{"id":78218,"date":"2005-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005"},"modified":"2015-12-06T13:04:51","modified_gmt":"2015-12-06T07:34:51","slug":"j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 01\/07\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM    \n\nHCP. No. 282 of 2005 \n\nJ. Chithra,\nW\/o. Janarthanan, \n4\/19, Ranganathapuram 2nd Street, \nRayapuram Extension, Tiruppur, \nCoimbatore District. .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. The District Magistrate and\n   District Collector, Coimbatore.\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary to Government,\n   Prohibition and Excise Department,\n   Fort St. George, Chennai-9. .. Respondents.\n\n\n        Petition filed under Article 226 of  the  Constitution  of  India,  to\nissue  a  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus, calling for records in connection with the\norder  of  detention  passed  by  first   respondent   made   in   Crl.M.P.No.\n20\/G\/2004\/E4,  dated  26-10-2004  and  produce  the detenu viz., Janarthanan @\nJony,  son  of  Baladhandapani,  who  is  now  detained  in  Central   Prison,\nCoimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.\n\n!For petitioner:- Mr.  C.  Prakasam.\n\n^For respondents:- Mr.  Abudukumar Rajarathinam, \n                Govt., Advocate (Criminal Side).\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n
        The  petitioner herein is the wife of the detenu by name Janarthanan @
\nJony.  He was detained as “Goonda” by  the  impugned  order  dated  26-10-2004
\nunder  Section  3(2)  of  Tamil  Nadu  Prevention  of  Dangerous Activities of
\nBootleggers,  Drug  Offenders,  Forest  Offenders,  Goondas,  Immoral  Traffic
\nOffenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 ( Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  grounds  on  which  the detention order has been made are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony is running a Motor Vehicle Driving school in the name
\nof Jony Driving School at Tiruppur.  He has been authorised by M\/s.  Maheswari
\nAgencies, authorised dealer of Yamaha Motor Cycle to get the registration, for
\nthe  new motor vehicles sold by them to their customers from the Office of the
\nRegional Transport Officer, Tiruppur.  On 02-05-2001 Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony,
\naged 37  years,  S\/o  Thiru  Baladhandapani,  No.4\/19,  Ranganathapuram,  IInd
\nStreet,  Rayapuram  Extension,  Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, produced before
\nthe Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur a Light Motor Vehicle  of  TATA  make
\nmodel 2001 for registration in the name of M\/s.  Hycounts Corporation, No.6-A,
\nRanganathapuram Extension, 2nd Street, Kongu Main Road, Tiruppur along with an
\napplication    and    connected    documents    including   the   letter   No.
\n29620\/Tr.-VI\/2001-1 Home (Transport-VI) Department, Government  of  Tamilnadu,
\nChennai dated 03-04-2001  (Computer Code No.  24363).  The said letter was for
\nallotment order of Fancy registration number 6000 in TN 39  Y  series  to  the
\nabove said  vehicle.    On  the  strength  of that Government letter, the said
\nvehicle was assigned with the registration number  TN  39  Y  6000.    But  on
\nverification  at  a  later  date, the said Government letter was found to be a
\nforged one.  Further, there was an  endorsement  at  page-12  of  registration
\ndocument as if a sum of Rs.6000\/- was paid in the Regional Transport Officer’s
\nOffice, Tiruppur in S.No.  11139 001A on 23-04-2001
\ntowards the  prescribed  fee  for  advance  registration for Fancy number.  On
\nverification, it was also found to be forged, as the said receipt S.No.  11139
\n001A dated 23-04-2001 was originally relating to  the  payment  of  a  sum  of
\nRs.15\/- at  the  said  office.   Thus, Thiru Janarthanan @ Jony has forged the
\nsaid endorsement by creating the said false document used them as genuine  and
\nthereupon  cheated  the  Government  of  Tamilnadu  through  the Office of the
\nRegional Transport Officer, Tiruppur to a value of  Rs.6,000\/-.    Hence,  the
\nRegional   Transport   Officer,   Tiruppur   filed   a  complaint  before  the
\nSuperintendent of Police, Coimbatore District in his letter  Confdl.\/4\/RTO\/TPR
\ndated 14-10-2004.    On the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore
\nDistrict, the Inspector of police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur registered a
\ncase in CCB Cr.No.  26\/2004 U\/s 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC  and  sent  the  FIR
\nalong  with  the  original complaint to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur
\nand copies of them to the higher officers concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  After registering the case, the inspector of Police, Central Crime
\nBranch, Tiruppur took up investigation.  He examined the complainant and other
\nnecessary witnesses.  During the course of investigation, it  was  known  that
\nthe above Government letter was issued for the allotment of fancy number TN 21
\nP 0009 to  Thiru  V.V.   Chalapathy of Kanchepuram District.  The Inspector of
\nPolice, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur arrested the accused Thiru  Janarthanan
\n@  Jony on 14-10-2004 at 10-30 PM in front of his house at Ranganathapuram 2nd
\nStreet, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur and recorded his voluntary  confessional
\nstatement in  the  presence  of two witnesses 1) Murugesh 2) P.  Kudiarasu and
\nproduced him before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur on 15-10-2004.  The
\naccused was remanded to Judicial custody upto 29-10-2004 and lodged at Central
\nPrison, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The  detaining  authority,  namely,   the   District   Collector,
\nCoimbatore,  after  satisfying  himself  that  the  said Janarthanan @ Jony is
\nhabitually committing crimes and also acting in a manner  prejudicial  to  the
\nmaintenance  of  public  order  and  as such he is a ” Goonda” as contemplated
\nunder Section 2 (f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, arrived at a conclusion that
\nby committing the above said grave  offences,  the  said  Janarthanan  @  Jony
\ncreated  fear, panic and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of the public of
\nthat area and thereby acted in a manner  prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of
\npublic order.    He  also  concluded  that  the  offence  committed  by him is
\npunishable under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code.  After satisfying that
\nthe materials placed before him that the said Janarthanan @ Jony is a “Goonda”
\nand that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him
\nfrom indulging in such acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public
\norder, he was detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  On earlier occasion,  the  said  detention  order  was  challenged
\nthrough one B.   Sivakumar,  brother  of the detenu in H.C.P.  No.  1485\/2004.
\nThis Court, by order dated 16-2-2005, after finding that no  valid  ground  to
\ninterfere  with  the  said  order  of  detention, dismissed the said petition.
\nHowever, claiming that certain valid points invalidating the  detention  order
\nwere  neither taken nor urged nor any finding rendered in respect of the same,
\nthe petitioner, wife of the detenu has filed the present petition for quashing
\nof the very same order.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Heard Mr.  B.  Kumar, learned senior counsel  for  the  petitioner
\nand Mr.      Abudukumar   Rajarathinam,   learned   Government  Advocate,  for
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  After taking us through the grounds of  detention  and  all  other
\nconnected materials, Mr.      B.    Kumar,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
\npetitioner, has raised the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
i)  There is no public order warranting the detenu to be described as “Goonda”
\nunder Act 14\/1982;\n<\/p>\n
ii) Even according to the respondents, the alleged occurrence, namely, forgery
\nof certain Government documents took place on 23-4-2001, whereas the case  was
\nregistered  only  on 14-10-2004, after a delay of more than 3 years; hence the
\ndetention order is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay;\n<\/p>\n
iii) There is no proximity in this case and in the  absence  of  any  adequate
\nmaterials, the detention order is liable to be quashed;\n<\/p>\n
iv) There was no proper intimation to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Learned  Government  Advocate  refuted  all  the  charges by placing necessary
\nmaterials.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Let us consider the contentions raised by learned  senior  counsel
\nfor petitioner  one  by  one.   As regards the first contention relating to no
\npublic order involved and invoking of Act 14 of 1982 is not warranted,  though
\ndetention  order  was  passed  describing  the  detenu  as Goonda based on the
\ncomplaint of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur, dated 14-10-2004, which
\nwas registered a case in CCB Crime No.  26\/2004 for  offences  under  sections
\n467,  468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., the grounds of detention make it clear that the
\ndetenu had involved in committing fraud  and  forging  certain  documents  and
\ncheating  the  Office of the Regional Transport Officer at Tiruppur on various
\ndates between 12-10-2001 and  7-06-2004.    The  adverse  case  in  Crime  No.
