Telangana High Court summons tahsildar in fake certificate case

Telangana High Court summons tahsildar in fake certificate case

The case revolves around Singotam Vennela, an aspiring MBBS/BDS student who sought admission in a medical college in the State for the academic year 2023-24.

Published: 01st November 2023 08:46 AM |

By Express News Service

HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice NV Shravan Kumar, has issued a bailable warrant directing R Manjula, the tahsildar of Alampur mandal in Jogulamba Gadwal district, to appear before the court on November 10 for her alleged involvement in the issuance of a fake residential certificate to an MBBS aspirant.

The case revolves around Singotam Vennela, an aspiring MBBS/BDS student who sought admission in a medical college in the State for the academic year 2023-24. Vennela challenged the decision of the Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences to reject her request for local candidate status.

The tahsildar issued a residential certificate stating that the student had been a resident of Door No. 23-43, Alampur, Jogulamba Gadwal district, Telangana, for the past 18 years. However, the court had raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity of the certificate, prompting an investigation into the veracity of the petitioner’s claim of being a local candidate.

During the previous court proceedings, the bench had directed Manjula to explain the issuance of the controversial certificate within two weeks. Despite the clear directive, the tahsildar failed to respond to the court directive. Expressing its disappointment and concern over the tahsildar’s non-compliance with the court’s directive, the division bench issued a bailable warrant for her appearance in court on November 10.

MATERNITY LEAVE NOT JUST ABOUT CHILD RRIGHTS AMICUS TELLS HC

 

UGC Final year Exam Vs States protest

 

SC reserves verdict on states’ power to cancel final exams

SC reserves verdict on states’ power to cancel final exams

States Say It’s Easy To Evaluate With Past Exam Sheets, Internal Assessments

Dhananjay.Mahapatra@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:19.08.2020

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on the question whether state governments had power under the Disaster Management Act to cancel final examinations for award of degrees to college students even though the University Grants Commission has asked universities to conduct final examinations by September 30.

Maharashtra, West Bengal, Odisha and Delhi said the UGC could not have taken a unilateral decision to hold final examinations, turning a blind eye to the Covid-19 pandemic which is accounting for over 50,000 new infections daily.

Though there had been a push to empower students with laptops for years, the common refrain of these four states was that most students were from rural areas and did not have access to laptops. Giving examinations with mobile phones would be extremely difficult and connectivity and internet speed were perennial issues that could raise the level of anxiety among students and deprive them of doing well in the examinations, the states said.

Senior advocates and advocates general of these states argued that when no public transport was available and when state governments had been empowered under the Disaster Management Act to take strict containment action during the pandemic, holding final examinations would be endangering the lives of many.

They said past examination performance sheets of each student, along with internal assessments, were available with colleges and it would be easy to evaluate them on that basis and promote them without final examinations.

However, a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R S Reddy and M R Shah said when UGC guidelines, as shown by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, were binding on universities, the commission’s decision not to recognise degrees without passing final examinations would also be binding. Before reserving its order, the SC said the only question was whether state governments, in a pandemic situation, had power under the DM Act to decide when to hold final examinations, especially when they pleaded that many colleges had been converted into Covid-19 testing centres.

The bench refused to interfere in the ongoing final examinations in Delhi University colleges. Mehta said the UGC guidelines had given three options — online, offline or hybrid system of examinations for final year students.

He said around 300 universities had already conducted final examinations and another 400 were in the process of doing so. Mehta said the UGC had made a provision that if any student, for a genuine reason, could not appear in the final examination held before September 30, then she would be given one more chance.

THE FINAL SAY: When UGC guidelines, as shown by solicitor general Tushar Mehta, were binding on universities, the commission’s decision not to recognise degrees without passing final examinations would also be binding, the SC bench said

Lockdown is no ground for rent waiver: HC

Only Relaxation In Payment Schedule Can Be Considered, Court Tells Khan Market Tenant

Abhinav.Garg@timesgroup.com

New Delhi:  23.05.2020

The Covid-19 lockdown cannot be a ground for tenants to seek rent waiver by invoking the ‘force majeure’ — act of God — clause, Delhi high court said on Friday.

Rejecting a plea by a Khan Market tenant to waive off rent during the lockdown, Justice Prathiba M Singh laid down parameters to deal with various issues regarding rent suspension due to the Covid-19 crisis, interpreting Indian Contract Act and Transfer of Property Act (TPA) — the laws that govern tenancy and leases and also have the ‘force majeure’ clause.

The pandemic “has had largescale implications for human life. Contractual relationships and jural relationships between parties are severely affected due to the lockdown. The question as to whether the lockdown would entitle tenants to claim waiver or exemption from payment of rent or suspension of rent is bound to arise in thousands of cases across the country”, Justice Singh noted.

The tenant had sought waiver on the ground that the commercial premises remained shut on the government’s orders, which itself described it as a ‘force majeure’ event. However, the court said the clause didn’t apply in his case as there was no contract. Moreover, under TPA, “there has to be complete destruction of the property, which is permanent in nature, due to the force majeure event”, it pointed out.

If a tenant wishes to retain the premises and there is no clause giving any respite in the contract between him and the landlord, the rent or the monthly charges would be payable, the judge observed. The “fundamental principle” will be that if the contract has any relief clause, “only then the tenant can claim the same”, she emphasised. In its absence, Justice Singh said, the only concession can be deferred payment of rent.

‘Force majeure” is defined as “an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled” and according to a dictionary, “the term includes both acts of nature (e.g. floods and hurricanes) and acts of people (e.g. riots, strikes and wars)”, the court explained.

“Temporary non-use of premises due to the lockdown... cannot be construed as rendering the lease void under TPA. The tenant cannot also avoid payment of rent,” the judge said.

Only Delhi Rent Control Act will apply in the case and the plea is liable to be rejected as while seeking suspension of rent on the basis of a force majeure event, the tenant doesn’t intend to surrender the premises, the court observed.

However, “some postponement or relaxation in the schedule of payment can be granted owing to the lockdown”, the court added and directed that the use and occupation charges for March would be paid on or before May 30, 2020 and for April and May, by June 25, 2020.

In 2017, a court ordered the eviction of the tenant on the plea of the landlord who had given the premises on rent in Februrary 1975 for Rs 300 via a lease deed. Following the Covid-19 lockdown, the tenant moved the waiver application.

COURT SAYS

Temporary non-use of premises due to the lockdown... cannot be construed as rendering the lease void under law

High court to govt: Recruit doctors, nurses periodically

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai  2.5.2019

: The Madras high court on Wednesday directed the Medical Recruitment Board (MRB) to conduct recruitment for the posts of doctors, nurses, and paramedical staff periodically to avoid unnecessary exigencies in providing medical facility to citizens.

Justice S M Subramaniam passed the order on a plea moved by G Udaya Kumar, challenging a government order dated September 12, 2018, issued by the MRB, which mandates appointment of nurses from the reserve list of 2015 recruitment without going for fresh recruitments.

According to the petitioner, MRB had appointed candidates over and above the notified vacancies in the recruitment conducted in the year 2015. Other eligible candidates were not selected and no opportunity to participate in the process of selection was provided, which was in violation of the equality clause enunciated in the Constitution, he contended.

“Without even conducting the process of selection by following the recruitment rules in force, the authorities are going on appointing candidates, from and out of the unsuccessful candidates from the erstwhile list (2015),” he added.

Denying the allegations MRB submitted that in 2015 notification was issued for recruitment to 7,243 posts of nurses. “It is an admitted fact that 7,102 candidates were selected and a select list was drawn. Out of 7,102 selected candidates, 7090 candidates were issued with the order of appointment. From and out of the order of appointment, only 6,254 candidates joined in post. Thereafter 683 candidates joined, whose names were listed in the reserve list. It is pertinent to note that 66 candidates joined and subsequently resigned the job and 87 candidates remained absent unauthorizedly,” MRB said.

The state was obligated to fill up the posts on account of the acute shortage and there was no time to conduct the process of selection by MRB. Thus, the candidates in excess were appointed only on contractual basis and those candidates are yet to be regularized in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay, the government said.

Refusing to concur, the judge said, “Even under such circumstances, it is possible for the state to engage temporary nurses on contract basis or daily wage rate basis or on a consolidated pay. During the interregnum period, it is the duty of the state to proceed with the regular recruitment process by strictly adhering to the recruitment rules in force.” Contrarily, they cannot appoint unsuccessful candidates persons from the selection list of 2015 and fill up the post on contract basis and, thereafter, regularize their services and deprive the rights of all other candidates who all are waiting to secure public employment. Such a procedure adopted is undoubtedly a “fraud on the constitution.” If such procedures are permitted, then it would look as if back door entries are encouraged by the courts also, the judge added.

HC stops govt construction on wetlands

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai:2.5.2019

Censuring the state government for failing to protect waterbodies for the last five decades, but instead concentrating on “production of artificial water (liquor)”, the Madras high court quashed two government orders transferring 61.6 acres of wetland to two government departments for construction of buildings.

The Kazhuveli land parcels (backwater land) are along the sides of Buckingham Canal near Okkiam Thoripakkam and Sholinganallur.

The land which has been classified as “Backwater (Kazhuveli) land” in the revenue records and land adjacent to Buckingham Canal are waterbodies/ wetlands. The Buckingham Canal receives excess water from Pallikaranai marshland through Thoraipakkam-Okkiam channel and discharges it into the sea and acts as a protective shield for the city.

It was the case of the petitioner I H Sekar that the Kazhuveli land helps to avoid/ mitigate the effects of floods during excess rain and high tides such as tsunami, and to store the excess water entering into the Buckingham Canal, preventing water wastage.

But the authorities who were duty bound to protect and preserve such waterbodies have neglected their primary responsibility and subdivided and transferred the land to the state transport department for construction of a regional transport office and to the tourism, culture and religious endowments department for the formation of Tamil Nadu Music and Fine Arts University, the petitioner said.

Allowing the plea, a division bench of Justice M Venugopal and Justice S Vaidyanathan said, “The starting point for encroachment is allotment of a small portion of the environmental areas for some other purpose and later on, it will be widespread, polluting the rest of the areas. Though six feet space is sufficient for burial of a dead body, several burials will make it a graveyard.”

It is apposite to state that if water and its storage places are not properly preserved, the day is not far off for us to beg for water from other states and countries, the bench added.

The court then quashed the GOs and directed the state to stop construction and relocate the buildings, if any, constructed on the lands within one year.

“This court fixes the responsibility on the chief secretary and the chairperson of Tamil Nadu State Wetland Authority for survey and removal of encroachments on the wetlands and any negligent attitude noticed shall be viewed seriously,” the bench said.

