- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 28 To March 6, 2022
Sebin James
7 March 2022 7:45 AM GMT
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87NOMINAL INDEXM.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 2022...
A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
NOMINAL INDEX
M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
Karti P.Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
Case Title: M.Muthumadasamy v. The Accountant General and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 80
In a significant observation, the Madras High Court has recently said that it is time for the Constitutional Courts to ensure that the rights and duties are enforced in an equal manner. The Court also stressed that the Government should come out with a clear system with the enforceability of duties.
This assertion came from the Bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam as it held that if a public servant contracted a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, then the second wife is not entitled to any service benefits, as the second marriage is void in the eye of law.
In its order, the Court also underscored that enforcement of duty is an integral part of the Constitution of India and that if performance of duties won't be insisted then an imbalance would be created and which would affect the democratic principles.
Case Title: K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Slamming those in the teaching community that takes private tuition classes for remuneration and do other businesses, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to prevent government school teachers from flouting the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Service Rules.
The court was deprecating the trend of teachers approaching the High Court even for transfer to a nearby place. The court also added that once they manage to get an interim order of stay, they continue staying in the same place for several years, which is detrimental to the rights of other employees and public administration.
Justice SM Subramaniam has also observed that the Teachers Associations in the state are illegally interfering in the affairs of the Education Department. The single-judge bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam has directed the Principal Secretary to constitute Special Teams at the District level to monitor and initiate disciplinary proceedings if teachers are involving themselves in private business/ tuition centres, other part-time employments etc.
3. Act Against Govt Teachers Taking Private Tuitions & Other Businesses: Madras High Court
Case Title: K. Radha v. The Chief Educational Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 81
Slamming those government teachers who take private tuition classes for remuneration and do other businesses, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has issued a slew of directions to prevent government school teachers from flouting the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 and Service Rules.
"The teaching community is concentrating to satisfy their self-needs, thereby neutralizing the duties and responsibilities. They are fighting only for their rights...But, time has come now for the Courts for emphasis the duties to be performed by these Teachers and citizen in general. Rights and duties are corresponding. When a Teacher claims a right, equally the performance of duties is to be emphasised. But, the trend is that the duties are not considered as important. Such a mind-set at no circumstances, is tolerable", the bench noted.
Case Title: Saratha vs Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 82
The Madras High Court has held that clubbing Transgender persons who self-identified as females under the quota for women is unconstitutional. The Court also held that there can't be inter-se discrimination among transgender persons identifying themselves as "males" and "females".
"The decision of Tamil Nadu Uniform Services Recruitment Board (TNUSRB) to combine the TGs, who had opted for female category, along with the vacancies reserved for Women deprives equality to them which is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India," the Court said.
The Court also held that the failure to provide any kind of reservation for the Trans Gender persons in the male category and placing them on par with the general category candidates, is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) and unconstitutional. The Court held that such action defies the direction in the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment to provide reservation for transgender persons in public employment.
Case Title: Karti P.Chidambaram v. The Regional Passport Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 83
The Madras High Court has held that when an application is made for the renewal/ re-issue of a passport, the authority cannot shorten the duration or validity of the same without following Sections 7 and 10 of the Passports Act, 1967.
Holding thus, Justice M. Govindaraj directed the Passport Authority to re-issue a passport to Congress MP Karthi P. Chidambaram, which shall be valid for a period for which his passport was otherwise valid
After hearing both parties, the single bench noted that the order shortening the period of validity without following Section 10 or Section 7 of the Act and without recording suitable reasons is not sustainable in law.
Therefore, the court directed the passport office to reissue the passport with the existing period of validity or for 10 years as per Rule 12 of the Rules and Regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization.
For reaching the said conclusion, the court extensively relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Narendra K.Ambwani v. Union of India & Ors. (2014).
Case Title:Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Observing that extraction of Section 161(3) of Cr. P.C statement in cross-examination cannot be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has set aside an order of trial court sentencing three murder accused to life sentence. The court iterated that substantive evidence is the evidence tendered by the witnesses on oath during criminal trial.
"...Therefore, mere repeating the statement contained in 161(3) Cr. P.C by the public prosecutor under the pretext of cross-examination of the witness who turned hostile can never be substantive evidence. It is relevant to note that the purpose of treating the witnesses hostile and cross-examination is to get some materials or to unearth truth from the witnesses", the court noted.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar pointed out that the witness statement under Section 161(3) CrPC were put to witnesses during cross examination with a conclusion that the witnesses who turned hostile gave false evidence to exonerate the accused persons.
Case Title: Irfan v. K.S Kumaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 85
Madras High Court has recently refused to entertain a motor accident claim in which the claimant, a minor, was found driving the motorcycle involved in the accident.
In a strongly-worded judgment, Justice S. Kannamal noted that the claimant who was a minor boy at the time of accident cannot demand compensation from the insurance company when he himself is a tortfeasor.
Though the bench agreed with the claimant's submission that Motor Vehicles Act is intended to be a 'benevolent legislation', it clarified that that in itself would not mean there is an ipso facto applicability in all the cases. In the light of clear insurance policy violation, the court noted that the insurance company is relieved from the responsibility of paying compensation. Therefore, the court upheld the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai that had rejected the claim in 2017.
Case Title: Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 86
In a plea for a mandatory dress code to allow entry into temples, Madras High Court has observed that devotees are expected to enter the temple premises in proper dress code.
However, the Court also held that it cannot issue a general direction to all temples to put up signboards prescribing the dress code as suggested by the petitioner.
A division bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the court cannot 'thrust' opinions on the society. The bench also added that if the customary practice of a certain temple prescribes dress code for entry, then such temple can fix visible sign boards to ensure that dress code is followed and the temples can take regulatory measures to that effect.
"The devotees are expected to enter the temples in proper dress to maintain the sanctity of the temple. It is not for the Courts to venture into unchartered waters and thrust our opinions on society. It is the devotees who should realise that they are entering into a place of worship and they need to adhere to the customs in vogue at such temple, if any", the court observed while issuing directions.
Case Title: O. Selvam & Ors v. The Commissioner of School Education & Ors & Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 87
Madras High Court has recently iterated that when two posts carry equivalent scale of pay and are treated as equal categories under the Rules, the petitioners have no right to claim a particular post as a matter of right or choice.
The Madurai bench of Madras High Court underscored that when the service conditions are not infringed from and out of the administrative transfers effected, the Government employees have no right to claim a specific post as their choice.
Justice S M Subramaniam was hearing a plea made by petitioners who were initially appointed as B.T.Assistants (Bachelor of Teaching) and some others who were promoted as B.T. Assistants from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Petitioners belonging to both categories has passed the Deputy Inspector's Test and were qualified to be transferred and appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, an equivalent cadre carrying identical pay scale. Since they met the requirements under Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Educational Subordinate Service, they were appointed as Deputy Inspectors.
The petitioners were challenging the 6th January notification by the Joint Director of School Education directing the District level Chief Educational Officers to make administrative transfers and accordingly post these Deputy Inspectors as B.T Assistants by 7th January.
Other Developments
The Madras High Court will resume physical hearing of cases from March 7, 2022. The decision has been taken in view of connectivity issues which causes inordinate delay in court proceedings.
In a notification dated 4th March, 2022, issued pursuant to the directions given by Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari for proper and expeditious hearing, it is mentioned that all the court hearings at the Principal Seat and Madurai Bench would be by physical mode from March 7, 2022, i.e, next Monday onwards.
Case Title: M/S.Ootacamund Club v. Union of India & Ors.
The Madras High Court today issued notice on a plea filed by Ootacamund Club through its Secretary, challenging the vires of Section 108 of the Finance Act, 2021, insofar as it purports to levy Goods and Service Tax on a members' club in an incorporated form by insertion of Section 7(1)(aa) in the CGST Act.
When the matter came up before the Division Bench of Justices R. Mahadevan and Sathya Narayana Prasad for admission, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that levying GST on a members' club in an incorporated form is in direct contravention with Article 246 A and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The court issued notice on the plea, returnable in four weeks' time.
The case of the petitioner club is that neither the Union nor the State can levy GST on the club under Article 246A. To establish the same, the petitioner relies on Article 366 (12A) which specifies that taxation will be on supply of goods or services or both.
12. Madras High Court Directs De-Sealing Mylapore Club, Orders Re-Determination Of Rent Arrears
Case Title: The Mylapore Club v. TheJoint Commissioner/ Executive Officer & Anr.
In a writ appeal arising from a dispute regarding payment of rent to Kapaleeswar temple by Mylapore Club, Madras High Court has directed the HR & CE Department to de-seal the premises of Mylapore Club.
The first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy has also instructed the respondents for revision/ re-determination of rent arrears by applying the process contemplated under Section 34A of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter 'Act') and after taking into account the current rental market value.
The bench has granted the department two months' time to complete the process of re-determining the arrears and clarified that the club will have the remedy of appeal to the competent authority if aggrieved by the final order of the department.
Case Title: M. Jeya v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has sought response from the Director-General of Police and Home Secretary in a writ petition seeking departmental disciplinary action against the police officers accused in the custodial death of a 17-year-old boy.
The respondents include the Director General of Police, Home Secretary, Inspector General (South Zone) and Madurai Police Commissioner.
The case of the petitioner is that her minor son who was working as a cleaner in an earth mover was taken to the custody of S.S Colony Police Station, Madurai on 13th January 2019 in connection to jewelry theft. She alleged that her son was kept in police custody from 13th January till 16th January and was subjected to brutal torture. She further alleged that she received a call from the boy on the night of 15th January indicating that he was unwell and in illegal custody.
The matter came up before Justice S.M. Subramaniam, who granted time to the Respondents for filing counter-affidavits and posted the case for 7th March, 2022.
Case Title: The Secretary to Government, Transport Department & Anr. v. P.G Venugopal
Madras High Court has recently criticised the state transport corporation for withholding pensionary benefits along with arrears since 2009 to a person who is more than 75 years old now.
Calling the action of the appellant corporation as 'arbitrary', the bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and Mohammed Shaffiq added that the entitlement of pension was already decided by Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court as well as the apex court. In such a scenario, it is never fair not to pay the pension that the ex-employee is lawfully entitled to, the court remarked.
Upholding the right of the employee to claim pension since he had completed 10 years of service as per the government order as well as on the basis of previous court orders, the single judge bench of the High Court instructed the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd and process the same in a time-bound manner as directed.
15. Madras High Court Remands Matter To AO To Determine Whether IL&FS Is Public Financial Institution
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s.Tamil Nadu Water Investment Co.Ltd
The Madras High Court has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for determination to determine whether M/s. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS) is a Public Financial Institution.
The division bench of Justice R.Mahadevan and Justice J.Satyanarayana Prasad set aside the order of the ITAT and remanded to the AO to examine, whether IL&FS is a public financial institution; and if it is in affirmative, then, section 43B(d) read with explanation 3C will be applicable; and pass orders afresh, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the parties, within a period of eight weeks.
Case Title: Dr. Saranya T. Jaikumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Madras High Court has granted an interim stay on the government notification that dissolved the Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights (Commission/TNCPRC) in its entirety and proposed to reconstitute the same.
A single bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth was considering the plea by one of the commission members, Saranya T. Jayakumar. Saranya is the only member who has challenged the notification that dismantled the entire Commission.
The impugned notification was issued in February 2022. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner member was appointed in 2021 and her tenure would have continued for three years till 2024.
The court observed that a perusal of Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 does not provide for a 'wholesale dissolution' of the Commission per se.
