Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.23818/2015/C1 dated 28.09.2015 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.38/2015/j.m.nf.o.tp. dated 08.10.2015 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.) Common Judgment V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by a person, who got registered as a Cable Operator in terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, challenging the orders of the District Collector as well as the Special Tahsildar, Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable Television Corporation Limited, seizing the equipments and sealing the premises. 2. Heard Mr.G.Prabhu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 03.12.2015 made in W.P(MD)No.21396 of 2015.) Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent pursuant to the certificate of registration dated 09.10.2014 issued to the seventh respondent and quash the same as illegal. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order of the first respondent cancelling the renewal of Registration of the petitioner in Form 4 under the Cable Television Network Rules, dated 02.02.2015 and quash the same. Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondent to receive the petitioner's application dated 18.09.2015 and renew the petitioner's Registration for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the first respondent State Government in Letter No.16031/E1/ 2014-2 dated 10.04.2015, quash the same and further direct the first respondent State Government herein to recognise forthwith the status of the petitioner as a Christian Minority Educational Agency for running the proposed college, namely, 'Ruben College of Arts and Science, Thadikkarankonam, Kanyakumari District'. With the consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in The Secretary, Immaculate College for Women v. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2015(1) CWC 557. 2. The petitioner made an application to the Government to grant them minority status for the purpose of establishing Arts and Science College. The said application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of CrPC challenging the order passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul in M.C.No.2 of 2012 dated 17.02.2014.) 1. The Revision Petitioner/Respondent has focussed the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 17.02.2014 in M.C.No.2 of 2012 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 2. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul, while passing the impugned order, on 17.02.2014 in M.C.No.2 of 2012, at paragraph No.13, had inter alia observed that the "... Respondent (Husband) has not proved the complaint of adultery between the petitioner/wife and one Mr.Suresh before this Court" and hence, negatived the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Husband in this regard. Further, the trial Court, has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent/Husband as maintenance to be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Husband from the date of filing of M.C.No.2 of 2012 viz., 04.01.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Ref.No.Tha.Aa.Po.Ka/Trichy/Niru-E7/444/2015 dated 10.09.2015, quash the same in so far as not granting alternative employment on permanent basis with pay protection, continuity of service in terms of Section 47(1) of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and consequently direct the respondents to provide alternative employment to the petitioner on permanent basis with pay protection, continuity of service and back wages payable from 03.04.2015 to 19.04.2015.) 1. The petitioner was a Driver employed by the respondent Transport Corporation. The respondent Transport Corporation get the drivers periodically examined by the Doctors for their fitness, particularly with respect to their eye-sight. When the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.22046/15 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to release the examination result of petitioner conducted on April “ 2011 and also issue course completion certificate along with provisional certificate. Prayer in W.P.17237/14 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to release the examination result of forty four student conducted on April 2011 and also issue course completion certificate along with provisional certificate.) Common Order: The petitioner in W.P(MD)No.17237 of 2014 is a Study Centre situated in State of Kerala. The said study centre entered into an agreement with Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, on 26.05.2010 to operate as study centre of the University. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid memorandum of understanding between the parties, the petitioner admitted st...
Tag this Judgment!