{"id":52033,"date":"2008-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-17T12:43:32","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T07:13:32","slug":"r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  12\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\t\n\nWrit Petition(MD)No.8155 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2008\n\nR.Ravindran\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n  Rep. by its Secretary,\n  Home Department,\n  Fort St.George,\n  Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The High Court of Judicature at\n  Madras,\n  Rep.by its Registrar General,\n  High Court,\n  Chennai - 600 014.\t\t..  Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for\nthe issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from\nthe 2nd respondent in its proceedings in ROC.No.2A\/2007-Con.B2, dated 23.05.2007\nand quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the\npetitioner to continue in service till the age of 60 years.\n \t\n!For Petitioner      ... Mr.Issac Mohanlal\n^For 1st Respondent  ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu,\n                         Special Government Pleader.\nFor 2nd Respondent   ... Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
(Order of this Court was made by
\nR.SUBBIAH,J.)<\/p>\n
\tThe writ petitioner was a Judicial Officer, who entered into the Judicial
\nservice in the year 1980 as a Judicial II Class Magistrate and his service was
\nregularised by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as Judicial II Class Magistrate.
\nSubsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Judicial I Class Magistrate in the
\nmonth of May 1988. Thereafter, he was recruited as District Munsif through the
\nTamil Nadu Public Service Commission and he joined as I Additional District
\nMunsif, Erode on 09.11.1988. After going through the regular spell of
\npromotions, he reached the post of District Judge and attained the
\nsuperannuation on 31.05.2007 at the age of 58 years.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.Now the grievance of the writ petitioner is that some of the Judicial
\nOfficers who are all juniors to him have been granted extension beyond the age
\nof 58 years, till the age of 60 years. Though he had discharged his duties by
\nmaintaining absolute dignity and devotion with integrity and disposed of large
\nnumbers of cases in all branches of law his name was not considered for no
\nreasons. Hence, the petitioner has come forward by way of filing this present
\nwrit petition with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call
\nfor the records from the 2nd respondent in its proceedings in ROC.No.2A\/2007-
\nCon.B2, dated 23.05.2007 and quash the same and consequently, direct the
\nrespondents to permit the petitioner to continue in service till the age of 60
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.Resisting the prayer of the writ petitioner, the Registrar General of
\nthe High Court of Judicature at Madras filed a counter affidavit on behalf of
\nthe 2nd respondent by raising the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
\ti)The petitioner was allowed to retire on superannuation by the impugned
\norder dated 23.05.2007, he had submitted his representation only on 29.04.2008
\ni.e., after 11 months from the date of superannuation. Even after the rejection
\nof the representation by the second respondent on 14.05.2008, he had waited for
\nabout 3 months to file this present writ petition. Thus, totally, there is a
\ndelay of about 15 months in approaching this Court. When considering the length
\nof service that may be available on extension, is only 24 months, the delay in
\napproaching this Court after 15 months is a delay of substantial nature.
\nTherefore, the writ petition has suffered by latches, which is not properly
\nexplained by him.\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the last five
\nyears would disclose that there were adverse remarks with reference to the
\ndisposal of cases and he was found wanting in achieving the norms etc., In spite
\nof communication of the adverse remarks entered against him in his annual
\nconfidential reports, he did not show any interest to set right his position.\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)There were various complaints of corruption and favouritism received
\nagainst the writ petitioner by the Vigilance Cell of the High Court. However,
\nmost of them have been ordered to be closed as “no further action was
\nwarranted”.\n<\/p>\n
\tiv)The seniority of an Officer is not a criterion, the Administrative
\nCommittee in its wisdom and discretion analysed the records of each of officers
\nwho were attaining the age of superannuation at the age of 58 years as on
\n31.05.2007 and 30.06.2007 respectively and reviewed for their continuance in
\nservice beyond the age of 58 years and upto 60 years or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
\tv)The decision not to extend the service of the petitioner is not a stigma
\nand the petitioner cannot be aggrieved by such a decision.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the juniors to
\nthe petitioner were granted extension beyond the age of 58 years, the name of
\nthe petitioner has not been considered for extension for no reason. The
\nrepresentation dated 29.04.2008 made by him for extension permitting him to
\ncontinue in Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service upto 60 years was also rejected by
\nthe second respondent merely stating that “the representation submitted by him
\nconsidered by the High Court and the same has been rejected”. The Administrative
\nCommittee has not considered the extension of the writ petitioner on the main
\nreason that there is a short fall in the disposal of the cases and complaints
\nwith regard to the corruption as entered in the annual confidential reports of
\nthe writ petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner by going
\nthrough the contentions made in the counter, pointed out that even in the
\ncounter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been mentioned that the
\npetitioner had not reached the norms in the year 2002, so far as the rest of the
\nyears of service are concerned which ought to have been taken into consideration
\nwas not found out as against the petitioner. Similarly, it was further contended
\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been admitted by the
\nsecond respondent in the counter that the complaints of corruption and
\nfavouritism received against the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell of the High
\nCourt have been ordered to be closed as “no further action was warranted” and
\nunder such circumstances, the case of the petitioner should have been considered
\nfor extension.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to a
\njudgment of the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil)No.1022 of 1989 (All India Judges’
\nAssociation Vs. Union of India and others) reported in 1992 (1) SCC 119 wherein
\nguidelines were issued with regard to the retirement age of judicial officers to
\n60 by December 1992.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made reference to the
\njudgment reported in 1993 (4) SCC 288 (All India Judges’ Association and others
\nVs. Union of India and others) wherein it has been held that the benefit of
\nextension to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a
\npotential for continued useful service. The potential for continued utility
\nshall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the
\nrespective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High
\nCourts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officer’s
\npast record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant
\nmatters. Thus, by referring the above said judgments, learned counsel for the
\npetitioner has also admitted that the extension of service is not an automatic
\nbut on the proper assessment of the Administrative Committees of the respective
\nHigh Courts with regard to the potential for continued useful services of the
\nofficer.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Further, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of
\nthis Court an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16317 of 2007 by a Division
\nBench of this Court which was filed by a Judicial Officer on the grounds similar
\nto that of the petitioner herein. In the said case, the Division Bench of this
\nCourt, by going through the records of the writ petitioner therein, had come to
\nthe conclusion that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner with regard
\nto his knowledge of law, quality of judgment, conduct inside and outside Court,
\nreputation (Honesty, integrity & impartiality) on the other hand, either good or
\nsatisfactory. So far as the disposals of  cases are concerned, nothing adverse
\nhas been reflected in the character role except for a quarter of a year which
\nwas taken into consideration at the time of granting him promotion to the higher
\npost. Thus, the Division Bench of this Court has come to the conclusion that no
\nground had been made out on behalf of the respondent to justify the decision
\ndated 25.01.2007, and then remitted the case of the writ petitioner for
\nextension of his service beyond 58 years and thus allowed the prayer.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in the instant
\ncase also out of five years which was taken into consideration only in the year
\n2002, there is a short fall of the cases, even the complaints made against the
\npetitioner were also ordered to be closed stating that “no further action was
\nwarranted”. While that be so, the prayer of the petitioner ought to have been
\nconsidered for extension following the decision in W.P.No.16317 of 2007, dated
\n22.07.2008.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent produced the
\noriginal records in respect of Judicial Officers inclusive of the petitioner for
\ntheir further continuation beyond the age of 58 years upto 60 years and
\nsubmitted that the perusal of the file would show that the petitioner did not
\nreach the norms and there is a short fall in disposal of cases by him and in
\nspite of the warning given by the High Court in the year 2001-2002 itself by
\ncommunicating the adverse remarks against him in his annual confidential report,
\nthe writ petitioner did not show any interest to set right his position. That
\napart, there were various complaints received against him by the Vigilance of
\nthe High Court, and no doubt most of the complaints have been ordered to be
\nclosed but however when the question of extension is concerned, the reputation
\nof the Judicial Officers plays a vital role in granting extension. Therefore,
\nthe Administrative Committee has correctly considered the number of complaints
\nreceived by the second respondent as against the petitioner in assessing the
\npotential for continued useful service. Further, learned counsel for the second
\nrespondent contended that the discretion of the Administrative Committee cannot
\nbe questioned, unless there is a mala fide. In view of the adverse remarks
\nentered in the annual confidential report as against the petitioner, no
\ngrievance can be entertained by the petitioner that the Administrative Committee
\nhas not justly considered the extension of service in respect of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In this regard, learned counsel for the second respondent in support of
\nhis submission relied upon a judgment reported in 1993 Supp(4) SCC 441 (Air Vice
\nMarshal S.L.Chhabra, VSM (Retd.,) Vs. Union of India and another) wherein a
\ndirection was given to reconsider the appellant’s promotion to the post of Air
\nVice Marshal in view of the fact that the adverse remarks have been expunged in
\nthe year 1989. Thus, by relying upon the said judgment, the counsel for the
\nsecond respondent contended that in view of the adverse remarks, the extension
\nof service was correctly negatived by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.It is further submitted that the scope of the judicial review of the
\nassessment of the Committee in the absence of any mala fide or arbitrariness is
\nvery limited. In this regard, learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment
\nreported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 221 (State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Jag
\nMohan Lal) wherein the requisition for extension of service was rejected. Under
\nsuch circumstances, the scope of the judicial review of the assessment of the
\nCommittee in the absence of any mala fide or arbitrariness is very limited. In
\nthe above judgment, the Apex Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9.It seems to us that the High Court has misconstrued the legal right
\nclaimed by the respondent. The right to get extension of service beyond the age
\nof superannuation has received consideration of this Court in several cases. In
\nState of Assam Vs. Basanta Kumar Das (1973 (1) SCC 461), after reviewing almost
\nall the earlier decisions (Kailash Chandra V. Union of India (AIR<\/a> 1961 SC 1346);
\nB.N.Mishra Vs. State of U.P (AIR 1965 SC 1567) and State of Assam Vs. Premadhar
\n(1970(2)SCC 211), this Court said:(SCR p.165: SCC p.467, paras 16 and 18)
\n\tA government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of
\nsuperannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in exercise of
\nthe discretion of the government……\n<\/p>\n
\tThe fact that certain persons were found fit to be continued in service
\ndoes not mean that others who were not so found fit had been discriminated
\nagainst. Otherwise, the whole idea of continuing only efficient people in
\nservice even after they had completed 55 years becomes only meaningless”.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.That apart, learned counsel for the second respondent has also relied
\nupon a judgment of this Court in S.Venkataraman Vs. Union of India rep.by Chief
\nof the Air Staff Indian Air Force Air Head Quarters (VB), New Delhi and 3 others
\nreported in 2003(1) CTC 594, wherein it has been held that refusal to engage or
\nextend period of service would not constitute stigma – nor it is an infraction
\nof privilege or amounts to punishment.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.Thus, by relying upon the above judgments, learned counsel for the
\nsecond respondent submitted that granting of extension is purely a discretion of
\nthe Administrative Committee based on their subjective satisfaction, unless
\nthere is  mala fide, and to the same cannot be questioned. In the instant case,
\na perusal of the record would show that there are lot of complaints as against
\nthe petitioner and in addition, there was a shortfall in disposal of the cases.
\nUnder such circumstances, there is no justification in considering the prayer of
\nthe writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Learned counsel for the second respondent has also contended that the
\npresent writ petition is hit by latches because the petitioner was allowed to
\nretire on 23.05.2007 thereafter, he waited for about 11 months to submit his
\nrepresentation on 29.04.2008. Secondly, even after the rejection of the
\nrepresentation by the second respondent on 14.05.2008, he had waited for about
\nthree months to file this writ petition without any acceptable reason,
\nexplaining the delay. Considering the length of service that may be available on
\nextension is only 24 months, the delay in approaching this Court after 15 months
\nis a delay of substantial nature and this was not properly explained and on that
\nground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
\njudgments relied on by the learned counsel for the second respondent will not
\napply to the facts of the present case since the issue involved in this present
\nwrit petition is granting of extension of the Judicial Officer who attained the
\nage of superannuation at the age of 58 years. The judgments relied upon by the
\nlearned counsel for the second respondent are in respect of promotion cases,
\narising out of different circumstances, in respect of the other Governmental
\nOrganisations and therefore, those decisions will not apply. Under such
\ncircumstances, this Court can consider the case of the writ petitioner and allow
\nthe prayer sought for by the writ petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.We have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the
\nmaterials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.On perusal of the original records filed by the Vigilance Cell of the
