The Union of India, v. M.K. Khader Ali

Madras HC11 Dec 2025REV.APLW/64/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench; review applications dismissed; scope of review jurisdiction — merits cannot be re-adjudicated by expanding review scope; no error apparent warranting interference; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Article 226 Constitution of India; non-appearance of Standing Counsel at writ hearing; common order dated 24.07.2006 in W.P.Nos.1342, 1343, 1344, 2077 & 2087 of 2001; W.P.No.15509 of 1998 (Union of India) referred; Union of India / Chief General Manager Telecom and Telecommunications Tamilnadu Circle as petitioners; Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench among respondents; no costs; connected M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2006 closed; speaking order; decided 11.12.2025.

What did the court decide?

None; the Review Petitions stand dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. ¶¶127

The Union of India, Vs M.K. Khader Ali — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Review Petitions stand dismissed with no costs and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶¶127

Issue for consideration

Whether the grounds raised in the review petitions, including grounds relating to the merits of the writ decisions, warrant review of the common order dated 24.07.2006, i.e., whether the merits can be re-adjudicated by expanding the scope of review jurisdiction. +1 more

¶¶126

Court's answer

The grounds raised in the review petitions relating to the merits cannot be re-adjudicated by expanding the scope of review jurisdiction.

¶¶126

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds no error apparent warranting interference; accordingly, the Review Petitions stand dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶¶127

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Five review applications (Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006) by the Union of India acting through the Chief General Manager, Telecom / Telecommunications, Tamilnadu Circle, and associated telecom offices (Senior Superintendent and Chief Superintendent, Telegraphic Traffic (Admn), CTO, Madras; Sub Divisional Engineers, Tiruchirappalli and Tuticorin; General Manager, Telecommunications, Tanjore), filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought review of the common order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the Division Bench in W.P.Nos.1342 to 1344, 2077 & 2087 of 2001. The impugned common order had been passed on merits because neither party, including the petitioners' Standing Counsel, appeared at the hearing, and it followed the orders passed in similar W.P.No.15509 of 1998 filed by the Union of India. Holding that grounds relating to the merits cannot be re-adjudicated by expanding the scope of review jurisdiction, and finding no error apparent warranting interference, the Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan, JJ.; order authored by S.M. Subramaniam, J.) dismissed all five Review Petitions with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions (M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2006). Common order dated 11.12.2025. Respondents included individual applicants and the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, for whom no counsel appeared.

¶1

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.12.2025

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶5

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006 in W.P.Nos.1342, 1343, 1344, 2077 & 2087 of 2001 and

¶6

M.P.Nos.1,1,1 & 1 of 2006

¶7

Rev.A.No.64 of 2006

¶8

The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai – 600 002.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M.K.Khader Ali.

¶12

K.L.Suresh

¶13

G.Krishnamurthy

¶14

K.Suryanarayanan

¶15

K.Sekar

¶16

R.Chinnathambi

¶17

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with

¶19

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated Page 1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶22

24.07.2006 in W.P.No.1342 of 2001

¶23

For Petitioner

¶24

For Respondents

¶25

: Mr.Vijayakrishnan.R.P. for Mr.R.Priyakumar : No appearance for R1 to R6 R7-Tribunal – CAT

¶26

Rev.A.No.65 of 2006

¶27

The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002.

¶28

Senior Superintendent, Telegraphic Traffic (Admn) CTO, madras

¶29

Sub Divisional Engineer, Central Telegraphic Office, Tiruchirappalli.

¶30

Sub Divisional Engineer, Telegraphy, Telegraph Office, Tuticorin.

¶31

... Petitioners

¶32

Vs.

¶33

P.Asha

¶34

P.Gurusamy Pandi

¶35

M.Murugesan

¶36

V.Mathiazhagan

¶37

G.Ilangovan

¶38

K.Natarajan

¶39

P.Kadarkaraiyandi

¶40

T.Anthonimuthu

¶41

Page 2 of 8

¶42

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

¶43

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶44

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.

¶45

... Respondents

¶46

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with

¶47

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated

¶48

24.07.2006 in W.P.No.1343 of 2001

¶49

For Petitioners

¶50

For Respondents

¶51

: Mr.Vijayakrishnan.R.P. for Mr.R.Priyakumar : No appearance for R1 to R8 R9-Tribunal – CAT

¶52

Rev.A.No.66 of 2006

¶53

The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecom,Chennai – 600 002.

¶54

... Petitioner

¶55

Vs.

¶56

M.Muthukumar

¶57

M.Radhakrishnan

¶58

P.Veerasamy

¶59

K.Samayavel

¶60

S.Sivakumar

¶61

Manivannan

¶62

K.Chellakannu

¶63

K.Umamaheswari

¶64

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶65

Page 3 of 8

¶66

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

¶67

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶68

Prayer:

¶69

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated

¶70

24.07.2006 in W.P.No.1344 of 2001

¶71

For Petitioner : Mr.Vijayakrishnan.R.P. for Mr.R.Priyakumar For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R8 R7-Tribunal – CAT

¶72

Rev.A.No.67 of 2006

¶73

The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002.

¶74

Chief Superintendent, Telegraphic Traffic (Admn) CTO, madras

¶75

The General Manager, Telecommunications, Tanjore – 613 001 ... Petitioners

¶76

Vs.

¶77

E.S.Seshadri

¶78

s.Anantaraman

¶79

I.Krishnakumar

¶80

P.Boopal

¶81

V.Srinivasan

¶82

G.Kannan

¶83

S.Krishnan

¶84

Page 4 of 8

¶85

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

¶86

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶87

S.Sivasankaran

¶88

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.

¶89

... Respondents

¶90

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with

¶91

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated 24.07.2006 in W.P.No.2077 of 2001

¶92

For Petitioners : Mr.Vijayakrishnan.R.P. for Mr.R.Priyakumar For Respondents : No appearance for R1 to R8 R9-Tribunal – CAT

¶93

Rev.A.No.68 of 2006

¶94

The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002.

¶95

... Petitioner

¶96

Vs.

¶97

C.K.Govindarajan

¶98

A.Basheer Ahmed

¶99

Muruganandam

¶100

R.Ravimarimuthu

¶101

M.Chelladurai

¶102

K.Palanisamy

¶103

T.Natarajan

¶104

M.Paul

¶105

J.Ramachandran

¶106

Page 5 of 8

¶107

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

¶108

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶109

R.Shanmugam

¶110

B.Thangavelu

¶111

C.N.Tamaraiselvi

¶112

M.S.Veeraraghavan

¶113

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai. ... Respondents

¶114

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the order dated

¶115

24.07.2006 in W.P.No.2087 of 2001

¶116

For Petitioner	: Mr.Vijayakrishnan.R.P.
	for Mr.R.Priyakumar
For Respondents	: No appearance for R1 to R13
	R14-Tribunal – CAT

¶117

COMMON ORDER

¶118

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.

¶119

The Review Petitions have been instituted to review the common

¶120

order dated 24.07.2006 passed in W.P.Nos.1342 to 1344, 2077 & 2087 of 2001 respectively.

¶121

2. Perusal of the grounds raised in the review petitions would show that the learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioners had not appeared at the time of hearing of the writ petitions by the Division Bench

¶122

of this Court. Since both the parties had not appeared, the Division Page 6 of 8

¶123

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

¶124

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006 Bench considered the issues on merits and passed a common order,

¶125

following the orders passed in similar W.P.No.15509 of 1998 filed by the Union of India.

¶126

3. The grounds raised in the review petitions relating to the merits cannot be re-adjudicated by expanding the scope of review jurisdiction.

¶127

This Court does not find any error apparent warranting interference and thus. the Review Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition are closed.

¶128

(S.M.S.,J.) (C.K.,J.)

¶129

11.12.2025

¶130

vsi Index : Yes Speaking order : Yes

¶131

¶132

The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai.

¶133

Page 7 of 8

¶134

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

¶135

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶136

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

¶137

vsi

¶138

Rev.A.(W).Nos.64 to 68 of 2006

¶139

11.12.2025

¶140

Page 8 of 8

¶141

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

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecom, Chennai – 600 002¶¶8
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
The Union of India, represented by Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, Tamilnadu Circle, Chennai – 600 002¶¶27
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
Senior Superintendent, Telegraphic Traffic (Admn), CTO, Madras¶¶28
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Central Telegraphic Office, Tiruchirappalli¶¶29
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
Sub Divisional Engineer, Telegraphy, Telegraph Office, Tuticorin¶¶30
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
Chief Superintendent, Telegraphic Traffic (Admn), CTO, Madras¶¶74
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
petitioner
The General Manager, Telecommunications, Tanjore – 613 001¶¶75
Vijayakrishnan R.P., R. Priyakumar
respondent
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai¶¶17
respondent
M.K. Khader Ali¶¶11
respondent
K.L. Suresh¶¶12
respondent
G. Krishnamurthy¶¶13
respondent
K. Suryanarayanan¶¶14
respondent
K. Sekar¶¶15
respondent
R. Chinnathambi¶¶16
respondent
P. Asha¶¶33
respondent
P. Gurusamy Pandi¶¶34
respondent
M. Murugesan¶¶35
respondent
V. Mathiazhagan¶¶36
respondent
G. Ilangovan¶¶37
respondent
K. Natarajan¶¶38
respondent
P. Kadarkaraiyandi¶¶39
respondent
T. Anthonimuthu¶¶40
respondent
M. Muthukumar¶¶56
respondent
M. Radhakrishnan¶¶57
respondent
P. Veerasamy¶¶58
respondent
K. Samayavel¶¶59
respondent
S. Sivakumar¶¶60
respondent
Manivannan¶¶61
respondent
K. Chellakannu¶¶62
respondent
K. Umamaheswari¶¶63
respondent
E.S. Seshadri¶¶77
respondent
S. Anantaraman¶¶78
respondent
I. Krishnakumar¶¶79
respondent
P. Boopal¶¶80
respondent
V. Srinivasan¶¶81
respondent
G. Kannan¶¶82
respondent
S. Krishnan¶¶83
respondent
S. Sivasankaran¶¶88
respondent
C.K. Govindarajan¶¶97
respondent
A. Basheer Ahmed¶¶98
respondent
Muruganandam¶¶99
respondent
R. Ravimarimuthu¶¶100
respondent
M. Chelladurai¶¶101
respondent
K. Palanisamy¶¶102
respondent
T. Natarajan¶¶103
respondent
M. Paul¶¶104
respondent
J. Ramachandran¶¶105
respondent
R. Shanmugam¶¶109
respondent
B. Thangavelu¶¶110
respondent
C.N. Tamaraiselvi¶¶111
respondent
M.S. Veeraraghavan¶¶112

Coram

AI extract

S.M. Subramaniamauthor¶¶4
C. Kumarappanmember¶¶4

The Union of India, v. M.K. Khader Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India, v. M.K. Khader Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Parvathi Vs the District Collector

A.Vasanthi Vs The District Collector

D. Shanthi Vs G. Jothi

Csi St.Paul Church Vs the District Collector

M.Loganathan Vs the Commissioner

M.Sekar Vs the District Collector