{"id":91717,"date":"2005-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005"},"modified":"2014-04-24T05:28:12","modified_gmt":"2014-04-23T23:58:12","slug":"union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 20\/07\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM   \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM    \n\nW.P. No. 8173 of 2001 \nand W.P.Nos., 1411 and 1417 of 2000  \nand \nW.P.M.P.No. 2097 of 2000  \n\n\nW.P.No. 8173\/2001  \n1. Union of India,\n   represented by its Secretary,\n   Railway Board, Railway Bhavan,\n   New Delhi.\n\n2. The General Manager, \n   Southern Railway, Madras-3.\n\n3. The Chief Personnel Officer,\n   Southern Railway, Madras.\n\n4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,\n   Southern Railway, Madras Division,\n   Chennai-3.\n\n5. The Division Railway Manager,\n   Madras Division, Southern Railway,\n   Madras. .. Petitioners.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar,\n   Central Administrative Tribunal,\n   Madras.\n\n2. K. Yesudasan. .. Respondents. <\/pre>\n<p>W.P.No. 1411\/2000  <\/p>\n<p>1. Union of India,<br \/>\n   represented by its Secretary,<br \/>\n   Railway Board, Railway Bhavan,<br \/>\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The General Manager,<br \/>\n   Southern Railway, Madras-3.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Chief Personnel Officer,<br \/>\n   Southern Railway, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Divisional Railway Manager,<br \/>\n   Chennai Division, Southern Railway,<br \/>\n   Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. The Assistant Engineer,<br \/>\n   Assistant Engineer SPE, Southern Railway,<br \/>\n   Soolurpettai. .. Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>Vs.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. S. Neelakandan,\n<\/p>\n<p>2. V. Dhanapal,\n<\/p>\n<p>3. T. Ramachandran,\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Dhara Srinivasal,\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Dara Pullaiah,\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Central Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\n   Chennai. .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>W.P.No. 1417\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Union of India,<br \/>\n   represented by its Secretary,<br \/>\n   Railway Board, Railway Bhavan,<br \/>\n   New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The General Manager,<br \/>\n   Southern Railway, Madras-3.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. The Chief Personnel Officer,<br \/>\n   Southern Railway, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. The Divisional Railway Manager,<br \/>\n   Chennai Division, Southern Railway,<br \/>\n   Chennai-3.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                         .. Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>                          Vs.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. Manickam,\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Palanivlelu,\n<\/p>\n<p>3. K. Kesavan,\n<\/p>\n<p>4. P. Masilamani,\n<\/p>\n<p>5. V. Viswanathan,\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Punniyakodi,\n<\/p>\n<p>7. A. Ahmed Basha,\n<\/p>\n<p>8. M. Natarajan,\n<\/p>\n<p>9. V.N. Velayudham,\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Gandhi,\n<\/p>\n<p>11. Srinivasan,\n<\/p>\n<p>12. R. Duraiveli,\n<\/p>\n<p>13. Central Administrative Tribunal,<br \/>\n    Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       .. Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India,<br \/>\nfor  issuance  of  Writs  of  Certiorari,  calling  for  entire records of the<br \/>\nimpugned order in O.A.No.   784\/98  dated  8-1-2001;  O.A.No.    648\/97  dated<br \/>\n10-3-99; and  O.A.No.    371\/96  dated  10-3-1999  respectively on the file of<br \/>\nCentral Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and quash the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>!Mr.  T.S.  Sivagnanam, Standing counsel for<br \/>\nRailways :- For petitioner in W.P.No.\n<\/p>\n<p>8173\/2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.  V.G.  Sureshkumar:- For petitioners in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.  1411 and 1417\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>^Mr.  R.  Ramesh:- For 2nd Respondent in<br \/>\nW.P.8173\/2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>No appearance for respondents in W.P.Nos.<br \/>\n1411m and 1417\/2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<br \/>\n(Order of Court was made by P.  Sathasivam, J.,)<\/p>\n<p>        Southern Railway and its Officers are the  petitioners  in  the  above<br \/>\nWrit Petitions.  W.P.No.  8173 of 2001 has been filed against the order of the<br \/>\nCentral  Administrative  Tribunal,  Madras  dated  08-01-2001  made in O.A.No.<br \/>\n784\/98 wherein the Tribunal directed the Railway  administration  to  consider<br \/>\nthe case of the applicant for regularisation under the decasualisation scheme.