{"id":79586,"date":"2011-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-06-11T05:54:02","modified_gmt":"2018-06-11T00:24:02","slug":"r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH\n\nWrit Petition (MD) No.14305 of 2010\nM.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 &amp; 3 of 2010\n\nR. Thangapandian\t\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.\tThe Commissioner of Hindu Religious and\n\tCharitable Endowment Board,\n\tThe Commissioner Office,\n\tChennai.\n\n2.\tThe Joint Commissioner\/Executive Officer,\n\tArulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil,\n\tPalani, Dindigul District.\t\t\t..\tRespondents\n\n\tThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the\nrecords in connection with the impugned Advertisement issued by the second\nrespondent published in the Tamil Daily Newspaper Dinakaran dated 24.9.2010 in\nAdvertisement No.tp.nt.M.vz;.114\/ xg;ge;jg;gs;sp nr.k.njh.m\/2010,\nehs;.24.09.2010 Dindigul being the vacancies for Assistant Civil Engineer, etc.,\nrespectively and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and\nconsequently direct the first respondent to earmark the exact vacancies for SC\nand ST community and to be filled up the same in a fair and transparent manner\nand also fill up the existing vacancies by communal roaster within the time\nlimit that may be stipulated by this Court.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\tMr.A.D.Ganeshmoorthy\n^For 1st Respondent\t...\tMr.M.Rajarajan\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar\nFor 2nd Respondent\t...\tMr.M.Venkatachalapathy\n\t\t\t\tSenior Counsel\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr.R.Devaraj\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for final<br \/>\ndisposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tPetitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the<br \/>\nadvertisement dated 24.9.2010 issued by the second respondent inviting<br \/>\napplications to fill up various posts and to declare the same as illegal,<br \/>\nunconstitutional and consequently direct the first respondent to earmark the<br \/>\nexact vacancies for SC &amp; ST community and fill up the same in a fair and<br \/>\ntransparent manner by following communal roaster within a given time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tAccording to the petitioner, the impugned advertisement was issued<br \/>\ncalling for applications to fill up 77 posts in 23 categories.  In the said<br \/>\nselection no provision is made for reservation of posts for candidates belonging<br \/>\nto SC &amp; ST community.  Aggrieved over the alleged rights of the SC &amp; ST<br \/>\ncommunity people, the petitioner has chosen to file the writ petition as a<br \/>\nPublic Interest Litigation.  The petitioner also states that no reservation is<br \/>\nalso made for BC and MBC community candidates.   It is also stated in the<br \/>\naffidavit that condition No.11, which empowers the second respondent to reject<br \/>\nany application without assigning any reason, is unjust and arbitrary.  The<br \/>\naction of the second respondent in not reserving seats for the economically and<br \/>\nsocially depressed classes of persons is in violation of Articles 14, 16(4), 21,<br \/>\n46 and 335 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the second respondent<br \/>\nhas invited applications for various posts in Palani Arulmigu Thandayuthapani<br \/>\nSwamy Thirukovil, which is under the control of the first respondent governed by<br \/>\nthe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules framed<br \/>\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tThe second respondent has opposed this writ petition by filing<br \/>\ncounter affidavit by contending that the writ petition filed by way of public<br \/>\ninterest litigation to reserve posts for SC &amp; ST  candidates for selection to<br \/>\nvarious posts is not maintainable as the issue pertains to service matter.  On<br \/>\nmerits it is stated that neither the HR &amp; CE Act, 1959, nor the service rules<br \/>\nframed thereunder viz., Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and<br \/>\nServants) Service Rules, 1964, which was amended by G.O.Ms.No.255 Tamil<br \/>\nDevelopment, Religious Endowments and Information Department, dated 28.6.2010<br \/>\nmandates  reservation of seats for SC &amp; ST, BC and MBC candidates.  It is also<br \/>\nstated therein that SC &amp; ST candidates can also compete for all posts and their<br \/>\nclaim will also be considered even though no specific reservation is made in the<br \/>\nadvertisement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the<br \/>\ncontentions raised in the affidavit and submitted that not reserving  seats for<br \/>\nSC &amp; ST candidates in the public temple of the second respondent is in violation<br \/>\nof the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 16(4) of the Constitution<br \/>\nof India and therefore the writ petition is maintainable, as the petitioner is<br \/>\nrepresenting the weaker sections of the society and he is not claiming any<br \/>\nservice right.  The learned counsel also submitted that the action of the<br \/>\nrespondents in not reserving seats,  SC &amp; ST candidates are affected and<br \/>\nindividual persons are not in a position to come to this Court due to their<br \/>\npoverty and social backwardness.