\n25\/2004  for  offences under Sections 120(B), 468, 471 and 4 20 IPC relates to
\nthe said period namely 12-10-2001 to 7-10-2004.  It  further  shows  that  the
\ndetenu came to  adverse  notice on 34 instances.  It also shows that Mr.  F.S.
\nRodrigo, the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur and the complainant in Crime
\nNo.  25\/2004 of District Crime Branch, Coimbatore has stated  in  his  further
\nstatement,  recorded  by  the  Inspector  of  Police,  Karumathampatty  Police
\nStation, that the verification of his office records as  on  15-10-2004  would
\nmake out  a  total  fraud  of  Rs.60  lakhs.    Copy of his statement has been
\nfurnished in pages 21 to 33 of the booklet issued to the detenu.  The  grounds
\nof  detention  also  show  that though the offence complained of in the ground
\ncase dates back to 02-05-2001, it came to the  knowledge  of  the  complainant
\n(Regional  Transport Officer, Tiruppur only on detect of this complaint and to
\nthe sponsoring authority only on the  date  of  FIR,  registered  in  Tiruppur
\nCentral Crime Branch Crime No.26\/2004.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  grounds  of  detention  also  show  that  the  letter of the
\nGovernment in No.  29620\/Tr.-VI\/2001-1 Home  (Transport-VI)  Department  dated
\n03-04-2001 with Computer  Code  No.  24363 was forged one.  As rightly pointed
\nby the learned Government Advocate, the  degree  of  evidence  for  passing  a
\ndetention  order  need not be so much clinching against the detenu as required
\nin the trial of the criminal case against him before the Criminal Court.  Page
\n169 of the booklet supplied to the detenu shows that an amount of Rs.15\/-  had
\nbeen  remitted  into the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruppur as
\nper S.  No.  11139-001A dated 23-04-2001, but  the  detenu  has  fabricated  a
\nfalse  document  for  Rs.6,000\/-  into  the  Office  of the Regional Transport
\nOfficer, Tiruppur as per the same receipt number with the same date and  time.
\nIt was  also  available in the booklet in page 173.  It is not in dispute that
\ncreation of false documents or a portion of the false documents amounts to  an
\noffence  of  forgery  and those copies of documents are available in pages 173
\nand 175 of the booklet.  The detaining authority has considered and  discussed
\nat  length all the documents placed before him by the sponsoring authority and
\nwas satisfied that the gross violation of the law by cheating and  fabricating
\nthe  Government  documents  and  serious offences committed by the detenu were
\nsufficient to arrive at a conclusion that his activities were  prejudicial  to
\nthe maintenance  of public order and public peace.  We are also satisfied that
\nthe detaining authority was very well aware of  the  relevant  fact  that  the
\ndetenu  is  habitually  committing  “crimes”  and  also  acting  in  a  manner
\nprejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  The detaining  authority  was
\nalso  satisfied that by forging and cheating the Government documents relating
\nto various persons who intended to acquire or purchase new  vehicles,  created
\nfear, panic and feeling of insecurity in their minds in that area (Tiru ppur),
\nthereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.  The
\ndetaining  authority  has  also  satisfied  that the offences committed by the
\ndetenu are punishable under Chapter XVII of Indian Penal  Code.    Considering
\nthe details  furnished  in  Crime  No.    25\/2004  which related to the period
\nbetween 12-10-2001 and 07-06-2004 pertaining to cheating several  persons  and
\nthe  complaint dated 14-10-2004 in the ground case, as well as the prejudicial
\nactivities indulged by him and  there  is  likelihood  of  indulging  in  such
\nactivities in future as well, we are satisfied that the detaining authority is
\nfully  justified and well within his power in detaining the detenu as “Goonda”
\nunder Act 14 of 1982.  In the light of chain of events and details referred to
\nin the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that there is  no  proximity
\nto the  initial  occurrence  which had taken place on 23-4-2001.  The contrary
\ncontention is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Though an argument was advanced that there was delay  in  passing
\nthe  detention  order, for the discussion relating to the first contention and
\nin view of chain of events stated in the adverse case Crime No.    25\/2004  as
\nwell as  ground  case  Crime  No.   26\/2004 both on the file of District Crime
\nBranch, Coimbatore District, and considering the number of  persons  involved,
\nforgery  of  several  documents,  that  too  Government receipts in respect of
\nseveral registration books, we are satisfied that there is no delay in passing
\nthe order of detention.  As rightly pointed  out  by  the  learned  Government
\nAdvocate  that it is not a case of solitary instance, but it refers to forging
\nseveral documents, manipulating and cheating records of the Regional Transport
\nOfficer, Tirupur on various dates, making the intending purchasers to register
\n34 new motor vehicles with new registration number without actually  remitting
\nregistration  fees  and life tax and caused wrongful loss to the Government of
\nTamil Nadu, besides creating fear and panic among  the  intending  purchasers.