<br \/>\nAgainst the  grant  of  similar directions in O.A.Nos.  648\/97 and 371\/96, the<br \/>\nRailway administration has also preferred W.P.Nos.  1411 and 1417 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  First we shall consider W.P.No.  8173 of 2001.  In this case,  the<br \/>\nsecond respondent herein, namely, K.  Yesudasan filed O.A.No.  784\/1998 before<br \/>\nthe  Central  Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench praying for a direction to<br \/>\nregularise his service in the scale of Rs.950-1500 on  par  with  juniors  who<br \/>\nwere  regularised in the decasualisation vacancies in the scale of Rs.950-1500<br \/>\nand grant of all consequential benefits.  It is the case of the applicant that<br \/>\nhe was originally engaged as a casual labourer on daily wage basis.    He  was<br \/>\nsubsequently   granted   temporary  status  with  effect  from  11-3-1977  and<br \/>\nthereafter he was granted C.P.C scale of pay in scale Rs.196-232  from  casual<br \/>\nlabourer.   He  was  promoted  as  C.P.C  Looter in the scale of pay of Rs.950\n<\/p>\n<p>-1500.  Previously he was appointed as Gangman with effect from 16-3-89 in the<br \/>\npay scale of Rs.775-1025.  Thereafter, the applicant became a regular  railway<br \/>\nservant.   The  applicant  was  promoted  as  Senior  Gangman with effect from<br \/>\n01-04-89 in the scale of pay of Rs.800-1150.  It is the claim of the applicant<br \/>\nthat when the department had implemented  the  scheme  of  decasualisation  of<br \/>\ncasual  labourer, he was excluded from the decasualisation list even though he<br \/>\nwas  senior  to  many  casual  labourers,  who  have  been  decasualised   and<br \/>\nempanelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Before the Tribunal, Railway administration filed a reply stating<br \/>\nthat the applicant belonged to a Trade i.e., Looter which does not  figure  in<br \/>\nthe  list  of artisans grade and, therefore, his name cannot be considered for<br \/>\nextension  of  the  benefit  under  the  decasualisation  scheme   which   was<br \/>\nimplemented in  1992-93.    It is also the claim of the Railway administration<br \/>\nthat his application is barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The Tribunal, after finding  that  the  Looter  is  a  person  who<br \/>\neffectively  assists  the  Welder,  is  fit  enough to classify as an Artisan,<br \/>\ndirected to consider the  case  of  the  applicant  for  regularisation  under<br \/>\ndecasualisation scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Mr.   T.S.    Sivagnanam,  Additional  Central Government Standing<br \/>\ncounsel, by drawing our attention to decasualisation scheme and also  pointing<br \/>\nout  that  inasmuch as the applicant was a permanent employee i.e., Gangman in<br \/>\nthe scale of pay of  Rs.775-1025,  he  was  not  coming  within  the  zone  of<br \/>\nconsideration  with  reference  to  the  number  of  posts allotted as part of<br \/>\ndecasualisation scheme, contended that the  Tribunal  committed  an  error  in<br \/>\npassing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   There is no dispute regarding the scheme, namely, decasualisation<br \/>\nscheme brought out by the Railway administration for the  benefit  of  casuals<br \/>\nworking in  the Railways for several years.  According to the Railway counsel,<br \/>\nthe said scheme is applicable only to Artisans, namely, those who were engaged<br \/>\nin manual, mechanical skilled work.  He also brought to our  notice  that  the<br \/>\nartisans are engaged in the Engineering department in the following trades:(1)<br \/>\nDriver; (2) Hammerman; (3) Welder; (4) Fitter; (5) Moulder; (6) Carpenter; (7)<br \/>\nBricklayer; (8)  Blacksmith;  (9) Painter; (10) Plumber.  It is also the claim<br \/>\nof the Railway administration that inasmuch as the scheme  does  not  envisage<br \/>\nLooter, the  direction issued by the Tribunal cannot be sustained.  It is also<br \/>\nbrought to our notice that the decasualisation  scheme  should  go  to  casual<br \/>\nlabour  artisans  only  and  it  should not be diverted to the employee in the<br \/>\nregular stream.  In this regard, it is relevant to refer the  reply  statement<br \/>\nof   the  Railway  administration  filed  before  the  Central  Administrative<br \/>\nTribunal.  In para 4 it is stated that &#8220;&#8230;  The name of the applicant was not<br \/>\nconsidered when absorption against posts created under decasualisation  scheme<br \/>\nas  he  was  permanent  employee  and  he  did  not  come  within  the zone of<br \/>\nconsideration with reference  to  the  number  of  posts  allotted  under  the<br \/>\ndecasualisation&#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Again,  in  the  same  paragraph,  it  is stated that &#8220;&#8230;As the applicant was<br \/>\nworking as CPC Luter prior to his  empanelment  as  gangman  which  is  a  non<br \/>\nstandard post, he could not also be considered under para 1 ( c) which has not<br \/>\nbeen quashed by the Hon&#8217;ble Tribunal.&#8221; In para 6 (g) it is specifically stated<br \/>\nthat  &#8220;The  respondents  submit that none of the Gangmen were absorbed against<br \/>\nthe posts sanctioned under decasualisation scheme, however,  the  Gangmen  who<br \/>\nwere  absorbed  on  or after 1.1 .82 and previously holding the Artisans posts<br \/>\n(Standard) were considered in terms of para 1 (C) of CPO\/MAS Lr.  dt.  14-8-91<br \/>\nand it is further denied that none of the candidates who have been absorbed as<br \/>\nArtisan were not subjected to trade test&#8230;&#8221; Though the applicant has filed  a<br \/>\ncounter  disputing  the  same,  inasmuch  as  the  information  given  by  the<br \/>\ndepartment is based on the records, as rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned<br \/>\nAdditional  Central  Government  Standing counsel, the same cannot be ignored.<br \/>\nUnfortunately, the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant information in the<br \/>\nreply affidavit.  Inasmuch as the post &#8221; Looter&#8221; has not been included in  the<br \/>\nscheme  of  decasualisation  and also taking note of the specific assertion in<br \/>\nthe affidavit that the applicant  was  a  Gangman  in  the  scale  of  pay  of<br \/>\nRs.950-1025  on  the  date of the scheme, we are of the view that the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas committed an error in issuing direction for absorption  in  terms  of  the<br \/>\nscheme for decasualisation.  We are also satisfied that the Tribunal failed to<br \/>\nnote  that  the  applicant was not eligible to be considered for absorption in<br \/>\nthe decasualisation scheme as he was permanently absorbed as Gangman when  the<br \/>\ndecasualisation scheme  was  introduced.    Even otherwise, as rightly pointed<br \/>\nout, the applicant was working only as C.P.C Lotter and could not be fitted in<br \/>\nthe  category  of  Welder  for  being  eligible  for  consideration   in   the<br \/>\ndecasualisation scheme and merely because he had assisted the Welder, he could<br \/>\nnot be  placed  in the category of Welder.  As rightly pointed out, the scheme<br \/>\ncannot be expanded by the Tribunal\/Courts by  giving  liberal  interpretation.<br \/>\nThough   learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  second  respondent  vehemently<br \/>\ncontended that even now the second respondent is in the  same  scale  of  pay,<br \/>\nthat may  not  be a ground to sustain the order of the Tribunal.  However, the<br \/>\nsecond respondent herein is free to vindicate his grievance in respect of  his<br \/>\nstagnation  if  any before the appropriate authority by making representation.<br \/>\nHowever, the impugned  order  of  the  Tribunal  dated  8  -1-2001  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Coming to W.P.Nos.  1411 and 1417 of 2000, Mr.  V.G.  Sureshkumar,<br \/>\nlearned  counsel  appearing for the Railway administration, has brought to our<br \/>\nnotice that all the applicants\/respondents herein were  subsequently  absorbed<br \/>\nand  in  such  a  circumstance,  according  to  him,  the  applicants  have no<br \/>\ngrievance.  He also  brought  to  our  notice  various  implementation  orders<br \/>\nabsorbing the  applicants  concerned.   In the light of the above position, we<br \/>\nfeel no further adjudication\/orders are required in these two writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Net result, Writ Petition No.  8173 of  2001  is  allowed.    Writ<br \/>\nPetition Nos.   1411  and 1417 of 2000 are disposed of on the above terms.  No<br \/>\ncosts.  W.P.M.P.No.  2097\/2000 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>R.B.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:-Yes<br \/>\nInternet:- Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:-\n<\/p>\n<p>The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20\/07\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM W.P. No. 8173 of 2001 and W.P.Nos., 1411 and 1417 of 2000 and W.P.M.P.No. 2097 of 2000 W.P.No. [&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-91717","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>Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-23T23:58:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-23T23:58:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1502,\"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\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-23T23:58:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - 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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-23T23:58:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-23T23:58:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005"},"wordCount":1502,"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\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005","name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-23T23:58:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-the-registrar-on-20-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs The Registrar on 20 July, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91717","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=91717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}