Partly allowed

Mr.Gopinath v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC18 Jul 2023WP/21132/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an ex-parte ex-parte order recommending compensation and disciplinary action against the petitioner. It remitted the matter to the State Human Rights Commission for a fresh hearing after granting the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence, while directing that no action be taken against the petitioner during this interim period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of SHRC set aside; matter remitted to SHRC for fresh hearing within two months; 1st respondent directed not to take any action against petitioner during interim period.

Mr.Gopinath Vs State of Tamilnadu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA

¶6

W.P.No.21132 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.20522 of 2023

Gopinath

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu “Thiruvarangam”, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai – 600 028.

¶12

3.V.Anbalagan 4.Senthilkumar

¶13

5.Tholkappian

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the issuance of the impugned ex-parte order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent in SHRC Case No.5950/2018 and quash the same.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 1 of 7

¶17

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kirankumar For Respondents : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.C.Jayaprakash Government Advocate for R2

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the order passed in SHRC Case No.5950 of 2018 wherein, a recommendation is ordered by the State Human Rights Commission (in short 'SHRC') directing the 1^st respondent to recover Rs.50,000/- viz., towards the compensation payable to the complainant. Further the SHRC recommended the 1^st respondent to initiate disciplinary action against the present petitioner as per the Rules.

¶21

Mr.E.Vijay Anand, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶22

accepted notice for the 1^st respondent and Mr.C.Jayaprakash, learned Government Advocate appeared for R2-SHRC. Taking note of the nature of the order to be passed in this writ petition, notice to Respondents 3 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Page No. 2 of 7

¶25

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶26

It is averred in the Writ Petition that the 3^rd respondent made a complaint before the 2^nd respondent/SHRC against the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5 in SHRC Case No.5950 of 2018. The petitioner filed detailed counter before the 2^nd respondent and denied the entire averments mentioned in the complaint.

¶27

The SHRC took the complaint on file and posted the matter for appearance of the present writ petitioner. Though the petitioner had filed a detailed counter, he had not come forward to proceed with the case. Therefore, he was set exparte by the SHRC and after examining the complainant/3^rd respondent herein, the Commission made the following recommendations:-

¶28

“22.In the result, this Commission recommends as follows:-

¶29

(i) The Government of Tamil Nadu shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Complainant Thiru V.Anbalagan, Makkal Seithi Maiyam, No.13/9 Malliyam Narasimhan Nagar, Poonamallee, Chennai, within one month from the date

¶30

of receipt of a copy of this Recommendation and the Government of Tamil Nadu may recover Rs.50,000/-

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Page No. 3 of 7

¶33

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶34

from the 1^st respondent. The complaint against the 2^nd & 3^rd respondents is dismissed.

¶35

(ii)This Commission is also recommends to initiate disciplinary action against the 1^st respondent as per the Rules.”

¶36

The main contention of the writ petitioner is that though he filed

¶37

a counter, the same was not taken into consideration by the SHRC while passing final orders.

¶38

A perusal of the records would go to show that the impugned

¶39

order has been passed by the SHRC only based on the oral and documentary evidence let in on the side of complainant/3^rd respondent. The writ petitioner herein against whom the allegations are made in the complaint has not let in any oral or documentary evidence. It is very clear that the writ petitioner has filed only counter and has not marked any evidence to substantiate his defence. The SHRC, on the basis of the complaint and the evidence let in on the side of complainant has passed the impugned order, recommending that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be recovered from the writ petitioner towards the compensation payable to

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 4 of 7

¶41

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶42

the complainant and also recommended to take disciplinary action. Since the writ petitioner has not been granted with sufficient opportunity to put forth his case, we are of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the writ petitioner to defend his case.

¶43

In the light of the above discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶44

of on the following terms:-

¶45

(i) The recommendations made by the 2^nd respondent-SHRC in

¶46

Case No.5950/2018, dated 10.01.2020 is set aside.

¶47

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the file of the 2^nd respondent

¶48

-SHRC for conducting the case afresh.

¶49

(iii) The 2^nd respondent shall continue the proceedings from the stage of examination of the witnesses and marking evidence on both sides and decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law, after affording sufficient opportunity to all the parties concerned and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

Page No. 5 of 7

¶52

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶53

8.Since the matter is remitted back to the file of the 2^nd respondent/SHRC, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Departent, Chennai/the 1st respondent herein is directed not to take any action against the writ petitioner, until the matter is disposed of by the State Human Rights Commission, Chennai, as directed supra. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶54

(J.N.B., J.) (N.M., J.) Index : Yes / No 18.07.2023 Internet : Yes / No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No Jer Note:Registry is directed to issue order copy on 21.07.2023

¶55

To 1.The Principal Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶56

2.The State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu “Thiruvarangam”, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai (Greenways Road), Chennai – 600 028.

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Page No. 6 of 7

¶59

W.P.No.21132 of 2023

¶60

J. NISHA BANU, J. and N.MALA, J.

¶61

Jer

¶62

W.P.No.21132 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.20522 of 2023

¶63

18.07.2023

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No. 7 of 7

Mr.Gopinath v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Gopinath v. State of Tamilnadu

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

M/s. Terapanth Educational and Medical Trust, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

A.Mohamed Shaik Alaudeen Vs The District Collector

Sagunthala Vs L.a.T.Selvaraj

Manjuladevi Vs the District Collector

Mariadassou Philomene Dominique Vs E.Sathiyamurthy

Mrs.M.Indira Vs The Commissioner