Search Judgments

Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act) – Section 11 – This writ petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioner, a CRPF Constable, from service due to unauthorized absence and overstay of leave for 378 days. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner remained ex parte during the inquiry. The inquiry officer found him guilty, leading to his dismissal. Subsequent appeals and a revision petition were dismissed by higher authorities, and a mercy petition was also rejected.

Adoption Regulations (2017) Regulation 5; CCS Pension Rules, 1972 Form 3 – The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of a deceased government employee, based on a registered adoption deed from 1988. He sought the deceased’s terminal benefits and compassionate appointment, arguing that his adopted mother had nominated him and mentioned him as her son in official records.

The respondents contested the claim, stating that the deceased employee never informed them about the adoption nor submitted any legal documents for recording the adoption in her service records. They further argued that since the adoption was not formally recognized by the department, the petitioner’s claim couldn’t be considered without a legal heir certificate.

Service Rules and Pension Rules – The petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged an order revising her pension downwards and ordering recovery of excess pension paid. She argued that the revision was made without notice and without valid reason, and that recovery was impermissible as she belonged to Group C service, relying on the judgment in State of Punjab and others V. Rafiq Masih (White Washers) and others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. The respondents contended that the initial pension calculation erroneously included her part-time service, which was later corrected based on GO.Ms.No.408 Finance (pen) Department dated 25.08.2009 and that the petitioner had consented to the revision.

Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 – Section 3(1), 3(2), and 23A – This case involves a challenge to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The respondents (original writ petitioners) contested the Section 3(1) notification, arguing that the District Collector, who conducted the Section 3(2) enquiry, lacked the jurisdiction to do so, as the power rests solely with the Government. The Writ Court agreed, setting aside the acquisition proceedings.

The appellant (State) argued that while the District Collector conducted the enquiry under Section 3(2), the notification under Section 3(1) was issued by the Government.

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23 – This Writ Petition challenges an order issued by the 1st respondent, which cancelled a settlement deed executed by the 2nd respondent (grandmother) in favor of the petitioner (grandson). The 2nd respondent filed a petition alleging that the petitioner failed to take care of her after the settlement. Subsequently, she unilaterally cancelled the deed, and further settlement deeds were executed in favor of other family members. The petitioner argues that the cancellation is invalid as the settlement deed was unconditional and irrevocable and that the 1st respondent does not have the power to cancel it.

The Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964 – The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate from Pondicherry, applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) pursuant to a notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. In the online application, she selected “SC- others” instead of “SC – as per presidential order 1964 and 2002 for Puthiraivannan” due to the options provided. Despite securing marks above the cut-off for SC candidates, she was not selected. Her application to correct the error was rejected by the respondents, stating it was made belatedly.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 57 – This writ petition was filed by a transgender person challenging the rejection of their application for adoption by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). The petitioner argued that Section 57(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act allows any “single person” to adopt, which should include transgender individuals. The rejection was based on the grounds that the petitioner is a transgender and the Home Study Report was not sent by the second respondent.

The court examined Section 57 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 99 and 100; Madras High Court Writ Rules (2021) Rule 17(1)(v) – This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions challenging Government Order G.O.Ms.No.198, dated 28.04.2025, which approved the “New Comprehensive Scheme, 2024” for mini bus permits to private operators under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The petitioners, mainly bus operators’ associations, argued that the scheme violates Section 99 of the Act, which they claim is meant for State Transport Undertakings (STUs), and that it contravenes the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, which restricts new permits on notified routes. Other issues raised include alleged procedural irregularities, lack of authority, and the validity of validating actions under a previously withdrawn scheme.

The court examined several issues, including whether the 1st respondent was empowered under the Business Rules to exercise the power under Section 99 of the Act regarding formulation of opinion and publication of the proposal for the grant of mini bus permit in favour of the private sector.

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order 41 Rule 3A and Rule 5 – Civil Revision Petition – This case involves a challenge to an order passed by the Executing Court in E.P. No.28 of 2021, directing the execution of a sale deed in favor of the respondent (decree holder) based on a decree for specific performance. The petitioners (judgment debtors) filed a revision petition against this order.

The petitioners’ argument centers on the fact that they have filed petitions to restore a previously dismissed appeal (A.S.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – This Second Appeal concerns the rejection of a plaint based on re-litigation, where the plaintiff sought declaration and injunction based on wills after previous suits regarding the same property had been decided against the testators. The defendant had filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint.

The plaintiff claimed ownership through wills from Muthusamy Servai and Karuppiah Servai, who had earlier lost their title to the defendant in prior litigations. The plaintiff had even attempted to implead herself in a previous Second Appeal based on these wills but withdrew her petition.