0

Madras High Court directs govt to Appoint Nodal Officer to deal with engagement and payment of fees of Advocate General, Additional AG’s.

Blog, blog , , , ,

TITLE: The State of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Ramasamy.

Decided On: July 18, 2023.

Writ Appeal No.1102 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Suresh kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu.

Introduction:

Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Pattern to set aside the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in W.P.No.25027 of 2011 and allow the writ appeal. The Court issued the directions while disposing of a plea filed by former TN Additional AG S Ramasamy in 2011, seeking payment of ₹1.95 crores due as his professional legal fees for having appeared in several matters for the State during his tenure as the Additional AG between the years 2006 and 2011. While Ramasamy’s fee was finally paid by the TN government earlier this year following the High Court’s intervention, the Court said there was an urgent need to have a system in place to avoid such delays in future. A bench of Justices R Suresh Kumar and K Kumaresh Babu also directed that such nodal officer must be responsible for looking after the professional fees claims made by the AG, Additional AG or other senior law officers of the State, and should ensure that their fees are paid within 30 days of raising such claims.

Facts:

The respondent was the writ petitioner, who is a practising lawyer since 1972 and on 10.06.2006, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General -II of the State of Tamil Nadu and he was subsequently designated as a Senior Advocate and later on 25.09.2009, he was appointed as Additional Advocate General – I. In that capacity, he appeared in several cases for the State of Tamil Nadu before this Court as well as before the Madurai Bench of this Court between 2006 – 2011. He had claimed his eligible fee per day/per case basis and thereafter, he resigned the post of Additional Advocate General – I after the assembly elections results were announced. Therefore, from the year 2006 to 13.05.2011,the respondent writ petitioner submitted various bills for his appearance as Additional Advocate General – II and I in respect of various departments and according to the respondent or petitioner, the outstanding amount is Rs.1,95,01,622/-(One crore Ninety Five lakhs one thousand six hundred and twenty two only). Since that amount had not been given in spite of several representations, he approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition seeking writ of mandamus. A learned Judge, who heard the matter allowed the writ petition by order dated 15.11.2011, whereby, the learned Judge directed the appellant/department herein to sanction and pay the eligible fee payable to the respondent/petitioner considering the claim made by him within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent/State in the writ petition has filed the present writ appeal.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The Bench also took note of a letter written to the State government by the current TN Advocate General R Shunmugasundaram on June 8 this year seeking a uniform system to engage State law officers and to ratify and pay their fees within a fixed time limit. The AG said that such uniform system was required to streamline engagement of law officers and payment of their fees to avoid embarrassments such as that in the present case. The Court agreed and said that the State government must consider the suggestions made by the AG. It then also issued a specific direction for the appointment of the Nodal officer.

  • In this regard, a Nodal officer in the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary of the State Government shall be specifically nominated for the purpose of dealing with the requests made on behalf of the various departments for nomination of Advocate General and Additional Advocate General for the appearance in important cases by or against the State Government and its Departments.
  • The Nodal Officer shall also consider and look after the professional fee claim made from time to time by various law officers starting from Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, State Government Pleader, Special Government Pleader, Additional Government Pleader, Government Advocate, etc, and those professional bills, which are made/claimed by such law officers shall be examined and disposed either by way of making the payment or if any ineligible amount is claimed, as per the conditions of appointment of law officers, that can also be stated to the law officers, either way, the claim should be disposed of within a period of 30 days from the date of such claim is made by the law officer concerned.
  • In this regard, in order to assist the Nodal Officer, minimum secretarial staff shall be provided by the State Government. The Nodal Officer shall be in constant touch with all other departments of the State Government with regard to their requirement of appointment of higher law officers on specific cases as well as for the clarifications, etc., to be ascertained for the purpose of verification and clearing of the fee bills.
  • It is made clear that once the Nodal Officer after thorough consideration and verification, clears the professional fee bill of the law officers, the payment shall be made within 30 days thereafter and it should ensured by the Nodal Officer.

 In order to comply the aforesaid directions necessary Government Order shall be issued by the State Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and a compliance report to that effect shall be filed before this Court on 28.08.2023. With the above directions, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court Tuesday directed the Tamil Nadu government to appoint a nodal officer holding the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary to deal with all requests by the State departments to engage the Advocate General (AG) or the Additional Advocate Generals in important cases before the Court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras HC Directs Medical College To Transfer Rs 2.76 Crore Collected As Capitation Fee To Authorities For Special Scholarship.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   Pooja Chakravarthy                           … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  TN MGR Medical College                                … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 23.11.2022.

                              Pronounced On 28.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR.

Citation: W.P.Nos.28148 and 31524 of 2022.

Introduction:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent Medical University relating to its proceedings in Lr. No. Ex.I(6)/59516 / 2019, dated 08.08.2022, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to ascertain the comparative merit and ranking of the
Petitioners by the 2nd Respondent Selection Committee for the vacancy to be filled-up in accordance with law and on that basis allow the Petitioners to continuously pursue the study of MBBS Degree Course in the 3rd Respondent Medical College till they successfully completing the course.

Facts:

The third respondent is a Medical College run by a private management. For the academic year 2019-2020, the petitioners were admitted at the third respondent College in first year M.B.B.S. Degree course in stray vacancies on the last date of admission i.e., 30.08.2018. However, at the time of first year M.B.B.S. Examination, which was scheduled to be conducted on 15.02.2021 by the first respondent University, the petitioners were denied Hall
Tickets, therefore, the third respondent College filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.No.3224 of 2021, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to the University to issue Hall Tickets to the students i.e., the petitioners herein and two more students, totalling 9 students. It is to be noted that, the petitioners were not made parties in the said Writ Petition.

The said Writ Petition was dismissed on 11.02.2021 with a finding that the petitioners’ admission to the vacancies in the M.B.B.S. Course were without recourse to the second respondent Selection Committee and hence, those admissions were against regulations. Accordingly, the said Writ Appeal was taken up for hearing and by order dated 22.06.2022, the said Writ Appeal was also dismissed. Aggrieved over the judgement made by the Division Bench, dismissing the Writ Appeal No.604 of 2021, the third respondent Medical College preferred S.L.P. (C) No.12735 of 2002.

Issues:

  • Whether the students were admitted in the third respondent College only based on merits or any methods, which are not approved under law, was adopted by the third respondent College?
  • Whether the amount claimed by the third respondent College alone is collected from the students or their parents or excess amount also has been collected?

Legal Analysis:

The method adopted by the third respondent College in admitting the 9 candidates in the 9 stray vacancies that arose on 28.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. for admission in the first year M.B.B.S. Degree Course in the academic year 2019 – 2020 is not in consonance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the regulations made by the fourth respondent in this regard. Since the issue has already been concluded by the judgment of the Writ Court as well as the Writ Appellate Court, which has already been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the S.L.P. filed by the College as unconditionally withdrawn, that issue need not once again be opened or traversed. However, insofar as the claim made by the petitioners / students is concerned, since they were never parties to any of the lis and first time when they filed the S.L.P. such an opening was given permitting them to pursue such
remedies available in law before this Court, for the first time since they have come and placed their plea before this Court and also revealed the fact as to how much fee as One Time Payment that they have made to the College, taking note of their genuine approach and by also taking note of the fact that these petitioners have secured slightly higher marks than some of the candidates, who are admitted in the first year M.B.B.S. degree course in various Private Colleges selected through the second respondent Selection Committee for the academic year 2019 – 2020, this Court feels that, by giving admissions to these petitioners, merit has not been given a complete go by.
 It is also to be noted that these students have completed their two years course and at this juncture if they are sent out, that would certainly affect the very career of these students and they have comparatively secured slightly higher marks than considerable number of students, who were able to secure admission in the relevant academic year, hence, this Court feels that these petitioners / students can continue their course in the third respondent College. Insofar as the shocking revelation that has been made by the parents of these students that, they have paid huge amount by way of One Time Payment to the third respondent College, it is a very serious issue which should be taken note of by this Court.

Judgement:

The Court is inclined to dispose of these Writ Petitions with the following orders:-

(i) That the petitioners herein are permitted to continue in their M.B.B.S. course, wherein they joined in the year 2019 – 2020 at the third respondent College, and complete the course successfully.

(ii) A sum of Rs.2,76,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores and Seventy Six Lakhs only) had been paid to the 3rd Respondent College as One Time Payment atleast on behalf of the six petitioners herein as per the respective affidavits filed by the respective parents as detailed hereinabove. The said sum Rs.2,76,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the admission of these students in the year 2019 be paid by the 3rd Respondent College in a separate account to be opened in this regard jointly in the name of the Secretary, Selection Committee i.e., the 2nd respondent as well as the Registrar of the first respondent University.

(iii) The said amount can be spent towards paying the tuition fee for more meritorious candidates who would be admitted in the I year M.B.B.S. degree course from the academic year 2023-2024 in any Government or Private Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu till the entire amount is exhausted as a special scholarship.

(iv) To whom such a benefit shall be extended can be decided jointly by the 1st and 2nd respondents and accordingly the said amount can be spent.

(v) Though merit has not been given a go by in making the admission of these petitioners as held hereinabove, since the method adopted by the third respondent College is in violation of the declared law and for securing admissions on behalf of these petitioners huge amount has been spent or paid as an One Time Payment, which is otherwise called as donation or capitation fee and for such a narrative the petitioners or their parents also had agreed upon, these petitioners and their parents lost their right to get back the said amount i.e., Rs.2,76,00,000/- mentioned hereinabove. That is why, the aforesaid arrangement has been made.

(vi) If at all the third respondent College, pursuant to this order, decides to agitate this issue stating that they have not received any One Time Payment to the extent of Rs.2,76,00,000/- as claimed by the parents of six of the petitioners herein and on that ground if the College refused to deposit the said amount with interest as indicated above, that issue shall be referred by the first, second and fourth respondents herein for investigation by CB CID Police force in the State of Tamil Nadu and in that case, such an investigation shall take to its logical
conclusion in the manner known to law.

(vii) Apart from the aforestated, it is open to the 4th respondent to take any action against the 3rd respondent College for such violation in admitting 9 students in the year 2019 – 2020 in accordance with the regulations of the 4th respondent, which are in vogue.

(viii) Since the petitioners are permitted to pursue the course in the 3rd respondent College, the order impugned of the first respondent need not be given effect to.

(ix) That apart, the 3rd respondent College, since has filled 9 seats, out of which, 5 are Government quota and 4 are Management quota, 5 seats in the permitted intake of the 3rd respondent College in first year M.B.B.S. degree course in Management quota shall be surrendered for the academic year 2023 – 2024, where it is open to the second respondent Selection Committee to select candidates and send for admission to the 3rd respondent College as additional seats in the Government quota as a compensatory mechanism.

Conclusion:

Since the college had filled the nine seats without following the procedure, the court directed the college to surrender five seats in its management quota for the academic year 2023-24 which, it said, shall be used as additional seats in the Government quota as a compensatory mechanism. The court added that National Medical Commission is free to take any action against the college for violating its regulations. “Since the petitioners are permitted to pursue the course in the 3rd respondent College, the order impugned of the first respondent need not be given effect to”.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court orders Compensate to the illegal detention of the women and minor.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:   Guru @ Paramaguru

                                               … Petitioner / Husband of the detenue                                     
                                              Versus

The Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, Trichy and  Anrs    

                                                                                  …Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 28.06.2023

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR 

                                      AND

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Citation: H.C.P. (MD) No. 697 of 2023 

Introduction:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the 1st  respondent to produce the person or body of the petitioner’s wife, namely, Saktheeswari, W/o.Guru @ Paramaguru, aged about 37 years from the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 4 before this Court and set her at liberty. When this Habeas Corpus Petition is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents would submit that he has received instructions from Mr.Asra Garg, Inspector General of Police, Madurai South Zone, Madurai that he has completed enquiry only by 22.06.2023 as directed by this Court and he would file a report before this Court on 28.06.2023without fail. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Facts: 

  • Summons were issued to a woman to appear in Police Station for examination in violation of section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code.
  • Detention of three persons including a woman anda child aged 16 years for more than 24 hours.
  • Unwarranted registration of a criminal case against Tmt. P. Saktheeswari and Tr. S. Sethupathi in Thottiyam PS Cr.No.154 of 2023 u/s 294(b) IPC to screen the detention.
  • The petitioner, seeking production of his wife, namely, Saktheeswari, aged about 37 years, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.
  • The husband of the detenue has beenarrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are in danger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4.

Issues:

  • Whether the summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C?
  • Whethe the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law?
  • Whether there was an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention?

Legal Analysis:

The enquiry report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, is exhaustive with supportive and corroborative elements with circumstances and other statements that have been recorded from the persons or witnesses or police officials or police
men and produced before this Court in electronic form. Therefore, prima facie the Court has to accept the report, as there has been no reason to raise any doubt over the said report submitted by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.

On three grounds, there has been a complete violation on the part of the respondent Police in dealing with the matter. The first one is that summon issued to the women person is in violation of proviso to Section 160 Cr.P.C.. The second is that the three persons were detained, including the women and a child aged about 16 years more than 24 hours without the authority of law and the third one is an unwarranted registration of criminal case against the detenue and another person one Sethuraman in Crime No.154 of 2023 under Section 294 IPC to screen the detention.Since these three violations are serious in nature, which have been found out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his enquiry and it has been stated in the report, we, having accepted the said report, feel that further follow up action by way of proper enquiry on these violations shall go on.

The Court directs the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy to take further action on the three violations pointed out by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai in his report dated 28.06.2023. In this regard, an independent team shall be formed to further enquire the matter on the basis of the evidences collected by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and accordingly, necessary disciplinary action shall be initiated against the erring police officials as well as the police men, who involved in such violation and such
disciplinary proceedings shall be permitted to reach its logical conclusion on merits.

Judgement:

Insofar as the illegal detention of the detenue women and minor ie., under the age of 18 is concerned, it is open to the detenue to seek for remedial measure, including the compensation before the concerned forum in the manner known to law. Since the detenue has been set at free and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents has submitted that there is no arrest in any case and she is not in the custody and she is free now, the detenue can either join with the family or can lead her comfortable life.
Therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition can be closed to that extent, accordingly, it is closed.
However, insofar as the criminal case that has been registered against the husband of the detenue is concerned, it is open to the respondent Police to proceed with the investigation further in accordance with law and let the case be taken into its logical conclusion based on the evidences to be collected by the respondent Police. The Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Trichy shall file a compliance report with regard to the aforesaid directions after three months.
For the said purpose, The matter was posted on 03.10.2023. It is made clear that the evidence that has been produced before this Court by way of electronic form (pen drive) along with the report filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, shall be preserved by the Additional Registrar General of this Bench for future usage.

Conclusion:

When this Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 15.06.2023, the respondent Police had produced the detenue before this Court, who had made some allegations against the respondent Police ie., the respondents 2 to 4 that in the name of enquiring the detenue in connection with the case, where the petitioner ie.,the husband of the detenue has been arrayed as an accused, the respondents 2 to 4 had tortured her and she literally cried before this Court, saying that her and her children’s life are indanger at the hands of the respondents 2 to 4. Since there was illegal detention of the respondents should compensate to the detenue.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement