0

The Government has to protect the property in the interest of public Says Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , , ,

Case Title:  Agri-Horticultural Society             … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  The State of Tamil Nadu Ors                          … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 21.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 04.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM. 

Citation:  WP No.17612 of 2023 and WMP Nos.16694 to 16697 of 2023.

Introduction:

The writ petitioner is the Agri-Horticultural Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. The petitioner-Society states that originally the Society had lands granted by the East India Company  British Government, as well as, lands purchased out of its own funds through Private Negotiation, 1836 onwards. Certain portions of land were leased out to the Society by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1912. The Society’s gardens, which are now claimed by the Government, are situated on the Northern side of Cathedral Road. On the Northern side, apart from the Society’s private lands, and adjoining the same having Lloyds Road on its Northern Border is, another portion of land,
which is now Senganthal Poonga, a portion of land granted by the Government to the Society and now resumed. On the Southern side of Cathedral Road, lies Semmozhi Poonga, which comprises the land, originally leased out and later granted to the Society. Within the portion now occupied on Semmozhi Poonga, lies private lands of the Society are also, originally identified as OS Nos.3411 and 3062, Mylapore Village, which essentially makes it four tracks of land. The Government attempted to resume the subject property in the year 1960. The petitioner filed WP No.469 of 1962 and eventually the matter entered into a settlement between the Society and the Government of Tamil Nadu and the question of ownership of the land in possession of the Society was left open. The Government re-granted portion of the land in the year 1980. Subsequently, there was no dispute for several years.

Legal Analysis:
Regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, the facts as established in the present writ petition would reveal that the disputed issues regarding title is to be adjudicated before the Competent Civil Court of Law. The power of Judicial Review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to ensure the processes through which the decision taken by the Competent Authorities whether in consonance with the provisions of the Statute and the Rules, but not the decision itself. Thus the scope of the present writ petition cannot be expanded for adjudicating the disputed issues regarding title with ownership or otherwise. However the power of the Government to resume the land belonging to the Government under the relevant Statute and Board Standing Orders need not be interfered with by the Court ordinarily. A person claiming title over the property has to approach the Competent Civil Court of Law for establishing his title.

In the present case, the show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Land Administration in exercise of his powers under the Revenue Standing Order for initiation of suo motu revision proceedings. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings and this Court has elaborately considered all grounds raised by the petitioner, including the grounds relating to mala fide, lack of jurisdiction, political vendetta etc. All grounds were elaborately adjudicated by this Court, which were confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court  and subsequently by the Apex Court of India.

Res Judicata:

Principles of res judicata as defined under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to Writ Petitions also as approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements. In view of the same, the plea of mala fide and political vendetta, is settled and nullified. The petitioner is estopped from stating the same time and again and the said
averments have to be rejected as per the principles of Res Judicata.

Judgement:

The factum established, the petitioner has deemed to have exhausted his right to re-canvass the said grounds once again before this Court, which were elaborately adjudicated. Even then this Court has independently considered the grounds and the legal positions once again and does not find any reason for reconsidering the claim of the petitioner. The additional grounds raised by the petitioner is also untenable. As far as the impugned order is concerned, the Commissioner of Land Administration categorically considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and made a finding in unambiguous terms. The Commissioner of Land Administration has stated that the petitioner-Society has been in enjoyment of highly valuable lands belonging to the Government, without remittance of any nominal amount whatsoever to the Government for several decades. Serious infringement of the rights of the public at large has been rightly taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Land Administration. In the event of abuse of Government land by any private individuals, the right of public at large is violated and in such circumstances, the Government is duty bound to resume the land and recover the lease rent by following the procedures as contemplated. Thus the Commissioner of Land Administration has not committed any error in issuing a direction to recover the interim lease rent from the petitioner Society and directing the District Collector to calculate the final lease rent and recover the same by following the procedures. The petitioner-Society is in possession of the Government land for several decades and therefore they are liable to pay the minimum lease rent as calculated by the Authorities in the interest of public and to protect the State revenue, which is the constitutional obligation on the part of the Government. The factum established in the present writ petition would be sufficient enough to arrive an inevitable conclusion that the petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal right to occupy the land belonging to the Government.

Conclusion:

The subject land has already been resumed by the Government and the Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops is in possession of the Government land as of now. Thus the Government has to protect the property in the interest of public and utilise the said land for the welfare of the public as they have stated in their affidavit filed in support
of the present writ petition.

“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 Directs the Agricultural Department to pay all retirement benefits to its Employee.

blog, Blog , , , ,

Case Title:       M. Sivaraju                                              … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

The Agricultural production, Commissioner and Ors           … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 21.04.2023.

                              Pronounced On 28.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
                                                     AND
       THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI.

Citation:  Writ Appeal.No.1865 of 2019 C.M.P.No.21529 of 2019.

Introduction:

The petitioner filed this writ appeal No. 1865 of 2019 against the operation of the order made in W.P.No.4581of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 (CMP.No.12603/2019) and obtained interim stay on 20.06.2019 in C.M.P.No. 12603 of 2019. Now the departmental enquiry is kept abeyance from 02.07.2019 after the receipt of the order of interim stay to this office on 02.07.2019.

Facts:

The appellant, has joined in the Agricultural Engineering Department, as Assistant Engineer, in June 1984 and he was posted in the Erode District. Thereafter on deputation he was posted in Rural Development Department in March 1997 as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Union, Gobi, Erode District. Ever since the same he was discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors and was not subjected to any departmental proceeding and that he had reached the superannuation on 29.02.2016. While so, a false case was foisted against him by one Ashokan, councillor of Ward No.10 Gobi Panchayat Union who approached him for a favour which was rejected by him. Based upon the said complaint a trap was laid by Director of Vigilence and Anti Corruption Department against the appellant and one K.Vijayakumar, contractor in February 2002. But, no trap was held against the appellant. The above contractor was alone subjected to the trap proceedings. However a false case was foisted against him and the said contractor Vijayakumar. The above case was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode vide Spl. C.C.No.24/2015. According to the appellant he never demanded any money from anybody and he was unnecessarily dragged in to this case based on the false complaint lodged by the said councillor. Thereafter, the appellant was placed under suspension. The police filed the final report on 04.07.2005 after a period of three years and the trial was commenced after lapse of ten years.

Issue:

Whether the charges framed by the 3rd respondent in respect of the appellant is barred by delay and laches?

Legal Analysis:

The issue of charge memo by the third respondent after superannuation is highly belated and without any substance. The respondents ought to have proceeded against the appellant simultaneously for any serious misconduct, when criminal case is pending on the file of Special Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, but on the other hand they have not taken any action against the appellant even after his superannuation on 29.02.2016. The Criminal court having given a clear finding that none of the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have spoken about the demand and acceptance of money as alleged, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the alleged demand of money has been proved. Having accepted the well considered findings of hon’ble acquittal, it would be futile on the part of the third respondent to proceed against the appellant to issue a charge memo which is not sustainable as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgements. Hence the charge memo is highly belated and that there has been an inordinate delay of 15 years that too after appellant has attained his superannuation. Even in the writ petition filed by the appellant, the respondents have not repudiated the allegations by filing a counter affidavit. The fact remains
that the averments made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition have not been controverted. The 3rd respondent ought to have initiated the disciplinary proceedings within the reasonable time, when there is no bar for taking simultaneous proceeding, by way of departmental proceedings and by way of criminal proceedings.

Judgement:

In the light of the above judgements, there is inordinate delay in framing the impugned charge memo and despite the direction of this Court, the respondent/disciplinary authority has not concluded the said disciplinary proceedings within the specified time. There is no initiation of action being taken by the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to the charge memo has been framed. Therefore, at every stage, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent/disciplinary authority. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the aforesaid impugned charge memo is liable to be quashed. In the result, the Writ appeal is allowed, the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority vide proceeding No. No.Roc.No.11591/2015/R1 dated 24.08.2017 is quashed and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4581 of 2018 dated 07.02.2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay all retirement benefits to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

The fact remains that the averments made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition have not been controverted. There is no initiation of action being taken by the respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to the charge memo has been framed. The respondents are directed to pay all retirement benefits to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

“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 the Endowment Department to Appoint the next male descendant to hold the post of Trusteeship.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:   C.V. Chandrasekaran                                    … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

The Joint Commissioner, and Ors                                      … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 28.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 03.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH.

Citation: W.P.Nos. 14663, 14142 and 14150 of 2023.

Introduction:

PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent relating to the impugned order Se.Mu.Na.Ka.No.3300 of 2021 A1 dated –/4/2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE, Kanchipuram – the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. The suspended hereditary trustee of Collah Singanna Chetty Charities (hereinafter called the trust) has filed this writ petition assailing the order passed by the first respondent through proceedings (i) framing charges against the petitioner; (ii) suspending the petitioner pending enquiry under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and (iii) appointing a fit person to administer the trust.

Introduction:

The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of the trust from the year 1997 after the demise of his father. He was holding the complete administration and management of the trust and running the trust in line with the object, for which, it was established. (ii) Earlier also, the petitioner was suspended from the office of the hereditary trustee by the first respondent through proceedings dated 13.10.2008 on the ground that the petitioner was attempting to sell the properties belonging to the trust. The petitioner challenged the earlier order of suspension dated 13.10.2008 before this Court in W.P. No.25511 of 2008. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court by an order dated 05.11.2019. (iii) Aggrieved by the said order of this Court dated 05.11.2019, the petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.185 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court, by a judgment dated 22.9.2020, allowed the said writ appeal by setting aside the earlier order of suspension dated 13.10.2008 passed by the first respondent and further directed the first respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law within a period of three months. The Division Bench further continued the interim order that was granted in favour of the petitioner till the matter was finally decided by the first respondent.
(iv) After the Division Bench remanded the matter back to the file of the first respondent, the impugned proceedings came to be issued by framing 26 charges against the petitioner and an enquiry was initiated under Section 53 of the Act. Pending the enquiry, the petitioner was suspended under Section 53(4) of the Act and the fit person was appointed to discharge the duties and perform the functions of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

Issues:

  • Whether thenature of an endowment is that it has to maintain the properties to carryout the objectives of the trust?
  • Whether there was financial loss has been caused to the trust and
    that the objectives of the trust were not properly performed?

Legal Analysis:

In the instant case, the trust in question is more in the nature of an endowment and it has to maintain the properties to carry out the objectives of the trust. A careful reading of the charges framed against the petitioner shows that the properties belonging to the trust have been allegedly alienated without getting any permission, that, in addition, some of the properties were allowed to be taken away by third parties, who had encroached upon those properties, that a huge financial loss has been caused to the trust and that the objectives of the trust were not properly performed.

The first respondent, before taking a decision to appoint the fit person, ought to have first considered the appointment of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship as per the scheme decree. Upon such consideration, if the male descendant is found to be unfit and hence, the first respondent decides to appoint the fit person, the same should have been mentioned in the impugned proceedings. To arrive at a conclusion that the male descendant is unfit to hold the post of trusteeship is not a subjective satisfaction and it has to be considered objectively by assigning reasons. This is in view of the fact that the male descendant, as a matter of right, can hold the post of trusteeship and if it is sought to be denied, the same must be supported by reasons and it should be stated in the proceedings. Only then, the Court can satisfy itself as to whether the decision arrived at by the Authority concerned is reasonable.

In the instant case, there is nothing available in the impugned proceedings to show that the first respondent had first considered the appointment of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship, found him to be unfit for any reasons and thereafter appointed the fit person to administer the trust. The impugned proceedings of the first respondent can be tested only from what is stated in the order and not from what is attempted to be improved during the course of proceedings.

Judgement:

The Honourable Mr.Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, partly allowed the writ petition in following terms :
(a) The order placing the petitioner under suspension and framing the charges against him is upheld and the Competent Authority namely the first respondent is directed to proceed further with the enquiry into the charges and pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(b) The order of appointment of the fit person is set aside and the first respondent is directed to independently consider the right of the next male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship during the period of suspension of the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(c) The male descendant, who is next in the line of succession, shall be permitted to temporarily administer the trust till a decision is taken by the first respondent as directed in clause (b) and it is made very clear that none of the properties belonging to the trust shall be dealt with or encumbered till the completion of the enquiry against the petitioner. The income derived by the trust shall be properly accounted and it shall be used only for fulfilling the objectives of the trust.

Conclusion:

In the light of the above discussions, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent is liable to be quashed only to the limited extent of appointing the fit person without considering the right of the male descendant to hold the post of trusteeship during the period of suspension of the petitioner.

“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 Reinstatement of Bus Conductors dismissals from service.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:     A.Ayyanar                                   … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                    TN State Transport Corporation                   … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Reserved on 13.06.2023.

                              Pronounced On 23.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI.

Citation: W.P.Nos.17326 and 14802 of 2016.

Introduction: 

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the order passed in Ka.Ku.No.368/01/TNSTC/Kama/2015 dated 10.12.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and capricious and also to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuance of service and backwages with attendant benefit and provide employment as per
the provisons of law.

Facts:

The petitioner has joined the services of the 1st  respondent Corporation as conductor in 2007 and ever since he has been working there. On 05.09.2015, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation for a charge said to have been committed by the petitioner on 23.08.2015. Though the petitioner gave a detailed explanation, the Enquiry Officer by findings dated 12.10.2015, found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation issued another show cause notice calling upon the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from services. Petitioner submitted his reply on 27.10.2015, stating that he did not commit any of the offence alleged against him and that during the
year 2013 and 2014 he had met with an accident and he was under treatment for a certain period. However, the respondent in and by impugned order terminated the services of the petitioner taking into account the earlier charges for which the petitioner was already punished. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order on several grounds set out by the Writ Petitioner in the affidavit in support of the writ Petition especially for taking  into account the earlier charges without even affording to the petitioner to present his case.

Issues:

  • Whether the acts of the Petitioner was causing loss to the Corporation?
  • Whether the removal of  the petitioner from service by imposing maximum penalty is Valid?

Legal Analysis:

The charges that are framed against the petitioner for the latest incident are that the petitioner did not issue ticket to a lady passenger after receiving Rs.5/- being the ticket amount; he had Rs.7/- excess in his money bag; he acted in a manner causing loss to the Corporation and that he failed to act as a responsible employee of the Corporation. Explanation offered by the
Writ Petitioner was that he had issued tickets to all passengers on the alleged date and that the lady passenger who boarded the bus and purchased the ticket from him for Rs.5/- had lost her ticket and to escape the fine that would be imposed by the checking inspectors, she conveniently shifted the blame on the petitioner as if the petitioner never issued a ticket. None of the other passengers had a complaint of this nature excepting one lady passenger. The show cause notice dated 13.10.2015 refers to several incidents that occurred between 11.07.2008 and 24.02.2015. It is admitted even by the respondent that in respect of the said offences, action was taken and issue was closed then and there. None of the offences set out in the show cause notice appear to be of any serious or grave nature. The explanation offered by the petitioner is also very much plausible and acceptable. The respondent ought not to have fallen back on earlier concluded proceedings, that too in respect of a specific charge regarding non issuance of ticket and having an excess of Rs.7/- in his money bag.

Judgement:

This Court would like to straight away note that if the version of the petitioner that he had infact issued a ticket after receiving the sum of Rs.5/- from the lady passenger is accepted then the excess money available with him would be only Rs.2/-. By no stretch of imagination, the same can be termed as an act causing loss to the respondent corporation. It is really
surprising that in respect of such a charge, the respondent has removed the petitioner from service by imposing maximum penalty. It is needless to state that in such cases of charges of be it Rs.7/- or Rs.2/- no malafide or malice can be imputed and the same could have even been the result of inadvertent or unintentional act of the petitioner, which does not warrant penalty in the nature of terminating the petitioner from service. The punishment meted out
is grossly disproportionate to the offence and it shakes the conscience of the Court. Moreover, this Court does not appreciate this procedure adopted by the respondent Corporation by referring to earlier concluded proceedings for holding the latest charge against the petitioner. For all these reasons, the Writ Petitioner is entitled to relief from this Court.  Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and the order in Ka.Ku.No.368/01/TNSTC/Kama/2015 dated 10.12.2015 is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuance of service and backwages together with all attendant benefits within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Conclusion:

Justice PB Balaji said that the order of termination from service was grossly disproportionate and criticized the action of the State Transport Department of relying on earlier proceedings against Ayyanar, even though they had been settled.

“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

1 2 3 4 … 6