Partly allowed

S.Sikander v. Tamilnadu State Human Rights

Madras HC11 Apr 2018WP/7923/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order dismissing a summons petition filed under CPC. The Supreme Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter. The court directed the petitioner to examine the Inspector of Police immediately and the Commission to summon other witnesses within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remanded. Petitioner directed to examine Inspector of Police immediately. Respondent directed to issue summons for three other witnesses within one month after that

S.Sikander Vs Tamilnadu State Human… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 11.04.2018

¶4

CORUM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶6

W.P.No.7923 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.9875 of 2018
S.Sikander ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission,
rep. by its Members,
143, P.S.Kumarasamy Salai (Greenways Road),
Chennai-600 028.
2.Niveditha ... Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition has been filed under Artilce 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned orde4r dated 13.03.2018 passed in SHRC Case No.3384/2014 by the 1^st respondent and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to examine witnesses on their side.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Deivanandam For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar (for R1) * * * * *

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

( Order of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH, J.,)

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 13.03.2018 passed by the 1^st respondent in SHRC Case No.3384/2014 and to direct the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to examine witnesses on their side.

¶14

2.It is stated that the petitioner herein is the 4^th respondent in the case in SHRC Case No.3384 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent. By the impugned order dated 13.03.2018, the 1^st respondent has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order 16 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC seeking to summon three witnesses viz., 1)Sajid Khan 2)Sudhan & 3)Meeras Sahib to speak about the happening that took place on 18.05.2014. The reason assigned by the 1^st respondent for dismissing the petition is that though the case is pending for the past four years for the evidence of the respondents therein, they were not ready to examine the witnesses on their side and they are dragging the matter and that the petition was filed only to drag on the matter endlessly.

¶15

3.Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would examine a witness viz., S.Karunakaran, Inspector of Police, (2nd respondent in SHRC Case No.3384 of 2014 on the file of the 1^st respondent) during the hearing tomorrow and thereafter, the other three persons (mentioned supra) would be examined as witnesses.

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

¶18

4.Heard the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent also.

¶19

5.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶20

petitioner, in the interest of justice this Court is inclined to pass the following order:-

¶21

i)The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1^st respondent.

¶22

ii)The petitioner herein shall initially examine the 2nd respondent in SHRC Case No.3384 of 2014 viz., S.Karunakaran, Inspector of Police, as a witness on tomorrow itself viz., 12th April 2018.

¶23

iii)So far as the other three witnesses are concerned, the 1^st respondent shall issue summons to other three witnesses by fixing a specific date within a period of one month, after completion of examination of the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶24

With the above terms, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently,

¶25

connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶26

Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶27

NOTE:- Issue Today

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

R.SUBBIAH, J., and P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.,

¶31

(ssv)

¶32

To,
The Member,
Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission,
143, P.S.Kumarasamy Salai (Greenways Road),
Chennai-600 028.
W.P.No.7923 of 2018
and
W.M.P.No.9875 of 2018
11.04.2018

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

S.Sikander v. Tamilnadu State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sikander v. Tamilnadu State Human Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indira Vadivelu Vs S.Mohana

C.Samayambigai Vs S.Anbazagan

M/S.Kaveri Piping Systems Pvt. Vs Mr.Jeetendra Lodha (Huf)

K.Suganthani Vs P.Kirubakaran

S. Vijayakumar Vs K. Mehkala

E.M.Karthik, Vs The District Collector