Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 NOMINAL INDEX The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331 CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332 ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad)...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330 To 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
NOMINAL INDEX
The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr, 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
REPORT
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. SG Pushpalatha Gracelin and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 330
The Madras High Court recently imposed a cost of Rs.5 lakh on the State of Tamil Nadu for filing appeals against orders directing it to pay salaries to Assistant Professors.
While ordering the exemplary costs, the bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice L Victoria Gowri said it hoped the order would serve as an example and prevent the State from filing such appeals. The court also called the petitions an “atrocious game” played by the State on its citizens.
The State had appealed against a 2023 order of a single judge directing it to pay the pending salary of Assistant Professors. The court observed that it did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the single judge. The court thus dismissed the appeals with exemplary costs. Out of the costs, the court ordered half the amount to be paid to the CANCARE Foundation.
Case Title: R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
The Madras High Court recently observed that as per the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, the period of absence from work for employment abroad shall not be treated as a break in service and must be counted for pension and other purposes.
Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that even as per a Government Order issued in this regard, the period of absence during employment abroad should be treated as an extraordinary leave and should not be considered a break in service but one without allowance.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Rakkiyappan who had approached the court after his leave period was not counted for pension, other terminal benefits, annual benefits and for Carrier Advancement Scheme (CAS).
Case Title: CS Vaidyanathan v The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 332
The Madras High Court recently observed that temple prasadam is a key element in worship which gives immense satisfaction to the devotees and thus the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department should consider preparing and distributing the prasadam on its own without leasing it to commercial operators or other individuals.
Justice B Pugalendhi also remarked that the Prasadam is a blessing of the deity and it is the duty of the temple administration to ensure the quality of the Prasadam provided in the temple. The court thus wondered how the department would ensure the quality of the Prasadam when its production and supply were leased out to private individuals.
Noting that temple was not a place for commercial activities, the court examined the income generated by leasing out the Prasadam stalls to private individuals and the income generated when the Prasadam is prepared and provided by the temple itself. The court noted that temples could generate higher income through Prasadam stalls by preparing it in the temple itself.
Case Title: ANS Prasad v The Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 333
The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to stall the Formula 4 Street Race that is scheduled to be held in Chennai on August 31st and September 1st, 2024.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji allowed the race to be conducted subject to obtaining a license from the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) which was to be obtained on or before 12 noon on 31st August. The court also made it clear that if the license was not obtained within the stipulated time, the event could not be conducted.
The bench passed the interim orders after considering the affidavit filed by the Chennai City Traffic Police assuring that the free flow of traffic would not be affected and that there wouldn't be any hindrance in accessing the Government Hospital. The court had previously dismissed a batch of pleas challenging the conduct of the Formula 4 race in 2023. The event was however postponed following Cyclone Michaung which hit Tamil Nadu in December 2023.
Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334
The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Case Title: AP Suryaprakasam v State of Tamil Nadu
Case NO: WP 25034 of 2024
A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a CBI probe into sexual assault of minor girl students at a fake NCC camp in Krishnagiri District in Tamil Nadu. The matter will be heard by a bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji.
The alleged incident came to light after a girl was admitted to the Krishnagiri Government Hospital following pelvic pain. The girl informed that she was raped by the main accused Sivaraman, who claimed to be a NCC trainer at the camp. Later, the NCC clarified that the persons involved in the incident were not connected with the NCC nor any NCC camp was conducted in the district. Sivaraman died by suicide on 23rd August while under police custody.
The petitioner, Advocate AP Suryaprakasam, in his petition, submitted that the entire investigation being carried out by the state police was a farce and eye wash which was evident from the death of the main accused under police custody in mysterious circumstances.
Case Title: Jungle Retreat v The Honourable Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee and others
Case No: WP 23499 of 2024
A group of resort owners has approached the Madras High Court against the order passed by the Segur Plateau Elephant Corridor Inquiry Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2020 to conduct an inquiry into allegations of arbitrary variance in the acreage of the elephant corridor and to hear the objections of the resort owners.
When the matter was taken up by the bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji, the court wondered on whether the High Court could hear the challenge to the findings of a committee appointed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: AP Suryaprakasam v State of Tamil Nadu
Case NO: WP 25034 of 2024
The Madras High Court on Wednesday wondered how the school in Krishnagiri allowed the conduct of a fake NCC camp in which school girls were sexually assaulted. The court also wondered why no action had been taken by the Education Department against the school while it had acted swiftly in the Kallakurichi incident where a school girl had allegedly committed suicide.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji was hearing a petition filed by Advocate AP Suryaprakasam seeking a CBI probe into the sexual assault of school girls at a fake NCC camp in Krishnagiri. The court also noted that no teacher from the school had participated in the camp and all the people involved were brought in by the main accused Sivaraman.
Case Title: Shobha Karandlaje v State
Case No: Crl OP (MD) 9875 of 2024
BJP Minister Shobha Karandlaje, on Wednesday, told the Madras High Court that there was no intention on her part to hurt the sentiments of the people of Tamil Nadu. The court was hearing a petition moved by Karandlaje to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her.
When the matter was heard by Justice G Jayachandran on Wednesday, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam, appearing for Karandlaje, informed the court that there was no intention to hurt the sentiments. He also informed the court that a draft affidavit apologizing for the comments has already been prepared and the same would be filed soon. He also submitted that Karandlaje had already apologized publicly on social media platforms.
Karandlaje's counsel also informed the court that apart from filing an affidavit apologizing for the comments, Karandlaje would also contest the case on merits. It was submitted that to attract the offenses alleged against Karandlaje, “intention” was paramount which was absent in the present case. It should be noted that Karandlaje has been charged under Sections 153, 153(A), 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC.
Case Title: Maneesh Parmar v The Assistant Director
Case No: WP 15465 of 2024
The Madras High Court is set to examine if quashing an FIR in the predicate offence on technical grounds becomes a ground for exonerating a person under the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Sivagnanam were hearing a petition to quash the PMLA proceedings initiated against two men, Maneesh Parmar and Sunil Khetpalia on the ground that a single judge had already quashed the FIR in the predicate offence. The court noted that quashing PMLA proceedings based on quashing of predicate offence would have to be considered on a case-to-case basis and the PMLA proceedings could not be quashed blanketly upon quashing the FIR in the predicate offence.
Madras High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Election Of DMK MP Dayanidhi Maran
Case Title: ML Ravi v Election Commission of India and Others
Case No: ELP 2 of 2024
The Madras High Court has ordered notice on a petition challenging the election of MP Dayanidhi Maran from the Chennai Central constituency.
Justice Anand Venkatesh ordered notice to the Election Commission of India, The Chief Electoral Officer of Tamil Nadu, the Returning Officer of Chennai Central Loksabha Constituency, and Dayanidhi Maran returnable by September 27.
The petition was filed by ML Ravi, an Advocate who had also contested from the same constituency. In his plea, Ravi claimed that the election to the Chennai Central constituency was not free and fair and alleged that there were corrupt practices during the election. He thus sought to declare the election to the constituency null and void.