0

Right To Protest Peacefully Significant Feature of A Democratic Country’: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Teachers.

Blog , , ,

Right To Protest Peacefully Significant Feature of A Democratic Country’: Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Teachers.

Title : J.Jayaraj v. The Chief Educational Officer

Case No. : W.P.(MD)Nos.13409 to 13415 of 2022

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Decided on : 17.11.2023

Introduction

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to impugned proceedings order in Na.Ka.No. 2469/A3/2022 dated 06.06.2022 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

Fact of the Case

The petitioners are Secondary Grade Teachers working in various Panchayat Primary Union and Middle Schools in various Unions of Karur District. All of them are members of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation bearing Registration No.60/2009. One Thiru.J.Jeyaraj/petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.13409 of 2022 is the District Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Primary School Teachers Federation (herein after referred to as ‘Teachers Federation’). The object of formation of the said Teachers Federation is to work for the welfare of the Teachers and to ventilate the grievance of the Teachers working across the State by maintaining the cordial relationship between the Education Authorities, State and Teachers.

Case Analysis and Judgment

In the instant case, a group of 70 Teachers who are members of the Teacher’s Federation having properly represented to the respondents who are theOfficers of the Educational Department, Karur District bringing to their notice the illegal/irregular suspension of one of the member Thiru.

Suspended the petitioners from the date of agitation on 11.04.2022 and reinstated the petitioners back to service on the intervention of said Teachers Federation on 06.06.2022, the second respondent ought not to have visited the petitioners with the impugned charge memos dated 06.06.2022 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The reason is simple that the petitioners who have ventilated their grievances by organizing an agitation lawfully as against the respondents should not be punished by the issuance of impugned charge memos and allegations set forth by the impugned charge memos has emanated from lapse of application of mind of the respondents and not covered by the various guidelines framed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as discussed supra.

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/j-jayaraj-v-chief-educational-officer-506496-506653.pdf

 

0

Madras High Court Asks Centre to Reconsider Enhancing Retirement Age Of Coast Guard Staff To 60 Years For All Ranks.

Blog , , ,

Madras High Court Asks Centre to Reconsider Enhancing Retirement Age Of Coast Guard Staff To 60 Years For All Ranks.

Title : Lakshmichandra Harishchandra Sharma v. Union of India

Case No. : W.P.No.415 of 2021

Decided on : 23.11.2023.

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR. SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Introduction

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Declaration to declare Rule 20(1) of the Coast Guard (General) Rule 1986, relevant SRO 76 dated 19 April 1999 and the impugned decision of the 1 st respondent in No.14(14)2020-D(CG) communicated to the 2 nd respondent dated 21.07.2020 fixing the retirement age as 57 for Commandant as null and void and non est in law and consequently direct the respondents to fix the retirement age of the petitioner as 60 years at par with Deputy Inspector General of Indian Coast Guard instead of 57 years with all consequential service and other attendant benefits.

Fact of the Case

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who were members of the Coast Guard with two limbs of prayers. Firstly, they challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 20(1) of Indian Coast Guard Rules, 1986. Secondly, they challenge the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Defense, dated 21.07.2020, refusing to enhance the age of retirement of the members of the Coast Guard up to the level of commandant also to be 60 years from 57 years.

Case Analysis and Judgment

In the result we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:

  • The impugned order of the first respondent bearing reference No.14 (14/2020 – DCG), dated 21.07.2020 shall stand set aside and the matter shall be reconsidered by the first respondent in view of the reasonings contained supra in the Judgment;
  • It would also be open for the petitioners to make such representation in detail and bringing forth such material before the first respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, the first respondent shall reconsider the issue in accordance with law, within a period of four months therefrom;
  • No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/lakshmichandra-harishchandra-sharma-v-union-of-india-506797.pdf

0

Madras High Court Stays ED Summons to District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case .

Blog , , ,

Madras High Court Stays ED Summons to District Collectors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case .

Title : Enforcement Directorate v. T.T.V.Dhinakaran

Case : W.P.No.20492 of 2008

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R.KALAIMATH

Introduction

The Enforcement Directorate is on appeal against the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge allowing the application under Section 9(5) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act 1909, thereby setting aside the insolvency notice issued to the respondent herein.

Fact of the Case

The respondent was accused of violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Since the violation amounted to an offence under the provisions of the said Act and it also made him liable for penalty, proceedings were initiated by the appropriate Authority under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for adjudication of the penalty. The Adjudicating Authority viz., the Special Director of Enforcement by its order in original dated 06.02.1998 imposed a penalty of Rs.31 Crores. Aggrieved the respondent preferred an appeal in A.No.51 of 1998 before the appellate Authority viz., the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The notice impugned in the writ petition will have to be set aside solely on the ground that it is not competent for the Collector to effect recovery of monies due to the Central Government by invoking the State Act. Here again, court will have to reserve the liberty to the Enforcement Directorate to seek recovery under the provisions of Central Act viz., the Revenue Recovery Act 1 of 1890.

In fine, the OSA is dismissed, and the writ petition will stand allowed. Since court have accepted the contentions of the appellant on the vital issue relating to the effect of the order of the adjudicating Authority, we do not impose costs

0

Madras High Court regarding the issue Person in Unauthorised Occupation Of Land Cannot Claim Protection Under Article 19, 21 If Eviction As Per Law.

Blog , , ,

Madras High Court regarding the issue Person in Unauthorised Occupation Of Land Cannot Claim Protection Under Article 19, 21 If Eviction As Per Law.

Title : Gunasekaran v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case No. : W.P.No.3002 of 2018

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND     THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Decided on : 23.11.2023.

Introduction

The petitioner seeks declaration that Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905 [for brevity, “the Act of 1905”] is void and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(e) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case

Mr.M.Elango, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Section 6 of the Act of 1905 is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. Right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Section 6 of the Act of 1905 takes away the right of residence of the petitioner and other persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of the operation of Article 13 of the Constitution of India, the impugned Section 6 of the Act of 1905 is deemed to be void. The Act of 1905 is a pre-constitutional Act and is not in conformity with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The Governor has not granted any approval to the Act of 1905 after the Constitution came into force.

Case Analysis and Judgment

Once the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Act of 1905, and more particularly the same provision assailed by the petitioner, it will not be permissible to again consider the challenge to the same. The petitioner could not remotely show a semblance of right over the subject writ property. The procedure has been followed while evicting the petitioner. In the light of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.3670 of 2018 is closed.

“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 Nimisha Sunny

0

High Court of Madras decision on the order in of the case dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases.

Blog , , ,

High Court of Madras decision on the order in of the case  dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases.

Title : Mohamed Irfan v. Union of India

Case No. : C.A No.340 of 2023

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Decided on : 09.11.2023.

Introduction

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order in Crl.M.P.No.718 of 2022 dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai, at Poonamalle, Chennai – 600 056, dismissing  bail application.

Fact of the Case

According to the prosecution one Sathick Batcha (A1) was a prime accused in Mayiladuthurai, P.S. Crime No.1601/2020 and 164/2022. On specific information that he was in possession of arms and weapons, a special police team on 21.02.2022, at about 10.00 hours, intercepted a black colour Mahindra Scorpio bearing Reg.No.TN OF IL-1446 at Nidur – Mayiladuthurai Railway gate travelling from Nidur to Mayiladuthurai. The appellant and the other accused were found in the car. A case in Cr.No.165/2022 was registered on the file of Mayiladuthurai Police Station for the offence under Sections 148 and 506 (ii) IPC r/w Section 28 of the Arms Act, 1959. All the accused were arrested. One laptop with adapter, one stainless steel hand-cuff, one I-Phone, one OPPO Phone, one power bank, one V8 video shooting pen, one GITE Wireless router, one hard disk, one metal air gun, a small box containing pellets and a Mahindra Scorpio with registration TN-07-BL-1446 were seized from the accused.

Case Analysis and Judgment

The appellant shall execute a bond and furnish two sureties for a likesum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand only] each and one of the sureties should be a blood relative to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases) Chennai at Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. After coming out from jail, the appellant shall stay at Chennai and shall not leave the Chennai city without the permission of the trial court.

The appellant shall surrender his Passport (if any) before the trial court and if he does not hold a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the form that may be prescribed by the trial court. In the latter case the trial court will if he has reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement, write to the Passport Officer concerned to verify the statement and the Passport Officer shall verify his record and send a reply within three weeks. If he fails to reply within the said period, the trial court will be entitled to act on the statement of the appellant.

“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- Nimisha Sunny

 

1 2 3 4 … 12