{"id":89831,"date":"2007-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007"},"modified":"2017-07-09T21:38:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-09T16:08:00","slug":"p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 22\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.87 of 2007\n\n\nP.Chellaiah,\nS\/o.Palanivel\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government\n  of Tamil Nadu,\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,\n  Fort St.George,\n  Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The District Collector and\n  District Magistrate,\n  Pudukkottai,\n  Pudukkottai District.\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\t\tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus by calling for the records relating to order\nin P.D.O.No.5\/2007 dated 12.02.2007, passed by the second respondent and quash\nthe same and consequently set the detenu by name Manoharan, confined at Central\nPrison, Trichy, at liberty.\n\n\n!For Petitioner   ...  Mr.D.Sadiq Raja\n\n^For Respondents  ...  Mr.N.Senthur Pandian,\n\t\t       Addl.Public Prosecutor.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t  (Order of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN,J)<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe petitioner is the father of the detenu by name Manoharan, who<br \/>\nhas been detained under the Tamilnadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of<br \/>\nBoot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic<br \/>\nOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamilnadu<br \/>\nAct 14 of 1982), branding him as a &#8220;Sand Offender&#8221;.  The said order of<br \/>\ndetention, dated 12.02.2007, passed by the second respondent is challenged in<br \/>\nthis habeas corpus petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.The detention order has been clamped on the petitioner&#8217;s son based<br \/>\non the following materials as found in the grounds of detention.<br \/>\n\t&#8220;3. &#8230;.  On 27-01-2007, early morning, the Inspector of Police, Alangudi<br \/>\nP.S. along with his police party while conducting night rounds, received an<br \/>\ninformation from the superior officers stating that the police party should also<br \/>\nbe kept surveillance to detect the illicit mining and transportation of sand<br \/>\nfrom the river beds. Hence the police party rushed to Sammattividuthi diversion<br \/>\nroad and then proceeded to Karambakkudi to Pudukkottai Road, found a tractor<br \/>\nbearing Registration No.TN 50 &#8211; A 5112 and a tipper loaded with full of sand was<br \/>\nstanding near Sammattividuthi diversion road.  On examination of the tipper of<br \/>\nthe tractor found full of sand.  Hence the Inspector of Police interrogated the<br \/>\ndriver Manoharan about the mining and transportation of sand.  He has stated<br \/>\nthat he is transporting the sand to the building contractors and selling open<br \/>\nmarket for the past 1 year and now also he is transporting the same for the sale<br \/>\nto the building contractors.  He has no valid permit or license from the<br \/>\nGovernment.  He also gave a confession statement about the commission of offence<br \/>\ncommitted by him.  In his statement he has stated that he illicitly mined from<br \/>\nAgni River.  Hence Inspector of Police, Alangudi arrested the accused, seized<br \/>\nthe trailer and tipper along with the sand under a cover of mahazar attested by<br \/>\npolice as no general public come forward to sign in the mahazar.  The reason for<br \/>\nthe arrest was informed to him and all matters relating to his arrest was also<br \/>\ninformed to his relative.  He was brought to station, registered a case in<br \/>\nAlangudi P.S. Cr.No.29\/2007 u\/s 379 IPC r\/w 21(1)(a)(b) of Tamil Nadu Mines and<br \/>\nMinerals (Regulation) Act, 1957.  he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nAlangudi for remand.  As ordered by the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, he was<br \/>\nremanded and lodged at the District Prison, Pudukkottai till 09.02.2007.  The<br \/>\nremand has been further extended upto 23-02-2007.  He has moved a bail<br \/>\napplication before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, which was dismissed vide<br \/>\nC.M.P.No.304\/07, dated 03-02-2007.  The case is under investigation.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted<br \/>\nthat on 05.02.2007 a bail application was filed in Cr.M.P.No.366\/2007 on the<br \/>\nfile of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, on behalf of the detenu<br \/>\nseeking bail.  The said application was ordered on 13.02.2007.  However, on the<br \/>\ndate when the detention order was passed, namely 12.02.2007, the said<br \/>\napplication was pending.  The detaining  authority  had  not  applied  his  mind<br \/>\nas  to the<br \/>\npendency of the said bail application.  It is the further submission of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel that the fact that the pendency of the bail application has<br \/>\nrelevance in the wake of the allegations made in the petition, namely that when<br \/>\na special enactment has been invoked to deal with the offences alleged to have<br \/>\nbeen committed by the detenu, invoking general provisions of the Indian Penal<br \/>\nCourt is meaningless and therefore the police officer has no competence to deal<br \/>\nwith the cases punishable under the provisions of Mines and Minerals<br \/>\n(Regulation) Act, 1957 or the State Regulations.  He would also contend that in<br \/>\nfact, accepting the same, the Public Prosecutor had conceded for the grant of<br \/>\nbail and submitted before the learned Principal Sessions Judge that he has no<br \/>\nobjection. To substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel produced a<br \/>\ncopy of the bail order dated 13.02.2007.  It is the further contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel that had this application for bail was placed before the<br \/>\ndetaining authority, he could not have satisfied himself to pass the impugned<br \/>\norder of detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor however submitted that in<br \/>\nthe absence of the knowledge on the part of the detaining authority as to the<br \/>\npendency of the bail application, the detention order cannot be questioned on<br \/>\nthe ground of non-application of mind to the said fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.We have carefully considered the above rival submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.We must firstly state the law on this point.  It is well settled<br \/>\nin law that the detaining authority is bound to consider all the relevant<br \/>\nmaterials placed before him, before arriving  satisfaction to pass an order of<br \/>\ndetention.  There may be materials which may be merely referred to by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority and there may be some materials which may be actually relied<br \/>\nupon by the detaining authority to pass the detention order.  In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the question whether<br \/>\nthe bail application said to have been filed by the detenu before the learned<br \/>\nPrincipal Sessions Judge on 05.02.2007 could be treated as a document relied<br \/>\nupon or referred to.  Factually, the detaining authority could satisfactorily<br \/>\nexplain that in the absence of knowledge as to the pendency of bail application<br \/>\ndated 05.02.2007 naturally he could not have applied his mind to the said<br \/>\npendency of bail application.  It is not the case of the petitioner that inspite<br \/>\nof the sponsoring authority forwarded the bail application, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority has not considered the same and applied his mind.  In fact, it is the<br \/>\ncase of the respondents as well that the pendency of bail application was not<br \/>\nwithin the knowledge of the detaining authority.  In such circumstances, the<br \/>\nquestion of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as to<br \/>\nthe pendency of the bail<br \/>\napplication on the date when the detention order was passed cannot be accepted<br \/>\nand consequently the detention order cannot be set aside on that ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.However, the question does not end there.  It is equally well<br \/>\nsettled in law that while the sponsoring authority sponsors for detention of a<br \/>\nperson to the detaining authority, it should place all the materials available<br \/>\nbefore it to the detaining authority to enable the detaining authority to apply<br \/>\nits mind with regard to those materials.  In case, if the sponsoring authority<br \/>\nwithin whose knowledge certain materials were available had not forwarded the<br \/>\nsame to the detaining authority the order of detention would also get vitiated<br \/>\non the ground that the sponsoring authority has not placed all the relevant<br \/>\nmaterials before the detaining authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.On the above broad principles, the facts of the case should be<br \/>\nlooked into.  It is the specific case of the petitioner that a bail application<br \/>\nwas filed on 05.02.2007 and the same was disposed of on 13.02.2007 by the<br \/>\nlearned Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and the said application was<br \/>\ndisposed of after hearing the Public Prosecutor.  A copy of the order granting<br \/>\nbail dated 13.02.2007 was placed before us.  In the above facts, it could<br \/>\nreasonably be presumed that the pendency of the bail application filed by the on<br \/>\nbehalf of the detenu on 05.02.2007 was well within the knowledge of the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority.  Even, in case, the respondent police in the bail<br \/>\napplication was represented by Public Prosecutor, the burden is on the detenu to<br \/>\nestablish that the respondent police had actual knowledge of the pendency of the<br \/>\nbail application.  But, that also depends upon the facts of each case.  Learned<br \/>\nAdditional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents before us,<br \/>\nin all fairness submitted that in all probabilities it could be presumed that<br \/>\nthe appearance of the Public Prosecutor before the Principal Sessions Judge was<br \/>\non instruction from the respondent police.  In that case, when the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority had sworn to the affidavit on 10.02.2007, not only he would have<br \/>\nknowledge of the pendency of the bail application, the non-furnishing of the<br \/>\nsaid material to the detaining authority would certainly amount to  either<br \/>\nsuppressing or withholding materials from the consideration of the same by the<br \/>\ndetaining authority.  On this ground the petitioner has to succeed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.The non-supply of this material to the detaining authority assumes<br \/>\nimportance in this case, more particularly when the offences alleged are to be<br \/>\ntaken cognizance by the authorities empowered under the Mines and Minerals<br \/>\n(Development Regulation) Act, 1957 (Central Act) and the Tamil Nadu Minor<br \/>\nMineral Concession Rules, 1959.  In fact, a question as to whether a police<br \/>\nofficer could exercise his power under the above enactments whenever a violation<br \/>\nof illegal quarrying of mining is noticed came up for consideration in the<br \/>\njudgment reported in (2006) 2 M.L.J. (Crl.) 115 &#8211; D.Sudharshan  v.  State and<br \/>\nthis Court has held that when special enactment has been invoked to deal with<br \/>\nsuch offences, invoking general provisions of Indian Penal Code will be<br \/>\nmeaningless and the special enactment will override the general provisions of<br \/>\nlaw and specific provision will override the other provisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.Probably the case should have taken cognizance by the police and<br \/>\ntherefore the learned Public Prosecutor, in all fairness, should have submitted<br \/>\nthat there was no objection for granting bail to the detenu.  Had this material<br \/>\nwas placed before the detaining authority, i.e. a ground for seeking bail, it<br \/>\ncould have weighed in the mind of the detaining authority, either way, before<br \/>\npassing the order of detention.  In the circumstances, non-placement of this<br \/>\nmaterial before the detaining authority would certainly infringe the right of<br \/>\nthe detenu for a detailed consideration on the part of the detaining authority<br \/>\nbefore passing the order of detention.  Hence for all the above reasons, we find<br \/>\nmerit in the above contention made on behalf of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order<br \/>\nof detention dated 12.02.2007 passed by the second respondent in P.D.O.No.5\/2007<br \/>\nis quashed.  The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his<br \/>\ncustody is required in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Secretary to Government<br \/>\n    of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\n  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,<br \/>\n  Fort St.George,<br \/>\n  Chennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Collector and<br \/>\n   District Magistrate,<br \/>\n  Pudukkottai,<br \/>\n  Pudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,<br \/>\n  Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.MURUGESAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No.87 of 2007 P.Chellaiah, S\/o.Palanivel &#8230; Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition [&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-89831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - 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\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-09T16:08:00+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\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T16:08:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1729,\"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\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-09T16:08:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - 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\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-09T16:08:00+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\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T16:08:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007"},"wordCount":1729,"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\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007","name":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-09T16:08:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-chellaiah-vs-the-secretary-to-government-on-22-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Chellaiah vs The Secretary To Government on 22 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/89831","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=89831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}