Mary Joyhelina Bernado Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation

¶1

Rev.Apl(MD) No.1 of 2025

¶2

IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated :10.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

W.P. (MD) No.9177 of 2025

¶9

M. Seenisulthan S/o. Mohamed Abdul ... Review Applicant / Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The Director General of Police (L & O), Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶13

The Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, DGP Office, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, SIU, DGP Office, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶16

1/7

¶17

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

¶18

Rev.Apl(MD) No.1 of 2025

¶19

The Superintendent of Police, SBCID, DGP Office, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶20

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SBCID, Near Thamarai Thotti, Race Course, Madurai - 625 007.

¶21

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SIU, New Natham Road, Madurai - 625 007.

¶22

The Inspector of Police, B1 Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai City. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶23

PRAYER : Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 114(1)

¶24

Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 9177 of 2025 dated 29.04.2025.

¶25

For Applicant : Mr. V. Ramamurthy For Respondents : Mr. Veera Kathiravan, Additional Advocate General-II, assisted by Mr. Vaikkam Karunanithi, Government Advocate.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This review application has been filed by the Writ petitioner alleging

¶28

2/7

¶29

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

¶30

Rev.Apl(MD) No.1 of 2025

¶31

that he never challenged the appointment of Law Officers to the High Court and the review applicant has sought direction against the respondents only not to equate or relate the review applicant with the accused in Cr. No.821 of 2002 on the file of the 9th respondent in future, since the review applicant and the accused in the above said FIR are different persons and no way connected or related to each other. This Court disposed the above said Writ petition with liberty to challenge the above said Cr. No.821 of 2002 in the manner known to law. In fact, in Para 5 of the order of this Court, it is stated that there are no records against the officials to substantiate the allegations and the entire process of appointing law officers to this Court was carried out by the Public (Law Officers) Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. The official communications of the entire process are confidential one. This Court, in paragraph no.6, stated that the case in Cr. No.821 of 2002 on the file of the 9th respondent is pending against the applicant. On verification with the police officials and the office of the Jurisdictional Court, the above said case was disposed of by dropping action as undetected and the same was not informed to this Court by the authorities. Therefore, the order passed by this Court has to be reviewed.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

Rev.Apl(MD) No.1 of 2025

¶35

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would submit that the main Writ was filed for forbearing the respondents from equating or relating the applicant's name with the accused in Cr. No.821 of 2002 of the file of the 9th respondent in order to link with the communal activities of particular Muslim Organization by considering the applicant's representation dated 05.03.2025. Thereafter, this Court disposed of the Writ petition by holding that there are no records filed by the Writ petitioner to substantiate the allegations levelled against the police officials and the petitioner, only based on the hearsay, sent the representation and filed the Writ petition. This Court disposed of the said Writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the case in Cr. No.821 of 2002 on the file of the B1, Vilakkuthoon Police Station, Madurai. Moreover, the said case in Cr. No.821/2002 was disposed long back. Therefore, this Court passed a reasoned order and there is no any ground to review the order passed by this Court and the present application is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

¶36

Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on

¶37

record.

¶38

4/7

¶39

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

¶40

Rev.Apl(MD) No.1 of 2025

¶41

The main ground raised in this review application is that the

¶42

applicant is no way connected with the case in Cr. No.821 of 2002 and already he sent a representation and the same was not considered and in future, the respondents should not equate or relate the applicant with the accused in Cr. No.821 of 2002. Since already the said Cr. No.821 of 2002 was closed, no question of equating the applicant with the accused in the said Cr. No.821 of 2002 in future, would not arise and if any communication sent by the applicant has not been considered, it is for him to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. Therefore, there are no grounds to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.9177 of 2025.

¶43