{"id":52313,"date":"2009-10-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-17T18:15:10","modified_gmt":"2016-02-17T12:45:10","slug":"d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No.10605 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009\n\nD.Chockanathan                         ..     Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Senior Regional Manager,\n  Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,\n  Madurai.\n\n2.The District Collector,\n  Madurai District,\n  Madurai.                              ..      Respondents\n\n\tThe Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia praying for a Writ of Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining\nto the impugned notice passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in\nNa.Ka.No.B1\/2691\/08 dated 17.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct\nthe first respondent to allot paddy pursuant to the order of authorisation to\nact as a Hulling Agent passed through his proceedings in Rc.B.1\/9508\/2005 dated\n15.7.2005 which was subsequently modified in Na.Ka.No.B1\/13094\/06 dated\n27.12.2006.\n\n!For petitioner\t... Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,\n                    Senior Counsel\n                    for Mr.R.Anand\n^For respondents... Mr.R.Janakiramulu,\n                    Spl.Govt.Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to<br \/>\ncall for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent, vide his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.B1\/2691\/08, dated 17.9.2009, and<br \/>\nquash the same and to, consequently, direct the first respondent to allot paddy<br \/>\npursuant to the order of authorisation to act as a Hulling Agent granted, vide<br \/>\nproceedings in Rc.B.1\/9508\/2005, dated 15.7.2005, which had been subsequently<br \/>\nmodified, in Na.Ka.No.B1\/13094\/06, dated 27.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the proprietor of a Rice<br \/>\nMill, by name, Rajadurai Karthick Modern Rice Mill, Madurai.  The said Rice Mill<br \/>\nhas been running for the past two decades.  However, in the impugned notice<br \/>\nissued by the first respondent, vide his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.B1\/2691\/08,<br \/>\ndated 17.9.2009, the supply of paddy to the petitioner&#8217;s mill has been stopped.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  It has also been stated that as per Order 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nEssential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent is<br \/>\nempowered to give authorisation to the Rice Mill, for the purpose of converting<br \/>\nthe paddy into rice, by hulling.  For getting such authorisation, the rice mill<br \/>\nowners are expected to satisfy the requirements sought for by the concerned<br \/>\nSenior Regional Manager attached to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It has also been stated that in the case of the petitioner mill, the<br \/>\nsaid authorisation as a Hulling Agent had been granted, on 15.7.2005, by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent for allotment of 106 Metric Tonnes of paddy.  Thereafter, on<br \/>\nthe request of the petitioner, the quantity of allotment had been increased to<br \/>\n160 Metric Tonnes, by an order, dated 5.8.2005, and thereafter, it had been<br \/>\nincreased to 210 Metric Tonnes and subsequently, it was increased to 750 Metric<br \/>\nTonnes by an order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It has also been stated that at the time of the granting of the said<br \/>\nauthorisation, on 15.7.2005, an agreement had been entered into between the<br \/>\nfirst respondent and the petitioner, wherein several conditions had been<br \/>\nincorporated.  The petitioner had been complying with all the conditions found<br \/>\nin the agreement.  While so, in the year, 2006, the petitioner had expanded his<br \/>\nrice mill by importing certain machines from various countries, at huge costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The petitioner had been carrying on his business without any hurdle.<br \/>\nHowever, on 8.8.2009, the Tahsildar attached to the Civil Supplies Corporation,<br \/>\nhad visited the petitioner&#8217;s rice mill and had made an inspection.  After the<br \/>\ncompletion of the inspection, he had concluded, inspite of the explanation<br \/>\nsubmitted by the petitioner, that there were 350 kilograms of boiled rice, in<br \/>\nexcess and that the said rice could be from the Public Distribution System.<br \/>\nThereafter, the said Tahsildar forwarded a report to the second respondent.<br \/>\nBased on the said report, the impugned order had been passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent proposing to cancel the authorisation granted to the petitioner as a<br \/>\nHulling Agent and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be<br \/>\nblacklisted.  On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner had submitted an<br \/>\nexplanation, on 28.9.2009, which had been acknowledged by the first respondent.<br \/>\nThe impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, had been issued by the first respondent<br \/>\nunder the impression that the boiled rice weighing 350 kgs, which had been<br \/>\nallegedly found in the petitioner&#8217;s mill, had been stocked by him, violating the<br \/>\nconditions imposed by the first respondent, while granting the authorisation as<br \/>\na Hulling Agent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The petitioner has submitted that even though a final order has not<br \/>\nbeen passed pursuant to the notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the first<br \/>\nrespondent, the supply of paddy to the petitioner mill has been stopped by the<br \/>\nrespondents.  Since the petitioner had invested huge amounts of money in<br \/>\nestablishing the rice mill, the respondents are expected to maintain continuous<br \/>\nsupply of paddy to the petitioner mill for the purpose of hulling in accordance<br \/>\nwith the conditions specified in the agreement entered into between the<br \/>\npetitioner and the first respondent,   However, due to stoppage of supply of<br \/>\npaddy to the petitioner mill, the petitioner mill has been put to irreparable<br \/>\nmonetary loss.  Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition<br \/>\nbefore this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging<br \/>\nthe impugned notice of the first respondent, dated 17.9.2009, praying for the<br \/>\nrelief, as stated in the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009,<br \/>\nissued by the first respondent is in violation of the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice and without jurisdiction.  It has been stated that the first respondent<br \/>\nhad directly cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner mill to act as a<br \/>\nHulling Agent, which had been granted in his favour, as per Order 9(5) of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It has also been stated that as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nEssential  Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent has not<br \/>\nbeen empowered to blacklist any Hulling Agent.  Further, the petitioner had<br \/>\nsubmitted an explanation to the first respondent, pursuant to the notice, dated<br \/>\n17.9.2009, explaining the reasons for the presence of 350 kgs of boiled rice in<br \/>\nthe premises of the petitioner mill.  However, without considering the<br \/>\nexplanation submitted by the petitioner, the authorities had reported the matter<br \/>\nto the second respondent for taking further action and consequently, the<br \/>\nimpugned order was passed by the first respondent.  In such circumstances, the<br \/>\npetitioner had prayed that the respondents should maintain regular supply of<br \/>\npaddy to the petitioner mill to carry on its hulling activities, as agreed to in<br \/>\nthe agreement, dated 15.7.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Per contra, Mr.R.Janakiramulu, the learned Special Government Pleader<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the first respondent<br \/>\nhad acted on the instructions of the second respondent.  The Learned Special<br \/>\nGovernment Pleader had also submitted that  the 350 kgs of boiled rice found in<br \/>\nthe premises of the petitioner mill belongs to the Public Distribution System,<br \/>\nas per the Quality Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies<br \/>\nCorporation Ltd., Madurai Region.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned counsel had also submitted that the paddy, that had to be<br \/>\nsupplied to the petitioner mill, was for the Tarrif Marketing season, from<br \/>\n1.10.2008 to 30.9.2009 and that had already been supplied.  Since there is no<br \/>\npaddy available, at present, the respondents are not supplying paddy to hulling<br \/>\nagents, including the petitioner mill.  It has also been stated that the<br \/>\npetitioner mill has not been blacklisted, till date, since no final order has<br \/>\nbeen passed pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, dated 17.9.2009.<br \/>\nFurther, it has also been submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader<br \/>\nthat there is no impediment for the respondents to supply the paddy, as and when<br \/>\nit is available, to the petitioner mill, pursuant to the notice, dated<br \/>\n17.9.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, without going into the<br \/>\nmerits of the matter, since no final order has been passed against the<br \/>\npetitioner mill pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent, the respondents are directed to supply the agreed quantity of<br \/>\npaddy to the petitioner mill for the Tariff Marketing Season starting from<br \/>\n1.10.2009, unless and until, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner<br \/>\nmill.  However, if final orders are passed against the petitioner, it would be<br \/>\nopen to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.  Connected<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>asvm<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Senior Regional Manager,<br \/>\n  Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,<br \/>\n  Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector,<br \/>\n  Madurai District,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition (MD) No.10605 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 D.Chockanathan .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai. [&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-52313","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>D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-17T12:45:10+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T12:45:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1288,\"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\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\",\"name\":\"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-17T12:45:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-17T12:45:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T12:45:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009"},"wordCount":1288,"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\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009","name":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-17T12:45:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-chockanathan-vs-the-senior-regional-manager-on-23-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Chockanathan vs The Senior Regional Manager on 23 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52313","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=52313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}