Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 23 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

(1) Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai; (2) Chief Engineer/Mechanical/Coal, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai vs Western Agencies Madras Private Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney A. P. Kunhikannan, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

R. Arun vs State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Represented by its General Manager (Operation), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]

Panneerselvam vs (1) Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Cuddalore District; (2) Loganathan; (3) Bharadhan; (4) Valli; (5) Ilakkiya; (6) Ramakrishnan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]
Constitution - Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Detention - Heabes Corpus - Petitioner was the father of detenue, filed instant petition seeking for a direction to respondents to produce his daughter, 'S', aged about 17 years before Court and set her at liberty - Petitioner contended that date of birth of detenue mentioned in S.S.L.C. certificate was incorrect and date mentioned in the Birth Certificate alone was correct - Further contended that since detenue was a minor, she might be allowed to go with her father/petitioner -

Held, detenue herself had admitted that her marriage was conducted with the respondent no. 2 on 3-6-2014, after attaining majority - At the time of filing instant petition, petitioner himself had filed the Xerox copy of Transfer Certificate of his daughter, the detenue, and as per the said Transfer Certificate, detenue has attained majority on 2-6-2014 - Since detenue was a major, she should be allowed to act according to her wish - Accordingly, recording the submission of detenue that she would like to go along with her husband, respondent no. 2, instant petition disposed of, Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State Of M.P, 2012 Indlaw SC 308 and Ranjeet Goswami v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2013 Indlaw SC 615, relied on - Petition disposed of.


A. Martin vs (1) Director of School Education, Chennai; (2) District Educational Officer, Tiruvallur; (3) Correspondent, T. E. L. C. Kabis Higher Secondary School, Tiruvallur District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]

P. Sankar vs State Represented by Inspector of Police Karimangalam Police Station, Dharmapuri District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Murder - Conviction - Sustainability - Appellant (accused) was charged for offence u/s. 302 of IPC - Trial Court by impugned judgment convicted appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life - Hence, instant appeal - Appellant contended that prosecution failed to prove motive in instant case and that a reasonable doubt has arisen in instant case and that all the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution were relatives and their evidence could not be relied upon and that since it was a case of no eye-witnesses and prosecution mainly relied upon circumstantial evidence and alleged confession given by appellant was not proved and alleged recovery was also not proved by prosecution -

Held, it was admitted case of prosecution that a case for an offence u/s. 302 of IPC was already pending against accused for murdering his wife - It was further admitted that there was no eye-witness in instant case - But prosecution mainly relied upon the circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the crime - Confession statement (Ex.P10) given by appellant was proved by the evidence of PW7 and the same was also corroborated by evidence of PW8 - In pursuance of admissible portion of the confession statement, appellant had produced the gold ear stud and 'Mattal' which were recovered by IO in the presence of PW7 and 8 - During course of examination of PW1, she identified MO1-Gold ear stud with 'Mattal' to be that of her mother and PW1 was not cross-examined on the side of the defence on that point - Thus, it was proved that MO1-gold ear stud with 'Mattal' were recovered from appellant - Alleged confession leading to recovery was clearly proved on the side of prosecution - Consequently, it was proved that gold ear stud was removed from the body of deceased by causing lacerated injury on the ears -Thus, motive of appellant was clearly proved by prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt - Evidence adduced by prosecution was clearly acceptable one and there was no contradiction - Nexus of appellant to the crime was clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt - Prosecution examined all the material evidences to prove the charge against appellant - In view of circumstances, Court was of the considered view that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court - Appeal dismissed.


