Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Mar 22 2010
 
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

S. Rajarathinam vs (1) District Collector cum Regional Transport Authority; (2) Regional Transport Officer  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Mar 2010]
(A) Carriers & Transportation – Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1898, r. 245(a)(12)(i) - Extension of route – Permissibility of – Petitioner sought permission for extension of route of his passenger carrier - Respondents rejected petitioner’s request – Petitioner filed a writ petition before HC – HC directed respondents to consider petitioner’s request – Respondents extended petitioner’s route for 3 weeks – Petitioner sought further extension – Respondents rejected petitioner’s request – Hence the present writ petition – Held, since there was no public interest involved in the petitioner’s request, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner, and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference and there is no perversity – Petition dismissed.

(B) Practice & Procedure - Constitution - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, s. 89 – Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 - Alternative remedy – Availability of – Held, petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy u/s. 89 of the Act against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent/Regional Transport Authority, however, petitioner has come forward with the present petition without exhausting the alternative remedy – HC cannot exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India when there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal available – Petition dismissed.


Kovaipudur Self Finance House Owners and Residents Welfare Association, Represented By Secretary vs (1) Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board; (2) Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board; (3) Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit; (4) Allottee Service Manager, Coimbatore Housing Unit  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 01 Mar 2010]
Land & Property – Claim of interest – Sustainability - Defendant/Housing Board constructed houses with the money of allottees under a self-financing housing scheme – Defendant passed provisional allotment order wherein it was mentioned that tentative cost of the house included the tentative cost of land – Allottees paid the instalments and defendants handed over the possession of houses to allottees – Allottees sought the sale deeds from defendants – Defendants send demand notice demanding further amount on account of land cost escalation – Plaintiff-association of allottees filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant – Trial Court dismissed the suit – Plaintiff challenged Trial Court order before First Appellate Court – First Appellate Court confirmed the Trial Court order – Hence the present second appeal – Plaintiff contended that allottees were prepared to pay the tentative cost of land, however, defendant was not entitled to demand interest of 18% for such enhanced cost – Held, members of the plaintiff-association agreed to pay interest at 18% on the amounts due to defendant u/cl. 15 of the lease-cum-sale agreement – Plaintiff has not paid the tentative cost of land within time - Since the demand for the escalated cost was made and the said amount remained unpaid within the time stipulated in the demand, the members of the plaintiff-association are liable to pay interest on the escalated amount – Further, plaintiff-association has not challenged the relevant clause relating to the interest in the lease-cum-sale agreement , hence it cannot be said that the claim of interest on the escalated amount is arbitrary or unreasonable - Plaintiff-association having agreed to the clauses mentioned in the agreement, is bound by the said clauses - Since the demand for escalated cost was made within three years from the date of handing over possession, the same is just and proper – No substantial question of law to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below – Appeal dismissed.


