Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 20 2022 To June 26 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 NOMINAL INDEX A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 B Nagaraj v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 262 P Benjamin v. The Director General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 263 Bapuji Murugesan v. Mythili Rajagopalan, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 264 P Venkatachalam v. The Tahsildar (Batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 265 N Syamasundara Naidu v. V Dakshinamoorthy and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 266 K Kumaradoss v. The Principal Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 267 P Maheswari v. The Secretary to Government, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 268 Dharampal R. Pandia versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 269 REPORTS 1. Courts Should Allow Parties To Let In Oral And Documentary Evidence In Guardianship Matters: Madras High Court Case Title: A. Shaamsudeen Raja v Raneesha P.V. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 258 While allowing an appeal by a father seeking custody of his minor child, the Madras High Court bench of Justice M.Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Mohan, observed that the order of the single judge was passed without affording an opportunity to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence. "It is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.423 of2020 is liable to be set aside." the court observed. 2. "Public Employment Cannot Be Obtained By Paying Bribe", Madras HC Rejects Petition For Interim Custody Of Rs. 10 Lakh Seized During Job Racket Case Probe Case Title: K.Sadagopan v. State Rep.by, Inspector of Police and ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 259 While dismissing a petition for interim custody of Rs.10 lakhs seized in a job racketing case, the Madras High Court bench of Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy expressed his displeasure at the way people were willing to pay huge sums of money for getting a job. He enunciated that public appointments were made through a selection procedure and could not be obtained by paying bribes. He highlighted that such persons did not realise that it took years of work to earn such salaries and gave no thought to the plight of persons who scored more marks than them. 3. No Prohibition For Issuance Of Legal Heirship Certificate To Class-II Legal Heirs: Madras High Court Case Title: D.Chandra v. The Tahsildar Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 260 While allowing a petition filed by a woman for issuing a legal heir certificate for her deceased brother, the Madras High Court bench of Mr. Justice Abdul Quddhose reiterated that there was no bar to issuing a legal heir certificate to a class-II heir. The court thus directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application on merits and after affording her a fair hearing and after hearing any such other person that the respondent deems fit to inquire. The Tahsildar was also directed to pass the final orders within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 4. "Not Designated Public Information Officer": Madras High Court Allows Sanitation Inspector's Plea To Quash Penalty For Inadequate RTI Reply Case Title: Ponvelraj v. The State Information Commissioner and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 261 The Madras High Court recently allowed a petition filed by a Sanitation Inspector for quashing an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 25000 (highest under the Right to Information Act) for providing inadequate reply in an RTI Application. The bench of Justice S. Srimathy observed that the petitioner was only providing reply upon the directions of the Municipal Commissioner and was himself not a designated Public Information Officer. The court observed as under: "This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was not designated as Public Information Officer and has not acted as in-charge Public Information Officer. In such circumstances, the information furnished by the petitioner is only based on the direction of the Municipal Commissioner that is the second respondent, without assigning any designation as in-charge Public Information Officer. Therefore, the punishment imposed on the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/-, as penalty, which is the maximum punishment that is prescribed under the Act is liable to be interfered and the impugned order is quashed. If any amount is recovered based on the impugned order, the same shall be refunded...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 20 2022 To June 26 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags