{"id":80265,"date":"2006-07-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006"},"modified":"2014-05-07T11:54:01","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T06:24:01","slug":"s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/07\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR        \n\nWrit Petition No.10556 of 2006\n W.P.M.P.No.11939 of 2006  \n W.P.M.P.No.11940 of 2006  \n\n\nS. Srinivasalu                 ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Food Corporation \nof India,\nrep.by its Zonal Manager (South),\nZonal Office,\nNo.3, Haddows Road,  \nChennai  6.\n\n2.The Food Corporation of India,\nrep.by its Deputy General Manager (Personnel),\nZonal Office,\nNo.3, Haddows Road,  \nChennai  6.                    ... Respondents\n\n\n        Writ petition filed  under  Article  226  of  Constitution  of  India,\npraying  this Court to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the\nrecords erlating to the impugned  order  in  O.O.No.32(1)\/2005-CR  Cell  dated\n31.10.2005 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently    \ndirect  the  respondents to grant all terminal, service benefits and all other\nattendant benefits arising therefrom to the petitioner.\n\n!For Petitioner         :       Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed\n\n^For Respondents        :       Mr.S.Vijayakumar\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        Petitioner  seeks  to quash the order of the second respondent dated 3
\n1.10.2005       and to direct the respondents to grant all  terminal,  service
\nbenefits and all other attendant benefits to him.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as
\nstated in the affidavit are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)     Petitioner  belongs to Kurumans Community, which is one of the
\nScheduled Tribes.  He  joined  the  services  of  the  Ministry  of  Food  and
\nAgriculture  Department,  Government  of  India at Madras as a Peon as per the
\norder  dated  19.12.1966,  after  his  name  was  sponsored  by  the  District
\nEmployment Exchange,  North  Madras,  Madras-1.    In  the year 1971, the Food
\nCorporation of India was formed and the petitioner’s services were transferred
\nto the said Corporation.  In the year 1977, petitioner’s services  along  with
\nothers  were  confirmed  by  the  Food  Corporation  of  India, by order dated
\n28.7.1977.  Later on, petitioner was promoted as Daftry in the year  1983;  as
\nGestetner  Operator  in the year 2 000; and again as Senior Gestetner Operator
\nin the same year 2000.  He reached the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005 and
\non  the  said  date  the  impugned  order  of  cancellation  of   petitioner’s
\nappointment was issued by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)    The  said  order  of cancellation of appointment was passed on
\nthe ground that the Community certificate which was required to be produced by
\nthe petitioner in terms of his order of appointment dated 19.1 2.1966 did  not
\nfind  place  in  the  service  records and therefore it was confirmed that the
\npetitioner had not submitted the Community Certificate  at  the  time  of  his
\nsubsequent  three  promotions  and the petitioner having failed to comply with
\nthe terms and conditions of the appointment order\/promotion orders, he is  not
\neligible  for  enjoying  the  benefits  of  initial appointment and subsequent
\npromotions in the  Food  Corporation  of  India  under  the  Scheduled  Tribes
\ncategory  and therefore the appointment order issued by the Regional Director,
\nSouthern Region, Ministry of Food and Agriculture  Department,  Government  of
\nIndia, Madras  is  cancelled.    The  said  order  is  challenged in this writ
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)   The case of the petitioner is that he  is  a  Scheduled  Tribe
\ncandidate  belonging to Hindu Kurumans community and he produced the community
\ncertificate issued by the competent authority as per the conditions  contained
\nin the  order of appointment dated 19.12.1966.  The petitioner’s two sons have
\nbeen issued with community certificates to the  effect  that  they  belong  to
\nHindu  Kurumans  Community  and  the said certificates were found valid by the
\nDistrict level Caste Scrutiny Committee.  The petitioner also served as  Zonal
\nSecretary  in  the  then  FCI  Class  IV Employees Union and he was one of the
\nNational Negotiating Member for South Zone for the Scheduled Tribes in FCI and
\nalso held high positions in the Food  Corporation  of  India  Executive  Staff
\nUnion, which is a recognised Union.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv)    It  is  stated that because of the petitioner’s involvement in
\nthe Union activities  in  the  year  2005  i.e.,  on  24.10.2005,  the  second
\nrespondent  issued  a show cause notice and called upon the petitioner to show
\ncause before the first respondent as to why action should  not  be  taken  for
\nhaving  failed  to produce the community certificate so far and the petitioner
\nwas directed to produce the same within two days.  The said show cause  notice
\nwas issued to the petitioner before five days of his retirement and thereafter
\non  31.10.2005  the impugned order was passed alleging that the petitioner has
\nnot produced community certificate during the time of his appointment  in  the
\nyear 1966 and also on subsequent three occasions when he was promoted.\n<\/p>\n
        (v)     The  specific  case  of  the petitioner is that he had already
\nproduced the community certificate in the year 1966 itself at the time of  his
\ninitial  appointment  before  the  Regional  Director (Food), Southern Region,
\nMinistry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, Madras,  and  therefore
\nno  demand  can  be  made  to  produce  community certificate on promotion and
\ntherefore the allegation that the petitioner had not  produced  the  community
\ncertificate at  the  time  of  his  subsequent promotions is not tenable.  The
\nreason stated in the impugned order that some squad\/committee was  constituted
\nand  the  same  had  conducted  enquiry and therefore the notice was issued on
\n24.10.2005 is unsustainable  because  neither  the  report  submitted  by  the
\nEnquiry  committee  was forwarded to the petitioner nor he was asked to submit
\nany remarks.  The show cause notice dated 24.10.2005 gives only two days  time
\nto  produce  new community certificate, which is not a reasonable time and the
\nsaid action of the respondents show the  pre-determined  mind  of  the  second
\nrespondent in cancelling petitioner’s appointment.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      The  first respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it
\nis stated that when the petitioner was appointed in the  Regional  Directorate
\nof Food Corporation of India, he was directed to produce community certificate
\nand it was informed that if the condition is not complied with, the appointing
\nauthority has  powers to cancel his appointment without notice.  Subsequent to
\nthe formation  of  Food  Corporation  of  India,  petitioner’s  services  were
\ntransferred  to  the  Corporation  and  he  was  promoted  in the year 1983 on
\ncondition that he should furnish community certificate confirming  his  status
\nas Scheduled  Tribe.    The  contention of the petitioner that he had produced
\ncommunity certificate even at the time of joining in the service in  the  year
\n1966 is  false.  It is further stated that the community certificate issued to
\nthe petitioner’s daughter was cancelled by the District Vigilance Committee in
\nits proceedings dated 20.12.2004 wherein community certificate issued  to  the
\npetitioner’s sons  were  also referred to, though not cancelled.  It is stated
\nthat the petitioner was given several opportunity  to  produce  the  community
\ncertificate, which  the  petitioner willfully failed to produce the same.  The
\nallegations that the principles of natural justice is violated  is  denied  in
\nthe counter affidavit.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      The  learned  counsel appearing for the petitioner, apart from
\nreiterating the contentions  raised  in  the  affidavit,  submitted  that  the
\npetitioner  was  employed  by  the  Government of India and he was permanently
\nabsorbed in the Food Corporation of India without  any  precondition  and  the
\nsecond  respondent  cannot  now  contend  that the petitioner has not produced
\ncommunity certificate before the Regional Director ( Food),  Southern  Region,
\nMinistry of  Food  and  Agriculture,  Government  of  India,  Madras.  Learned
\ncounsel  further  contended  that  by  virtue  of  the  impugned  order,   the
\npetitioner’s  service  from  29.12.1966  to  3  1.10.2005 is nullified and the
\npetitioner’s retirement benefits are denied and therefore  the  said  impugned
\norder  affects  the  civil  rights of the petitioner, for which no enquiry was
\nconducted as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution of  India  and
\nSection 12A of the Food Corporation of India Act.  Therefore, according to the
\nlearned  counsel  for  the  petitioner, the impugned order is unsustainable on
\nseveral grounds.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      The learned counsel for  the  petitioner  cited  the  decision
\nreported in 1993 (2) LW 143 (S.Prabhavathi v.  The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\nThiruppathur)<\/a>  wherein  Hon’ble Mr.Justice AR.Lakshmanan (as he then was) held
\nthat if a person’s close relative belongs to a particular community, the  said
\nperson should also be deemed to belong to the same community.  In the decision
\nreported in AIR  1999  Madras  241  (S.    Natarajan  v.   District Collector,
\nTuticorin) Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.  Subramani<\/a>  held  that  if  the  father  is
\nissued  with  a  community  certificate,  his children are also entitled to be
\nissued with similar community certificate.  The said decision was followed  by
\nthe Hon’ble  Mr.Justice  P.Sathasivam  in  the  case  of  N.Rajeswari  v.  The
\nDistrict Collector,  Nellai  Kattabomman  District,  Tirunelveli  and  Others,<\/a>