\nIn  such  circumstances,  particularly taking note of the volume and nature of
\nwork involved, we are unable to accept the contention that there is a delay in
\npassing the detention order.  On the other  hand,  considering  the  chain  of
\ninstances, we  hold that there is no delay.  The contrary contention is liable
\nto be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  Though an argument  was  advanced  that  there  was  no  material
\navailable  for  detaining  the  detenu  as  “Goonda”,  as discussed above, the
\nadverse case Crime No.25\/2004 and ground case Crime No.  26\/2004 on  the  file
\nof  District  Crime  Branch,  Coimbatore  and all the details furnished in the
\ngrounds of detention amply proove that the detaining authority  was  possessed
\nwith required  materials  for  clamping  the detenu as “Goonda”.  For the same
\nreasons, as mentioned  above,  the  said  contention  is  also  liable  to  be
\nrejected.  Though Mr.  B.  Kumar has relied on certain decisions, in the light
\nof  the  abundant factual details available in the grounds of detention and on
\ngoing through the same, we are of the view that they are not  helpful  to  the
\ncase on hand.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   Finally,  an  argument  was  advanced  that no proper intimation
\nrelating to clamping of detention was informed to the  family  member  of  the
\ndetenu,  in  the  counter  affidavit  filed  by  the  District  Magistrate and
\nCollector, Coimbatore, first respondent herein, particularly in para 14, it is
\nspecifically stated that the fact of passin of  the  detention  order  against
\nJanarthanan alias  Jony  in  Crl.M.P.No.   20\/G\/2004\/E4 and his lodging in the
\nCentral Prison, Coimbatore were informed to the petitioner, wife of the detenu
\nin his letter dated 26-10-2004 and the same was served on her on 27-10-2004 in
\nthe presence  of  two  witnesses,  namely,  (1)   C.      Vajravelu,   Village
\nAdministrative Officer and (2) M.  Kuppusamy, Village Administrative Assistant
\nof Thottipalayam  village.   In view of the above categorical information, the
\nsaid contention is also liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the light of the above discussion and in view of the  abundant
\nmaterials  in  the  grounds  of detention, we are satisfied that the detaining
\nauthority was fully justified in detaining the detenu as “Goonda” under Act 14
\nof 1982.  We are also satisfied that the detaining  authority  has  considered
\nall   the   relevant  materials  and  possessed  with  the  details  regarding
\nhabituality of the detenu in committing crimes, acting in a manner prejudicial
\nto the maintenance of public order, creating fear and panic and a  feeling  of
\ninsecurity  in  the minds of public in the area (Tiruppur), and rightly passed
\nthe impugned order of detention.  We are in  agreement  with  his  conclusion.
\nThere is  no valid ground for interference.  Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition
\nfails and the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
R.B.\n<\/p>\n
Index:- Yes
\nInternet:- Yes.\n<\/p>\n
To:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The District Magistrate and
\nDistrict Collector, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The State of Tamil Nadu,
\nrepresented by its Secretary to Government,
\nProhibition and Excise Department,
\nFort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law and Order)
\nFort St.  George, Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 01\/07\/2005 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM HCP. No. 282 of 2005 J. Chithra, W\/o. Janarthanan, 4\/19, Ranganathapuram 2nd Street, Rayapuram Extension, Tiruppur, Coimbatore […]<\/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-78218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJ. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - 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\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-06T07:34:51+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T07:34:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2466,\"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\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\",\"name\":\"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-06T07:34:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - 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\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-06T07:34:51+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T07:34:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005"},"wordCount":2466,"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\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005","name":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-06T07:34:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-chithra-vs-the-district-magistrate-and-on-1-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J. Chithra vs The District Magistrate And on 1 July, 2005"}]},{"@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\/78218","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=78218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}