The starting point for encroachment is allotment of a small portion of the environmental areas for some other purpose and later on, it will be widespread, polluting the rest of the areas. Though six feet space is sufficient for burial of a dead body, several burials will make it a graveyard

MADRAS HIGH COURT

No court relief for teachers who failed to clear TET

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

Chennai:2.5.2019

When there are more than 60,000 candidates who have cleared the Teachers Recruitment Test (TET) or National Eligibility Test (NET) waiting to be appointed as teachers across the state, the government retaining teachers who have failed to clear the tests even after 8 years cannot be justified, the Madras high court observed on Wednesday.

Justice S M Subramaniam made the observation while disposing pleas moved by four such teachers working in Kasthuriba Gandhi Baliga Vidyalaya Residential School, Perungalathur, seeking the court to restrain the authorities from terminating their service for nonclearance of TET.

“If a teacher is unable to clear TET in 8 years’ time provided, how can the court come to the conclusion that such a teacher is qualified to continue in the post and teach the students,” Justice Subramaniam asked.

There cannot be any leniency or misplaced sympathy by the state in implementation of the qualifications as it will be detrimental to the national educational policy and the education to be imparted to the children, the court added.

“For many such posts and professions, requisite qualifications are prescribed. Thus, teachers alone cannot claim that they should be exempted from passing TET. More so, the profession of teaching is of more importance than any other posts in the public services,” the judge said.

The court then directed the authorities to issue show-cause notice to all such unqualified teachers within two weeks and initiate appropriate action. The authorities were also directed to implement the minimum educational qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education without any violation at the time of recruiting teachers.

How can a teacher, who is unable to clear Teachers Eligibility Test in 8 years’ time, be qualified to teach students, the court asked

SC: Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules has Prospective Operation 

February 5, 2018



February 05, 2018

Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai v. M/s Essar Tele holdings Ltd.

Date of Judgment: January 31, 2018

In this recent, the Two –Judge Bench of Supreme Court took up a batch of petitions with reference to the common issue:

Whether Rule 8D is retrospectively applicable?”

The main contention of the Appellant in the case was that Section 14A being clarificatory in nature and Rule 8D is a procedural provision which provided only a machinery for the implementation of Section 14A(2) & (3) of Income Tax Act, Rule 8D is retrospective in nature. It was also contended that the machinery provisions by which the charging section is to be implemented or workable are to be given retrospective effect.

What is Rule 8D?

Income Tax Rules, 1962 were amended in 2008 by which Rule 8D was inserted to provide for the Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not included in total income. Rule 8D was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 14A(2) & (3) of Income Tax Act. Which enumerates provision for determining the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income. Hence, Section 14A(2) & (3) of Income Tax Act is the charging section and Rule 8D is the machinery provision.


Bench’s Verdict

The Supreme Court in the case categorically stated that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act is prospective in nature. While pronouncing its verdict, the Court made the following key observations in the case:

That it is a settled principle of statutory construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have retrospective operation.

That mere date if enforcement of statutory provisions does not conclude that the Statute is prospective in nature. That the nature content of statute have to be looked into to find out the legislative scheme and the nature, effect and consequence of the Statute.

That the method for determining the amount of expenditure brought in force w.e.f. 24.03.2008 has been given a go bye and a new method has been brought into force w.e.f. 02.06.2016 by interpreting that Rule 8D is retrospective, there will be conflict in applicability of 5th & 14th amendment Rules which clearly indicate that the Rule has a prospective operation, which has been prospectively changed by adopting another methodology.

That applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectively of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of Section 14A(2) & (3) of Income Tax Act as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance Bill, 2006 and departmental understanding, Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively.

AR L Sundaresan elected President of Madras Bar Association Meera Emmanuel 

April 30 2019 


 Senior Advocate AR L Sundaresan has been elected as the new President of the Madras Bar Association (MBA) following elections held on Monday.

The full list of office bearers elected to the body runs as follows:

President

AR L Sundaresan

Secretary

M Baskar

Treasurer

R Karthikeyan

Librarian

S Siva Shanmugam

Executive Committee Members

T Surekha

Anbu Karasu

A Nilaphar

Kaithamalai Kumaran

T Karunakaran

The election results come in the backdrop of controversy regarding MBA membership pending before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Three lawyers had contended that the membership selection process to the MBA is being carried out arbitrarily after 275 applicants were denied membership.

Out of 300 applicants, including senior counsel, 25 had been approved membership. In an interim order passed last week, the State Bar Council had directed that the decision regarding their membership would be left open to MBA General Body after the assumption of office by the newly elected body.

The Madras Bar Association is the oldest among lawyer’s association bodies of the Madras High Court, the others being the Madras High Court Advocates’ Association, the Woman Lawyers Association and the Law Association.

The MBA was constituted in 1865, three years after the Madras High Court was established by royal charter. At the time, it was christened simply as the ‘Bar Association’ and membership was open only to British Barristers. After a decade or two, Indian Barristers were permitted to become members. In 1898, the Association was renamed as the ‘Madras Bar Association’. It was only in 1951 membership was made open to advocates who obtained law degrees from Indian Universities.

Read the notification concerning MBA Election Results 2019 below:

  https://barandbench.com/arl-sundaresan-elected-president-madras-bar-association/

Whether Doctor's Certification mandatory for recording Dying Declarations? SC answers 

[Read Judgment] Meera Emmanuel 

April 30 2019
 
The Supreme Court on Tuesday had occasion to make certain pertinent observations regarding dying declarations as proof of conviction.

A three-Judge Bench of Justices NV Ramana, MM Shantanagouder and S Abdul Nazeer noted that reliable dying declarations can be made the sole basis for conviction. Further, if the dying declaration in question is otherwise proved to be reliable, there is no need to insist on certification of the same by a doctor.

To this end, the Bench observed that the certification of dying declarations by doctors is only a rule of prudence, which is not mandatory if the declaration in question is otherwise reliable. As noted in their judgment,

“There cannot be any dispute that a dying declaration can be the sole basis for convicting the accused. However, such a dying declaration should be trustworthy, voluntary, blemishless and reliable.

In case the person recording the dying declaration is satisfied that the declarant is in a fit medical condition to make the statement and if there are no suspicious circumstances, the dying declaration may not be invalid solely on the ground that it was not certified by the doctor. Insistence for certification by the doctor is only a rule of prudence, to be applied based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The real test is as to whether the dying declaration is truthful and voluntary. It is often said that man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. However, since the declarant who makes a dying declaration cannot be subjected to cross­examination, in order for the dying declaration to be the sole basis for conviction, it should be of such a nature that it inspires the full confidence of the court.”

The appellant before the Court had been accused of dousing her aunt with kerosene and burning her to death in 2001. The case of the prosecution primarily rested on a dying declaration purported to have been made by the victim on the same day, in the presence of family members and a Naib Tehsildar­-cum-­Executive Magistrate.

As per the prosecution’s narration, the Tehsildar had been called to the hospital to record the victim’s dying declaration on a request made by the police. The statement was recorded on a Sunday when there were no doctors available to certify the dying declaration, it was submitted. The dying declaration so recorded accused the appellant-niece of having committed the murder.

Before the trial court, the victim’s family members also stated that the appellant had committed the crime. The trial court, however, concluded that the offence had not been proved sufficiently and therefore acquitted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant.

On further appeal before the Supreme Court, the Bench concurred with the trial court’s acquittal, noting that,

“As far as the oral dying declaration is concerned, the evidence on record is very shaky, apart from the fact that evidence relating to oral dying declaration is a weak type of evidence in and of itself.”

The Court concluded that the Tehsildar, in this case, did not satisfy himself at all about the fitness of the victim to make a statement.

“No verification or certification of the doctor regarding the fitness of the victim to make a statement can be found on the dying declaration either. In addition, absolutely no reasons are forthcoming either from the Investigating Officer (P.W. 12) or from the Naib Tehsildar­-cum-­Executive Magistrate (P.W. 1) as to why the original dying declaration was not produced before the Trial Court.”

Importance was attached to obtaining such verification given other circumstances throwing doubt upon the veracity of the recorded dying declaration. For one, the police had stated that they found the victim in a state of shock. At the hospital, she was found to have suffered 100% burn injuries. In view of the same, the Court opined that it should have been discerned whether the victim, in this case, was fit to make the dying declaration at all.

This apart, the Bench found that the victim’s family members appeared to have decided to accuse the appellant of the murder clearly as an afterthought. It was pointed out that none of the initial statements taken by the investigative authorities from these witnesses contained such an accusation. It was only during trial that the victim’s family members first accused the appellant of the murder.

Certain lacunae in the account given by the investigation officer were also noted by the Court, including a delay of around three hours in registering an FIR in the case.

In view of the same, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court’s finding of acquittal was liable to be confirmed. It held,

“The trial court has taken pains to evaluate the entire material on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the so­called dying declaration (Exh.P­2) is unbelievable and not trustworthy. Valid reasons have also been assigned by the trial court for coming to such a conclusion…

… Since the evidence relating to the dying declarations has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in convicting the appellant, inasmuch as there is no other material against the appellant to implicate her. The motive for the offence, as alleged by the prosecution, has also not been proved.”

Therefore, the Bench set aside the High Court judgment and ordered the release of the appellant.

Read the Judgment:

  https://barandbench.com/doctor-certification-dying-declarations-supreme-court/

Principal’s appointment: Court stays DVAC probe

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN

PublishedMay 1, 2019, 5:40 am IST

The order passed by the interim administrator shall be subject to the result of the intra court appeals”, the bench added.

Madras high court

Chennai: Declining to stay a portion of the order of a single judge, which quashed the appointment of N.Shettu as principal of Pachaiyappas College for Men in the city, the Madras high court has stayed the remaining portions of the order.

Passing interim orders on an appeal filed by Shettu, a division bench comprising Justices K. K. Sasidharan and RMT. Teeka Raman said, “We are informed that pursuant to the order dated April 24 (of the single judge), which is impugned before us, Justice P.Shanmugam, former judge, Madras high court, who was appointed as the Interim Administrator, passed an order dated April 26, 2019, reverting the appellant from the post of Principal and giving charge to P. Arulmozhichelvan, Associate Professor and Head, Department of Physics, being the senior most Professor. In view of the said order, there is no question of staying the order passed by the single judge (quashing the appointment of Shettu). Similar is the case of the order relating to the circular challenged before the single judge”.

The bench said senior counsel Sathish Parasaran submitted that unless there is a regular principal, the university would not approve the admission of students. “We make it clear that the professor and head of the department, department of physics, appointed by the interim administrator as principal-in-charge, would be deemed to be the principal, for all purposes relating to education and he should be considered as the principal by the university and the government for the time being. We also make it clear that no equity or right would accrue to any of the parties on account of the order passed by the Interim Administrator, dated April 26. The order passed by the interim administrator shall be subject to the result of the intra court appeals”, the bench added.

The bench however stayed until further orders the order of the single judge, declaring as null and void, the process of selection conducted by the Pachiayappas Trust Board through its selection committee and college committee.

The bench also stayed the direction of the single judge to the interim administrator to conduct a fresh selection for appointments/promotions to the post of principal for all the colleges by strictly following the statutes/rules and the University Grants Commission regulations.

The bench also stayed the order of the single judge, which directed the Interim Administrator to look into the complaints in respect of corrupt activities in the process of selection and file appropriate complaint before the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, who in turn, shall probe the issues in relation to the corrupt activities in the process of selection, with reference to the competent educational authorities, and the University and initiate all appropriate actions.

The bench said the appointment of the appellant as the principal of Pachaiyappa’s College was put in issue before the single judge at the instance of R. Nanthini and 6 others. They have taken up a specific contention that the very selection was contrary to Rule 11 (4) of the Private College Regulations Act, which provides for taking various colleges under the educational agency as one unit. The single judge accepted the said contention and set aside the selection. Even though there were no materials produced before the single judge for a probe by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, still such a direction was issued to the Interim Administrator. In fact, there was no specific prayer at the instance of the petitioners for a direction to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption department to enquire into the very process of selection, to unearth the element of corruption, the bench pointed out and posted to June 17, further hearing of the case.

Can’t interfere in day-to-day affairs, Madras High Court tells Lt Governor

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN

Published   May 1, 2019, 2:18 am IST

''The weekly disposal is also placed on record as was the earlier practice”, Bedi said in a statement to the media.

Kiran Bedi

Chennai: The Madras high court on Tuesday held that Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi ‘cannot interfere’ in the day-to-day affairs of the elected government in the Union Territory as it represents the will of the people.

“The decision taken by the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister is binding on the Secretaries and other officials”, Justice R Mahadevan held in allowing a petition by Congress legislator K Lakshminarayanan representing (ironically) the Raj Bhavan constituency, who complained that Bedi “runs a parallel and diametrically opposite government within the government” while holding meetings directly with the secretaries and other officials, and issuing orders.

Setting aside two communications issued in January and June, 2017, by the Union Home Ministry “elevating” the power of the administrator (Lt Governor), Justice Mahadevan said, “The Central Government as well as the Administrator should be true to the concept of democratic principles. Otherwise, the Constitutional Scheme of the country of being democratic and republic would be defeated”.

“The Administrator has no exclusive authority to run the administration in derogation of the Constitutional principles and the Parliamentary laws governing the issue”, said the judge, adding, “Notable and appreciable is the action of the Central Government to re-delegate further powers to the Council of Ministers in the communication dated 27.09.2018”.

Chief Minister V Narayanasamy, who has been at loggerheads with Bedi over several issues, hailed the HC verdict as “historic and victory of democracy” in as much as it “stated unequivocally that Kiran Bedi does not have independent powers and she must work in tandem with the elected government in administrative and service matters, financial aspect of governance.”

Responding in guarded manner while giving enough hints there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court, Bedi said, “We are examining the judgment, after which we shall take a view. Meanwhile, we are still in the Model Code of Conduct of Elections period. Files which require Lt Governor's approval such as service matters, of promotions, appointments, disciplinary matters and financial sanctions for Grants in Aid are being received and being examined and cleared on merits of each case. The weekly disposal is also placed on record as was the earlier practice”, Bedi said in a statement to the media.

Elaborating on her selfless motive in insisting on being in the driver's seat rather than just a rubber stamp, she said, “I wish Puducherry well. Its people deserve the best. The UT needs utmost integrity, accountability and careful financial management to save it from running into a debt trap. Most of the people of Puducherry deserve quick decision- making with accessible governance”.

In arriving at his conclusion favouring the petitioner, Justice Mahadevan referred to the Supreme Court verdict on the tussle between Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Lt Governor Anil Baijail, and said restrictions imposed on the Government of Delhi are not applicable to the Government of Puducherry. “The apex court has clearly held that there is a distinction between the National Capital Territory of Delhi and Puducherry”, he said, adding that though Puducherry is not a state, its Legislative Assembly would have the same powers as that of a state.

Senior lawyer P Chidambaram represented petitioner Lakshminarayanan, who submitted that there are political differences between the elected Government of Puducherry and the Centre. “She (Bedi) conducts review meetings with the officials directly, by-passing the elected government, carries out inspections and issues on-the-spot orders and thereby runs a parallel and diametrically opposite government within the government”, he said while alleging that Bedi interfered in the day-to-day administration of the territorial government, its policies and programmes.

The judge observed that the court had already discussed the role of secretaries. They normally act only as a medium of communication, utmost to render their opinion at circumstances and have no power or authority to override the decisions of the Council. “Though they may report to the Administrator nominated by the President, still they cannot shed their duty to the decision of the Council of Ministers taken as per the procedure laid down in the Government of Union Territories Act and the Rules of Business of the Government of Pondicherry, 1963”, said Justice Mahadevan, adding that the secretaries “cannot jump the gun and run a parallel Government under the directions of the Administrator”.

The judge also pointed out that the elected representatives of the government play a major role in decision making, or else, there would be no purpose in having an elected government, who are the true representatives of the people.

“The elected government functioning through the Council of Ministers cannot be defeated by the act of the Administrator, who is also functioning under the provisions of the Constitution, by way of interfering in the day to day affairs of the Government”, he said.

Alluding to the petitioner's complaint that Bedi was using the social media to summon officials, the Judge said, “The Government officials cannot use their personal media to address the grievances of the public. A public redressal forum in the form of official e-mails, telephone numbers are to be circulated and used, if already not put into use.”

Madras HC curbs Lt. Governor's powers, says Kiran Bedi can't interfere in Puducherry government's everyday affairs

The court said the administrative and financial powers are with the elected government and the Lt.Governor has to act as per the advice of the council of Ministers.

Published: 30th April 2019 01:00 PM 

Puducherry Lt Governor Kiran Bedi (File | EPS)

By Siva Sekaran

Express News Service

CHENNAI: Holding that the Council of Ministers is the supreme body, the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Tuesday clipped the extra powers granted to Lieutenant-Governor Kiran Bedi by the Centre. The court’s decision has come as a big boost for the Puducherry government, which has been at loggerheads with Bedi over a wide range of administrative issues.

“The Administrator cannot interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the government. The decision taken by the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister is binding on the secretaries and other officials. The Centre as well as the Administrator should be true to the concept of democratic principles,” the bench said. “Otherwise, the country’s Constitutional scheme of being democratic and republic would be defeated.”

Justice R Mahadevan further added: “The Administrator (L-G) has no exclusive authority to run the administration in derogation of the constitutional principles and the parliamentary laws governing the issue.” The judge was allowing a writ petition from K Lakshminarayanan, Puducherry MLA and also parliamentary secretary to the Chief Minister, who is directly in charge of the relationship between the Union Territory and the Centre.


He sought to quash the two communications from the Home Ministry, which had allegedly granted more powers to L-G. The judge held that the Union Territory of Puducherry had legislative powers to enact laws with respect to all matters enumerated in the State and Concurrent Lists as per the Constitution.

‘Difference can be referred to Prez, Centre’

The Puducherry legislative body enjoys power similar to that of a ‘State’ and the authority of the Administrator remains intact with regard to exercise of discretion under certain circumstances when the Assembly is not functioning or when a reference is bonafide required.The Administrator is bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers in matters where the Assembly is competent to enact laws though he/she is empowered to differ with the Council based on some rationale which raises a fundamental issue regarding the action of government.

A legitimate and warranted policy decision of the Council after deliberation is expected not to be interfered with... The scope of such difference can utmost end only in a reference to the President or the Central government, and by no stretch of imagination or interpretation, the provisions enable the Administrator to reject any Bill, the judge said.Administrator can do posting of officers under IAS in consonance with Article 320 of the Constitution, the judge said.

‘Studying verdict’

Lt Governor said the judgement was being examined, following which a view would be taken. Bedi also cited an earlier judgment of the Madras HC and said “L-G of the UT has powers to act independently”

CM Happy

Puducherry Chief Minister V Narayanasamy on Tuesday said the judgement was a victory for the people of the Union Territory (UT)

Madras High Court summer vacation from tomorrow

The summer vacation for the Madras High Court and its bench at Madurai will begin on May 1.

Published: 30th April 2019 05:39 AM

By Express News Service

CHENNAI: The summer vacation for the Madras High Court and its bench at Madurai will begin on May 1. It will re-open on June 3 (Monday). Following are the vacation judges for the principal seat at Chennai: Justices S Vaidyanathan, Subramonium Prasad, N Anand Venkatesh and G K Ilanthiraiyan will sit on May 8 and 9.


Justices C V Karthikeyan, Krishnan Ramaswamy, V Bhavani Subbaroyan and A D Jagadish Chandira on May 15 and 16. Justices RMT Teekka Raman, P D Audikesavalu, P Rajamanickam and C Saravanan on May 22 and 23. For the last part of the vacation, that is, on May 29 and 30, Justices N Sathish Kumar, P T Asha, M Nirmal Kumar and Senthikumar Ramamoorthy will be the vacation judges.

Madras HC curbs L-G role in Puducherry

Mohamed Imranullah S.

CHENNAI, MAY 01, 2019 00:00 IST

Kiran Bedi

‘Amounts to running a parallel govt.’

The Madras High Court on Tuesday ruled that the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G)of Puducherry could not interfere with the day-to-day administration of the Union Territory when an elected government was in place. The court said incessant interference from the L-G would amount to running a “parallel government.”

Authoring a 150-page judgement, Justice R. Mahadevan said: “The Central government as well as the Administrator [the term used in the Constitution to refer to the Lieutenant-Governor] should be true to the concept of democratic principles. Otherwise, the constitutional scheme of the country of being democratic and republic would be defeated.”

The judge made it clear that government secretaries were bound to take instructions from the ministers concerned and the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, besides reporting to them on official matters. “The secretaries are not empowered to issue orders on their own or upon the instructions of the Administrator,” Justice Mahadevan said.

Practice disapproved

He disapproved of the alleged practice of government officials being part of social media groups through which the L-G was issuing instructions to them for redress of public grievances and reminded them that as per rules, they were bound to use only authorised medium of communication when it came to issues related to administration.

The judgement was delivered while allowing a petition filed by Congress MLA K. Lakshminarayanan in 2017, and quashing two clarifications issued by the Union Home Ministry that year with regard to the powers of the L-G.

The judge held that those communications had been issued without reference to the constitutional provisions and other laws.

Though the Centre had primarily questioned the locus standi of the petitioner to file the case, the judge rejected the objections on the ground that such a writ petition at the instance of an MLA was maintainable.

In his judgment, Justice Mahadevan also went on to point out the differences between the powers conferred on the legislatures of Puducherry and Delhi under Articles 239A and 239AA of the Constitution.

The judge said though Article 239AA imposes several restrictions on the legislature of Delhi, no such restrictions had been imposed explicitly in the case of Puducherry under Article 239A.

“The above Article symbolises the supremacy of the Legislature above the Administrator in case of the Union Territory of Puducherry.”

No man has right to compel girl to fall in love or marry him: Madras HC

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | J STALIN

Published Apr 30, 2019, 4:32 am IST


The judge directed the Superintendent of Prisons to immediately arrange for counseling of this petitioner with a psychiatrist.

Madras High Court

Chennai: Holding that no man has any right to compel any girl to fall in love with him or to marry him, the Madras high court has dismissed a bail petition from an accused, arrested in connection with stabbing all over the body of a girl, on her refusing to concede his request for marriage, in the city.

Dismissing the bail petition filed by Kavin, Justice N.Anand Venkatesh said, "It will be better if the petitioner is kept inside the jail and the jail authorities start giving this petitioner counseling by experts and bring him to normalcy before he is released from the jail. Probably, by the time, the petitioner gets out of the jail, he will regret for what he did to the girl with whom he had a love affair".

The judge directed the Superintendent of Prisons to immediately arrange for counseling of this petitioner with a psychiatrist.

The judge said this is yet another case where the lover of the victim girl has attacked the girl in a brutal manner with knife on her refusing to marry him. Incidents of this nature are continuing to happen on a daily basis and it has reached monstrous proportions where man seem to think that the girl has to concede to their request for love/marriage and on refusal to do so, they take the extreme step of brutally attacking girls and had also gone to the extent of setting them to fire, the judge added.

The judge said this trend is on the raise and it is high time that courts put down their foot and bring some sanity in society. These incidents continue to happen because man things that a woman is a chattel and she has to concede to whatever a mandemands. This attitude has to be changed. In the instant case, the petitioner was in love with the injured girl. It seems that the girl had informed the petitioner that her parents are looking for a marriage and she is not in a position to marry him. The petitioner lost his sense of balance and has proceeded to brutally attacked her. The ruthlessness with which the injured has beenattacked is apparent from the discharge summary that has been given by the hospital. The girl has been stabbed all over the body and there are four stab incisions on the left side of the face with one penetrating into the buccal cavity. There are multiple stab injuries on the chest and on the abdomen. This is apart from the stab injuries that are found in the neck, arms and lower limbs. "

It is a miracle that this victim girl has survived this attack due to the effective treatment that has been given by the hospital. After this attack, this injured girl can never come back to normalcy and this incident is going to remain deep in the mind of the victim girl till the end of her life", the judge added.

The judge said this court while considering the bail petition has to necessarily look into the gravity of the offence and also the seriousness of the accusation made against the accused person. Obviously, the present case falls within the ambit of a case with serious accusations and very serious gravity of offence. The courts must stop being merciful or tend to have misplaced sympathies in cases of this nature. If the accused person had committed the crime, since he was wounded by the conduct of the girl who had suddenly refused to marry him, that does not give him a right to resort to stabbing a woman. There were other ways to deal with the situation, the judge added.

HC allows rectification of error in application forms

STAFF REPORTER

MADURAI, APRIL 30, 2019 00:00 IST

Bringing relief to two candidates, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission to consider their claim for rectifying error in their application forms to the post of Assistant Horticulture Officer.

In separate petitions, M. Kavin Kumar and R. Uma Maheshwari had sought rectification of the errors. The candidates had wrongly entered their community status as Backward class (BC) instead of De-notified community (DNC) in their online application form.

Though both the candidates had cleared the cut-off marks and met the eligibility criteria, they were not short-listed due to the error. Their representations to the TNPSC for rectification of the error was rejected, following which they approached the court.

Justice R. Mahadevan observed that such mistakes happen inadvertently and can be rectified. The petitioners cannot be penalised by denying them employment. The court directed the authorities to consider them for appointment to the post if they were found to be eligible and if there were no other legal impediments.

Madurai EVM Security lapse: Madras HC orders disciplinary 
action against errant Election Officials 

Meera Emmanuel April 28 2019 

https://barandbench.com/evm-security-lapse-madras-hc-transfer-election-officials/

After it came to light that a Tahsildar and three other municipal officers had trespassed into a room proximate to an EVM strongroom in the Madurai constituency, the Madras High Court has directed that disciplinary action be taken against errant election officials in charge.

The order was passed on a plea filed in the wake of the alleged trespass by Su Venkatesan, an electoral candidate representing the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

For allowing the security lapse, the Bench of S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad on Saturday directed the transfer of the following officials i.e. Dr S Natarajan, the Madurai Collector/ District Election Officer; Guruchandran, the Assistant Returning Officer to the Collector; Mohandas, the Assistant Commissioner of Police in charge of elections and other police officers in charge.

A letter addressed by the ECI dated April 27 (Saturday) informed the Court of their transfer appointments with immediate effect.

The Court was working on Saturday to compensate for the Court’s holiday on April 18, in view of the Lok Sabha elections in Tamil Nadu.

On noting that no punitive action had been initiated certain others, the Court has also directed the ECI to initiate disciplinary action or prosecution against the Personal Assistant (General) to the District Collector, Madurai District, among others reported having been involved in the incident as per a report of a designated Enquiry Officer.

The controversial incident occurred on the evening of April 20 in the No. 32, Madurai Parliamentary Constituency. The Electronic Voting Machines (EVMS) had been taken to a strong room in Madurai Medical College Premises.

The EVM strongroom was expected to be monitored round the clock under strict security conditions. However, on the evening of April 20, a woman Tahsildar was found to have entered the document storage room situated above the counting room where the EVMs were kept.

As per the petition, she was allowed entry without authorisation and remained in the building for three hours, “for the reasons best known to her.” During the hearing yesterday, the Court was informed that the Tahsildar has been suspended following the incident. Three other municipal corporation employees were also reported to have accompanied her.

The petition goes on to inform,

“They did not even have any identity cards issued by the competent authority… Very shockingly, the Police and security personnel took note of their unlawful presence, only after three hours and detained them. But, on the intervention of some unidentified top officials in the City, they were let off, for obvious reasons.”

On coming to know of their illegal entry, efforts were made to contact the Returning Officer (RO), S Natarajan. However, the RO did not respond. Rather, the petitioner contended that he was only able to meet the RO around midnight.

“Shockingly”, the petitioner goes on to submit, “he [RO] said that he was not at all aware of the said incident and he came to know it only through me; which is totally untrue as he cannot be a person unaware of the said incident, when the unlawful entrants were let off only at the intervention of some officials from his office.

The said unlawful entry was made with an intention to make possible manipulations in the postal ballots.”

A representation was consequently addressed to the Tamil Nadu Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) to initiate a high-level inquiry into the matter. The Additional CEO for Tamil Nadu was therefore deputed to Madurai as the Enquiry Officer. A report in the matter was also submitted to the CEO.

The petitioner further alleges that there may be possible collusion between the trespassing Tashildar and her team with the ruling party to do unlawful things in their favour.

However, citing the failure of the Election Commission officials to discharge their duty, the Court was approached to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by an officer not below the rank of the Principal Secretary to the Election Commission of India to conduct an enquiry into the matter under its direct supervision.

The petition also prays for a direction to provide a three-tier security system to election counting centres at Madurai and other constituencies through the deployment of adequate CPRF personnel.

Another interim direction prayed for was the appointment of a Special Observer in the rank of an IAS officer for No. 32 Madurai Parliamentary Constituency. The matter has been posted to be taken up next on April 30.

The order passed yesterday states,

“Having regard to the above discussion, we are inclined to grant the interim relief as prayed for, in the W.M.P.Nos.13147 and 13150 of 2019 and both the petitions are allowed.

We direct the registry to post the matter on 30.04.2019, for filing counter.”

Read the Order:

Government Servant Is Not Eligible To Make Will Of Family Pension: Chhattisgarh HC

 By: LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

28 April 2019 7:52 PM

Government Servant Is Not Eligible To Make Will Of Family Pension: Chhattisgarh HC [Read Judgment]

More However, Will of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance Scheme and Family Benefit Fund can be made. The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a Government servant is not eligible to make a Will of family pension.

Vijay Kumar Kaushik, a police constable, had made a Will, by which he bequeathed all the pensionary benefits and pension in favour of his second wife and son from her. After his death, his first wife and her son made an application for grant of succession certificate.

This application was rejected by the court, upholding the claim of the second wife based on the Will.

] In the revision petition, issue considered by the High Court was whether the Government servant can make a testamentary disposition of all his retiral benefits or it has to be disbursed in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of such Government servant?

Answering the issue, referring to some Supreme Court judgments, Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal observed as follows:

An employee has no power of testamentary disposition with respect to something which was not payable to him during his lifetime.

If the qualifying event/benefit occurs only on the death of the deceased while he is in service and due to this, some monetary benefits accrue, it would not form part of the estate of the deceased and the same cannot be disposed by testamentary disposition because there is an element of uncertainty of happening of event.

If the scheme and/or service Rules designate certain persons who are entitled to receive benefits out of the scheme, then no other person except those designated persons can be entitled to the said benefits.

If the employee makes no contribution to the benefit, he has no control over the same to dispose it by testamentary disposition.

If the scheme/Rules do not provide for nomination of any person during the lifetime of the deceased employee, he has no title to the same and it cannot be disposed by testamentary disposition.

Applying these principles to facts of the case, the court held that the first wife, being legally wedded wife of the deceased Government servant would be entitled for the entire amount of pension, ex-gratia and police welfare payment, as they do not form part of the estate of the deceased employee over which he has right to testamentary disposition. However, the court observed that the gratuity, leave encashment, Group insurance scheme, Family benefit fund, Department Provident Fund would form part of the estate of the deceased employee over which he has right to testamentary disposition. These would go to the second wife, as per the will, the court held.

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/government-servant-is-not-eligible-to-make-will-of-family-pension-144605