{"id":97757,"date":"2006-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006"},"modified":"2014-12-10T09:32:23","modified_gmt":"2014-12-10T04:02:23","slug":"t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 31\/03\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n\nW.P.No.2116 of 2005,\nW.P.Nos.2117,4822 and 4823 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.2135,5188,2136,5191 of 2005\n\n\n\nT.Jothimani\t\t...\t\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\tin W.P.Nos.2116,4822 of 2005\n\nV.K.J.Constructions, rep.by its,\nManaging Partner,V.Kaviyarasu,\nNo.507\/183, Sandiyan Street,\nManiyanpuram,Pattukottai Town,\nThanjavur District.\n\n   \t\t\t...\t\tPetitioner  in W.P.Nos.2117, 4823 of 2005\n\n\nVs.\n\t\n\n1.Pattukottai Municipality\n  represented by its\n  Commissioner, Pattukottai,\n  Thanjavur District.\n\n2.Ms.Jayabarathi Viswanathan,\n  Chairman, Pattukottai Municipality,\n  Nadimuthu Nagar,\n  Pattukottai\n  Thanjavur District. \t...\t\tRespondents in all the W.Ps.\n\n\n\nPRAYER in W.P.No.2116 &amp; 2117 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of  Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records made in Ma.No.E1\/20\/04\/-05, dated 28.02.2005\npassed by the first respondent and quash the same.\n\n\nPRAYER in W.P.No.4822 and 4823 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of\nthe Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of  Certiorarified\nMandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the first\nrespondent dated 18.05.2005 in ref.Na.Ka.No.20\/04-05\/A1 and consequential order\nof re-tender dated 23.05.2005 in the same reference number and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioners   \t...\tMr.T.V.Sivakumar for \t\t\t\n\t                \tMr.G.R.Swaminathan\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr.M.Suresh Kumar\n\t\t\t\tStanding Counsel for \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tCorporation.\n\n\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard the learned  counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned<br \/>\nStanding counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The petitioners in these cases are the registered contractors with the<br \/>\nrespondent municipality.  The municipality has called for tender on 16.07.2004<br \/>\nfor various works including the Sivakollai road work.  The petitioner in<br \/>\nW.P.No.2117 of 2005 namely V.K.J.Constructions represented by its  Managing<br \/>\nPartner V.Kaviarasu and the petitioner in W.P.No.2116 of 2005 have participated<br \/>\nin the tender and the said auction and V.K.J.Constructions has quoted the lower<br \/>\nrates. At the time when the tender was opened it was admitted that the<br \/>\npetitioners requested the officer that the amount quoted in the tender forms<br \/>\nhave to be corrected and with the permission of the officer the correction was<br \/>\nmade in the tender forms.  When the respondent Commissioner has called upon the<br \/>\npetitioners to explain, admittedly the petitioners have admitted the truth and<br \/>\nalso given written apology  on 19.07.2004. Subsequently the municipality passed<br \/>\nresolution on 03.09.2004 black listing the petitioners and cancelling the works.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. By a subsequent order on 10.09.2004 the first respondent has passed an<br \/>\norder in terms of the resolution.  The petitioners have filed writ petitions in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.1242 and 1243 of 2004 challenging the resolution of the municipality<br \/>\ndated 03.09.2004. They have also filed Writ petitions  in W.P.Nos.1420 and 1421<br \/>\nof 2004 challenging the consequential orders of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n10.09.2004 blacklisting the petitioners.  The said writ petitions were disposed<br \/>\nof by this Court on 29.12.2004.  This Court has allowed the W.P.No.1420 and 1421<br \/>\nof 2004, black listing the petitioners on the basis that the same was passed<br \/>\nwithout giving opportunity to the petitioners and therefore, the black listing<br \/>\norder was set aside.  This Court has also dismissed the writ petitions in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.1242 and 1243 of 2004 holding that no interference is called for in<br \/>\nrespect of the resolution of the municipality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It was also held that it does not prevent the municipality to proceed<br \/>\nfurther to pass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners.  It<br \/>\nwas pursuant to the order of this Court the respondents have given show cause<br \/>\nnotice to the petitioners dated 01.02.2005 and the petitioners have also given<br \/>\ntheir explanation on 14.02.2005 which was received by the municipality on<br \/>\n15.02.2005. Ultimately by the impugned orders of the first respondent dated<br \/>\n28.02.2005 the first respondent has again black listed the petitioners and<br \/>\nconfirmed the earlier order dated 10.09.2004.  The impugned order was passed on<br \/>\nthe basis that the petitioners have admitted that they have corrected their<br \/>\ntender forms while the tender was opened by the first respondent and that<br \/>\nconduct is unbecoming of a tenderer and not a desirable conduct and it was on<br \/>\nthat basis the black listing was done.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. It is against the said order a black listing the petitioners dated<br \/>\n28.02.2005 the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions W.P.No.2116 and<br \/>\n2117 of 2005. When the said writ petitions were pending before this Court there<br \/>\nwas no interim order and the first respondent has called for fresh tender<br \/>\nnotification on 10.02.2005 in respect of the said items of work.  It was against<br \/>\nthe said fresh notification, the petitioners have filed writ petitions in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.1210 and 1211 of 2005 and this Court by a common order dated 19.04.2005<br \/>\nwhile allowing the said petitions has given liberty to the first respondent to<br \/>\npass fresh orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners. Separate show<br \/>\ncause notices were issued to the petitioners by the first respondent on<br \/>\n27.04.2005 pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 29.12.2004 and the<br \/>\npetitioners have also  replied on 14.02.2005.  Based on the said reply the first<br \/>\nrespondent has passed the impugned order dated 18.05.2005 cancelling the earlier<br \/>\nwork allotted in favour of the petitioners and subsequently on 23.05.2005 a<br \/>\nfresh tender notice was issued in respect of many works including the works<br \/>\nallotted to the petitioners which were cancelled as stated above.  It is<br \/>\nchallenging the said order of cancellation  of earlier work  on 18.05.2005 and<br \/>\nconsequent re-tender notice issued by the first respondent dated 23.05.2005, the<br \/>\npetitioners have filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4822 and 4823 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned of black listing is<br \/>\npassed against the principles of law and natural justice.  Further it is the<br \/>\ncase of the petitioners that while admittedly the corrections were made, they<br \/>\nwere not made openly in the presence of the other tenderers and officers at the<br \/>\ntime when tender was opened and it was only a rectification of mistakes done<br \/>\nwith the permission of the officers.  It is also the case of the petitioners<br \/>\nthat the correction of mistake which was done on 19.07.2004 was a closed one and<br \/>\nthat cannot be reopened now.   The black listing has been ordered without giving<br \/>\nany opportunity to the petitioners.  The conduct of the petitioners cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as a misconduct.  It is only a political rivalry which has resulted in<br \/>\npassing of the order.  It is also the case of the petitioners that while the<br \/>\npetitioners were served with show cause notices dated 27.04.2005 seven works<br \/>\nwere awarded and the show cause notice was only relating to three works in<br \/>\nrespect of which the alternations was made by mistake.  However, the impugned<br \/>\norder seeks to cancel the allotment all the seven works and fresh notification<br \/>\nissued in respect of the works including the works to which the petitioners have<br \/>\nbeen issued the order.  According to the petitioners, in any event, the black<br \/>\nlisting can only be in respect of the future works and not in respect of the<br \/>\nworks already entrusted to the petitioners and the petitioners are ready and<br \/>\nwilling to complete the said works.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it is stated<br \/>\nthat on 16.07.2004 at 03.30 p.m. when the tender box was opened, the petitioners<br \/>\nwho were present at that time took away the tender forms  which were opened by<br \/>\nthe officers without permission and corrected the rates as Rs.50\/- per square<br \/>\nmetre instead of Rs.5\/- and Rs.500\/- instead of 50 per cubic metre in column  5<br \/>\nand 6 of the tender forms.  The said conduct was in violations of the tender<br \/>\nconditions and shows high handed activity of the petitioners.  The conduct was<br \/>\nseriously opposed by all the contractors and the municipal council meeting held<br \/>\nultimately on 03.09.2004 discussed the above issue and passed a resolution<br \/>\ndirecting that a fresh tenders should be called for in respect of laying tar,<br \/>\nSivakkollai Road cancelling all the works and also for a proper action against<br \/>\nthe petitioners.  Earlier this Court has clearly held that it would not<br \/>\ninterfere with the resolution of the council, but only set aside the order of<br \/>\nblack listing on the basis no opportunity was given.  It was consequent to that<br \/>\nopportunity was given to the petitioners by a show cause notice and since it was<br \/>\nemergently required to lay down to tar road to Sivakkollai, the earlier tenders<br \/>\nnotification was issued. However this Court has disposed of all the subsequent<br \/>\nwrit petitions filed by the petitioners by  setting aside tender notification<br \/>\ndated 10.02.2005 with liberty to the respondents to issue fresh tender<br \/>\nnotification after giving opportunity.  