Allowed¶29

D.Rubin Jaya Thilak v. The Assistant Registrar (Law)

Madras HC3 Sept 2025WMP/10842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court order dated 03.09.2025; W.M.P.No.10842 of 2022 in W.P.No.11280 of 2022; petitioner D.Rubin Jaya Thilak (counsel A.D.Banupriya for M.Saravanakumar); respondents: Assistant Registrar (Law), State Human Rights Commission, Chennai (No.143, Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road) and J.Jerlin (no appearance); prayer to dispense with production of original complaint in S.H.R.C.No.7743 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019 ('impugned complaint') before Tamil Nadu SHRC; certified copy already filed in connected writ petition (support affidavit Para 17); WMP ordered as prayed for; judges M.SUNDAR (author) and MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR.

What did the court decide?

Dispensation from producing the original 'complaint in S.H.R.C.No.7743 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019' granted; captioned WMP ordered as prayed for. ¶29

D.Rubin Jaya Thilak Vs The Assistant Registrar (Law) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

W.M.P.No.10842 of 2022 in W.P.No.11280 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶7

W.M.P. No.10842 of 2022 in

¶8

W.P.No. 11280 of 2022

¶9

D.Rubin Jaya Thilak ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Assistant Registrar (Law) State Human Rights Commission No.143, Kumarasamy Raja Salai Greenways Road, Annamalaipuram Chennai - 600 028

¶12

J.Jerlin ... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. A.D.Banupriya for Mr.M.Saravanakumar

¶14

For Respondents : No appearance

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.M.P.No.10842 of 2022 in W.P.No.11280 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

Captioned 'Writ Miscellaneous Petition' ['WMP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed with a prayer to dispense with production of original 'complaint in S.H.R.C.No.7743 of 2019 dated 23.12.2019' [hereinafter 'impugned complaint' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

¶21

Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the impugned complaint was filed in the connected writ petition. L earned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Paragraph 17 in the support affidavit and the same reads as follows:

¶22

' 17. It is respectfully submitted that the certified copy of the impugned complaint is filed in the connected writ petition and therefore, the petitioner is filed the Xerox copy of the complaint filed in S.H.R.C.No.7743 of 2019 on the file of the Hon'ble State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, at present.'

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

W.M.P.No.10842 of 2022 in W.P.No.11280 of 2022

¶26