Allowed

K.Anandan, Presently Working v. Tamilnadu State Human

Madras HC15 Mar 2024WP/23892/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenged an SHRC order recommending compensation and disciplinary action against a former Sub Inspector of Police over an alleged human rights violation. After mediation, the parties reached a joint compromise; the petitioner paid Rs.2,75,000 to the complainant, who agreed to withdraw complaints. The court allowed the petition and set aside the Commission's recommendations.

What did the court decide?

SHRC recommendations for compensation and disciplinary action set aside in terms of joint compromise; writ petition allowed; W.M.P.No.27840 of 2018 closed

K.Anandan, Presently Working Vs Tamilnadu State Human — Madras HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

K.Anandan

.. Petitioner

-vs-

Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road, Chennai 600 028

¶12

Government of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Principal Secretary Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009

¶13

Mr.Arjunan S/o Subramani

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in order dated 11.06.2018 passed in SHRC No.2983 of 2011 and quash the same in respect of the petitioner alone.

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶19

For Petitioner :: Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar For Respondents :: Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi Special Government Pleader for R1 & R2 Ms.U.Anunitha for R3

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.)

¶22

This writ petition is directed against the order of State Human Rights Commission in the complaint in S.H.R.C.No.2983 of 2011 dated 11.06.2018.

¶23

The complainant is an auto driver, who came up with the complaint

¶24

alleging human rights violation by the petitioner, who was the then Sub Inspector of Police in H1, Old Washermenpet Police Station. The recommendation of the Commission is that the Government of Tamil Nadu should pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with liberty preserved to the Government to recover the amount from the petitioner. The petitioner is now aggrieved by the other direction of the State Human Rights Commission to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner himself.

¶25

_____________ Page 2 of 7_

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶28

This Court, after hearing the parties for sometime, found that the

¶29

petitioner and the contesting respondent are willing for compromise and therefore passed an order on 06.02.2024 referring the matter to mediation. Accordingly, before the mediator, the parties have entered into a joint compromise recording the terms and the joint compromise memo dated 11.03.2024 is filed before this Court. The said joint compromise memo is signed by the petitioner and the third respondent in the presence of their respective counsels. As per the memorandum of compromise, the petitioner and the third respondent have agreed to the following terms:-

¶30

“(a) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand Only) to the 3^rd respondent on 11.03.2024 by way of cash in the presence of wife of 3^rd respondent, his counsel and mediator.

¶31

(b) The 3^rd respondent shall execute the receipt of acknowledgment for the proof of payment received by him with an endorsement made herein and as well as by execution of a receipt separately.

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶35

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶36

to set aside the recommendation made by the 1^st respondent as against the petitioner without any prejudice to his rights.

¶37

(d) The 3^rd respondent shall give an assurance of undertaking that he would withdraw all the complaints and litigations if any towards the subject matter of the above complaint at present and he will not initiate any complaint and litigations regarding the above issue in future.

¶38

(e) The petitioner and 3^rd respondent agree to settle this issue once for all and they will not precipitate the same further.”

¶39

In view of the above joint memorandum of compromise entered into

¶40

between the petitioner and the third respondent, a prayer is made to permit

¶41

the petitioner and the third respondent to compromise the case as per the settlement reached before the mediator in the Mediation Centre. The joint request of both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the third respondent is that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the joint compromise.

¶42

This Court, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶46

the case, is inclined to permit the parties to settle the dispute amicably in terms of compromise entered into between them and recorded in this order. Since the petitioner has now paid more than the amount directed by the Human Rights Commission and that the State has not paid any money to the third respondent in view of the order of stay obtained by the petitioner before this Court, the recommendation of the Human Rights Commission to pay compensation to the complainant and to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner are set aside, in view of the compromise reached between the parties. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.

¶47

Consequently, W.M.P.No.27840 of 2018 is closed. No order as to costs.

¶48

Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (N.S.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 15.03.2024 ss

¶49

¶50

The Registrar Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road Chennai 600 028

¶51

The Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department

¶52

Page 5 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶55

Secretariat Chennai 600 009

¶56

_____________ Page 6 of 7_

¶57

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

¶58

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

¶59

S.S.SUNDAR,J. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

W.P.No.23892 of 2018

15.03.2024

_____________ Page 7 of 7_

¶64

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

K.Anandan, Presently Working v. Tamilnadu State Human

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Anandan, Presently Working v. Tamilnadu State Human

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

B.Dhanesh Vs the Zonal Officer

Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited (Cpcl) Vs Tribunal on Its Own Motion -

Sri. Namjundeswarar Sami Temple, Vs the District Collector

P.Kannappan (Deceased) Vs The Commissioner

P.Sathish Vs The Secretary to Government

Vijayakumari Vs the Assistant Registrar