In the mean time since the petitioners<br \/>\ngiven their explanation on 14.02.2005 and after considering the same the black<br \/>\nlisting order was passed on 28.02.2005 and the subsequent notification has been<br \/>\nissued.  Infact even after the order of this Court dated 19.04.2005 a subsequent<br \/>\nnotice was given on 27.04.2005 for retendering the works in which the work<br \/>\norders were given to the petitioners, the petitioners have already given  reply<br \/>\non 04.05.2005 and ultimately the respondents has passed an order of 18.05.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. According to the respondents, there is absolutely no substance in the<br \/>\nallegation of bias.  The impugned order is passed only to ensure rule of law.<br \/>\nIt is also denied that the impugned order passed with a pre-judged mind. In the<br \/>\nnotice dated 17.04.2005 only work orders to the petitioners alone were<br \/>\nmentioned.  In respect of item Nos.6, 7,13 and 14 of the tender notice dated<br \/>\n23.5.2005, no work orders issued to the petitioners and the petitioners have no<br \/>\nright to challenge the same.  It is also the case of the first respondent that<br \/>\nthis Court has  already upheld the resolution passed by the Municipality in<br \/>\ncancelling all the previous tenders in favour of the petitioners and the same<br \/>\nhas become final.  In these circumstances, the writ petitions are liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents and perused  the entire records submitted by<br \/>\nthem.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Mr.T.V.Sivakumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would<br \/>\nsubmit that  on the face of the impugned order by black listing including in<br \/>\nrespect of the existing contract it shows bias.   Such contract itself can only<br \/>\nbe black listing for a future contract. Apart from that he would submit that the<br \/>\nblack listing of the petitioners for ever takes away the rights of the<br \/>\npetitioners being the contractors to participate in all the contracts in future.<br \/>\nHe would also submit that in respect of the incident which took place on<br \/>\n19.07.2004, the petitioners have already given apology letter stating that the<br \/>\nsame has not been done stealthily  but it was in the presence of the officers<br \/>\nand all the contractors and therefore, it cannot be stated to be an evil act.<br \/>\nThe present impugned orders have been passed only based on the order dated<br \/>\n10.09.2004 and therefore, it should be presumed that no prior opportunity has<br \/>\nbeen given.  The learned counsel also would rely upon a judgment of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt rendered in M\/s. Erusian Equiments &amp; Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West<br \/>\nBengal and another reported in 1975 (1) SCC 70  to substantiate his contention<br \/>\nthat black listing is effectively preventing a person from entering into lawful<br \/>\nprofession for gain and therefore, while passing such order, the person must be<br \/>\ngiven a proper opportunity.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.According to the learned counsel, the municipality being the larger<br \/>\nauthority cannot give any opportunity and therefore, the black listing itself<br \/>\ncannot be done, since giving of opportunity is difficult and which cannot be<br \/>\npossible by the municipality.  The black listing is an administrative action<br \/>\nwhich cannot be done by the municipality and therefore, according to him, the<br \/>\nimpugned order of black listing is void.   He would also submit that the very<br \/>\nfact that the municipality has filed a caveat petition shows that the<br \/>\nmunicipality has prejudged the issue.  According to the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners dehors the resolution of the municipality, at least the first<br \/>\nrespondent Commissioner should have given opportunity. Infact the petitioners<br \/>\nreply to the show cause notice has specifically requested for personal hearing.<br \/>\nAccording to the learned counsel giving show cause notice was only an empty<br \/>\nformality and therefore, black listing is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned counsel would contend that by issuing fresh re-tender even<br \/>\nthe earlier works allotted to the petitioners have been taken away by cancelling<br \/>\nall the seven items of work.  While the show cause notice itself was for only<br \/>\nthree items, taking away of all the four other works for which work should have<br \/>\nbeen given is patently illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Per contra, Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents would submit that the very conduct of the petitioners   which has<br \/>\nbeen admitted by them in writing in changing the amount in tender which is<br \/>\nexpected to be kept secretly amounts to an undesirable conduct.  Especially when<br \/>\nthe petitioners themselves admitted their mistake, there is no question of<br \/>\nopportunity to them.   According to the learned counsel, the other four items<br \/>\nhave not been entrusted to the petitioners at all and therefore there was no<br \/>\nquestion of taking away the rights.   Eventhough the correction was in respect<br \/>\nof three items the respondents are entitled to cancel all the works  on the<br \/>\nbasis that admittedly the petitioners conduct as contractors by using forceful<br \/>\nmethods for the purpose of correcting openly using muscle power, cannot be<br \/>\npermitted in the  systems of contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The fact remains that this Court in the order passed on 29.12.2004 in<br \/>\nW.P.Nos.1420 and 1421 of 2004, has not set aside the resolution passed by the<br \/>\nmunicipality dated 03.09.2004. What was held in that case was about the black<br \/>\nlisting whereby the petitioners were sought to be black listed without giving<br \/>\nopportunity. The Court has directed the opportunity to be given before black<br \/>\nlisting the petitioners while holding that the resolution passed by the first<br \/>\nrespondent municipality dated 03.09.2004 has  not been set aside.  That<br \/>\nresolution of the municipality dated 03.09.2004 states that the contract given<br \/>\nto the petitioners are cancelled with the right to the municipality to forfeit<br \/>\nthe security deposit and also to take steps to recover any loss which may be<br \/>\ncaused to the municipality due to the re-auction.  That resolution even as on<br \/>\ntoday remains valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the cancellation of the<br \/>\nworks allotted to the petitioners based on the said date of tender on 16.07.2004<br \/>\nremains valid.   The present order of the first respondent dated 18.05.2005<br \/>\nunder which all the works given to the petitioners have been cancelled and also<br \/>\nthe consequential tender notification dated 23.05.2005 which are impugned in<br \/>\nW.P.No.4822 and 4823 of 2005 are only based on the resolution of the<br \/>\nmunicipality dated 03.09.2004 in resolution No.356 which as I have stated<br \/>\nearlier remains valid as on date especially after this Court in the order dated<br \/>\n29.12.2004 has clearly held that the resolution of the municipality is not<br \/>\ninterfered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In view of the same, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4822 and 4823 of<br \/>\n2005 are not sustainable and the same are dismissed.  Now the only question<br \/>\nremains is in respect of the black listing of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. It is no doubt true that the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has held in M\/s.<br \/>\nErusian Equiments &amp; Chemicals Limited Vs. State of West Bengal and another<br \/>\nreported in 1975 (1) SCC 70   that black listing a contractor is certainly<br \/>\ncreating a disability and therefore, proper opportunity is required. In this<br \/>\nregard, it is relevant to extract the relevant paragraph which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;20.Black listing has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege<br \/>\nand advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for<br \/>\npurposes of gains.  The fact that a disability is created by the order of<br \/>\nblacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective<br \/>\nsatisfaction.  Fundamentals of fair play require that the person should be given<br \/>\nan opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. In the present case, the issue involved is as to whether the conduct<br \/>\nof the petitioners in altering the contents of the tender papers when the same<br \/>\nwas opened in the presence of the officers and\tin the presence of all the<br \/>\ncontractors is a desirable conduct or not.   When the petitioners have admitted<br \/>\nand admittedly they have also given apology letter  stating that they will not<br \/>\ninvolve such activities in future, I do not think that the principles of natural<br \/>\njustice can be extended beyond that for giving another opportunity to them.  It<br \/>\nis admitted that a separate show cause notice have been given by the first<br \/>\nrespondent even subsequently on 01.02.2005 for which the petitioners have given<br \/>\nexplanation on 14.02.2005.  In the explanation also the petitioners have<br \/>\nadmitted their conduct and they would only say that after they realised mistake<br \/>\nkrept in the tender papers in respect of amount they have no option than<br \/>\nrectifying the mistake and that was with the permission of the officers.   When<br \/>\nthe municipal Council has decided the issue and by majority have disapproved<br \/>\nconduct of the petitioners as contractors, this Court cannot sit on the said<br \/>\ndecision to say otherwise.  The argument of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner that the municipality as a larger body cannot give a personal hearing<br \/>\nwhich is required by the petitioner and therefore, municipality cannot pass an<br \/>\norder of blacklisting has absolutely no substance.  The municipality as an<br \/>\nauthority is represented by his Officer namely, the Commissioner who has infact<br \/>\ngiven a show cause notice.  Admittedly when the petitioners have given<br \/>\nexplanation for that, in my considered view, there is no question of  now going<br \/>\nback to say that the municipality has no power of blacklisting the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners<br \/>\nthat when show cause notice was given for three works all the seven works has<br \/>\nbeen taken away as I have already stated the resolution of the municipality<br \/>\ndated 03.09.2004 was relating to the cancellation of all the works given to the<br \/>\npetitioners and therefore in my considered view this argument is also not<br \/>\nsustainable.   Only the other point to decide is as to whether the blacklisting<br \/>\nof the petitioners passed by the Municipality should be forever.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the municipality would submit that as far as the period of<br \/>\nblacklisting is concerned they have no objection leaving it to this Court to<br \/>\ndecide.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered<br \/>\nview that the cancelling of the works allotted to the petitioners itself is a<br \/>\npunishment for the conduct of the petitioners for unauthorisedly making<br \/>\ncorrections. That cannot deprive the right of the petitioners to earn their<br \/>\nlivelihood forever, especially when the petitioners have been the registered<br \/>\ncontractors under the respondents municipality and it is not even the case of<br \/>\nthe respondents that the petitioners are in such habit throughout.  In view of<br \/>\nthe same, I am of the considered view that the blacklisting of the petitioners<br \/>\nshould be only for a  limited period and the same cannot be perpetual.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In view of the same, it is held that the blacklisting of the<br \/>\npetitioners apart from applying in the present contract will apply against them<br \/>\nfor one more year namely the next term and thereafter the petitioners shall be<br \/>\nmade eligible for participating in the tenders of the first respondent<br \/>\nmunicipality.  The writ petitions  in W.P.Nos.2116 and 2117 are ordered in terms<br \/>\nof the above conditions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. With the result, the Writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4822 and 4823 which are<br \/>\ndismissed and the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.2116 and 2117 of 2005 are ordered<br \/>\naccordingly.   There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.P.M.Ps.<br \/>\nare closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sms<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.Pattukottai Municipality<br \/>\n  represented by its<br \/>\n  Commissioner, Pattukottai,<br \/>\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Ms.Jayabarathi Viswanathan,<br \/>\n  Chairman, Pattukottai Municipality,<br \/>\n  Nadimuthu Nagar,<br \/>\n  Pattukottai<br \/>\n  Thanjavur District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31\/03\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.2116 of 2005, W.P.Nos.2117,4822 and 4823 of 2005 and W.P.M.P.Nos.2135,5188,2136,5191 of 2005 T.Jothimani &#8230; Petitioner in W.P.Nos.2116,4822 of 2005 V.K.J.Constructions, rep.by its, Managing Partner,V.Kaviyarasu, No.507\/183, Sandiyan Street, [&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-97757","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>T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - 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\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3062,\"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\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\",\"name\":\"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 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":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - 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\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006"},"wordCount":3062,"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\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006","name":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-10T04:02:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-jothimani-vs-pattukottai-municipality-on-31-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Jothimani vs Pattukottai Municipality on 31 March, 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\/97757","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=97757"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97757\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97757"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97757"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97757"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}