\nreported in (2000 ) 1 MLJ 267.  In the said decision this Court held that if a
\nclose  relative  of a person is given a certificate by the competent authority
\ncertifying that he belongs to a particular community, the community status  of
\nthe relative  cannot  be  doubted.  The learned counsel also submitted that in
\nthe decision reported in JT 1997 (7) SC 660 (R.    Kandasamy  v.    The  Chief
\nEngineer,  Madras  Port  Trust)  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court<\/a> held that the
\ncommunity certificate issued by the competent authority so long as are not set
\naside, the same will hold good for all purposes and every authority  is  bound
\nto accept the same as valid.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The  learned  counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated
\nthe contentions raised in the counter affidavit and cited the decision of  the
\nHonourable Supreme  Court reported in (2004) 2 SCC 105 (R.  Vishwanatha Pillai
\nv.  State of Kerala) and<\/a> (2005) 7 SCC  690  (Bank  of  India  and  another  v.
\nAvinash  D.Mandivikar  and  others)  to  show  that if an appointment order is
\nobtained by producing a false community certificate by a person holding  civil
\npost,  he  can  be  dismissed  without  following  the  due  process of law as
\nconferred under Article 311 of Constitution of India as the appointment  order
\nitself is a nullity.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      I  have  considered  the rival submissions made by the learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.
\nThe appointment order issued  to  the  petitioner  by  the  Regional  Director
\n(Food),   Southern  Region,  Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture  Department,
\nGovernment of India, Madras-6 dated 19.12.1966  states  that  the  appointment
\nwill be subject to production of certain documents at the time of reporting to
\nduty.   One  of  the  document  required  to be submitted, as per clause 7 was
\nCommunity Certificate in the prescribed form  in  respect  of  the  candidates
\nclaims to be SC, ST or Anglo Indian community.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had produced
\nthe  community  certificate  before  the  Regional  Director  (Food), Southern
\nRegion, Madras-6, even at the time of joining duty and the same  was  accepted
\nand  the  petitioner’s  service  was  also  confirmed by the Regional Director
\n(Food),  Southern  Region,  Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture   Department,
\nMadras-6.   The  service  register  dated  2.8.1967 maintained by the Regional
\nDirector of Southern Region clearly states that the petitioner is a Hindu  ST.
\nThe  respondent  Corporation  passed  an order on 28.7.1977 wherein 74 persons
\nwere absorbed in the services of FCI and they are regularly appointed  to  the
\npost  shown  in Column No.5 and are confirmed from the date shown against each
\nin terms of regulation 5(5) of FCI Staff Regulation.    Petitioner’s  name  is
\nfound in  Sl.No.5 in the list of persons.  The said confirmation order nowhere
\ncontain a condition that the person should produce  community  certificate  or
\ntheir confirmation  is  subject  to production of community certificate.  Now,
\nthe petitioner is on dialysis twice a week and a certificate dated 2.3.2004 to
\nthis effect is produced  from  Dr.V.Siranjeevi,  Professor  and  Head  of  the
\nDepartment of Nephrology, Kilpauk Medical College, Kilpauk, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the file
\non  circulation  which  contains  the appointment order issued by the Regional
\nDirector (Food), Southern Region, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government
\nof India,  Madras,  dated  19.12.1966,  the  promotion  order  issued  to  the
\npetitioner  on  22.12.1992  by the first respondent, the promotion order dated
\n23.12.2000 issued by the first respondent and final promotion order issued  on
\n19.1.2001.   Only  in  the  final promotion order dated 19.1.2001 it is stated
\nthat the  candidates  promoted  against  the  reserved  points  including  the
\npetitioner shall produce latest community certificate within a month.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     As  rightly  argued  by the learned counsel for the petitioner
\nsubmitted that pursuant to the Supreme court  decision  JT  1997  (7)  SC  660
\n(cited  above),  the community certificate issued once, so long as the same is
\nnot cancelled, is valid for all purposes  and  every  authority  is  bound  to
\naccept  the  same  as  valid  and  th  erefore  the  request made by the first
\nrespondent in the year 2001 to produce the latest community certificate is not
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     The decision cited by the learned counsel for  the  petitioner
\nfully  supports  his  case  particularly  when  the  cancellation of community
\ncertificate of petitioner’s daughter is not valid in the eye  of  law  because
\nthe  said  cancellation  is made by two member Committee, which is contrary to
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 =  (1994)  6  SCC
\n241 (Kumari  Madhuri  Patil  and  another  v.  Additional Commissioner, Tribal
\nDevelopment and others).  The Government itself accepted the said position and
\nissued a revised order in G.O.Ms.  No.111 dated 26.10.2005 and  constituted  a
\nthree member Committee to verify the community status of the candidates.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The  decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents
\nare clearly distinguishable since in the said cases the  community  status  of
\nthe   candidates   were   verified   by  the  competent  authorities  and  the
\ncancellations were found valid  by  the  High  Court  of  Kerala  and  by  the
\nHonourable Supreme  Court.   Para 11 of the decision reported in (20 04) 2 SCC
\n105 (cited supra) can be usefully referred to for proper appreciation  of  the
\nfacts in the said decision, which reads as under,
\n        “In  Kumari  Madhuri Patil case ((1994) 6 SCC 241) the admissions were
\ntaken by two sisters to professional courses  on  the  basis  of  false  caste
\ncertificates produced by them, which were cancelled after the report submitted
\nby  the Verification Committee to the effect that the certificates produced by
\nthe appellants therein were false and that the appellants did  not  belong  to
\nScheduled Caste\/Scheduled Tribe.  The Court observed that all citizens were to
\nbe treated equally.  That the Constitution guaranteed to the citizens equality
\nbefore law  and  the  equal  protection  of law.  Though Articles 14 and 15(1)
\nprohibit discrimination among citizens but Article 15(4) empowers the State to
\nmake special provisions for advancement  of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled
\nTribes.  Article 16(1) requires equality of opportunity to all citizens in the
\nmatters  of  appointment  to  an  office  or a post under the Union or a State
\nGovernment or a public undertaking etc.  But Article 16(4) empowers the  State
\nto make provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of castes
\nnot adequately  represented  in  the  services  under  the  State.    That the
\nadmission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false
\nsocial status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the  genuine
\nScheduled  Caste  or  Scheduled  Tribe  or  OBC  candidates as enjoined in the
\nConstitution,  of  the  benefits  conferred  on  them  by  the   Constitution.
\nThereafter,  the  Court laid down the procedure for the grant of social status
\ncertificate,  its  due  verification  and  the  examination  by  the  Scrutiny
\nCommittee of  its  genuineness.    If the certificate was found to be genuine,
\nthen no further action was required to be taken but if the  caste  certificate
\nproduced was found to be false or fraudulently obtained, then immediate action
\nwas required  to  be  taken.   The findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee
\nwere made final and conclusive which could not be challenged in  any  suit  or
\nany proceedings except in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nof India.  The Scrutiny committee was required to communicate its report under
\na  registered  cover  to the educational institution as well as the appointing
\nauthority.  The educational institution or the appointing authority on receipt
\nof the said report was required to cancel the admission\/  appointment  without
\nany  further  notice  to  the  candidate  and debar the candidate from further
\nstudying or continuing in office in a post.  This was  done  to  simplify  the
\nprocedure  for grant of the social status certificate as well as its scrutiny,
\nand, if found to be false, the followup action to  be  taken.    It  was  done
\nprimarily  for  quick  disposal  of such matters so that the genuine Scheduled
\nCaste and Scheduled Tribe persons are not deprived of the  benefits  conferred
\non them under the Constitution of India and to debar the non-genuine Scheduled
\nCastes  and  Scheduled  tribes  from taking advantage of the benefit conferred
\nunder the Constitution on the basis of false  caste  certificate  obtained  by
\nthem by committing a fraud.  The persons who had obtained admission or got the
\nappointment on the basis of false caste certificate thereby usurping the seat\/
\npost  reserved  for  the Schedule Castes\/ Scheduled Tribes were required to be
\nweeded out by prompt action.  It was held (SCC p.254, para 13)
\n        “13.    The admission wrongly gained or appointment  wrongly  obtained
\non  the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of
\ndepriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or  OBC  candidates
\nas  enjoined  in  the  Constitution  of  the benefits conferred on them by the
\nConstitution.  The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational
\ninstitutions or appointments to office or posts under  a  State  for  want  of
\nsocial status  certificate.    The  ineligible or spurious persons who falsely
\ngained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles  in  completion  of
\nthe inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee.  It is true that the applications for
\nadmission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on
\nthat date  many  a  time  the student may be a minor.  It is the parent or the
\nguardian who may play  fraud  claiming  false  status  certificate.    It  is,
\ntherefore,  necessary  that  the  certificates  issued  are scrutinised at the
\nearliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude.” ”\n<\/p>\n
        13.     In the decision reported in (2005) 7  SCC  690  (cited  supra)
\nalso  the  facts  are  that  the  duly  constituted  committee  found that the
\ncandidate was not belonged to that community and  in  such  a  situation,  the
\nHonourable  Supreme  Court held that the appointment obtained by the candidate
\nwas not valid and mere delay in  making  verification  will  not  justify  the
\ncandidate for  reinstatement.  It is specifically held that the finding of the
\nScrutiny Committee having been accepted, the delay in making  reference  loses
\nits significance.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     Here  in  this  case,  petitioner’s  community  status was not
\ndetermined by any duly constituted Committee as if he  do  not  belong  to  ST
\ncommunity.   Therefore  the said decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court are
\nfactually not applicable to the facts in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     Taking into consideration the over  all  view  of  the  matter
\nincluding  the  confirmation  order  given by the respondents in the year 1977
\nwhile absorbing the petitioner along with other employees in the FCI, I am  of
\nthe  firm  view  that  the  request  of the respondents to produce a community
\ncertificate just six days prior to the date of his retirement is  unauthorised
\nsince  it  is  not  proved  that  the  petitioner  has  not produced community
\ncertificate before the Regional Director ( Food), Southern Region, Ministry of
\nFood and Agriculture, Government of India, Madras-6, in the year 1966.    Even
\nassuming the petitioner has not produced the community certificate in the year
\n1966  as  per the condition in the appointment order, petitioner’s appointment
\ncould have been cancelled then itself  by  the  authority  who  appointed  the
\npetitioner.   Therefore  the contention of the respondents that the petitioner
\nhas not produced the community certificate before the appointing authority  is
\nnot justified.    The  said  conclusion is arrived at by the second respondent
\nonly on presumption.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     For  the  reasons  stated  above,  the  impugned  order  dated
\n31.10.200  5  is  set  aside  and  the  respondents  are directed to treat the
\npetitioner as retired from service from 31.10.2005.  All  retirement  benefits
\npayable  to the petitioner shall be calculated and paid to him within a period
\nof eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
        The writ petition is ordered in the above terms.  No costs.  Connected
\nmiscellaneous petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
vr<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.      The Zonal Manager (South),
\n        Food Corporation of India,
\n        Zonal Office,
\n        No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.\n<\/p>\n
2.      The Deputy General Manager (Personnel),
\n        Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office,
\n        No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai 6.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/07\/2006 Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR Writ Petition No.10556 of 2006 W.P.M.P.No.11939 of 2006 W.P.M.P.No.11940 of 2006 S. Srinivasalu …Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Food Corporation of India, rep.by its Zonal Manager (South), Zonal […]<\/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-80265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - 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\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-07T06:24:01+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T06:24:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3174,\"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\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\",\"name\":\"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-07T06:24:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - 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\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-07T06:24:01+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T06:24:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006"},"wordCount":3174,"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\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006","name":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-07T06:24:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-srinivasalu-vs-the-food-corporation-on-21-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Srinivasalu vs The Food Corporation on 21 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/80265","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=80265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}