\nHigh Court pertaining to the writ petitioner are as follows:<\/p>\n
\n\t\nPlace of Work\tROC.No.\t   Complainant\t\tAllegation\tResult\/Remarks\nPDJ, Pudukottai506\/2005\t   Public of \t\tCorruption\tNo action\/CJ\n\t\t\t   Pudukottai\t\t\t\t\/28.03.2006\n\n<\/pre>\n
PDJ, Pudukottai775\/2005 &  Sreenivasan,S.C.\tCorruption\tNo further action
\n\t       740\/2005\t   Street, Andakulam
\nPDJ, Pudukottai916\/2005\t   (unsigned)
\n\t       414\/2006\t   S.M.d.Yusouf\t\tCorruption\tNo action\/CJ
\n\t      (2nd copy)\t\t\t\t\t\/29.08.2006<\/p>\n
PDJ, Pudukottai285\/2006\t   M.P.Muthuveerayan,\tCorruption\tRegistrar(V) to
\n\t       C.138\/06\t   Alangudi\t\t\t\thold Discreet
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEnquiry\/CJ\/27.09.06<\/p>\n
DJ, Dindigul   692\/2006    Court \t\tCorruption\tNo Action\/CJ
\n\t\t\t   Investigation \t\t\t\/18.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t           Branch, Dindigul<\/p>\n
DJ, Dindigul   777-A\/2006  Rajeswaran,\t\tFavouritism\tNo action
\n\t\t\t   Liberation \t\t\t\t\/CJ\/3.1.2007
\n\t\t\t   Panthers Party<\/p>\n
DJ, Dindigul\t149\/2007 & General Public\tCorruption\tPending Orders
\n\t\t128\/2007   Advocates, Dindigul<\/p>\n
\t18.Similarly with regard to the disposal of the cases also, we find that
\nthere is a short fall. It is no doubt that the complaints are ordered to be
\nclosed stating that no further action is warranted so far as the extension of
\nservice is concerned, the complaints received as against an Officer plays a
\nvital role to decide the potential for continued useful service as held by the
\nApex Court in 1993 (4) SCC 288 (All India Judges’ Association and others Vs.
\nUnion of India and others). In the instant case, the complaints received against
\nthe writ petitioner seems to be in plurality. So far as the writ petition in
\nW.P.No.16317 of 2007 as decided by this Court, the position is not similar to
\nthat of the writ petitioner herein. It is a basic principle that each case has
\nto be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case. So far as this
\ncase is concerned, we do not find any justification in accepting the prayer of
\nthe writ petitioner in view of the number of complaints received against the
\npetitioner. Similarly, we also find that there was a delay of 15 months in
\nfiling writ petition. The writ petitioner even by way of extension, is eligible
\nto get only further period of two years. Under such circumstances, the
\npetitioner ought to have filed the writ petition at the earliest point of time
\nand he waited almost the period of 11 months to file the representation which
\nwas rejected on 14.05.2008. Thereafter, he waited for another three months and
\nfiled this present writ petition. The admission of the writ petitioner clearly
\nshows that he is making effortless attempt to take his chance and the delay was
\nnot properly explained in approaching this Court. Under such circumstances, we
\nfeel that there is no proper explanation from the side of the writ petitioner
\nfor filing the writ petition belatedly, on this ground also the writ petition
\nhas to fail. Similarly, we find no stigma in not extending for his extension of
\nservice as held by this Court in S.Venkataraman Vs. Union of India rep.by Chief
\nof the Air Staff Indian Air Force Air Head Quarters (VB), New Delhi and 3 others
\nreported in 2003(1) CTC 594. Looking at in any angle, no case has been made out
\nby the petitioner warranting this Court to allow the prayer made in the writ
\npetition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
\nM.P.(MD) Nos. 1 and 2 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
sms\t<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Secretary,
\n  Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n  Home Department,
\n  Fort St.George,
\n  Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.The High Court of Judicature at
\n  Madras,
\n  Rep.by its Registrar General,
\n  High Court,
\n  Chennai – 600 014<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition(MD)No.8155 of 2008 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2008 R.Ravindran .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by […]<\/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-52033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - 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-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-17T07:13:32+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=\"15 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-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T07:13:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2938,\"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-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\",\"name\":\"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T07:13:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - 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-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-17T07:13:32+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T07:13:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008"},"wordCount":2938,"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-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008","name":"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T07:13:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ravindran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Ravindran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/52033","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=52033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}