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tThe learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent<br \/>\nsubmitted that even though Article 16(4) empowers the Government to reserve<br \/>\nseats to weaker sections of the society including SC &amp; ST, insofar as the posts<br \/>\nto be filled up by the second respondent, no reservation is ordered by the State<br \/>\nGovernment either under the HR &amp; CE Act, 1959 or under the Rules framed<br \/>\nthereunder, namely, the  Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and<br \/>\nServants) Service Rules, 1964.  The said rule nowhere stipulates any reservation<br \/>\nand in fact it only prohibits appointment of persons other than Hindu Religion<br \/>\nand without challenging the said rule or amendment of the rules issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned notification, which is<br \/>\nissued in accordance with the rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tWe have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent<br \/>\nand the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8,\tThe point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the<br \/>\nwrit petition is maintainable and whether the petitioner can demand reservation<br \/>\nfor SC &amp; ST candidates in the impugned notification issued by the second<br \/>\nrespondent inviting applications for filling up 77 posts in 23 categories of<br \/>\nposts in Arulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil, Palani.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tThe petitioner is challenging only the action of the respondents in<br \/>\nnot reserving seats to the candidates belonging to SC &amp; ST communities.  Though<br \/>\nreservation is prayed for in the notified posts, its implication is to enforce<br \/>\nsocial justice.  SC &amp; ST communities people are belonging to socially and<br \/>\neconomically weaker category and each one of the candidate aspiring for the<br \/>\nposts may not be in a position to approach this Court, hence the writ petition<br \/>\ncannot be held as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as<br \/>\nrespondents submitted that Arulmigu Thandayudhapani  Swamy Temple, Palani is<br \/>\ncoming within the purview of the HR &amp; CE Act, 1959 and the respondents are<br \/>\ncontrolling its administration.  For appointment of the Officers and Servants of<br \/>\nthe temple and to its Institutions, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions<br \/>\n(Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964, was enacted which was  amended<br \/>\nrecently vide G.O.Ms.No.255 Tamil Development, Religious Endowments and<br \/>\nInformation Department, dated 28.6.2010.  The said rule was framed under sub-<br \/>\nsection (2) of section 116 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious &amp; Charitable<br \/>\nEndowments Act, 1959.  In the said rule, the following categories of employees<br \/>\nof the religious institutions are listed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\tSenior Grade Temples - Outdoor Servants\t  \t..\t83 categories\n\tIncorporated and unincorporated\n\tDevaswoms - Outdoor Servants\t\t\t..\t17 categories\n\tTechnical staff\t\t\t\t\t..\t44 categories\n\tMedical Staff\t\t\t\t\t..\t14 categories\n\tEducation staff\t\t\t\t\t..\t 5 categories\n\tSenior Grade Temples -\n\tUlthurai (Indoor) servants\t\t\t..\t75 categories\n\n\tReligious Institutions other than\n\tSenior Grade Temples both\n\tOutdoor and Indoor servants\t\t\t..\t17 categories\n\tIndoor servants\t\t\t\t\t..\t31 categories\n\tArchaka Training Institute\t\t\t..\t7 categories\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>Rule 3 states that every Officer or servant of a religious institution shall<br \/>\nprofess the Hindu religion and shall cease to hold office as such officer or<br \/>\nservant when he ceases to profess that religion.   Physical fitness, age and<br \/>\ncertain grounds of disqualifications are mentioned in Rule 4, 5 and 6<br \/>\nrespectively.  No provision is made to reserve any post to any caste or<br \/>\ncommunity.  The said rule is a special rule applicable for appointment of<br \/>\nOfficers and Servants in Hindu Religious Institutions.  The State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service Rules provides for reservation to several categories of<br \/>\npersons like BC, MBC, SC &amp; ST as vertical reservation and reservation to women,<br \/>\nphysically challenged, etc.    However, the said rule states that it can be<br \/>\napplied only subject to the special rules.  In the absence of providing<br \/>\nreservation in the special rules, the petitioner cannot blame the second<br \/>\nrespondent for not reserving any seat for SC &amp; ST candidates or to any other<br \/>\ncategory.   Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is an enabling provision<br \/>\nto the State Government to reserve posts.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tSimilar issue was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision<br \/>\nreported in (2010) 1 SCC 477 <a href=\"\/doc\/663702\/\">(Dr.Gulshan Prakash V. State of Haryana)<\/a> in respect<br \/>\nof reservation of seats to post graduate medical course which was claimed under<br \/>\nArticle 15(4) of the Constitution of India.  The Supreme Court in the said<br \/>\ndecision held that the Court cannot compel the Government\/authorities to provide<br \/>\nfor reservation for SC &amp; ST candidates in the absence of any specific statutory<br \/>\nrule framed.  In the said decision the Supreme Court held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;22.\tIn Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab ((1999) 7 SCC 209) a<br \/>\nConstitution Bench of this Court in para 28 has held that Article 16(4) is only<br \/>\nan enabling provision which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;28.\t&#8230;. On the face of it, the above language in each of Articles 16(4) and<br \/>\n16(4-A) is in the nature of an enabling provision and it has been so held in<br \/>\njudgments rendered by Constitution Benches and in other cases right from 1963.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25.\t&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;  the State Government is the competent<br \/>\nauthority to decide the reservation in the State.  The State Government did not<br \/>\nprescribe any reservation for SC\/ST and Backward Classes, due to which it was<br \/>\nnot included in the prospectus.  They also clarified that the petitioners before<br \/>\nthe High Court were on the wrong impression that the Government of Haryana has<br \/>\nalready taken a decision to make a reservation in admission to MD\/MS\/PG diploma<br \/>\nand MDS courses for SC\/ST category.  It was clarified that the Government of<br \/>\nHaryana has never granted the benefit of reservation to SC\/ST category in<br \/>\nadmission to MD\/MS\/PG diploma and MDS courses.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27.\tThough, even at the postgraduate level, reservation for<br \/>\nSC\/ST\/Backward community is permissible, in view of the specific decision by the<br \/>\nState of Haryana not to have reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled<br \/>\nTribes at the postgraduate level, there cannot be any mandamus by this Court as<br \/>\nclaimed by the appellants.  &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t29.\t&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. As the State Government is competent to make<br \/>\nthe reservation to a particular class or category, until it is decided by the<br \/>\nState, as being a policy matter, there cannot be any direction to provide<br \/>\nreservation at the PG level.   &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tApplying the principle laid down in the said judgment to the facts<br \/>\nof this case and in the absence of any provision to reserve seats in the Special<br \/>\nRules, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to claim<br \/>\nreservation for SC &amp; ST candidates in the notified vacancies.  This Court cannot<br \/>\ncompel the Government to reserve seats to SC &amp; ST candidates.   It is made clear<br \/>\nthat this order will not stand in the way of the State Government in deciding<br \/>\nthe issue of reservation by appropriately amending the Special Rules, bearing in<br \/>\nmind the provision contained in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.<br \/>\n\tThe writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.  No costs.<br \/>\nConnected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>vr<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe Commissioner of Hindu Religious and<br \/>\n\tCharitable Endowment Board, Commissioner Office,<br \/>\n\tChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe Joint Commissioner\/Executive Officer,<br \/>\n\tArulmigu Thandayuthapani Swamy Thirukovil,<br \/>\n\tPalani, Dindigul District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Writ Petition (MD) No.14305 of 2010 M.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 &amp; 3 of 2010 R. Thangapandian &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1. The [&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-79586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-11T00:24:02+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T00:24:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1623,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\",\"name\":\"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T00:24:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 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":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - 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\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-11T00:24:02+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T00:24:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011"},"wordCount":1623,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011","name":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu ... on 28 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T00:24:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-thangapandian-vs-the-commissioner-of-hindu-on-28-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Thangapandian vs The Commissioner Of Hindu &#8230; on 28 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\/79586","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=79586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}