Allowed¶8

S.Padmanaban v. The Registrar

Madras HC11 Mar 2026WP/17353/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, 11-03-2026, Dr. G. Jayachandran J. and Shamim Ahmed J.; WP Nos. 17353 & 19105 of 2021; certiorari under Article 226 against SHRC order dated 31.12.2020 in SHRC Case No.735/2019; Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission; withdrawal memo and affidavit ignored; amicable settlement; enquiry without oral evidence; three documents were only property tax demand notices; non-application of mind; unjustifiable recommendation; Rs.40,000/- compensation set aside; Gudiyatham Municipality; garbage dumping complaint; K.Lalitha; K.Saravanan; S.Padmanaban; writ petitions allowed.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions allowed; the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 in SHRC Case No.735/2019 of the State Human Rights Commission set aside; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed; no costs. ¶8

S.Padmanaban Vs The Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed; the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 in SHRC Case No.735/2019 of the State Human Rights Commission set aside; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed; no costs.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether dumping of garbage on the public road, in front of the complainant's premises, would amount to a violation of human rights (substantial question raised by the writ petitioners). +1 more

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order of the State Human Rights Commission contains no reference to the memo and affidavit filed by the complainant seeking withdrawal of the complaint.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Commission mechanically proceeded with the complaint without recording any oral evidence from the complainant, relying only on three documents marked along with the complaint; those documents were only notices relating to the demand of property tax.ratio¶6
The impugned order of the Human Rights Commission suffers from non-application of mind and has resulted in an unjustifiable recommendation; therefore it is set aside.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Municipal employees of Gudiyatham Municipality (Revenue Assistants, Tap Inspector and Revenue Inspector), who were respondents before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission, sought certiorari under Article 226 against the Commission's order dated 31.12.2020 in SHRC Case No.735/2019, which held proved their alleged dumping of garbage in front of the complainant K.Lalitha's business premises as a violation of human rights and directed Rs.40,000/- compensation recoverable from them. The Court found that pending the complaint the complainant had filed a memo and affidavit seeking withdrawal on amicable settlement, but the impugned order made no reference to it; the Commission mechanically proceeded without recording any oral evidence, resting its conclusion solely on three documents which were only property tax demand notices, even though the underlying writ petition had been dismissed as infructuous after the complainant remitted the entire tax. Holding that the order suffered non-application of mind and resulted in an unjustifiable recommendation, the Court set it aside and allowed both writ petitions, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions with no costs. The Court did not adjudicate the substantial question whether the alleged dumping itself constituted a human rights violation; the quashing rested on the procedural infirmities.

¶1

WP No. 17353 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶7

WP Nos. 17353 & 19105 of 2021 and WMP Nos. 18387, 18388 & 20385 of 2021

¶8

S.Padmanaban Revenue Assistant, Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham, Vellore District-632 602

¶9

J.Sundar

¶10

Revenue Assistant, Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham, Vellore district-632 602

¶11

S.Sekar

¶12

Tap Inspector, Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham, vellore District-632 602

¶13

..Petitioners

¶14

¶15

The Registrar, The State Human rights CommissionTamilNadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja salai, Greenways Road, Chennai-60028.

¶16

The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and water supply Department, secretariat, chennai-600 009

¶17

3. K.Lalitha

¶18

..Respondents

¶19

__________ Page1 of 6

¶20

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

¶21

WP No. 17353 of 2021

¶22

WP No. 19105 of 2021

¶23

K.Saravanan Revenue Inspector, Gudiyatham Municipality, Gudiyatham, Vellore District- 632602.

¶24

..Petitioner

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

The Principal Secretary to Government Municipal Administrative and Water Supply Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

¶28

3. K.Lalitha

¶29

..Respondent(s)

¶30

COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, Calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 made in SHRC Case No.735/ 2019 on the file of the 1^st respondent and quash the same.

¶31

In Both Cases

¶32

For Petitioners: Mr.M.Balakrishnan For Respondents: Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader For R2 Mr.Arun Anbumani For R1 No appearance For R3

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶35

These two Writ Petitions have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 in

¶36

the complaint heard by the State Human Rights Commission, which was preferred by one Smt.K.Lalitha.

¶37

Page2 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 17353 of 2021

¶40

2. The sum and substance of the complaint is that the complainant, Lalitha was carrying on business in Pichanoor, Gudiyatham Town. She challenged the property tax notice issued by the Gudiyatham Municipality by

¶41

way of writ petition and obtained an order of stay. Being aggrieved, the Revenue Inspector and the Bill Collector of the Gudiyatham Municipality allegedly dumped garbage in front of her business premises, thereby causing health hazard, nuisance and annoyance. Alleging that such an act amounted to violation of her human rights, she approached the State Human Rights Commission seeking redressal.

¶42

3. The complaint was defended by filing a counter-statement by the respondents stating that the allegations of dumping garbage in front of the business premises of the petitioner/complainant is false. However, based on three specific documents relied on by the complainant, the State Human Rights Commission arrived at conclusion that the complainant has proved the allegations levelled against the respondents and the said act is violation of human rights. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, the Commission directed that the complainant be compensated in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with the said amount to be recovered from the respondents.

¶43

4. Challenging the recommendations of the State Human Rights Commission, the 1^st respondent, Saravanan has preferred W.P.No.19105 of

¶44

Page3 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

WP No. 17353 of 2021

¶47

The rest of the respondents 2 to 4 had preferred W.P.No.17353 of 2021. Apart from the substantial question as to whether dumping of garbage on the public road, which happens to be in front of the complainant’s premises, would amount to a violation of human rights, another plea raised by the writ petitioners is that pending complaint, the complainant had filed a memo before the State Human Rights Commission stating that the matter had been amicably settled between herself and the respondents and therefore, she wants to withdraw the complaint. Despite the filing of the said memo and affidavit by the complainant seeking withdrawal of the complaint, the State Human Rights Commission proceeded further with the enquiry on the complaint and arrived at the conclusion with the above recommendation.

¶48

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State Human Rights Commission submitted that the records maintained by the Commission reveal that the complainant had filed a memo and affidavit seeking to withdraw the complaint.

¶49

6. However, we find from the impugned order that there is no reference about the said memo and affidavit for withdrawal. The Commission has mechanically proceeded with the complaint even without recording any oral evidence from the complainant and only on the basis of three documents marked along with the complaint. Those documents are only notices relating to

¶50

Page4 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

WP No. 17353 of 2021

¶53

the demand of property tax.

¶54

7. From the record, we find that the writ petition referred in the complaint was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, since the complainant had remitted the entire tax demanded. While so, we find that the order of the Human Rights Commission, which is impugned before us, suffers non-application of mind and has resulted in an unjustifiable recommendation. Hence, the said order is hereby set aside.

¶55

8. In the result, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. Consequently, the

¶56

connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed. No costs.

¶57

(G.J.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 11-03-2026

¶58

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶59

rpl

¶60

¶61