G. R. Inbaraj vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities; (2) Director of Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities; (3) Special Deputy Collector, Kallar Reclamation  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 26 Feb 2010]
Service – Government order – Implementation of - Government, by its G.O.Ms.No.1381, Education Department, dated 5-10-1990, provided Selection Grade and Special Grade to Headmasters after taking into their service as Secondary Grade Teachers – Petitioner sought the benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.1381 – Tribunal granted the benefit to petitioner – Since the respondent did not implement the Tribunal order, petitioner filed writ petition before HC – Single Judge directed the respondents to implement the order – Respondents filed revision – Single Judge allowed the revision and set aside the Tribunal order – Hence the present writ appeal before DB – Held, impugned G.O.Ms.No.1381 was struck down by the Tribunal in an earlier case and as a result, the said G.O. was not in existence at even on the date of filing of the original application by the petitioner before the Tribunal – Petitioner was fully aware that the G.O.Ms.No.1381 was quashed at the time of filing the application before the Tribunal - Neither the petitioner nor the Government Advocate brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the quashing of the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 1381 – Subsequent to the G.O.Ms.No.1381, Government issued number of various allied G.Os. and clarifications, therefore, appellant cannot challenge the earlier order without challenging the allied subsequent orders – Inasmuch as the Tribunal order which is sought to be implemented itself has been proved to be a nullity, HC can definitely u/art. 226 has the power to strike down the same - Petitioner has not come to the HC with clean hands - Purpose of the filing of application before the Tribunal after the order have been quashed clearly makes the appellant ineligible to seek any relief much less the remedy as he sought for, therefore, revision application was rightly allowed by the Single Judge – Appeal dismissed.
P. James vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department; (2) Inspector General of Registration; (3) District Registrar cum Registrar Societies; (4) Arcot Lutheran Church Society, ALC Central Office, Represented By Secretary; (5) Bishop President, Arcot Lutheran Church (Society); (6) Vice President, Arcot Lutheran Church (Society); (7) Treasurer, Arcot Lutheran Church (Society); (8) Property Officer, Arcot Lutheran Church (Society); (9) Central Manager, Arcot Lutheran Church (Society); (10) Aakriti Constructions, Builders, Developers & Promoters  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Feb 2010]
Trusts & Associations – Practice & Procedure - Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 – Maladministration of Society – Locus standi of member - Petitioner/member of 4th respondent/Society alleged maladministration of 4th respondent – Petitioner sought inspection and enquiry and appointment of a Special Officer to administer the affairs of 4th respondent – Held, since the 4th respondent has been functioning as per the HC order as a result of various writ petitions of its members, petitioner has no locus standi to raise once again the same issues which were raised already - Petitioner has not made out any case to issue any order especially in view of the fact that the subject matter of the writ petition is already covered by several orders passed by the HC – Petition dismissed.
Union of India, Represented by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway vs (1) Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal; (2) R. Pandian  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Feb 2010]
Service – Indian Railways Establishment Code (1985 Edition), r. 1313 (FR22) (1)(a)(I) R-II - Pay fixation – Entitlement - Pay of 2nd respondent/Station Master Grade II was fixed at Rs.6,375/- after the Vth Pay Commission - 2nd respondent was promoted to the post of Section Controller, however, he was placed in the same scale as that of Station Master Grade II – 2nd respondent sought revision of his basic pay u/r. 1313 (FR22) (1)(a)(I) R-II of the Code – 2nd respondent made representation to petitioner – Petitioner rejected representation – 2nd respondent filed application before Tribunal – Tribunal directed the petitioner to re-fix the scale of 2nd respondent – Petitioner contended that post of Station Master Grade-II and the Section Controller carried the same pay scale and the promotion from one post to another could not be treated as a case of assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance and both the posts belonged to two different cadres having different grades in their own hierarchy and therefore, the benefit of fixation u/r. 1313 (FR 22) (1)(a)(1) R-II of the could not be extended to 1st respondent - Held, selection of the 2nd respondent from the post of Station Master Grade-II to that of Section Controller is a ‘promotion’ u/r. 211 of the Code – Station Controller is fastened with more duties and responsibilities than the Station Master Grade II - Had it been a mere conversion from one post to another, the petitioner should not have made use of the term 'promotion' in their proceedings – 2nd respondent was conferred with the promotion, on being selected on merit, having been subjected to a process of selection involving written test and viva-voce – Petitioner itself send a proposal for extending the benefit u/r. 1313 (FR 22) (1)(a)(1) R-II of the Code to 2nd respondent, however, the Railway Board rejected the proposal – Therefore, reasons assigned by the petitioner that their proposal to grant monetary benefits to the employee has not been approved or recommended by the Railway Board cannot be appreciated, since such a rejection made on the part of the Railway Board does not seem to be on sound principles of service jurisprudence, hence no interference called for in the Tribunal order – Direction issued to the petitioner to implement the Tribunal order – Petition dismissed.
N. Deiva vs (1) Collector, Vellore; (2) Personnel Assistant to Collector; (3) Commissioner, Alangayam Panchayat Union; (4) Kavitha  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 25 Feb 2010]
Service – Constitution of India, 1950, art. 16 - Denial of appointment – Respondent invited application for the post of Noon Meal Organiser wherein priority was given to local candidates – Petitioner-a local candidate, satisfied all the prescribed eligibility criteria, applied for the post and attended the interview, however, 1st respondent appointed 4th respondent to the post – Whether denial of appointment to petitioner is legal - Held, petitioner failed to answer any of the questions put to her, however, 4th respondent performed fairly well in the interview – Notification specifically mentioned that if no suitable person was available from the local village, a candidate within the radius of 10 kms., could be appointed to the post, therefore, 4th respondent who was coming from a village which was within the radius of 10 kms., also eligible for the appointment - Preference mentioned in the notification to be given to the local candidate is based only upon a preference to a local candidate and not a basic qualification for the post – Further, if preference is extended solely based upon the residence of the candidate to the exclusion of other criteria like merit etc., the same would be hit by art. 16(2) of the Constitution - Since the 1st respondent has chosen the 4th respondent on the ground that she was more suitable on the basis of having answered all the questions put to her, the appointment of the 4th respondent cannot be found fault by the petitioner – Petition dismissed.
(1) M. D. Iqbal Basha; (2) K. Arulselvan; (3) B. Pachaiappan; (4) L. Janarthanam; (5) S. B. Manoharan; (6) D. Ernest Thyagarajan; (7) K. Narayana; (8) K. Kotilingam; (9) V. Govindaraj; (10) R. Vadivelu; (11) E. Nagarajan; (12) T. S. Ravikumar; (13) S. Selvakumar; (14) G. Sankarasubramaniam; (15) K. Venkateswarlu; (16) S. Jeevanandam; (17) S. Rama Moorthy; (18) K. Radhakrishnan Nair; (19) Anil Kumar Singh; (20) C. H. B. Koteeswara Rao; (21) P. D. Prasada Rao; (22) A. S. Chanda Rao; (23) K. Sivudu; (24) I. Minason; (25) S. Kaliamurthy; (26) R. Chellapandian; (27) V. Krishnan vs (1) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Represented by Chairman-cum-Managing Director, New Delhi; (2) Regional Director, Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited; (3) General Manager, Head Regional Office  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Feb 2010]
