{"id":97721,"date":"2006-04-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-04T11:01:52","modified_gmt":"2018-10-04T05:31:52","slug":"raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 19\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN        \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.2972 of 2001  \n\n\n1.Raghavan \n2.Thirumalai\n3.Parthasarathy\n4.Ramarao  \n5.Lakshmi                                          ..Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Metropolitan Water Supply \n& Sewerage Board, Chennai  \nthrough its Managing Director\nNo.1, Pumping  Station Road \nChintadripet, Chennai.                          ..Respondent\n\n\n                Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25  of  the  Tamil\nNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended against the\nfair and decreetal orders dated 29.3.2001 passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 1995 on the\nfile  of  the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee confirming the fair and decreetal\norders dated 17.10.1994 made in R.C.O.P.150 of 1995 by  the  Rent  Controller,\nPoonamallee. \n\n!For Petitioners :  Mr.V.  Raghavachari\n                for Mr.A.M.Krishnamoorthy\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.K.N.Pandian. \n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
                Aggrieved by the order of the Subordinate  Judge,  Poonamallee
\npassed  in  R.C.A.No.12  of  1995, dated 29.3.2001 confirming the order of the
\nRent  Controller,  Poonamallee  passed  in  R.C.O.P.No.150  of   1985,   dated
\n17.10.1994, the petitioners have come forward with this revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   The  petitioners  are  the  legal  representatives of one
\nSivalingam, who was the tenant under the Madras Metropolitan Water Supply  and
\nSewerage  Board,  Madras,  which  filed  a petition in R.C.O.P.No.150 of 1 985
\nunder  Section  10(2)(i)  of  the  Rent   Control   Act   for   evicting   the
\nrespondent\/tenant from the premises.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   Initially,  the  said  Sivalingam  was a tenant under the
\nCorporation of Madras for the monthly rent of Rs.20\/- and after the  formation
\nof  the respondent Board in the year 1978, the said premises was taken over by
\nthe Board.  Since the said Sivalingam has committed default in paying the rent
\nRs.20\/- per month from 1.8.1978 to 1.9.198 4 amounting to Rs.1440\/-, a  notice
\nwas sent to the tenant asking him to vacate from the premises.  Since the said
\nnotice  was  returned with an endorsement that no such person was available in
\nthe said address, the respondent has filed the petition in R.C.O.P.  No.150 of
\n1985 on the file of the District Munsif  Court,  Poonamallee.    Subsequently,
\nsince  the  said  Sivalingam  died,  his  legal  representatives,  who are the
\nrevision petitioners herein, were impleaded.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Denying the averments made in the petition, the respondent
\nfiled a counter stating that there is no relationship of landlord  and  tenant
\nbetween the  petitioners  and the respondent.  The petitioners\/ tenants occupy
\nthe premises on the basis of their own right.  The rent  control  act  is  not
\napplicable  to  the  suit  premises as the premises is not situated within the
\nmunicipal limit.  Moreover, it is not a notified village.  The rent controller
\nhas no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.    Hence,  the  petition  is
\nliable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   Based  on  the  ground of wilful default committed by the
\npetitioners in paying the rent, eviction was ordered by  the  Rent  Controller
\nand the  same  was  confirmed  by the appellate authority.  Hence, the present
\nrevision by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The only point to be decided in this revision  is  whether
\nthe  respondent can invoke the provisions of rent control act for evicting the
\npetitioners or not.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the   petitioners
\nvehemently contended on the following main points.\n<\/p>\n
                a.  The Property does not belong to Corporation of Madras.
\n                b.  There is no jural relationship between the petitioners and
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
                c.  The provisions of Rent Control Act are inapplicable.
\n                d.   The  Rent Controller had no territorial jurisdiction over
\nthe property which is situated in Rajamangalam which is not in the  limits  of
\nMunicipal Town.\n<\/p>\n
                e.   The  disputed piece of land is vested with the Government
\nwhich collects charges from the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Based on the above points, the main and only contention of
\nthe learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the in  the  case  on
\nhand  as  the  landlord  is  the  Government, the respondent cannot invoke the
\nprovisions of the Rent Control Act, when proviso to Section  10  of  the  Rent
\nControl  Act  is  very  clear  that a tenant, whose landlord is the Government
\ncannot be evicted under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and  therefore,
\nneither  the respondent nor the Courts below have no jurisdiction to evict the
\npetitioners from the premises of the Government and in such circumstances, the
\norders impugned in this revision are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  At this juncture, it is pertinent to see  Section  10  of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960:\n<\/p>\n
                “Sub Section 1 to Section 10 :  Eviction of Tenants:\n<\/p>\n
                (1)  A  tenant  shall not be evicted whether in execution of a
\ndecree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of  this  Section
\nor Sections 14 to 16.\n<\/p>\n
                Provided  that  nothing  contained  in the said Sections shall
\napply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government.\n<\/p>\n
                Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the
\nlandlord or claims right of permanent tenancy,  the  Controller  shall  decide
\nwhether  the  denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that
\neffect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of  the  tenant  in
\nCivil Court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds
\nmentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such
\ndenial  does  not  involve  forfeiture  of  the  lease  or  that  the claim is
\nunfounded.”\n<\/p>\n
                11.  From the above provision, it  is  clear  that  where  the
\nlandlord  is  the  Government,  which cannot invoke the provisions of the Rent
\nControl Act to evict the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  In the light of the above, the question to be decided  is
\nwhether  the landlord is the Government and the respondent is the State within
\nthe meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  In this regard, the learned counsel would submit that the
\nrespondent Board performs the functions of the  State,  namely,  providing  of
\nwater  and  drainage  facilities  to  the  public,  which  is evident from the
\nGovernment order issued in the year 1979, which clearly recites that  all  the
\nworks  of  the P.W.D and the Corporation of Madras with regard to water supply
\nand drainage facilities have been transferred to the respondent Board.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  Further, it is pointed out that  the  board  was  created
\nunder  a  statute  and  certain powers and duties were conferred on the Board.
\nMoreover, the members of the Board are the Secretary  to  Government,  who  is
\nvested  with the power of provision of water facilities, Finance secretary and
\nMember Secretary CMDA and Commissioner of Corporation of Madras.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  It is  also  pointed  out  that  like  Tamil  Nadu  State
\nElectricity  Board,  the  respondent\/board  is also a State within the meaning
\nunder Article 12 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In  this  regard,  the  learned  counsel  relied  on  the
\nfollowing decision.\n<\/p>\n
                a.  In ABDUL AHAD LOAND AND OTHERS VS.  MANAGER GOVT.  WOOLLEN
\nMILL AND OTHERS (AIR 1979 JAMMU & KASHMIR 57), the Full Bench of the Jammu and
\nKashmir High Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “The  Board  is  an authority invested by statute with certain
\npower of State.  It has  the  power  of  promoting  co-ordinated  development,
\ngeneration,  supply  and  distribution  of electricity and for that purpose to
\nmake, alter, amend and carry out schemes under Chapter V.  of the  Electricity
\n(Supply) Act,  1948…….  to make rules and regulations for carrying out the
\npurposes of the Act, and to issue directions under certain provisions  of  the
\nAct and  to  enforce  compliance  with  these  directions.   The Board is also
\ninvested by the statue with  extensive  powers  of  control  over  Electricity
\nUndertakings.   The powers to make rules and regulations and to administer the
\nAct is in substance the sovereign power of the State delegated to  the  Board.
\nThe  Board is, in my judgment, ‘other authority’ within the meaning of Article
\n12 of the Constitution.” IN Sukhdev Singh’s case (AIR 1975 SC 1331) (supra) it
\nwas opined (at p.  1342):\n<\/p>\n
                ” The expression ‘other authorities’ in  Article  12  is  wide
\nenough  to  include  within  it  every  authority  created  by  a  statute and
\nfunctioning within the territory  of  India,  or  under  the  control  of  the
\nGovernment of  India.    The  expression  ‘other authorities’ will include all
\nconstitutional or statutory authorities on whom powers are conferred by law.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  Therefore, it is contended that that the respondent Board
\nis  not  an  individual  body  and it cannot invoke the provisions of the Rent
\nControl Act for evicting the petitioners from the premises.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  Contrary to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
\nappearing  for  the  petitioners,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for   the
\nrespondent  Board would submit that the board is an independent statutory body
\ncreated under the statute.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  For deciding the question whether the respondent Board is
\nthe State within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution  of  India,
\nthe  argument  of  the  respondent  counsel  cannot  be  accepted, whereas the
\nargument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners can  be  accepted
\nas his argument is in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of
\nthe  Jammu and Kashmi High Court, which elaborately dealt with the question of
\n“Other authorities” within the meaning of the Article 12 of  the  Constitution
\nof India and the same is very relevant to the case on hand.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  It is not disputed by both the sides that the premises in
\ndispute  belongs  to  the  Government  and  no  individual claims any title or
\nownership of that premises.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  From the above, it is clear that the respondent Board  is
\n” Other authority’ within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of
\nIndia and  the  premises  in dispute belongs to the respondent Board.  In such
\ncircumstances, the first proviso to Section 10 of the Rent Control Act clearly
\nprohibits the respondent Board  from  invoking  the  provisions  of  the  Rent
\nControl Act.\n<\/p>\n
                22.   One  another  contention  raised  by the learned counsel
\nappearing  for  the  respondent  Board  is  that  since  the   Government   by
\nNotification dated 24.11.1976 exempts under Section 29 of the Rent Control Act
\nonly  the  buildings owned by all Government undertakings including Government
\nCompanies registered under the Indian Companies  Act,  1956  and  by  all  the
\nCo-operative  Societies  from  all the provisions of the said Act, but not the
\nbuildings owned by the Government and therefore, as the said notification, the
\nrespondent Board can invoke the provisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   Per  contra,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioners  would  submit  that  as  per  first  proviso  to  Section  10 the
\nGovernment cannot invoke the provisions of the  Rent  Control  Act  against  a
\ntenant  in the building owned by the Government and also when the notification
\nwas issued by the Government  under  Section  29  of  the  Act  exempting  the
\nbuildings  owned by all Government undertakings including Government Companies
\nand Co-operative Societies from the all the provisions  of  the  Rent  Control
\nAct,  the respondent Board, in toto, has no authority or jurisdiction to evict
\nthe petitioners from the premises.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  Section 29 of the Act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Notwithstanding  anything  contained   in   this   Act,   the
\nGovernment  may, subject to such conditions as they deem fit, by notification,
\nexempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of
\nthis Act.”\n<\/p>\n
                25.  No doubt, in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under
\nSection 29 of the Act, the Government, by notification, exempted the buildings
\nowned  by  all  the  Government  undertakings  and  Government  Companies  and
\nCo-operative Societies from all the provisions of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  As rightly pointed out by the learned  counsel  appearing
\nfor  the  petitioners  that  as  per proviso to Section 10 and Section 29, the
\nrespondent Board cannot invoke the provisions of the said Act.    However,  as
\nalready  decided  above  that  the building is owned by the Government and the
\nrespondent Board is the ‘other authority’ within the meaning of the Article 12
\nof the Constitution of India, the respondent Board is barred from invoking the
\nprovisions of the said Act.  In this view of the matter, the contention of the
\nlearned counsel for the respondent Board cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  Further,  it  is  vehemently  contended  by  the  learned
\ncounsel for the Board that when the petitioners admitted that they are tenants
\nunder  the respondent Board and the jurisdiction of the Courts below, now they
\ncannot raise the plea of jurisdiction of the  respondent  Board  as  they  are
\nestopped from raising such new plea.\n<\/p>\n
                28.   Further,  it  is  submitted  that  admitting  the  jural
\nrelationship as landlord and tenant, the petitioners have  paid  rent  to  the
\nBoard  and  are enjoying the premises for the past 21 years and without paying
\nany rent for the above said period, the petitioners now cannot say  that  they
\nare  not  tenant under the Board nor the Board has no jurisdiction to initiate
\nproceedings under the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
                24.   In  support  of  his  contention,  the  learned  counsel
\nappearing for the respondent\/Board relied on a following decision.\n<\/p>\n
                25.   In  OM  SAKTHI  RENERGIES  LIMITED,  REPRESENTED  BY ITS
\nMANAGING DIRECTOR MR.M.  JAYATHIRTH VS.  MEGATECH CONTROL LIMITED, REPRESENTED
\nBY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.N.RAMKHUMAR, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER  ((2006)1  M.L.J.\n<\/p>\n
657),  a  Division Bench of this Court has held that if a party does not press
\nthe objection to the jurisdiction and allows trial  to  go  on  in  the  usual
\ncourse  on  merits,  he  would  be  bound by his own conduct, and he should be
\ndeemed,  in  such  circumstances,  to  have  waived  his   objection   as   to
\njurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
                26.   On  the  contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioners would vehemently contend that  though  the  petitioners  have  not
\nraised  the  jurisdiction  plea  before the Courts below, it is not proper and
\ncorrect to say that at the stage of revision such plea cannot be raised.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  It is an admitted fact  that  the  petitioners  have  not
\nraised jurisdiction  plea at the initial stage, i.e.  before the Courts below.
\nHowever, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the  Board  is  not
\nsquarely  applicable  to  the  case  on  hand  for the reason that wherein the
\njurisdiction plea was with regard to place of suing, whereas in this case, the
\nrespondent Board, being ‘other authority’  has  no  jurisdiction  to  initiate
\neviction proceedings against the petitioners, who are in the building owned by
\nthe Government, in any Court or place.\n<\/p>\n
                28.   Therefore,  when  the  illegal  act  was  enacted by the
\nrespondent Board either by inadvertently or otherwise, it is  not  proper  and
\ncorrect to expect that the petitioners should not raise such legal plea at the
\nstage of  revision  as such plea was not raised at the initial stage.  When we
\nare governed by rule of law, there is no place for any kind of illegal act  by
\nanybody.   If we permit an illegal act on the ground that that act was allowed
\ninitially and therefore, it cannot be  set  right  at  any  stage,  then  such
\ncontention would  question  the very existence of the Act itself.  Whatever be
\nthe illegal act by whoever might be, when such illegal act comes to be  known,
\nthat should be set it right in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                29.   In  the  light of the above discussion, this Court is of
\nthe view that the respondent Board being other authority within the meaning of
\nunder the Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot invoke the provisions
\nof the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &  Rent)Control  Act,  1  960  against  the
\npetitioners  for  eviction  from  the  building owned by the Government as per
\nfirst proviso to Section 10 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
                For the reasons stated above, the revision is  to  be  allowed
\nsetting aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority as
\nillegal.   Accordingly,  the  revision  is  allowed  setting  aside the orders
\nimpugned in this revision.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
RNB  <\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The District Munsif, Poonamallee\n<\/p>\n
2.The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.\n<\/p>\n
3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. KRISHNAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.2972 of 2001 1.Raghavan 2.Thirumalai 3.Parthasarathy 4.Ramarao 5.Lakshmi ..Petitioners -Vs- The Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chennai through its Managing Director No.1, Pumping […]<\/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-97721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 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\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-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=\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2462,\"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\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 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":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 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\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006"},"wordCount":2462,"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\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006","name":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-04T05:31:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-the-metropolitan-water-supply-on-19-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raghavan vs The Metropolitan Water Supply on 19 April, 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\/97721","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=97721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}