose of passing the judicial remand.  Under the circumstances, this Court<br \/>\nis of the opinion that it cannot be a ground in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.As regards the other two contentions, the Court has to necessarily agree<br \/>\nwith the petitioner&#8217;s Counsel.  As could be seen from the available materials,<br \/>\noriginally an order was passed on 19.6.2006, which was served on the detenu.  He<br \/>\nmade a representation, and it was pending consideration with the Government.<br \/>\nThe order of detention was approved by the Government on 29.6.2006.  Pending<br \/>\nconsideration of the first order passed on 19.6.2006, an amended order came to<br \/>\nbe passed on 26.6.2006.  It is a matter of shock and surprise to note that the<br \/>\namended order passed on 26.6.2006, was never placed before the Government by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  So far as the amended order is concerned, it is pertinent<br \/>\nto point out that the approval of the first order dated 19.6.2006 was made by<br \/>\nthe Government on 29.6.2006.  Thus, what has been now approved by the State is<br \/>\nthe order dated 19.6.2006 and not the amended order.  That apart, whenever an<br \/>\norder is passed by the detaining authority like this, time stipulation will be<br \/>\navailable for making the representation, and the detenu must be put on notice<br \/>\nthat he is having 12 days time, within which he could make the representation,<br \/>\nif he so desires.  In the instant case, it is available in the order dated<br \/>\n19.6.2006, but not in the amended order.  Thus, it was not made known to the<br \/>\ndetenu that after amending the order, he is also having sufficient time to make<br \/>\nhis representation.  Thus, the order lacks legally in all respects as mentioned<br \/>\nabove.  In such circumstances, the Court has no hesitation to set aside the<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the<br \/>\norder of the first respondent.  The detenu is directed to be set at liberty<br \/>\nforthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Collector and District Magistrate<br \/>\n   Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n   Food Co-operation and Consumer Protection<br \/>\n\tDepartment<br \/>\n   Secretariat, Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Secretary to Government of<br \/>\n\tIndia<br \/>\n   Department of Consumer Affairs<br \/>\n   Room No.2720, Krishi Bhavan<br \/>\n   New Delhi 110 001.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Superintendent of Central Prison<br \/>\n   Palayamkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Public Prosecutor<br \/>\n   Madurai Bench of Madras High Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31\/08\/2006 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM H.C.P.(MD) No.206 of 2006 Moun Mary .. Petitioner vs 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Thoothukudi District Thoothukudi 2. [&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-40852","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - 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\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T12:33:27+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:33:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1084,\"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\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:33:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - 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\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T12:33:27+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:33:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006"},"wordCount":1084,"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\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006","name":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And ... on 31 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:33:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moun-mary-vs-the-district-collector-and-on-31-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moun Mary vs The District Collector And &#8230; on 31 August, 2006"}]},{"@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\/40852","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=40852"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40852\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40852"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40852"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}