A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 NOMINAL INDEX A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 Ponvelraj v....
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
NOMINAL INDEX
A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
REPORTS
Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258
While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence.
"It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed.
Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259
While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them.
3. No Prohibition For Issuance Of Legal Heirship Certificate To Class-II Legal Heirs: Madras High Court
Case Title: D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260
While allowing a petition filed by a woman for issuing a legal heir certificate for her deceased brother, the Madras High Court bench of Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir.
The court thus directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Case Title: Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261
The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application.
The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer.
The court observed as under:
"This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner."
Case Title: B Nagaraj v. The State and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262
The Madras High Court recently observed that a person who purchases a piece of land after the issuance of notification for its acquisition by the government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
The bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice N Mala dismissed the appeals filed by subsequent purchasers of a property, who were challenging the acquisition after twenty years. The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008 (9) SCC 177) which held that any purchase, after the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 is "void ab-initio" and thus, subsequent purchasers cannot challenge acquisition proceedings.
Case Title: P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263
While allowing a petition seeking police protection for the Executive Council and General Council Meeting of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) to be held on June 23, the Madras High Court observed that the State had a duty to provide necessary protection and to prevent any untoward incident in the form of violence.
The bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar made the observations on a petition preferred by P Benjamin, District Secretary of Tiruvallur District and member of the AIADMK.
7. Orders Passed U/S 148 NI Act Are Interlocutory In Nature, Not Revisable: Madras High Court
Case Title: Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264
While discussing the scope of revision in case of orders passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Madras High Court recently observed that such orders are interlocutory in nature and are outside the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
The bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy was hearing a criminal revision petition against an order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai which in exercise of powers under Section 148 of the Act, suspended the order of imprisonment (till the disposal of appeal) for cheque dishonour, subject to a deposit of 15% of the cheque amount.
The court opined that the order for deposit under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not a precondition for the appeal to be taken on file and therefore will not result in a final order deciding appeal. It was only a direction to deposit subject to the final outcome of the appeal and as such was only a matter of procedure. The court highlighted that such orders did not determine the rights of the parties. It was also observed that non passing of such order or accepting any application by the accused would not result in culmination of proceedings
Case Title: P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265
A three-judge bench of the Madras High Court recently decided upon the powers of a Tahsildar to issue a Legal Heirship Certificate in matters of intestate-succession for Class-II heirs.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice R Hemalatha, and Justice AA Nakkiran opined that the concept of heirship is determined through the various personal laws. Thus, the Legal Heirship Certificate issued by the Tahsildar has no effect on the legal right of any party which was conferred to him/her under the personal laws.
The Court was of the opinion that the prefix "legal heir" used in the certificates issued by the Tahsildar is clearly a misnomer and that these are merely "relationship certificates" reflecting the opinion of the Tahsildar on the relationship of the applicant and the persons named therein with the deceased; They cannot alter the status of a legal heir which is conferred on an individual under his/her personal law.
Case Title: N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266
The Madras High Court recently set aside the order of Judicial Magistrate, wherein it was held that a Private Pleader, who was appointed by the complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor, could not conduct an independent prosecution under Section 301(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore had no locus standi to plead on behalf of the prosecution and conduct the case.
Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the Magistrate was unsustainable since Section 301 of CrPC is not applicable to Magistrate Courts. Further, it observed that merely because the said application was not emanating from the Public Prosecutor/Police, is not a ground to throw it out.
10. Take Criminal Action Against Police Officials Receiving 'Mamool': Madras High Court
Case Title: K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267
While dismissing a retired sub-Inspector's plea challenging the order of punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for three years, the Madras High Court expressed its concern over police officers taking bribes and thereby affecting the welfare of people.
Justice SM Subramaniam was of the view that whenever receiving bribes is traced out, criminal cases should be registered against the police officials. These offences had to be dealt with without showing any leniency or misplaced sympathy.
The court also observed that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution was to ensure that the process through which a decision was taken was in consonance with the rules in force and not the decision itself. In the present case, the court did not find any infirmity with reference to the quantum of punishment imposed.
Case Title: P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268
The Madras High court bench of Justice S.S.Sundar and Justice S. Srimathy recently set aside the order of the District Collector, Theni District wherein the Collector had adjudicated upon the genuineness of a community certificate based upon the report of an Anthropologist and the enquiry report of the Sub-collector.
The court observed that the fact that the District Collector has passed the impugned order without following the procedure as contemplated under the two Government Orders referred to above, is not in dispute
12. Deliberately Concealing The Income, Assessee Can Be Prosecuted: Madras High Court
Case Title: Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269
The Madras High Court has ruled that an assessee can be prosecuted for willfully and deliberately concealing his income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time, even after the return belatedly submitted by the assessee is accepted by the revenue authorities on the basis of which an assessment order is passed.
The Single Bench of Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the concealment and suppression of income by the assessee came to light only after a survey operation was conducted and that the assessee had filed his return only after a statutory notice was issued to him under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the Court held that the assessee had willfully and deliberately concealed his true income by not filing his income tax return within the stipulated time.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
The Madras High Court conducted a midnight hearing to decide upon the appeals preferred by M Shanmugham, AIADMK's general council member against the single judge order passed earlier in the day where the single judge refused to restrain the party from making any amendments to its bye-laws.
The appeals were heard by Justice Sunder Mohan and Justice Duraiswamy at the former's residence. The bench restrained the party from making any resolutions other than the 23 resolutions already approved. The court observed that it was important for the members to be informed about what was going on and no resolutions could be passed without such an agenda.
The hearing commenced at around 12.30 am and the interim order was pronounced around 4.30 am.
Earlier on Wednesday, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy had refused to restrain the party from amending its bylaws. The court had observed that it was a settled principle that the courts cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a party/association. It was open for the association/party to pass resolutions and frame bye-laws.
2. NEP Not Backed By Statute, State Not Obligated To Implement It: TN Govt Tells Madras High Court
Case Title: Arjunan Elayaraja v. The Secretary & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 818 of 2022(PIL)
The Tamil Nadu government has told the Madras High Court that the National Education Policy does not have any statutory backing and hence, there is no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same.
The development comes in a counter affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department in response to a plea filed by one Arjunan Elayaraja seeking implementation of NEP in Tamil Nadu.
As per State, the proposed NEP 2020 had strong centralising tendencies which could have a destabilizing effect on the federal characteristics of the Indian Union. It also said that a bare reading of the NEP would make it clear that it did not have any statutory backing and remained only as a policy as on date. As such, there was no statutory obligation on the state to implement the same and for this very reason the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
3. Consider Implementing Empty Liquor Bottle Buy-Back Scheme Across Tamil Nadu: High Court Tells TASMAC
Case Title: G.Subramania Koushik v. The Principal Secretary and others
Case No: WP 15120 of 2019
The Madras High Court on Friday opined that TASMAC's buy-back scheme implemented in the Nilgiris region should be implemented across the state of Tamil Nadu. The observations were made by Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy in a batch of pleas for protection of the Western Ghats area.
When the matter was being heard, the Managing Director of TASMAC submitted a status report according to which 63% of the bottles sold in the region came back. Seeing this, the court observed as under:
On seeing the report that 63% bottles have come back, we are of the opinion that the buy back scheme should be implemented in the entire state so that damage to environment can be controlled.