Service – Constitution of India, 1950, art. 226 - Regularization – Petitioner/Security Guards were appointed on contract basis in 1st respondent/Corporation - Petitioners sought regularisation of their service – Petitioners filed writ petition seeking direction for regularisation – HC disposed off the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners – Respondents rejected petitioners representation – Petitioners contended that they had worked for a long time and, therefore, their services should be regularised – Held, petitioners accepted the temporary engagement with a condition to leave the job immediately after the respondent/Corporation inducts further more qualified personnel from Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) - After accepting the employment with open eyes, no doubt it is very difficult to leave the job after continuing for a long time, but on that ground alone it would not be proper to subvert the constitutional scheme of appointment to perpetuate illegalities and to take the view that a person who is temporarily or casually employed should be directed to continue permanently – HC would not be unnecessarily entering into the realm of contract entered between the petitioners and the respondent/Corporation to accommodate the petitioners, which is not permissible under the constitutional scheme and it would also amount to creating another mode of public employment, which is neither permissible in law nor in consonance with the dictum enunciated by the SC in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi & Ors, 2006 INDLAW SC 125 and Umarani v. State of T.N., 2004 INDLAW SC 606 – Further, HC u/art. 226 should not ordinarily issue direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself was made regularly in terms of the constitutional scheme – Petition dismissed.
M. Ponni vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Department of Education; (2) Director of Technical Education; (3) Principal, Thiyagarajar Polytechnic  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Feb 2010]
Service - Special Rules of Tamil Nadu Technical Education Subordinate Services – Appointment – Denial of – Petitioner/Drafting Officer sought appointment to the post of Lecturer – Since the petitioner was qualified for the post, petitioner was interviewed by Staff Selection Committee (SSC) of 3rd respondent/College along with other candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange – 3rd respondent send a proposal to 2nd respondent for the appointment of petitioner– 2nd respondent, by his impugned order, rejected the proposal on the ground that an internal non-teaching candidate could not be considered for a teaching post – Held, simply because the petitioner’s name was not forwarded by the Employment Exchange, it cannot be said that the consideration of the petitioner for the post of Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college becomes invalid, especially when the petitioner complied with the requirement of educational qualifications for the post of Lecturer – Proposal of SSC clearly showed that SSC had selected petitioner after conducting interview which is an approved method and not a process of promotion - Consideration of the petitioner as an internal candidate for the post of Lecturer cannot be said to be either not permissible under the Rules or against any existing rule as fallaciously stated in the impugned order by the 2nd respondent - Petitioner’s appointment which is sought to be approved in the proposal sent by the 3rd respondent is by direct recruitment process and not by way of selection by transfer from the category of Instructors – Therefore, reasons assigned by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order for rejecting the proposal in respect of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Lecturer in the 3rd respondent college cannot be sustainable in law, hence set aside – Direction issued to the 2nd respondent to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in 3rd respondent College - Order accordingly.
(1) Y. Yesu Chandra Bose; (2) S. Ayyasamy vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Home (Police-III), Department; (2) Director General of Police and Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board; (3) Director General of Police (Law and Order), Office of Director General of Police  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Feb 2010]
Service – Appointment – Denial of – 2nd respondent/Board selected 1198 candidates against 1100 vacancies of Sub Inspector of Police, however, excess 98 candidates were not given appointment – Out of 98 candidates, 73 challenged the denial of appointment before the Tribunal including petitioners – Tribunal dismissed the application – Petitioners filed writ petition before HC – HC directed respondents to consider the representation of petitioners – Petitioners were considered for the appointment, however, they were not given appointment for want of vacancies – Petitioners contended that the respondents had filled up subsequent 98 vacancies by way of direct recruitment instead of considering the petitioners as in-service candidates - Held, respondents have appointed 80% of directly recruited candidates, who constitute 1100 candidates and 20% of in-service candidates, who are constituting 270 candidates, however, respondents have not followed 80:20 ratio in filling subsequent 98 vacancies - if the respondents properly applied 80:20 ratio in filling up all 98 additional vacancies, the petitioners could have easily been appointed as they have also obtained the cut off marks for the post – Therefore, direction issued to the respondents to send the petitioners for statutory training and after completion of the training both the petitioners should be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police – Petitions allowed.
(1) K. Mitchell; (2) M. Mitchel vs (1) Joint Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; (2) Commissioner of Police, Office of Commissioner of Police; (3) Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited; (4) Deeka Enterprises, Represented by V. Manikandan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 19 Feb 2010]
(A) Administrative – Petroleum & Gas – Petroleum Rules, 2002, r. 148(5) – Renewal of license – Application of deeming provision - Petitioners leased their land to 3rd respondent/Corporation for 20 years – 3rd respondent was acquired by the Central Government – 3rd respondent renewed the lease by using its statutory powers – 3rd respondent granted licenses to their dealers to run petrol pumps in the disputed site – 3rd respondent got No Objection Certificate (NOC) for running their business from 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Police - 3rd respondent filed application before 1st respondent/Controller of Explosives for renewing their license to run the business on disputed site - Petitioners contended that the 3rd respondent had no right to grant licenses to their dealers, hence 1st and 2nd respondents should not renew the license of 3rd respondent - Petitioners send legal notice to 1st and 2nd respondents calling upon them to cancel 3rd respondent’s license and NOC – Since there were no response from respondents, petitioners filed the present petition – Held, 3rd respondent is bound to establish before the 1st respondent that they have a valid and legal subsisting right on the site on the date when they sought extension of licence – 1st respondent has not granted renewal of the licence and has only stated that the licence is deemed to be in force as per r. 148(5) of the Rules - Licence said to be deemed to be in force cannot be said to be a licence, which has been considered and granted under the Rules, therefore, the deeming provision creates a legal fiction and what should follow is that the authority should proceed in accordance with statute - In such circumstances, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the renewal application submitted by the 3rd respondent under the Rules and consider as to whether the 3rd respondent is entitled for such renewal, however, while doing so, it is incumbent upon the 1st respondent to see as to whether the 3rd respondent has a right to the site in question - Therefore, direction issued to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners' representation in the form of legal notice and pass order on merits and in accordance with law and to decide as to whether the 3rd respondent is entitled to renewal of licence and while doing so, consider as to whether the 3rd respondent has got any right to the site in question as the lease granted in favour of the 3rd respondent has not been renewed beyond the term of presently subsisting lease – Petitions disposed of.

(B) Practice & Procedure – License – Grant of – Interference by HC – Held, HC should not encroach into the domain of the executive more so with their power to grant licences - However, when a statutory authority fails to exercise its jurisdiction or fails to perform a statutory function, the arms of HC are long enough to direct such authority to perform their statutory duty - Petitions disposed of.


Venkateswara Teacher Training Institute, Represented by President vs (1) Union Territory of Pondicherry, Represented by Secretary, Education Department; (2) Directorate of School Education; (3) Director, Directorate of Government Examinations; (4) Director, Directorate of Teacher Education Research and Training (DTERT)  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Feb 2010]
(A) Education - Pondicherry Private Professional Educational Institutions (Domicile Requirement in Admission of Students) Regulation, 2006 – Admission to Diploma in Teachers Education (D.T.Ed) course - Domicile requirement - Government, by its Order dated 25-5-2006, directed petitioner/institution to fill up 50% of the government quota from the candidates domiciled in the Union Territory of Puducherry – Petitioner admitted candidates domiciled in Puducherry under the 50% quota, however, 14 seats in the category remained vacant - Since no candidate domiciled in Puducherry came forward for admission, the petitioner/institution admitted 14 students from other state and thereafter forwarded the list of students admitted in the lapsed category for approval – 2nd respondent/Directorate did not approve the candidature of the said 14 students on the ground that those 14 students were admitted against the stipulation of the Government Order – Held, out of 14, 9 candidates who are admittedly not domiciled in Puducherry have obtained marks which are more than the prescribed limit by 2nd respondent in its guidelines and are also in consonance with the Regulations – 2nd respondent approved the admission of said 9 candidates and declined to approve the admission of remaining 5 candidates - However, 2nd respondent, by its order, approved the admission of remaining five students who have secured 45% and more marks on a later date - Therefore, in effect, the admission of all the 14 students have been approved – Since all the students have been allowed to write the first year examination by SC through its interim order, their results should be declared and certificates should be issued in accordance with law – Petition allowed.

(B) Education - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2007 – Admission to D.T.Edu course – Basic educational qualification – Requirement of – Held, Government has fixed the educational qualifications in consonance with the Regulations – Therefore, students who have less than the minimum marks prescribed and whose admission was not approved, cannot say that they were not aware of the stipulations regarding the eligibility criteria for admission – Petition allowed.


K. S. Gita vs (1) Vision Time India Private Limited; (2) Ramya Krishnan; (3) Vinaya Krishnan; (4) Ashok Kumar; (5) Kutty Padmini  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Feb 2010]
Intellectual Property – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. 38 r. 5 - Infringement of copyright - Suit for permanent injunction – Plaintiff alleged that defendant had adapted plaintiff’s literary work in his TV Serial without his permission – Plaintiff filed the suit restraining defendant from adapting remaking, translating, dubbing or substantially reproducing or making any cinematograph film or producing TV Serials on the story of plaintiff’s literary work – Plaintiff filed application for ad-interim injunction and sought a direction to deposit the money towards royalty pending the suit – Single Judge dismissed applications – Hence the present appeal – Defendants contended that the story of the impugned TV serial was written by 5th defendant - Held, plaintiff is not entitled to either temporary injunction or a direction to deposit the money towards royalty pending the suit – Controversy regarding who wrote the impugned literary work could be decided only on appreciation of evidence on either side – Defendant’s TV Serial has crossed more than 100 episodes for the past one year, therefore, it would not be possible to make a comparison or find out whether there are any similarities - If the impugned TV Serial is restrained from being screened at the present stage, neither of the parties can have the benefit out of the same, and the balance of convenience, under the stated circumstances, would not be in restraining the mega serial – Plaintiff has not made out any case for damages, hence, it cannot be issued any directions as sought for – Appeal dismissed.
(1) K. S. Arjun; (2) K. S. Nallathambi; (3) K. S. Venugopal vs (1) Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms); (2) Director of Land Reforms; (3) Tamil Nadu Land Reforms, Special Appellate Tribunal; (4) Sukumari Subbaian; (5) Punithavathi; (6) Dhanalakshmi; (7) Thilagavathi Varatharajan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Feb 2010]
(A) Land & Property – Administrative - Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, ss. 10, 83 – Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Rules, 1962, r. 11(1)(h) - 1st respondent/Authorised Officer issued draft statement u/s. 10(1) of the Act proposing to declare petitioners land as ‘surplus’ – Petitioners filed objections u/s. 10(5) – 1st respondent passed the orders – Petitioner filed appeals before the Land Tribunal – Land Tribunal/Sub Court remanded the matter back to 1st respondent – 1st respondent allowed certain exemptions to petitioners – Since no appeals were filed against the orders of Land Tribunal and 1st respondent, the same were attained finality – 1st respondent revised the earlier order u/r. 11(1)(h) on the guise of some mistakes – Government published final statement on the basis of the revised order of 1st respondent – Petitioners filed revision before Land Commissioner – Land Commissioner allowed the said revision in part – Petitioners filed writ petition challenging the order to the extent it disallowed the revision – Single Judge quashed the final statement and restored the order of 1st respondent – Order of Single Judge attained finality since no appeal was filed thereto – 2nd respondent/Land Reforms Director filed a revision petition before the 3rd respondent/Appellate Tribunal u/s. 83 of the Act praying to exercise the suo motu powers of revision and set aside the order of the 1st respondent – 3rd respondent held revision maintainable - Whether 3rd respondent who has been conferred with the suo motu powers by a Statute, can make use of the same to nullify a judicial order passed by the HC – Held, order passed by the 1st respondent was sought to be 'reviewed' after a clear lapse of 20 odd years - Order which is sought to be 'reviewed' under the guise of the suo motu powers by the 3rd respondent, has already been upheld by HC and that HC order has attained finality - When the 3rd respondent/Revisional Authority has no jurisdiction or power to 'review' the decision of HC, it is rather ridiculous on the part of 3rd respondent to attempt to re-open a case, wherein HC has rendered a binding decision on the parties, after hearing both parties, that too after the said decision has attained finality, having not been challenged – Action of the respondents are nothing but an attempt to treat the Tribunal as an appellate authority over the decision rendered by HC - Such suo motu powers have been vested on the Authorities only to achieve the ends of justice and not to make use of the same as a tool to harass the parties, against whom they have failed before the appropriate legal forums - Nowhere any explanation has been offered on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 as to why they have not challenged either the earlier orders of the Land Tribunal - If the respondents 1 and 2 are really aggrieved at the decisions arrived at by the Land Tribunal or HC, they should have filed necessary appeals or revisions before the upper forums of law - Instead of doing so, by the present impugned action, respondents 1 and 2 want to nullify all the judicial orders passed in favour of the petitioners – Directions issued to respondents 1 and 2 to strictly comply with the order of the Single Judge without adopting their dilatory tactics and resorting to the attitude of reading between the lines and trying to nullify the judicial order passed by HC – Petition allowed.

(B) Administrative – Decision of public authority – Nature and Scope – Held, any decision rendered by a public authority is not the decision of the incumbent occupying the chair, but the decision of the Office which he holds and such decision would not lose its sanctity or power or authenticity, when the individual who passed the earlier order demits the office - However, revisional powers are conferred on the authorities to correct the illegalities or irregularities committed, subject to certain limitations imposed by law – Petition allowed.


M. Raja vs (1) Registrar General; (2) Principal District Judge; (3) D. Srinivasan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Feb 2010]
Service – Appointment – Petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant-cum-Driver – Petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Bailiff – 2nd respondent invited application for the post of driver – Petitioner sought the post of driver – 2nd respondent appointed 3rd respondent as driver - Petitioner contended that he had all the qualification prescribed for the post of driver and had been working as Assistant-cum-Driver post for more than 17 years, hence, he had the lien over the post of driver – Held, Office Assistant is the feeder category for Junior Bailiff and thus, petitioner has been promoted as Junior Bailiff and has been working so - Appointment of the 3rd respondent as driver has nothing to do with the case of the petitioner – Present writ petition has come forward merely because of the appointment of the 3rd respondent as driver, which cannot be a reason to consider the request of the petitioner – No merit in the petition - Petition dismissed.
Selvi Periyanayagi vs (1) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Personal And Administration Reforms Department; (2) Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Represented by Secretary  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 16 Feb 2010]
Service – Appointment – Entitlement - Petitioner was declared as passed in the written test and was provisionally selected for the post of typist under BC category, however, she was not issued with the order of appointment – Respondent contended that petitioner had submitted community certificate only after her provisional selection and not at the time of submitting the application - Held, petitioner was not in possession of her community certificate at the time of submitting the application but the community certificate itself was issued by revenue authorities on a later date - Delay in obtaining the issuance of the community certificate from the revenue authorities cannot be attributed to the petitioner – Petitioner has produced the community certificate at the first earliest opportunity available to her, hence, petitioner is entitled to the appointment – Therefore, directions issued to the respondents to consider and select the petitioner in the post of typist based on her provisional selection as published in the provisional select list by treating her as a backward community candidate and issue appropriate posting orders – Petition disposed of.
P. Arjunan vs (1) Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Food, Cooperation And Consumer Protection Department; (2) Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society; (3) Kozhappallur Primary Agricultural Credit Society, Represented by Special Officer  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Feb 2010]
Service - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 – Petitioner/Secretary of the 3rd respondent Primary Co-operative Society was issued a charge-memo by 2nd respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies – Petitioner contended that since the Common Cadre Authority (CCA) was abolished in pursuance of the amendment of the Act, 2nd respondent being a CCA, had no jurisdiction to issue impugned charge-memo to petitioner – Held, s. 75 of the Act showed that the Government was not incline to nullify the existing disciplinary action taken against any employee of the society – In Government order abolishing the common cadre, the existing disciplinary action has been preserved – Further, at the time when the charge memo was framed against the petitioner, the petitioner was very much part of the common cadre system – Therefore, petitioner cannot take advantage of insertion of new chapter in the Act - Petition dismissed.
R. Mannar vs (1) Secretary, Municipal Admn. & Water Supply (NP2) Department; (2) Commissioner of Municipal  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Feb 2010]
Service - Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, r. 9A - Petitioner/Municipal Commissioner was charge-sheeted for election malpractice - Enquiry officer held that charge against petitioner was not proved - 1st respondent disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and communicated the reason for deviating from the findings of the enquiry officer and called upon the petitioner to submit his objections - Petitioner submitted his objections - 1st respondent after obtaining the views of the State Public Service Commission, passed the impugned order imposing punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner - Held, 1st respondent communicated the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer to the petitioner, however, the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is not in consonance with the law laid down by the SC in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 INDLAW SC 1318 - Disciplinary authority ought not to have proceeded to pass final orders after the notice straight away without adhering to the other procedures as held by the SC, therefore, impugned order is set aside - Petition allowed.
(1) G. Thygarajan; (2) N. Subramanian vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Cooperation, Food & Consumer Protection; (2) Registrar of Cooperatives; (3) Additional Registrar/Special officer(IC); (4) M. Kuppusamy; (5) R. Murugesan S/o S. Ramakrishnan; (6) C. Shanmugam S/o K. Chickappan, Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union; (7) P. Seventhiraj S/o Kpaulsamy; (8) S. Stanis laus S/o Soosai  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 15 Feb 2010]
(A) Service - Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 – Appointment – Relaxation of qualification – 3rd respondent appointed 4th and 5th respondents as Directors of 6th respondent/Co-operative Union – 3rd respondent sought exemption u/s. 170 of the Act in respect of the educational qualifications of the 4th and 5th respondents - Petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent could not avail the power of exemption after completing the appointment – Held, as and when the Government grants exemption in terms of the provisions of the Act, the petitioner can revive cause of action if he is still aggrieved about such exemption – Petition dismissed.

(B) Practice & Procedure – Respondent in writ petition – Entitlement of relief – Held, respondent cannot seek the relief in a writ petition which is filed by another party – Petition dismissed.


M. Murugan vs (1) Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Office of the Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies; (2) Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2010]
Service – Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 311 – Fundamental Rules, 56(i)(c) – Unauthorised enquiry – Protection u/art. 311 – Availability of - Petitioner/Co-operative Sub Registrar was charge-sheeted for misconduct – Deputy Registrar was appointed as enquiry officer – Petitioner contended that Deputy Registrar was not the appointing authority and hence, he could not have initiated proceedings u/r. 56(i)(c) of the Fundamental Rules – Held, protection u/art. 311 of the Constitution from unauthorised dismissal would not be available at the stage of charge-sheet and such protection would be available only at the stage of imposition of penalty/dismissal - In the absence of any prohibition under the rule and the respondents having empowered to frame charges and conduct enquiry, HC is not inclined to interfere with – Petition dismissed.
Medical Superintendent, IRT vs (1) Presiding Officer, Labour Court; (2) K. Jeevanandam  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2010]
(A) Labour & Industrial Law - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 – Order of reinstatement – Legality – 2nd respondent was employed as Cook by appellant – 2nd respondent was terminated from service – 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court ordered for reinstatement – Appellant challenged the Labour Court order before HC – Single Judge confirmed the Labour Court order – Appellant contended that 2nd respondent was a Contractor for supplying workmen under contract basis, hence he was not a workman under the Act – Held, appellant has failed to produce any documents to substantiate the plea that the 2nd respondent was a Contractor – Since 2nd respondent was engaged as a temporary workman, his name could not be found in Pay Bill Vouchers – Various oral and documentary evidence showed that 2nd respondent was working with appellant/Institute in the preceding years continuously - Therefore, Labour Court rightly ordered for reinstatement of 2nd respondent – Appeal dismissed.

(B) Labour & Industrial Law – Order of reinstatement – Decision of SC in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, 2006 INDLAW SC 125 – Applicability of – Held, person engaged on contract basis are entitled to regularisation if his termination is illegal – Once the termination is held to be in violation of the provisions, the Labour Courts are empowered to issue positive directions to an erring employer - Appeal dismissed.

(C) Practice & Procedure – Finding of fact by Labour Court – Interference by HC – Held, when the finding of the Labour Court is based upon analysis of oral and documentary evidence, the HC would not interfere with the findings of fact unless shown to be perverse – Appeal dismissed.


(1) M. Velayutham; (2) S. Pandian vs (1) Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission; (2) Registrar of Co-operative Societies; (3) N. Irusappan, Ex-President, Rasipuram Teacher and Government Servants, Co-operative Housing Welfare Association; (4) Special Officer, Rasipuram Teachers and Government Servants Co-operative Housing Society  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2010]
(A) Constitution – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Imposition of maximum penalty – Notice to the party – Requirement of - State Information Commission (SIC) imposed maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- on petitioner/employees of Co-operative Society and directed 2nd respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioners – (a) Whether Co-operative Societies are covered under the provisions of Act - Held, co-operative societies are covered by the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from furnishing the information sought for by any applicant under the Act – Relied on the decision of SC in A. C. Sekar v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle and others, 2008 (1) CTC 838 – (b) Whether maximum penalty imposed on petitioners were proportionate to their delinquency – Held, SIC direction to impose penalty to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and a further direction to take disciplinary action without due notice to both the petitioners cannot be sustained and therefore, set aside – However, SIC can pursue the action further in accordance with law and in the light of the SC judgment in Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2000 INDLAW SC 2713, after hearing the petitioners – Petitions partly allowed.

(B) Constitution – Practice & Procedure - Right to Information Act, 2005 – Writ petition against the order of Information Commissions – Joinder of parties – (obiter) whenever a person challenges the order of the State or Central Information Commission, it is not necessary to make the Commission a party to the writ petition - Commission is a statutory appellate authority and is expected to function within the four corners of the Act and if its orders are under challenge, the Commission is not expected to defend it - If the Commission is made as a party, it would be an unnecessary drain on the Commission to engage counsel to defend its orders – Further, Commission's orders are challenged by the Government departments or information officers at the expense of the Government – Petitions partly allowed.


T. Simson Prathab Singh vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary, Home (Police) Department; (2) Director General of Police  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2010]
Service – Fundamental Rules, 56(1)(c) – Serious misconduct – Validity of order of retention - Petitioner was suspended for grave misconduct and was denied permission to retire from the service u/r. 56(1)(c) – Petitioner challenged the suspension order – HC stayed the suspension order – Petitioner contended that since the suspension order was stayed the impugned order retaining him in service would not be sustained – Held, charges framed against the petitioner revealed serious misconduct, therefore, petitioner cannot challenge the order retaining him in service as well as the one suspending him from service including the charge memo - As long as the order has been passed u/r. 56(1)(c) and served on the petitioner, the petitioner would have to face the enquiry – No interference called for the impugned orders - Petitions dismissed.
R. Syed Azmath Basha, Shah Rahamatullah Wali Mosque vs (1) Settlement Officer, Officer of the Land Survey and Settlement; (2) District Collector; (3) Mayatas Infra Private Limited; (4) R. Neelakandan  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2010]
Land & Property – Administrative - Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotvari) Act, 1963 – Patta application – Non-consideration of - Land in question was gifted in favour of petitioner/Wakf and title of petitioner was affirmed by the Civil Court – Petitioner applied for re-classification of land in question and issuance of Patta in his favour – 1st respondent/Settlement Officer did not take any action in spite of several representations of petitioner – Hence the present writ petition – Held, 1st respondent called for the relevant records from the District Revenue Officer after receiving petitioner’s request – 1st respondent has considered the petitioner's representation, but has failed to proceed further after a particular point of time - Therefore, direction issued to the 1st respondent to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law – Petition disposed of.
(1) P. S. Rajan; (2) Uma; (3) Injambakkam Villagers Welfare Association, Represented by Secretary, I. H. Sekar vs (1) Teachers Colony Residents' Welfare Association; (2) Commissioner, St. Thomas Mount Panchayat Union; (3) President, Injambakkam Panchayat; (4) Revenue Divisional Officer; (5) District Revenue Officer; (6) Commissioner and Special Commissioner of Land Administration; (7) Tahsildar; (8) District Collector; (9) P. S. Rajan; (10) Uma  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Feb 2010]
Land & Property – Municipalities & Local Governments – Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, s. 4 - Cancellation of Patta – Legality of - Petitioners purchased the disputed site from its original owner – 1st respondent/Association challenged the grant of Patta in favour of petitioner on the ground that the disputed land were allotted for public purpose – Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) cancelled the Patta of petitioner – District Revenue Officer (DRO) set aside the order of RDO – Land Commissioner set aside the order of DRO – Whether the petitioners are entitled to put up a superstructure in the disputed land – Held, since the lay-out of the disputed site was not approved by the local authority u/s. 4 of the Rules, there could not be any division and construction on disputed site – However, ownership and possession of the petitioners are not in dispute and therefore, Land Commissioner was not justified in cancelling the Patta by confirming the order passed by the RDO – Therefore, petitioners are entitled to the Patta of the disputed site but they are not permitted to have any construction on the site – Petitions allowed.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax vs M. Sundaram  [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 11 Feb 2010]
Income Tax & Direct Taxes – Criminal - Income Tax Act, 1961, s. 276-CC – Failure to file returns – Criminal prosecution – Maintainability - Respondent/assessee failed to file his return for the relevant period even after the issuance of notice u/ss. 142 and 148 of the Act – Respondent filed returns belatedly – Appellant/Department imposed penalty and interest and recovered the same from respondent - Appellant filed complaint against the respondent u/s. 276-CC alleging non-filing of the return in time – Trial Court acquitted respondent – Appellant contended that recovery of penalty and interest from respondent would not absolve respondent’s criminal liability – Held, respondent has not filed his returns in time for the relevant assessment years, therefore, he is liable to be prosecuted for the offence u/s. 276-CC of the Act - Since the respondent has not filed the returns in time, mere payment of interest/penalty would not absolve his criminal liability – Appellant/Department has proved that the respondent-accused is guilty of the offence u/ss. 276-CC of the Act, beyond reasonable doubt – Therefore, Trial Court committed error in acquitting the respondent, hence impugned Trial Court order is set aside – Appeal allowed.


Copyright © 1997-2010 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer