{"id":73927,"date":"2011-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-25T23:10:59","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T17:40:59","slug":"stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 21\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nW.P(MD)No.6847 of 2005\n\nStalin\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Director of Fisheries,\n  Exploratory Fisheries Department,\n  Kanyakumari,\n  Kanyakumari District.\n\n2.The District Collector,\n  Kanyakumari District at\n  Nagercoil.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue\na Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the\norder of termination issued by the second respondent in A1.40757-2005 dated\n10.06.2005 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to\nreinstate the petitioner in service.\n\n!For Petitioner  ... Mr.C.K.M.Appaji\n^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Sasikumar,\n\t\t     Govt. Advocate\n* * * * *\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a a Writ of
\nCertiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of
\ntermination issued by the second respondent in A1.40757-2005 dated 10.06.2005
\nand quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the
\npetitioner in service.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The petitioner is a post graduate holding M.Sc., M.Phil.,(Zoology)
\nqualification.  He has completed the post graduate degree in the year 1998 from
\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University.  He has registered his name in the District
\nEmployment Office, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil after completion of the course.  The
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu, P&AR Department has issued G.O.Ms.No.85 dated
\n04.07.2003 to fill up the Junior Assistant vacancy temporarily on gross
\nremuneration basis by agreement under general Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State
\nand Subordinate Services Rules.  The District Employment Officer has sponsored
\nthe name in the penal of candidates.  The second respondent\/District Collector,
\nKanyakumari District has appointed the petitioner for the post of Junior
\nAssistant in the Fisheries Department on a consolidated pay of Rs.4,000\/- p.m as
\nper the order dated 09.07.2003. He has been directed to report before the second
\nrespondent\/District Collector, Kanyakumari District, forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. According to the petitioner, he has discharged his duties to the utmost
\nsatisfaction of his seniors ever since the date of appointment.  To his utter
\nshock and dismay, on 30.05.2005, the first respondent\/Director of Fisheries,
\nExploratory Fisheries Department, Kanyakumari District, has issued a show cause
\nnotice dated 30.05.2005 in Na.Ka.No.353 of 2005 calling upon him to explain as
\nto why the second respondent\/District Collector should not initiate disciplinary
\nproceedings against him.  The show cause notice reads that on 23.05.2005, a
\nstaff attached with ICICI Bank, Madurai Branch, has come to the office of the
\nfirst respondent and informed that the petitioner has applied for loan and for
\nenquiring the genuineness of the job particulars and the income certificate
\nissued by the first respondent.  On perusal of the loan application, it has been
\nfound that in the application, the petitioner’s designation has been mentioned
\nas permanent Junior Assistant and the signature and the seal of the Assistant
\nDirector have been manipulated and no sanction has been obtained from the
\nDepartment.  The first respondent by referring to the xerox copy of the income
\ncertificate has issued the show cause notice to explain the cause within three
\ndays.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The stand of the petitioner is that on receipt of the show cause notice
\non 03.06.2005, he immediately got collapsed and admitted in the Government
\nMedical College, Nagercoil and has taken treatment and after recovery, he has
\ngiven a reply to the first respondent on 09.06.2005.  In the said reply, the
\npetitioner has categorically denied the knowledge of the loan application and
\nhis involvement in the fabrication of the documents. He has also questioned the
\nvalidity of the show cause notice based on the xerox copy of the document.  The
\nsecond respondent without considering his valid objection has terminated him
\nfrom service on 10.06.2005.  The termination order has been served by the first
\nrespondent on the petitioner on 15.06.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
\nbeen denied the right to prove his innocence and further that he has not been
\ncommunicated with the reasons for non-acceptance of his reply dated 09.06.2005
\nand as such, the order of termination issued by the first respondent is in
\nviolation of principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the
\npetitioner has not been provided with sufficient opportunities to explain his
\ncase and the non-conduct of the detail enquiry has led to the miscarriage of
\njustice.  Also, it is the plea of the petitioner that the impugned order of
\ntermination dated 10.06.2005 is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
\nof India.  Furthermore, the Government of Tamil Nadu has announced the Tamil
\nNadu Public Services Examinations for regularising the appointment of the
\npetitioner. Because of the termination order issued by the second
\nrespondent\/District Collector, he has not been permitted to appear for the
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. In short, the termination order of the second respondent dated
\n10.06.2005 is a non-speaking order and therefore, the petitioner prays for
\nallowing this writ petition in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. In response, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents
\nsubmits that the petitioner has been appointed as a contract Junior Assistant on
\na consolidated salary as per the orders of the second respondent\/District
\nCollector in his proceedings in No.A1\/46194\/2003 dated 09.07.2003 (as per Rule
\n11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules) and he is liable for
\ntermination at any time without any prior notice.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the
\npetitioner has joined in the office of the Assistant Director of Fisheries on
\n14.07.2003 A.N as a temporary Junior Assistant and he has applied for personal
\nloan from ICICI Bank describing his designation as Research Assistant and has
\nmanipulated the Pay Certificate with high income.  Therefore, a show cause
\nnotice has been served upon the petitioner and a reasonable opportunity has been
\nprovided to him to explain his part keeping in view the principles of natural
\njustice.  Also, the second respondent\/District Collector has been informed for
\ntaking suitable disciplinary action against the petitioner.  As a matter of
\nfact, the petitioner has not submitted his explanation within the prescribed
\ntime.  The second respondent\/District Collector, has passed orders terminating
\nthe petitioner as a contract Junior Assistant from 10.06.2005 as per the
\nproceedings in No.A1\/40757\/2005 dated 10.06.2005 which has been duly served on
\nhim.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. According to the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner has been
\nappointed as temporary contract Junior Assistant in the event of the Tamil Nadu
\nGovernment Employees’ mass strike during the year 2003 with conditions which
\nhave been duly sworn in by the petitioner before the Notary Public and since the
\npetitioner’s appointment is a contract, his contract can be terminated without
\nassigning any reason by the Government or its representatives.  Therefore, the
\nwrit petition filed by the writ petitioner is not maintainable either on law or
\non facts and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. It is to be noted that the second respondent\/District Collector,
\nKanyakumari District, in his proceedings dated 09.07.2003 has issued the
\nfollowing order:\t“ORDERS:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Govt. in the reference cited has sanctioned 500 supernumerary Junior
\nAssistant posts on gross remunerative basis of Rs.4000\/- p.m. and requested to
\nfill up the posts.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Accordingly, the District Employment Officer, Nagercoil, has sent a
\npanel of names in the ref 2nd cited. Out of the list, Thiru.T.Stalin is selected
\nfor the post of Junior Assistant on a consolidated pay of Rs.4000\/- p.m. (Gross
\nremuneration).\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Thiru.T.Stalin is informed that the appointment is purely on temporary
\nbasis under rule 11 of State and Subordinate Officers Rules and he is liable for
\ntermination at any time without any prior notice.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. He is also informed that he is not eligible for other allowances other
\nthan the gross remuneration of Rs.4000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe should report for duty forthwith before the A.D.Fish Exploratory,
\nKanniyakumari District.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The first respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 30.05.2005
\nto the petitioner inter alia stating that ‘the petitioner in the loan
\napplication has suppressed the fact that (i) he is a Junior Assistant on
\nconsolidated post and has mentioned that he is a permanent Research Assistant of
\nFisheries Department; (ii) he has not submitted any proper application to the
\nfirst respondent’s office seeking permission to obtain loan in his name; (iii)
\nfor obtaining the income certificate, he has not given any proper requisition to
\nthe first respondent’s office; (iv) instead of obtaining his income certificate,
\nhe has suppressed his post and obtained an income certificate in respect of
\nResearch Assistant post and has created the same voluntarily; (v) in the fake
\nsalary certificate created by him, he has fabricated the signature of the
\nAssistant Director of Fisheries Department when the latter has been on leave, by
\nhimself signing and committed the act of cheating and further, he has utilised
\nthe seal of the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department wrongly and (vi) with
\na view to obtain a loan from ICICI Bank, he has created the fake certificate by
\nsigning like that of the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department and has also
\ncheated the administration of the Fisheries Department as well as the Bank
\nManagement and has indulged in cheating and for the above allegations, he has
\nbeen asked to furnish his explanation within three days from the date of receipt
\nof the memorandum as to why disciplinary proceedings through the second
\nrespondent\/District Collector be initiated against him.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. To the show cause notice dated 30.05.2005, the petitioner has given
\nhis reply dated 09.06.2005 stating that he has not obtained any loan from ICICI
\nBank and further that he has not submitted any application form to the Bank and
\nas such, there is no reason for him to suppress his post or for furnishing the
\napplication form and also to indulge in cheating and moreover, there is no
\nnecessity for him to create fake certificate and that her has not been furnished
\nwith the photo copy of the fake certificate as mentioned in the reference to the
\nletter of the Assistant Director of Fisheries Department dated 30.05.2005, etc.
\nSignificantly, the petitioner has stated that he has been suffering from heart
\npain and from 30.05.2005, he has been admitted in the Aasaripallam Medial
\nCollege and has taken treatment and recovered and he is taking bed rest and
\ntherefore, there is a delay in submitting his explanation to the show cause
\nnotice dated 30.05.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. However, the second respondent\/District Collector, by his proceedings
\ndated 10.06.2005 has passed an order mentioning that the appointment of the
\npetitioner who has been serving as temporary Junior Assistant, will be
\nterminated from the date of termination order being passed thereto, because of
\nhis misconduct as per the report of the Assistant Director of Fisheries
\nDepartment dated 30.05.2005 as made mention of in Reference No.2 of the
\naforesaid proceedings. Accordingly, the first respondent\/ Assistant Director of
\nFisheries Department, Kanyakumari District by his proceedings dated 15.06.2005
\nin pursuance of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 10.06.2005, has
\nterminated the petitioner’s appointment with effect from 10.06.2005 F.N. from
\nthe post of Junior Assistant and has marked a copy to the second respondent and
\nother authorities.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention
\nthat the termination order passed by the second respondent dated 10.06.2005 is
\ninvalid one because of the simple fact that for the allegations of misconduct
\nlevelled against the petitioner, no charge memo or enquiry have been conducted
\nand in the absence of any finding as to the charges levelled against the
\npetitioner, the termination of the petitioner’s appointment even though he has
\nbeen appointed on a contract basis, is an illegal one in the eye of law, relies
\non the decision of this Court in V.L.Lakshmanakuamr v. The District Manager,<\/a>
\n“TASMAC” Limited, Madurai District, Madurai and another reported in 2006(1) CTC
\n660, at page 661, wherein at paragraph 7, it is observed as follows:
\n\t“7. The Apex Court, in more than one case, has held that when an order of
\ntermination involves civil consequences and consequently amounts to stigma, the
\nsame cannot be passed without there being a charge memo, enquiry and the finding
\nas to those charges. This proposition of law has been recently reiterated by the
\nApex Court in the judgment State of Hariyana Vs. Satyender Singh Rathore,
\n2005(7) SCC 518. In that Judgment, the Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier
\njudgment Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for
\nbasic Sciences, 1999(3) SCC 60, and has held that if findings were arrived at in
\nan enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a regular
\ndepartmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as
\n“founded” on the allegations and will be bad.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t16. He also brings it to the notice of tis Court the decision of this
\nCourt in A.Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2010(1) CTC 159 at page
\n160, whereby and whereunder, it is laid down thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“It is a specific case of the petitioner that no relevant records have
\nbeen furnished and at the relevant point of time, he put in charge of three seas
\nand that only on perusal of the Tapal Disbursement Registrar for the year 2001
\nwould reveal that the reasons for delay in following up of the cases. The
\nEnquiry Officer in his finding, has stated that the perusal of the case records
\nrelating to the above case except that fact that no follow up has been made. The
\nEnquiry Officer has not given a categorical finding as to whether the petitioner
\nalone contributed to the said delay or some other officials had also contributed
\nto the delay. The Enquiry Officer has not assigned proper reasons and that may
\nbe due to the fact that the charge No.1 itself is very vague. The disciplinary
\nauthority, viz., the third respondent based on the said finding, imposed the
\npunishment of censure.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court is alive to the settled position of law that normally in
\nrespect of the disciplinary, this Court cannot act as an appellate forum to
\nreappreciate the materials to find out what made in the minds of the Enquiry
\nOfficer as well as the disciplinary authority. But, there is one exception to
\nthe said settled position of law. If the findings of the disciplinary authority.
\nAs already held above, the charge No.1 itself is benefit of any particulars and
\nthe finding of the Enquiry Officer is also based on no reasons. Therefore, in
\nthe considered opinion of this Court, the findings of the Enquiry Officer that
\ncharge No.1 has been proved, on the fact of it, to be perverse and consequently
\nthe impugned order of censure passed by the third respondent against the
\npetitioner is liable to be quashed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further seeks in aid the
\ndecision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra
\nNath Bose National Centre<\/a> for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others reported in
\n(1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 60, at pages 61 and 62, wherein it is held as
\nhereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Point 1: If findings are arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct,
\nbehind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, simple
\norder of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and will
\nbe bad. If however enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the
\nemployer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but at the same time, he did not
\nwant to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only
\nbe a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if
\nemployer did not want to enquire into truth of allegations because of delay in
\nregular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate
\nevidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be motive and not
\nfoundation and simple order of termination would be valid.
\n\tPoint 2: There is considerable difficulty in finding out whether in a
\ngiven case where the order of termination is not a simple order of termination,
\nthe words used in the order can be said to contain a ‘stigma’. It depends on
\nfacts and circumstances of each case and language or words used to ascertain
\nwhether termination order contains stigma.\n<\/p>\n
\tPoint 3: Material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in
\ntermination order of a probationer but might be contained in documents referred
\nto in the termination order or in its annexures. Such documents can be asked
\nfor, or called for, by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case,
\nemployee’s interests would be harmed and therefore termination order would stand
\nvitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted.
\n\tIt is true that the Supreme Court in some of the cases has held that
\ntermination order is not punitive where employee has been given suitable
\nwarnings or has been advised to improve himself or where he has been given a
\nlong rope by way of extension of probation. However, in all such cases, there
\nwere simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to
\nstigma. On the other hand, there is a stigma in the impugned order which cannot
\nbe ignored because it will have effect on the appellant’s future. Stigma need
\nnot be contained in termination order but may also be contained in an order or
\nproceeding referred to in termination order or in an annexure thereto and would
\nvitiate the termination order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to quote Rule 11 of the
\nTamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, relating to the appointment by
\nagreement which runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“11. Appointment by agreements.- (1) When in the opinion of State
\nGovernment Special provisions inconsistent with any of these rules or of any
\nother rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India
\nor continuing by Article 313 of that Constitution (hereinafter referred to in
\nthis rule as the said rules) are required in respect of conditions of service,
\npay and allowances, pension, discipline and conduct with reference to any
\nparticular post, or any of them, it shall be open to the State Government to
\nmake an appointment to such post otherwise than in accordance with these rules
\nor the said rules and to provide by agreement with the person so appointed for
\nany of the matters in respect of which in the opinion of the State Government
\nspecial provisions are required to be made and to the extent to which such
\nprovisions are made in the agreement, nothing in these rules or the said rules
\nshall apply to any person so appointed in respect of any matter for which
\nprovision is made in the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in every agreement, made in exercise of the powers conferred
\nby this rule it shall further be provided that in respect of any matter in
\nrespect of which no provision has been made in the agreement the provisions of
\nthese rules or of the said rules shall apply.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) A person appointed under sub-rule(1) shall not be regarded as a member
\nof the service in which the post to which he is appointed is included and shall
\nnot be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to
\nany other appointment in that or any other service.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19. This Court worth recalls the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court
\nin Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India<\/a> reported in AIR 1958 SUPREME COURT
\n36, wherein it is held that ‘services of a temporary Government servant can be
\nterminated as per contract or giving notice and such termination does not vest
\nhim with civil consequences thereof.’<\/p>\n
\t20. Even an ad hoc officiation can be terminated on the grounds of (a)
\nunfitness, (b) regular appointee joining or coming back after deputation or
\nleave, (c) exigencies of public service and (d) in case of post abolition, as
\nper the decision in C.D.Dubey v. Union of India reported in 1975 (1) SLR 580.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. As far as the present case is concerned, the appointment of the
\npetitioner as Junior Assistant is purely on temporary basis as per Rule 11 of
\nthe Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules. Even in the appointment
\norder issued to the petitioner as per the proceedings of the second respondent
\ndated 09.07.2003, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner’s appointment as
\nJunior Assistant is a temporary one on gross remuneration of Rs.4,000\/- p.m.
\n(consolidated pay).\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Even though in regard to the allegations levelled against the
\npetitioner as per the proceedings issued by the Assistant Director of Fisheries
\nDepartment dated 30.05.2005, no formal charges have been framed against the
\npetitioner and Domestic Enquiry has been conducted by appointing a Domestic
\nEnquiry Officer, yet the petitioner has been required to submit his explanation
\nas to why as per the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, disciplinary
\nproceedings may not be initiated against him by the second respondent\/District
\nCollector, within three days from the date of receipt of the same.  The
\npetitioner has not submitted his explanation within time and he has submitted
\nhis explanation on 09.06.2005.  Based on the report of the Assistant Director of
\nFisheries Department, the second respondent\/District Collector has passed the
\nimpugned order on 10.06.2005 mentioning that his appointment will be terminated
\nfrom the date of termination order being passed thereto. Accordingly, the
\nAssistant Director of Fisheries Department by his letter dated 15.06.2005 has
\nterminated the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant appointed on
\ncontract basis with effect from 10.06.2005 F.N.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In the instant case on hand, the appointment of the petitioner as
\ntemporary Junior Assistant on consolidated pay of Rs.4,000\/- p.m. has been made
\nas per Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and by
\nthis rule, the petitioner’s temporary appointment as Junior Assistant can be
\nterminated at any time without any prior notice.  It cannot be denied by the
\npetitioner that his appointment is a contractual one and he has sworn to an
\naffidavit containing 16 conditions before the Notary Public on 07.08.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Inasmuch as the petitioner’s services as temporary Junior Assistant
\nhas been terminated as per the order of the Assistant Director of the Fisheries
\nDepartment dated 15.06.2005 with effect from 10.06.2005 F.N., this termination
\ndoes not vest the petitioner with any civil consequences and the termination of
\nthe petitioner is only a termination simpliciter and there is no material before
\nthis Court to infer mala fides.  On perusing the impugned order of the second
\nrespondent dated 10.06.2005, this Court is of the considered view that the said
\norder is not an irrelevant one or based on extraneous considerations.  Per
\ncontra, the order of the second respondent dated 10.06.2005 in terminating the
\npetitioner’s services, is purely a valid and sustainable one in the eye of law
\nand the termination is not an punishment and more so, the said termination does
\nnot deprive him of any right, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Also, because of the fact that the petitioner’s appointment is a
\ntemporary one on a contract basis and that too, for a gross remuneration of
\nRs.4,000\/- p.m., he has no right to the post.  Only if he has a right to the
\npost, the termination of service will by itself a punishment and he will be
\nentitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as
\nopined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. In the present case on hand, the termination order of the petitioner
\nis a simpliciter one and suffice it for this Court to point out that the
\npetitioner’s termination in the post of Junior Assistant as per contract, is a
\nvalid one and his termination does not vest him with civil consequences thereof
\nand viewed in that perspective, the present writ petition fails.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Director of Fisheries,
\n  Exploratory Fisheries Department,
\n  Kanyakumari,
\n  Kanyakumari District.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Collector,
\n  Kanyakumari District at
\n  Nagercoil.\t\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P(MD)No.6847 of 2005 Stalin … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of Fisheries, Exploratory Fisheries Department, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. 2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. … Respondents Prayer […]<\/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-73927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T17:40:59+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T17:40:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3864,\"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\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T17:40:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - 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\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T17:40:59+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T17:40:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011"},"wordCount":3864,"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\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011","name":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T17:40:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stalin-vs-the-director-of-fisheries-on-21-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stalin vs The Director Of Fisheries on 21 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/73927","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=73927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}