M. Ramamoorthy vs (1) Director, Public Health and Preventive Medicines, Chennai; (2) Deputy Director, District Health Unit, Vellore District; (3) Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 Jul 2014]

Dr. P. Kapil Nagaraj vs (1) Director of Medical Education, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai; (2) Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai; (3) Dr. Senthil Prabhu, Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai; (4) Dr. T. Perungo, Assistant Professor, Department of General Surgery, Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai; (5) Dr. John Grifson; (6) Dr. Sugaprakash, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Thoothukudi Medical College  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Education - Practice & Procedure - In-service candidates - Admission to M.Ch Courses 2013-2014 - Selection - Legality - Respondent no. 1 invited applications for admission to Higher Speciality Courses 2013-2014 and appellant (petitioner) applied and appeared in entrance examination conducted - Counseling for admission was conducted on 22-7-2013 and appellant attended the counseling - 138 candidates were placed in the merit list for Surgical Gastroentrology (M.Ch.) for eight seats - Appellant secured 72.25 marks out of 100 - However, appellant filed a writ petition challenging the admission of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in Higher Speciality Course Surgical Gastroenterology (M.Ch.) for the year 2013-2014 in Govt. Medical Colleges and for a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to admit the appellant in said course under Open Category, who was placed in waiting list no. 2 - Single Judge by impugned judgment dismissed the petition taking note of Prospectus issued for admission to Higher Speciality Courses for year 2013-2014, which was issued pursuant to GO dt.7-6-2013 - Appellant contended that as per cl. 41 of the Prospectus, 2 merit lists viz., Open Merit List and Service Merit List should be published, whereas only one merit list was published containing both categories of candidates, and thus cl. 41 of the Prospectus was not followed by the official respondents - Whether appellant was justified in challenging the selection of respondent nos. 3 and 4 without challenging the Prospectus issued for admission to Higher Speciality Courses 2013-2014 -

Held, it was not in dispute that Prospectus issued for selection are the rules of selection, which were bound to be followed by respondent no. 2 and the terms and conditions mentioned therein were binding on the Selection Authority and the candidates - If there was any deviation from the rules already informed to the candidates, same would be vitiated - Said principle was no longer res integra - Cl. 41 of the Prospectus was very clear that there were 2 categories, one Service category and another Open Merit category - Open Merit category was for both Service and Non-Service candidates - Thus, respondent nos. 3 and 4 were not only eligible to be considered under Open Merit category, but if they were not coming within the Open Merit Category, they could be considered under Service category also - As per the Prospectus issued for 2013-2014, there was no exclusive reservation of 50% seats for Non-Service candidates - Further, respondent nos. 3 and 4 were admitted to the Higher Speciality Course (M.Ch.) for the year 2013-2014 and they were undergoing the course as on date and they were more meritorious than the appellant as the marks secured by the appellant was 72.25, whereas the marks secured by respondent nos. 3 and 4 are 78.25 and 74.75 respectively - Appeal dismissed.


P. Usha Rani vs (1) Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, Chennai; (2) District Collector, Ariyalur District; (3) Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur District; (4) Tahsildar, Jayankondam Taluk, Ariyalur District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Service - Compassionate appointment - Denied - Justifiability - Petitioner filed instant writ petitions for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of impugned GO dt.18-6-2012 and consequential rejection order of respondent no. 2 related to employment for petitioner on the ground of Compassionate Ground dt.3-10-2013 and to quash the same as unconstitutional, illegal and unlawful, with a consequential direction to respondents to provide employment to petitioner under Compassionate Ground on her representation - Petitioner contended that, fixing a cut-off date, that too only for female legal heirs of deceased employees was nothing but discriminating females from other gender and it was against equality and that petitioner was the only female issue of deceased employee that too from a SC/ST downtrodden family and thus she should be considered for appointment on compassionate ground -

Held, application for compassionate ground appointment was made within the time limit - It was held in a catena of decisions of SC that to provide immediate succor to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner, Compassionate Appointment has got to be made - That was established by the petitioner - Spirit of Compassionate Appointment was to provide relief to the family members of the deceased persons and that on yardstick of social justice, such relief could not be withdrawn retrospectively as the Govt. stopped appointments for certain periods and when there was a modification, after lifting the ban, the new scheme or modification had to take effect only prospectively - Petitioner rightly contended that when there was a change in policy on 5-4-2007, while lifting the Ban, it could not result in denial of Compassionate Appointment to petitioner, as any change would only be prospective in nature - In instant case, petitioner had not given the employment particulars of her husband - However, taking note of fact that there could not be any discrimination and there should be uniformity and there could not be any cut off date, when the Govt. has decided to consider a man and a woman equally, Court hold that GO dt.18-6-2011 impugned in instant petition in so far as fixing the cut off date was illegal - Since the cut off date fixed by the Govt. was illegal, consequential order had to go - Respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the case of petitioner and provide appointment on compassionate grounds to petitioner in the next vacancy arising in Class III or IV, if petitioner was otherwise eligible and if there were no legal impediments - Petition allowed.


A. Liyakath Ali vs (1) Secretary, Animal Husbandy, Fisheries and Dairy Development Department, Chennai; (2) Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, Chennai; (3) Special Officer/District Collector, Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Villupuram; (4) General Manager, Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Villupuram  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 10 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Contract & Commercial - Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, s. 3 - Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Rules, 2000, r. 33 - Non-issuance of tender - Low Value Procurement - Legality - Petitioner filed instant writ petition for the issuance of a Mandamus, forbearing respondents from procuring any work except by tender as per s. 3 of the Act by issuing requisite publication of notice inviting tenders by Tender Bulletin and in the newspapers and also in accordance with the Rules - Petitioner challenged action of respondents in not following provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder for Annual Maintenance Work of an Effluent Treatment Plant and in a Milk Filling Centre -

Held, it was true that Federation had given a reply to lawyer's notice that the cost of maintenance would be more than Rs.7 lakhs and in order to reduce the maintenance cost by administrative decision, they have decided to have one technical person and 2 non-technical person - How an administrative authority should function was not a matter to be decided by Court - If there were any illegalities only then Court could come to the rescue of aggrieved party - Amount involved was less than Rs.5 lakhs and the same was provided for u/r. 33 of the Rules (substituted by notification no. 2 S.R.O. A-22(a)/2009) prescribed, low value of procurement - Thus, there was no need for calling tenders in terms of the Act and Rules - Courts could not direct the respondents to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules - Any administrative act taken on the ground that the amount to be spent on maintenance should be less than Rs.5 lakhs could not be interfered with - Petition dismissed.


N. Manivannan vs Commissioner, Kallakurichi Municipality  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]
Contract & Commercial - Municipalities & Local Governments - Auction-cum-tender - Pre/security deposit for participating in auction - Onerous condition - Legality - Petitioner filed instant petition challenging the impugned public auction-cum-tender notification, published in a vernacular daily dt.25-6-2014 and to quash the same and further directing the respondent to issue a fresh notice of auction-cum-tender by fixing a minimum reserved premium or rent for the shops in question - Petitioner contended that he had an intention to participate in the public auction-cum-tender and in view of the fact that respondent had put an onerous condition of pre/security deposit for participating in auction itself, he could not participate and imposing of such a condition was per se arbitrary and it had no purpose to the object sought to be achieved and that as per cl. (5) of GO dt.3-7-2007, lease amount was fixed depending upon plinth area and thus, respondent ought to have fixed the quantum of security deposit in terms of the said GO only -

Held, GO dt.3-7-2007 had no application to instant case and SC in S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.32780-32788/2011, in its interim order dt.11-11-2013, had permitted the respondent municipality to auction 4 newly constructed shops of its choice from the front row and four shops from the rear row in a public auction on such terms and conditions as it may consider just and proper (emphasis supplied) and impugned tender notification also refers to the said order - SC held that unless the action on the part of the concerned authority exhibit arbitrariness or unreasonableness, it could not be lightly interfered with and in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude was required to be acceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority was found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers - Thus, impugned public auction-cum-tender notification was not liable to be interfered with and finds no merit in writ petition - Petition dismissed.


