Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order in O.Mu.36690/2015/C2 dated 19.12.2015 (signed on 22.12.2015) on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st respondent to appoint one Mr.B.Mohan, Advocate, Bhavani, Erode District as Special Public Prosecutor in S.C.No.112 of 2015 on the file of the District Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul in Crime No.571 of 2012 dated 08.12.2012 registered by the 4th respondent and investigated by the 3rd respondent as per Rule 4(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.) 1. This writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent passed in O.Mu.36690/2015/C2 dated 19.12.2015 (signed on 22.12.2015) stating that he has no jurisdiction to pass an order in respect of appointing a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent in T.N.S.E.5/2006 and quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2007 passed in T.N.S.E.5/2006.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order to call for records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in T.N.S.E.5/2006 dated 25.10.2007 and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the second respondent herein has served as Manager in Ramanathapuram District Sarvodya Sangh. During his tenure of office, he has committed so many irregularities and also misappropriation of funds. Under the said circumstances, charges have been framed against him and subsequently enquiry has been conducted and consequently dismissed from service. Against the dismissal order, he filed Case No.T.N.S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 2(a) of the Tamil Nadu Appointment on Preferential basis in the services under the State of Persons Studied in Tamil Medium Rules, 2010 containing the definition of 'direct recruitment' and the method of 20% of preferential reservation for the Persons Studied under Tamil Medium in the recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police-2015 as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to apply the 20% of reservation for PSTM Category in the total number of vacancies, notified vide the notification dated 08.02.2015 in accordance with the previous cut-off marks for each category and make appointments forth with.) Common Order S. Manikumar, J. 1. In-service Grade-I and Grade-II Police Constables, who had applied, for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, and unsuccessful in the selection, have sought for a Writ of Declaration, declaring Rule 2(a) of the Tam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in his proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.C1/1029/07 dated 25.04.2007, to quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in regular pay scale.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records from the third respondent in his proceedings passed in Na.Ka.No.C1/1029/07 dated 25.04.2007 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in regular pay scale. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner has been appointed as a watchman in Rajapalayam Municipality on 01.11.1993 and since then he has done his service. In the year 1997, the third respondent without giving prior notice has abruptly and orally terminated the petitioner and subsequently the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayers in Crl.O.P.(MD)1785/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Sivagangai to accept the surrender of the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.644 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and to consider and pass orders in the bail application on the same day on surrender. Prayer in Crl.O.P.(MD)1941/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi to consider the petitioner's bail application and dispose of the bail application on the same day, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Thoothukudi in Crime No.25 of 2016 on the file of the respondent. Crl.O.P.(MD)2073/2016: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Tuticorin to accept the surrender of the petitioner and consider the bail application on merits on the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the order made in W.P(MD)No.2709 of 2016 dated 08.02.2016.) S. Manikumar, J. 1. Material on record discloses that while noticing the difference of opinion between two groups, vide proceeding in Na.Ka.A1/2662/2015, dated 16.03.2015, the Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, has directed that Arulmigu Karku Vallaiyan Banthi Madasamy Kovil, situated at No.16, Parapatti Street, Virudhunagar Town, be closed, as done in 2013, and that the key of the said temple, be handed over, to him. The said proceeding, dated 16.03.2015, has also been issued, taking note of the difference of opinion, between the two groups, in the Peace Committee Meeting conducted on 07.03.2015 and 12.03.2015 respectively, and also on the basis of the legal opinion, dated 16.02.2015, offered by the learned Government Pleader, District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. 2. Proceeding, dated 16.03.2015, of the Tahsildar, Virudhunagar, has been challenged in W.P(MD)No.4757 of 2015...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's brother namely, Palpandi, S/o.Subramani C.P.No.5052 on Parole from Central Prison, Madurai for 1 week to attend his mother Rukmani's funeral function and rituals going to be performed on 11.02.2016.) 1. This petition has been filed to direct the respondents to release the petitioner's brother namely, Palpandi, S/o.Subramani C.P.No.5052 on Parole from Central Prison, Madurai for 1 week to attend his mother Rukmani's funeral function and rituals going to be performed on 11.02.2016. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record. 3. The leave for a convict prisoner is governed by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982. The Superintendent of Prisons is empowered to grant emergency leave in case of sudden death of a close relative of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent pertaining to its impugned order Na.Ka.No. /20/F1(Ariya.) dated 14.01.2016 and to quash the same.) S. Manikumar J. 1. Impugned notice issued under Section 258 of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, reads as hereunder:- ( Tamil ?) 2. One of the main grounds of challenge to the impugned notice, is that there is a violation of principles of justice. Added further, the petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property, from one Vincent Paul Francis Pinto, who in turn, had purchased the same by a sale deed, dated 12.12.1929, formed a housing colony, and constructed houses bearing Nos.23A to 32, and formed a common pathway. 3. Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (Act 27 of 1994), has been enacted in 1994. As per Section 2(h) of the said Act, all the words and expressions used in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pursuant to G.O(1D)No.87 Housing and Urban Development (HB5(1) Department dated 08.01.2008 and quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in G.O(1D)No.87, Housing and Urban Development [HB-5(1)] Department, dated 08.01.2008 and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is a social server and in recognition of her service Plot No.C2/A in Theni Housing Board Area has been allotted to her and subsequently the first respondent has cancelled the same by way of passing the impugned Government Order on 08.01.2008, wherein it is stated that the price of the plot has not been fixed. Under the said circumstances, the present writ petition has been fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Writ Petition is filed 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 award in I.D.No.79/1994 dated 11.12.2007 and quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ so as to call for records relating to the order passed in I.D.No.79 of 1994 dated 11.12.2007 by the first respondent and quash the same. 2. It is averred in the petition that the second respondent by name Sundaram has served as a driver in the transport company of the petitioner and from 17.09.1993 he failed to report his duty and subsequently various notices have been issued and finally an Advocate has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has given so many enquiry notices thereby calling upon the second respondent to make his appearance for enquiry. But the second respondent has not turned ...
Tag this Judgment!