#MadrasHighCourt Archives

12 Jan

Tamil Nadu high court by ruling on Eligibility of Candidates Based on Political Affiliation disposes off the writ petition

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #election, #electioncommissionofindia, #MadrasHighCourt

Case Title: M.L.Ravi vs Chief Election Commissioner

Case No: W.P.Nos.27375 of 2019 & 12684 of 2021

Decided on: 09.01.2024

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, Chief Justice

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Charavarthy

Facts of the Case

The petitioner alleges irregularities in the election process related to respondents 10-14 and 3-10. They claim these candidates illegally contested on a different party’s symbol despite belonging to another party. This allegedly violates guidelines set by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner argues that false affidavits were filed claiming non-membership in other parties, and the acceptance forms for these candidates should be declared invalid, rendering their election results null and void.

Issue

Whether the petitioners are members of 2 political parties or one?
Whether petitioners are members of the political party on whose symbol they contested election?

Legal Provision

Article 324 of the Constitution of India, gives power to the Election Commission to direct, control, and conduct elections to all Parliament, to the Legislature of every state and of elections to the offices of the President and Vice President held under the Constitution. It vests the “superintendence, direction and control of elections” in an Election Commission consisting “of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix”.

Article 329B of the Constitution of India provides that the election of a legislative candidate can only be assailed by way of an election petition

Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 talks about Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties

Court Analysis & Decision

The counsel for petitioner during his submission relied on the judgement of supreme court in K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickan [Appeal (Civil) 1719 of 1986].

The respondents contesting the election countered the petitioner’s claims by asserting membership in the party whose symbol they used and cite the Election Symbols Order requiring candidates backed by specific state parties to adopt that party’s reserved symbol. Furthermore, they invoke Article 329B of the Constitution, specifying that challenges to legislative election results must be filed through formal election petitions. In essence, they argued their adherence to election rules and emphasize the proper legal course for contesting their victory.

Despite relying on a precedent where an ineligible candidate was disqualified, the court ruled differently in this case. Disputed factual questions surrounding the respondents’ party affiliations made them unsuitable for resolution through a writ petition. The court emphasized the need for proper legal channels like election petitions to address such contested matters, ultimately dismissing the petitioner’s claims.

“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 falls into the 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.”

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

5 Dec

The Madras High Court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Prime Legal

Blog #MadrasHighCourt, #Section 194 Cr.P.C

The Madras High Court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others

Case No: Crl.OP (MD) No.19181 of 2023

Decided on: 01 November, 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. ILANGOVAN

Introduction

The Madras High Court while hearing a plea by M Palani who relied on Section 408 Cr.P.C seeking permission from this court to approach the Principal Sessions Judge for transfer of the trial of his case to another court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is accused in case filed for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 109, 302, 307, 506(2), 120B, 149 and 114 IPC pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The same case was handed over to the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, subsequent to the committal process.

The petitioner previously filed a similar case before the Principal Sessions Judge relying on Section 408 Cr.P.C seeking transfer of the trial of his case to another Judge, which is still pending. The petitioner filed both the cases on the grounds that he is enduring difficulties such as modifying the testimonies, altering the basis of the case, and deleting a segment of the evidence presented by the prosecution and intervention of the concerned Special Public Prosecutor occurred without proper authorization during the trial process.

Courts analysis and decision

In the present case, the court held a opinion that the petitioner is seeking a judge of his preference, with an inclination for orders consistently in his favour. The judge’s supposed significant prejudice is not justified by simple negative orders rendered against the accused during the trial. The transfer of the case to the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, cannot be solely justified based on the petitioner’s difficulties before the same judge. Such a right to demand a specific judge is not legally available.

The court observed that it’s not right to interfere or issue any orders in the first case and it should be dealt by the Principal Sessions Judge.

The court further held under Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure, the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, if relevant, are authorised to preside over matters transferred by general or special order. It is not possible to contest the Principal Sessions Judge’s decision to assign cases to any judge. It is fundamentally administrative in nature for the Principal Sessions Judge to issue an order under Section 194 Cr.P.C., which essentially distributes the caseload among Additional District Judges. Until such administrative orders clearly violate the law, they are unchallengeable.

“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.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement

1 Dec

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition observing that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

Prime Legal

Blog #MadrasHighCourt

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition observing that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

Case Title: G. Mayakannan v. The District Collector

Case No: W.P. No.2456 of 2021

Decided on: 30 October, 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA

Introduction

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition filed by G. Mayakannan contesting the appointment of a B Saranya as Panchayat Secretary based on residency claims, observed that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

Facts of the Case

The G. Mayakannan filed a petition challenging the appointment of the B Saranya in the post of Panchayat Secretary alleging that she is not resident of the panchayat, and she got the employment through forgery and misrepresentation. He further alleged that he is much senior to her as per Employment Exchange registration roster and she has only registered in the only for the purpose of this post.

B Saranya was born and brought up in Jayakondam and her parents were permanent residents of Jayakondam. After marriage, she shifted her residence to that of husband’s place. The petitioner based his contention based on shifting her residence due to which she lost residence of Jayakondam and due to same she is not eligible for the post of Panchayat Secretary.

Courts analysis and decision

The court was of the opinion that a woman does not abandon or loss her native residence after her marriage and she can’t be assumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house due to her marriage. She has absolute right to choose her residence between natal home and marital home. A married woman has all rights to choose where to live or stay.

In the present case, B Saranya is still a resident of Jayakondam though she is married, and her parents are still in Jayakondam and not uprooted from that place. The onus on the married woman to choose her residence and she does not loss her native residence merely because she shifted to her husband’s place after marriage.

The court further noted that it is not compulsory to choose the senior over the junior for employment of any post. Though individuals who have registered earlier and are in a waiting status should not be overlooked in favor of sponsoring those who registered later.

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view your judgement

1 Dec

The Madras High Court upholds employee benefit preference in service jurisprudence when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments.

Prime Legal

Blog #MadrasHighCourt

The Madras High Court upholds employee benefit preference in service jurisprudence when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments.

Case Title: G. Selvamoorthy v The Chief Engineer (Personnel)

Case No: W.P.No.6294 of 2021

Decided on: 17^th October, 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA

Introduction

The Madras High Court while hearing a plea by G. Selvamoorthy seeking an enhancement in his retirement benefits observed that in service jurisprudence, when confronted with alternative interpretations of rules concerning penalties and punishments, preference should be given to the interpretation that benefits the employee.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner who retired from Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) was requesting the department to consider his representation for notional promotion to Junior Engineer/Electrical Grade II, aligning with his immediate junior in the selection list, in order to secure enhanced terminal benefits. The petitioner previously on October 21, 2019 was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year with cumulative effect.

As the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, Schedule XI(1), the department didn’t consider his name in promotional panel due to previous promotion imposed on him, arguing that once punishment was imposed, an individual would be ineligible for inclusion in the promotion panel for the subsequent five consecutive years.

Courts analysis and decision

The court noted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner would expire as of October 21, 2020 and as of the date of promotion panel that is February 26, 2021, there was no currency of punishment. The court further noted that specifying a check-period of five years in the Rules merely indicated that an individual should not be deprived of promotion for a period exceeding five years and the same provision should not be misconstrued to suggest a complete prohibition on promotions for an individual who has faced disciplinary measures throughout the entire check period, particularly when the disciplinary consequences are no longer in effect at the relevant point in time.

The court additionally noted that as per the Tamil Nadu Board Disciplinary and Appeal Regulations, one of the punishments is withholding the increment of the promotion. In the present case, when increment was withheld, petitioner can’t be denied of promotion at the same time resulting in double punishments.

The court while considering the wider implications and objectives outlined in the Rules as well as the nature and severity of Selvamoorthy’s lapse, the court was of the opinion that his plea for notional promotion could be evaluated with the aim of augmenting retirement benefits. Consequently, the court issued a directive for the authorities to review and entertain his request for the enhancement of retirement benefits.

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view your judgement

30 Nov

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

Prime Legal

Blog #HighCourt, #JUSTICE, #law, #MadrasHighCourt

ED Summons to District Collectors A ‘Fishing Expedition’ Without Showing Existence Of Proceeds Of Crime: Madras High Court.

Title : State of Tamil Nadu v Enforcement Directorate

Case No. : W.P.Nos.33459 to 33468 of 2023

Decided on : 30.11.2023.

CORAM : HONBLE JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND SUNDER MOHAN, J

Introduction

All the above writ petitions are filed by the State Government along with the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department and the District Collectors concerned. Writ Petition Nos.33459, 33460, 33461, 33462 & 33467 of 2023 are filed by the State Government and two others to quash the respective impugned summon issued to the District Collector of Vellore District, Trichy District, Karur District, Thanjavur District and Ariyalur District, requiring the appearance of the respective District Collectors to give evidence and produce records as indicated in the annexure, in connection with the investigation/proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 .

Fact of the Case

The respondent, namely, the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement has filed an objection affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General raised a preliminary objection stating that the writ petitions are not maintainable by the State Government, as the State is not an aggrieved person to challenge the process of investigation. The learned Additional Solicitor General also relied upon a few complaints registered in different parts of the State. Referring to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that as per the First Information Report mentioned in the ECIR, prima facie, it is observed that the activities of illegal mining are happening in the State of Tamil Nadu in collusion with officials and local mafia, hand in glove.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Court sincerely appreciates the way in which the respondent had responded to these writ petitions within a short time. A detailed affidavit of objection is filed by the respondent raising several issues. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners requested time to file reply in response to the objection in the form of affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that they may be permitted to file a detailed counter affidavit.

1 2 3 … 12