Search Judgments

Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and Rules, 2023 – Rule 28(2) – These writ petitions were filed by two Post Graduate Assistant teachers (Physics and Chemistry) challenging orders issued by the Chief Educational Officer, Ramanathapuram, which rejected the approval of their appointments in a minority school. The grounds for rejection were the presence of surplus BT Assistants with qualifications for promotion and non-compliance with Section 28(2)(a)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023.

The petitioners argued that Rule 28(2) doesn’t apply to minority institutions, citing a High Court division bench judgment. They also contended that surplus BT Assistants should be redeployed, not used to block PG Assistant appointments.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11A – This case involves a writ appeal against a single judge’s order, which upheld a tribunal’s decision to modify the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement for an employee of a bank. The employee was charged with misappropriation. The employee admitted his guilt during the enquiry.

The Tribunal, while concurring with the Enquiry Officer’s finding, reduced the punishment considering the employee’s long service, his initial position as a Sub-Staff, and the lack of consideration for mitigating circumstances by the Disciplinary Authority, as required by a bipartite settlement.

Khazi’s Act, 1880 (Act 12 of 1880) Section 4 – This writ petition challenges a circular issued by the Chief Khazi of the Tamil Nadu Government, which sought to regulate certain religious practices during Namaz in mosques, specifically regarding covering the head with a cap and the symbolic movement of the index finger during worship.

The petitioner argued that the Chief Khazi’s directions were not universally accepted religious beliefs and that a subsect believed otherwise. The Chief Khazi countered that the practices went against religious beliefs.

The court acknowledged that it could not determine the religious correctness of either claim under Article 226, suggesting the parties present evidence in a civil court.

The Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 – This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application to condone the delay in restoring a workman’s compensation claim (W.C. No. 29 of 2002) filed by the father of a deceased manual scavenger, Sridhar. Sridhar died in 2000 while cleaning an underground sewer without protective gear, employed by a contractor for the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board.

Wakf Act, 1995 – Section 32(2)(c) – This writ petition was filed seeking permission for the petitioner and his family to bury his deceased mother, Ismail Beevi, at the Pettai Kadhar Muhaideem Guthba Pallivasal burial ground and to provide adequate protection. The respondents 7 and 8, who manage the burial ground, were allegedly denying permission due to differences in ritual practices.

The petitioner cited a resolution by the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board, following a previous court order, stating that Sunnath Jamadh should not impose their rituals on deceased individuals belonging to other ritual practices. The court noted the urgency of the matter and the previous order addressing similar issues, directing the State Government to enact comprehensive legislation ensuring equal treatment in last rites.

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) Section 45G(3)(x) & Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (PF Act) Section 11(2) – This writ petition was filed by a state-owned corporation in Tamil Nadu, holding Rs. 65,78,713/- payable to the third respondent, New Security Force. This establishment is covered under both the ESI Act and the PF Act, and has defaulted on payments under both statutes. Garnishee notices were issued to the petitioner by both the ESI Corporation and the Provident Fund authorities, claiming dues exceeding the amount held.

Companies Act, 1956; SARFAESI Act; Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 171 – This writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent (Bank) to disburse Rs. 10.50 Crores deposited by the petitioner in a “No Lien” account, with 24% interest from 12.07.2016. The petitioner, a third party to a loan between the Bank and the 2nd respondent (borrower), deposited the amount for a One Time Settlement (OTS) on the understanding that it would receive mortgaged properties.

The borrower proposed an OTS, with the petitioner funding part of it.

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 – Section 87, 167 and Rule 140 – This Writ Petition challenges an order by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, attaching land owned by the petitioners due to alleged misappropriation by a third party, who was their power of attorney holder, in Claim Petition No. 1 of 2014 bearing No. Sa.Pa dated 17.12.2014 and quash the same and hold that the order of attachment in CAM No.6 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 with respect to lands in S.No. 334/R.S.No.

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22; Constitution of India – Article 14, 19(1)(g), 226 – Several industrial establishments in North Chennai filed writ petitions challenging direction No. 18 in paragraph 53 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) order dated July 20, 2023, in Original Application No. 256/2020. The direction mandated the creation of a corpus fund, requiring companies in the Manali complex to deposit a minimum of 1% of their annual turnover for environmental restoration and RCC road construction.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 82; Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 78 – The petitioner, a stage carriage operator with a valid permit until 31.05.2025, sought to transfer the permit to Rogini Rajesh after having it transferred to his name on 08.02.2023. The application was rejected based on a State Transport Authority (STA) meeting on 27.11.2019, which stipulated a three-year holding period before permit transfer, increased from the previous one-year period from 19.12.2001.

The petitioner challenged this restriction, arguing that Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, allows permit transfer without specifying a holding period, and Rule 78 of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, also doesn’t impose such a time limit. The court noted that the reason provided for increasing the time was to curb trafficking of permits, but found no rationale for the specific increase to three years.