Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 - 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts.Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79NOMINAL INDEXS. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74P.A Josseph v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 75K.V Komarasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 76Rangarajan Narasimhan v. Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 77The Adhoc Board of Administrators, Nagore Dargah Interim Adhoc Administrators v. Muhalli Muthavalli & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 78South Indian Artistes Association rep. by its Former General Secretary v. The Registrar of Societies, South Chennai & Anr.2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 791. 'A Democratic Republic, Not A Police State': Madras HC Holds Police Not Empowered To Regulate Timings Of EateriesCase Title: S. Gunaraja v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71Madras High Court has held that police cannot decide the working hours of eateries and restaurants under the guise of law and order problems. The court also observed that it is the bounden duty of police authorities to provide appropriate protection to the eatery shops/hotels/restaurants.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy pointed out that the police does not have the authority to shut down eatery shops/ restaurants by citing law and order problems when they are not accorded such powers after the amendment to Section 35 vide Chennai City Police (Amendment) Act, 2007.The court also stated that the Preamble of the Indian Constitution guarantees a democratic republic and not a police state. The court made the above statement in the backdrop of police refusing eateries the permission to function even when they don't have the authority to regulate their timings, thereby depriving the fundamental rights of hotel owners and consumers of food. Such unlawful actions of the police fearing anti-social elements entering the eateries at night can only be equated to 'burning down your own house to get rid of a rat', the court added.2. Non-Consideration Of Vital Aspects In Documents A Valid Ground To Review Disciplinary Authority's Order: Madras High CourtCase Title: Manimaran v. The Chief General Manager/ Reviewing Authority, Canara Bank & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 72Madras High Court has held that material aspects that were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority can be construed as 'new evidence' by the Reviewing Authority to exercise its power of review.The court observed that the power of reviewing authority is not intended for mechanical exercise and aims at a clear application of mind. This would include whether the nature of charges have been already proved or not and whether the punishment imposed is in commensuration with the gravity of charges so proved or not proved. The Reviewing Authority shall also examine if all the material aspects ought to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority have been taken into account or not.Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the course of action taken by the Authority is within the purview of Clause 18 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, contrary to the arguments raised by the petitioner employee. According to the said provision, the authority can review the order when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review comes into light.3. No Leave For Prisoners Under TN Sentence Suspension Rules During Pendency Of Their Appeal: Madras High CourtCase Title: Wasib Khan v. The State represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (Chennai Range) & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 73Madras High Court has recently reiterated that convict prisoners cannot be granted parole/leave under Tamil Nadu Suspension Of Sentence Rules, 1982 during the pendency of their appeal.The Division Bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice R. Hemalatha held that the legal principle enunciated in K.M.Nanavati v. State of Bombay [AIR 1961 SC 112] ought to be followed and the executive power of State for grant of leave cannot be extended when it is the appellate court that can grant suspension of sentence and bail.4. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Executive Officers In Hindu Temples By HR&CE CommissionerCase Title: Indic Collective Trust & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 74Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Indic Collective Trust and its President TR Ramesh challenging the appointment of executive officers to Hindu temples by the HR & CE...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 71 - 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 79

Sebin James

Tags