V. Meenakshi vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai; (2) Director of Elementary Education, Chennai; (3) District Elementary Educational Officer, Thanjavur; (4) Secretary, R. Rajaraman Middle School, Thanjavur District  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]
Service - Secondary Grade Teacher - Redeployment - Legality - Petitioner was a Secondary Grade Teacher in respondent no. 4 (school) - Respondent no. 3 (District Elementary Educational Officer) by Proceedings dt.20-3-2006, issued an order redeploying the petitioner along with the post at Aided Primary School at 'N' - Petitioner challenged the same by way of a writ petition wherein in HC by interim order dt.13-4-2006, stayed the redeployment and on account of such interim order passed, petitioner was allowed to continue to work in same school - However, said writ petition was dismissed by order dt.21-11-2012 holding that writ petition had become infructuous in view of order passed by respondent no. 3 on 29-6-2010 - After the dismissal of said writ petition, respondent no. 4 relieved the petitioner from the school by his Proceedings dt.30-11-2012 - Aggrieved petitioner filed instant petition - Petitioner contended that impugned order was liable to be set aside in view of earlier order passed by respondent no. 3 on 29-6-2010, wherein respondent no. 3, had directed that petitioner be reinstated as against the vacancy caused due to retirement of one 'SG' and surrender the post which was held by the petitioner, to the Director -

Held, admittedly, because of interim direction issued, as an interim measure, petitioner was adjusted as against the vacancy caused on account of the retirement of 'SG' - But the order very clearly stated that this arrangement was in obedience of the interim order passed by HC on 30-4-2010, however, subject to outcome of writ petition - In view of the fact that said order of respondent no. 3 was only an interim arrangement on account of the interim order passed by HC, the same should come to an end on the dismissal of the writ petition - Thus, on the dismissal of writ petition, the original redeployment order dt.20-3-2006 should be implemented - That was what has been done rightly by respondent no. 4 - Thus, Court did not find any infirmity in the order passed by respondent no. 4 - It was crystal clear that petitioner could not be allowed to work in same school, because there was no interim stay - Though petitioner was allowed to work in the same school earlier, on the interim order passed by HC, that could not be continued forever - Petitioner had to necessarily go out of the school and work elsewhere as it was directed by respondent no. 3 earlier - It was also possible for her to work out her remedies as against the order passed by HC in said writ petition - In order to enable petitioner to join duty, the respondent no. 3 should pass a consequential order, within a period of 7 days, so as to enable petitioner to report for duty - Petition dismissed.


G. Bibin Gnanakumar vs (1) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise) Represented by its Managing Director, Mumbai; (2) Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai; (3) Regional Manager, Hisdustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madurai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]
Contract & Commercial - LPG distributorship - Denied - Justifiability - Petitioner filed instant seeking for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of respondent no. 2 and grant LPG distributorship agency to him for 'M' village - Petitioner contended that paper publication was issued in respect of 'M' revenue village and said revenue village was divided into 4 villages and respondent, without verifying the certificate issued by revenue officials, proceeded to reject the petitioner's application -

Held, admittedly on the date of consideration of application, 'M' village was bifurcated into 4 villages - Petitioner offered the land in S.no. 555 - On the date when petitioner submitted his application, land offered by him was not in 'M' village, but was in 'K' village, since his application was dated 3-7-2013, much after the bifurcation which was done on 26-3-2013 - Thus, petitioner ought to have disclosed that fact - Failure to disclose would definitely warrant rejection of the application - Petitioner relied upon the certificate of the Sub Registrar, 'K', copy of encumbrance certificate and a certificate issued by Headquarters Dy. Tahsildar - However, copy of the patta no. 13614 which was filed by petitioner along with the application shows the land in S.no. 555/18 D, was situated in 'K' village - Said patta along with the application shows the land offered by the petitioner was in 'K' village and not in 'M' village and petitioner was estopped from taking a different stand at that distance point of time - Thus, reason assigned in impugned order was fully justified and warrant no interference - Court could not substitute its view with regard to the dimensional requirements or other requirements which respondent (Corporation) have stipulated in the notification - That apart, other applicants who also hail from the same area have clearly specified the village name after its bifurcation - Petition dismissed.


Manaksia Limited vs CCE, Chennai-I  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

Habasit Iakoka Private Limited vs CCE, Coimbatore  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

E. Sasidharan vs (1) Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore; (2) Transport Commissioner, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 09 Jul 2014]

SRF Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

S. R. Selvaraj and Sons vs CCE, Tirunelveli  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Jul 2014]

T. Jayachandran vs (1) Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Coimbatore; (2) S. Rajendran/Enquiry Officer, Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Trichy  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Service - Re-enquiry - Notice to appear before Enquiry Officer - Legality - Petitioner (employee) filed instant petition against the notice dt.10-9-2013, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 18-9-2013 in connection with the departmental proceedings initiated against him - Respondent no. 1 issued a charge memo to the petitioner containing 2 charges and after examining the explanation submitted by petitioner, respondent no. 1 appointed the respondent no. 2 as the EO - Petitioner contended that there was no need for such a re-enquiry, in view of submission of report by EO and that re-enquiry was ordered by the Chief Vigilance Officer, who had no role to play in the matter -

Held, counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 1 clearly shows that CBI officers whose names were mentioned in charge sheet were not examined in departmental enquiry - Respondent no. 1, having found that material witnesses were not examined, proposed to examine them on a later occasion - It was only for the purpose of examining the witnesses in the presence of petitioner, that impugned summon was issued to him - So long as it was not made out that EO concluded the proceedings earlier and there was a deliberate attempt to reopen the proceedings for extraneous reasons, petitioner could not sustain instant petition - Petitioner was not in possession of alleged final report submitted by EO - No prejudice would be caused to petitioner by examining the CBI officers as witnesses - Petitioner would be given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses - In any case, impugned order would not cause any civil consequences to petitioner, so as to give him a cause of action, to challenge it before Court - Thus, Court did not find any merit in the contention taken by petitioner - Petition dismissed.


Vasantha W/o Selvakumar vs (1) State represented by District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli; (2) Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 22(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 294(b), 324, 427, 506(ii) - Prejudicial to maintenance of public peace - Detention order - Legality - Petitioner was wife of detenu filed instant petition challenging order of detention passed by respondent no. 1 under which the detenu was branded as 'Goonda' and detained under 1982 Act - Petitioner allegedly committed offence u/ss. 294(b), 324, 427, 506(ii) of IPC - Whether impugned detention order passed against the detenue was justified -

Held, on a perusal of Proforma produced by respondent, Court find that representation dt.1-4-2014 was received by Govt. on 4-4-2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 7-4-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 21-4-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 21-4-2014 - In between 7-4-2014 and 21-4-2014, there were 8 clear working days and 6 holidays - Thus, there was an unexplained delay of 8 days in sending the remarks - Reason for immediate consideration of representation was too obvious to be stressed - Personal liberty of a person was at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the Authorities, but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined u/art. 22(5) of Constitution of a Detenu to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition - Unexplained delay in sending the remarks, would have the effect of vitiating the Detention Order - Impugned detention order is liable to be quashed - Detenu was ordered to be set at liberty unless his presence was required in connection with any other case - Petition allowed.


S. Jothi W/o Sivakumar vs (1) District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai; (2) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary (Home), Prohibition and Excise (XIV), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, ss. 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 22(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 120(b), 465, 471- Tamil Nadu Rectified Sprit Rules 2000 , ss. 6, 7 - Prejudicial to maintenance of public peace - Detention order - Legality - Petitioner was wife of detenu filed instant petition challenging order of detention passed by respondent no. 1 under which the detenu was branded as 'Bootlegger' and detained under 1982 Act - Petitioner allegedly committed offence u/ss. 120(b), 465, 471 of IPC r/w ss. 6 and 7 of the Rules - Petitioner contended that there was a delay in consideration of the representation merits acceptance - Whether impugned detention order passed against the detenue was justified -

Held, on a perusal of Proforma produced by respondent, Court find that representation dt.27-3-2014 was received by Govt. on 1-4-2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 2-4-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 15-4-2014 - In between 2-4-2014 and 15-4-2014, there were 8 clear working days and 5 holidays - Thus, there was an unexplained delay of 8 days in sending the remarks - Reason for immediate consideration of representation was too obvious to be stressed - Personal liberty of a person was at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the Authorities, but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined u/art. 22(5) of Constitution of a Detenu to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition -Unexplained delay in sending the remarks, would have the effect of vitiating the Detention Order - Impugned detention order was quashed - Petition allowed.


Tamilarasi W/o Ramesh vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai; (2) Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli; (3) Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 21, 22(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 387, 392, 397, 506(ii) - Prejudicial to maintenance of public peace - Detention order - Legality - Petitioner was sister of detenu filed instant petition challenging order of detention passed by respondent no. 2 under which the detenu was branded as 'Goonda' and was detained - Petitioner allegedly committed offence u/ss. 387, 392, 397, 506(ii) of IPC - Whether impugned detention order passed against the detenue was justified -

Held, perusal of the Proforma produced by respondent, Court found that representation dt.1-4-2014 was received by Govt. on 4-4-2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 7-4-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 11-4-2014 - In between 7-4-2014 and 11-4-2014, there were 4 clear working days - Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, dealt with the file on 21-4-2014 - Rejection letter was prepared on 28-4-2014 and served to the detenu on 30-4-2014 - In between 21-4-2014 and 28-4-2014, there were 5 clear working days and 2 holidays - There was delay in considering the representation during the relevant period, at two stages, which had not been properly explained - Reason for immediate consideration of representation was too obvious to be stressed - Personal liberty of a person was at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the Authorities, but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined u/art. 22(5) of Constitution of a Detenu to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition - Unexplained delay in sending the remarks, would have the effect of vitiating the Detention Order - Impugned detention was quashed and detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith - Petition allowed.


Selvi W/o Selvam vs (1) State Represented by District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli; (2) Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 22(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 294(b), 324, 427, 506(ii) - Prejudicial to maintenance of public peace - Detention order - Legality - Petitioner was wife of detenu filed instant petition challenging order of detention passed by respondent no. 1 under which the detenu was branded as 'Goonda' and detained under 1982 Act - Petitioner allegedly committed offence u/ss. 294(b), 324, 427, 506(ii) of IPC - Whether impugned detention order passed against the detenue was justified -

Held, On a perusal of Proforma produced by respondent, Court find that representation dt.1-4-2014 was received by Govt. on 4-4-2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 7-4-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 21-4-2014 - In between 7-4-2014 and 21-4-2014, there were 8 clear working days and 6 holidays - Thus, there was an unexplained delay of 8 days in sending the remarks - Delay in sending the remarks would have the effect of vitiating the Detention Order - Reason for immediate consideration of representation was too obvious to be stressed - Personal liberty of a person was at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of the Authorities, but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined u/art. 22(5) of Constitution of a Detenu to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition - Unexplained delay in sending the remarks, would have the effect of vitiating the Detention Order - Impugned detention order is liable to be quashed - Detenu was ordered to be set at liberty unless his presence was required in connection with any other case - Petition allowed.


(1) Krishnakumar Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruppur; (2) K. Shanthamoorthy, Inspector of Police, Namakkal; (3) C. Pitchai,Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur; (4) Suresh Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur; (5) R. Ponni, IPS, Superintendent of Police I/c,Tiruppur; (6) G. Manjula Devi, Secretary, Women Lawyers Association, Chennai; (7) P. S. Amalraj, Vice Chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; (8) M. Baskar, Secretary, Tamil Nadu; (9) S. Arivazhagan, Secretary, Madras High Court Advocates Association, Chennai vs (1) Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai; (2) Home Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai; (3) Director General of Police, , Chennai; (4) R. Poonni, IPS, Superintendent of Police (In charge), Thiruppur; (5) Suresh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppur; (6) C. Pitchai, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruppur; (7) K. Shanthamoorthy, Inspector of Police, Namakkal; (8) Krishna kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruppur  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Practice & Procedure - Advocates & Judges - Constitution - Criminal - Constitution of Inda, 1950, art. 215 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 417, 376, 506(i) - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 15(1) - Allegations of rape - Arrest of judicial officer - Non-compliance of directions of SC - Contempt - A criminal complaint was filed by a Sub-Inspector of Police, against the a Judicial Magistrate for allegedly commission of offence u/ss. 417, 376, 506(i) of IPC - Judicial Magistrate was taken by Police team based on registration of said case and a fax message to District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, was and was received by Superintendent attached to the Court of Principal District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate - Principal District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, had sent the details in the form of representation to the Registrar General of HC, who in-turn placed a note dt.1-7-2013 before the Acting Chief Justice and the Chief Justice passed an order dt.2-7-2013, directing the matter to be placed before the First Bench of HC for taking action suo motu and accordingly, it was listed before First Bench of HC - First Bench of HC taken into consideration the judgment of SC in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 1991 Indlaw SC 99, wherein guidelines were framed as to the steps to be taken before arresting a Judicial Officer and further taking into consideration the sequence of events, had observed that it was apparent that police officials, had deliberately violated the guidelines framed by SC, more particularly Guideline (A) of para 55 of said judgment and also recorded as to why suo motu cognizance of committing contempt of Court has been initiated and thus, passed an order dt.2-7-2013, issuing notice to said officials for their personal appearance before the Court and explain their condut/stand - However, HC Advocates Association, filed instant PILS, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 to 3, to take action against the respondent nos. 4 to 8 (contemnors) and pass such further orders - Whether a prima facie case was made out for proceeding further in the suo motu contempt proceedings -

Held, admittedly, Judicial Magistrate, was arrested at 08:45 a.m. on 29-6-2013 and 45 minutes prior to his arrest, respondent no. 5 (contemnor) was also informed about the latest development by first contemnor as well as by fourth contemnor and being the head of the police administration of 'T' District on that particular day and being a regular recruit to the IPS, she was supposed to have knowledge of the decision rendered by SC in 1991 Indlaw SC 99 and also the sensitivity of the issue - Thus, a prima facie case was made out for proceeding further in the suo motu contempt petition against the fifth contemnor - Documents filed in writ petition would disclosed that, Judicial Magistrate, at the time of his production before the Court of Judicial Magistrate at 'T' had given a statement dt.29-6-2013 stating among other things that when the police party entered on the early morning hours on 29-6-2013 at his relatives house, The Dy. Superintendent of Police, (Contemnor no. 4) had told that he did not care about his status and if he was not coming with them, treatment would be different and he would be beaten and dragged and on hearing the said words, he was shocked and when he asked whether any order came from higher official, they told him to come and also got his signature on the arrest card at the Court of Judicial Magistrate at 'T 'and also removed the towel put on his face - A certified copy of said statement issued by Judicial Magistrate, 'P' was also available at Page no. 9 of the typed set of documents - Further, in Remand Report filed by contemnors at page 25 of the typed set of documents, Judicial Magistrate, gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate at 'P' that the police had taken him for interrogation, not allowed to consult the Advocate and arrested at his residence at 6.45 a.m - Court as of the view that prima facie materials was available to proceed against contemnor nos. 3 to 5 under the Act as well as u/art. 215 of Constitution - Thus, Registry was directed to issue notice to contemnor nos. 3 to 5 returnable on 23-7-2014 for answering the charges - It was made clear that Court narrated the facts leading to the initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings in detail to arrive at the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for proceeding further in suo motu contempt petition against contemnor nos. 3 to 5 and it could not be construed as opinion on merits - Order accordingly.


G. Rathika W/o Jemini vs (1) District Collector and District Magistrate, Theni; (2) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary (Home), Prohibition and Excise (XIV), Chennai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Practice & Procedure - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, ss. 8(a), 8(c) r/w ss. 20 (a)(b)(1)(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 27A - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 22(5) - Prejudicial to maintenance of public peace - Detention order - Delay in considering representation - Legality - Petitioner was wife of detenu, filed instant petition challenging order of detention passed by respondent no. 1 under which the detenu was branded as 'Drug Offender' and detained under the Act - Petitioner allegedly committed offence u/ss. 8(a), 8(c) r/w ss. 20 (a)(b)(1)(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) and 27A of the Act - Whether impugned detention order passed against the detenue was justified -

Held, perusal of Proforma produced by respondent, Court found that representation dt.15-3-2014 was received by Govt. on 18-3-2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 19-3-2014 - Remarks were received by Govt. only on 27-3-2014 - In between 19-3-2014 and 27-3-2014, there were 6 clear working days and 2 holidays - Minister for Law, Courts and Prisons, dealt with the file on 4-4-2014 - Rejection letter was prepared on 15-4-2014 and served to detenu on 16-4-2014 - In between 4-4-2014 and 15-4-2014, there were 6 clear working days and 5 holidays - There was delay in considering the representation during the relevant period, at two stages, which was not properly explained - Reason for immediate consideration of representation was too obvious to be stressed - Personal liberty of a person was at stake and any delay would not only be an indifferent act on the part of Authorities, but would also be unconstitutional, violating the right enshrined u/art. 22(5) of Constitution of a Detenu to have his representation considered with reasonable expedition - Unexplained delay in sending the remarks, would have the effect of vitiating the Detention order -Thus, impugned detention order was quashed and detenu was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith - Petition allowed.


(1) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai; (2) Inspector General of Registration, Chennai vs G. Anburaj  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 08 Jul 2014]
Service - Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, r. 17(b) - Pay fixation in promotion post - Debarment for denial of promotion - Legality - Appellant (respondent) filed instant appeal against order dt.17-6-2013 made in W.P.no. 15359 of 2013 wherein respondent (petitioner/employee) challenged the order passed by appellant no. 1 in GO dt.16-11-2012 and the Proceedings of appellant no. 2 in Letter dt.23-3-2013 and quash the GO only to the limited extent of the direction to fix the pay of respondent in the promotion post of Asst. Inspector General of Registration in accordance with FR 27(17) and the Proceedings of appellant no. 2 in entirety and to direct the appellant no. 1 to forthwith promote the respondent as Asst. Inspector General of Registration in pursuance of his empanelment in 2010-11 panel for promotion to the said post as ordered in GO dt.16-11-2012 with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all consequential service and monetary benefits with interest on the delayed payment - Respondent contended that charge was framed u/r. 17(b) of Rules against him on 8-4-2010 and in promotion panel drawn on 22-6-2010, his name was not included due to pendency of charge memo and that based on panel which was drawn for the year 2010-11, promotion was also given to persons whose names were found in said panel on 22-6-2010 and most of his juniors were also given promotion as Asst. Inspector General of Registration - Whether respondent was entitled to get his name included in panel and get consequential promotion -

Held, only reason for not giving promotion to respondent on 22-6-2011 was pendency of charge memo dt.8-4-2010 which was dropped by Govt. as stated on 19-9-2011 and the second charge memo issued only on 7-3-2013 the dictum laid down by SC in Delhi Jal Board v. Mahinder Singh, 2000 Indlaw SC 578 was fully applicable particularly when appellant no. 1 included the name of respondent by issuing GO dt.16-11-2012 - Single Judge had granted the relief to respondent based on the said principle and directed the appellants to promote the respondent as Asst. Inspector General of Registration from the date on which his immediate juniors were promoted on notional basis as GO dt.16-11-2012 making it clear that promotion should be on notional basis and also directed the appellants to complete the said exercise within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order - Court was unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of Single Judge - Appellants were directed to complete the said exercise ordered by Single Judge within a period of 4 weeks - Appeal dismissed.




Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer