w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



P. Murugesan v/s State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- AT HOME INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17211DL2001PTC112255

Company & Directors' Information:- V HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109331

Company & Directors' Information:- G. P. HOME PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102MH2011PTC213056

    W.P. No. 5696 of 2012

    Decided On, 03 June 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA

    For the Petitioner: P. Ganesan for M/s. C.S. Associates, Advocates. For the Respondent: A.N. Thambidurai, Special Government Pleader.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in C.No.213687/AP2(2)/2011 dated 20.11.2011, as communicated by the 3rd respondent confirming the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his Proceedings Tha.Pa.No.11/H3/2000 dated 2.5.2000 and quash the same and direct the respondents to resinstate the petitioner in service with all the benefits.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

2. The petitioner, Mr.P.Murugesan was again constrained to come to this Court questioning the correctness of the impugned order dated 20.11.2011 reiterating the previous punishment of compulsory retirement that was already set aside by this Court, by a reasoned and detailed order dated 23.8.2011 passed in W.P.No.1645 of 2007.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is liable to be set aside, since it has been passed against the petitioner without considering the grievance of the petitioner and also the direction given by this Court in its order dated 23.8.2011. Above all, when the same and similar punishment of compulsory retirement passed by the second respondent in G.O.(2D) No.349, Home (Pol.VI) Department dated 14.6.2006, confirming the order in his Proceedings in Rc.No.254131/AP/.2(2)/2002 dated 14.2.2004 was set aside by this Court on 23.8.2011 in W.P.No.1645 of 2007, the repetition of passing the same order is in violation of the order passed by this Court. Moreover, when there was a specific finding given by this Court holding that the petitioner cannot be termed as unauthorisedly absent from 5.6.99 to 30.6.99 and therefore the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed against him was held wrong, as it is against the material evidence available on file, once again the same infirmity has been committed in the impugned order.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also stated that it is the specific case of the petitioner that when he applied for leave without medical certificate, the same has not been rejected Admittedly, when the petitioner suffered chest pain which required a medical investigation and treatment to find out as to whether it related to cordiac problem or not, without even examining the medical certificate produced by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside, for not considering any of the reasoned justification given by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of desertion would never arise. Taking support from the order passed by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when this Court on the earlier occasion, after perusing the file produced by the respondents, has given a clear finding that as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, getting prior sanction of medical leave before availing the same is not possible at all times as sickness may arise at any time and before reporting for duty medical certificate can be submitted with medical leave application for having taken medical treatment, the leave application dated 22.6.99 stating that on 5.6.99 he was suffering from chest pain and he took treatment at the Government Hospital, Sooramangalam, Salem District, was not considered. Again the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer, found at page 45 of the official file, advising the petitioner to proceed on leave from 5.6.99 to 30.6.99, also has not been considered. Again the leave application dated 16.11.99 found at page 47 of the official file submitted by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Salem District with medical certificate, recommending leave from 30.6.99 to 24.7.99 also, was not properly considered and no reason has been given.

5. Considering all these lapses committed by the respondent- Department, the learned Judge has also given a finding that from the above material available on file, it was evident that the petitioner was suffering from chest pain and he was taking treatment and the submission of leave application for extension of leave. But the official file nowhere contained any order rejecting the leave application of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court has held that the petitioner cannot be termed as unauthorisedly absent from 5.6.99 to 30.6.99, though he had not obtained prior permission for availing the leave. For all these reasons, when this Court has held that the third respondent-Superintendent of Police, Salem was not justified in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner regarding charge no.1, as far as charge no.2 is concerned, it was also found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the charge of unauthorized absence from 1.7.99. Considering these two aspects, when this Court has set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the Director General of Police, Chennai, the second respondent herein to consider the review petition entertained by the second respondent, as per Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 within a period of six/eight weeks, the impugned order, it is pleaded, does not refer to consideration of the petitioner’s case as directed by this Court under Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to go.

6. Continuing his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the Department also, being aggrieved by the order, while seeking opinion regarding the feasibility of filing writ appeal, the learned Government Pleader has also given his opinion stating that it is not a fit case for filing appeal against the judgment. Hence, the second respondent was bound to comply with the direction given by this Court, as it became final and concluded. When a direction was given by this Court to the second respondent to consider the review petition of the petitioner in compliance with Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, the non consideration of the same clearly vitiates the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, he pleaded.

7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, although supported the impugned order, was unable to answer why the impugned order failed to comply with the direction given by this Court to comply with Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner, aggrieved by the punishment of compulsory retirement, challenged the same in W.P.No.1645 of 2007 (P.Murugesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and two others), this Court, by order dated 23.8.2011, has allowed the said writ petition, holding as follows:-

''7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the file.

8. In the file produced by the respondents among other documents, the following documents are also available:

(a) Leave application of the petitioner dated 22.6.1999 (at page No.43 of the file) stating that from 5.6.1999 he was suffering from chest pain and he took treatment from Government Hospital at Suramangalam, Salem District.

(b) Medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer (at page No.45 of the file) advising the petitioner to go on leave from 5.6.1999 to 30.6.1999.

(c) Leave Application dated 16.9.1999 (at page No.47 of the file) submitted by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, Salem District with medical certificate recommending leave from 30.6.1999 to 24.7.1999. The medical certificate is found at page No.49 of the file.

(d) Medical Certificate dated 25.7.1999 suggesting to take leave for the period from 25.7.1999 to 31.8.1999 (page No.51).

(e) Medical Certificate dated 1.9.1999 for the period from 1.9.1999 to 15.9.1999 (page No.53)

(f) Fitness Certificate to return to duty dated 15.9.1999 (at page No.55)

(g) Petitioner's representation dated 7.2.2000 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Salem, requesting permission to report for duty (at page No.57).

(h) The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Athur, issued a memo on 8.10.1999 for not sending the petitioner's leave letter to the second respondent and the said memo is found at page No.161 of the file. From the above materials available in the file it is evident that the petitioner was suffering from chest pain and he was taking treatment and submitted leave application and application for extension of leave. The file nowhere contains any order rejecting the leave application of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be termed as an unauthorised absentee from 5.6.1999 to 30.6.1999, though he had not obtained prior permission before availing the leave.

9. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, getting prior sanction of medical leave before availing the same is not possible at all times as sickness may arise at any time and before reporting for duty medical certificate can be submitted supported with medical leave application for having taken medical treatment. Thus, the third respondent is not justified in initiating proceedings against the petitioner regarding Charge No.1.

10. As far as Charge No.2, the leave application was submitted after 75 days from 30.6.1999 i.e. On 16.9.1999. The petitioner having produced medical certificates and submitted leave applications, though at a later state, the third respondent ought to have considered the said certificates. Even otherwise, petitioner served in the Police Department for about 14 years and in the counter affidavit no previous delinquency of the petitioner is stated. Thus, the learned Senior Counsel is justified in contending that the punishment imposed is disproprtionate to the gravity of the charges of unauthorised absence from 1.7.1999.'

....

17(b) The above decision was followed by the Supreme Court in its latter judgment reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Others)

(c) Another Division Bench of this Court in 2004(3) LW 32 (M.Nagarajan & Others v. The Registrar, High Court, Madras-600 104 and another) following the above referred decision in AIR 1986 SC for non-compliance of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which is in pari materia with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and remitted the matter back to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders by following the said rules.

(d) In (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others) in paragraph 23 the Supreme Court held that if affect the civil right of the employee, reasons must be stated for arriving at the decisions.

18. In the light of the above finds, the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent to consider the review petition which was entertained by the second respondent as review and pass fresh orders in compliance with Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.''

8. The above order setting aside the order of compulsory retirement with a direction to the Director General of Police to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules became final and concluded. Secondly, as against the said order, when an opinion was sought for from the learned Government Pleader of Madras High Court, even the impugned order in paragraph-8 states thus:

''I

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n this connection, the opinion of the Government Pleader, Madras High Court has been sought regarding feasibility of filing Writ Appeal against the above said judgment. The Government Pleader, Madras High Court has given his opinion on 2.11.2011 stating that this is not fit case to file an Appeal against the judgment. The Government have also requested to comply with the said High Court order.'' 9. A perusal of paragraph-8 of the impugned order clearly shows that it is not a fit case for filing appeal. Therefore, the respondent- Department has not filed appeal and that order became final. Once that order became final, the direction given by this Court to consider the case of the petitioner under Rule 15A read with Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal ) Rules, has to be complied with. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondents, not complying with the direction given by this Court on 23.8.2011 in W.P.No.1645 of 2007, is liable to go. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. Since the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in the year 2016, question of reinstatement does not arise. Therefore, the respondents are directed to settle the retiral benefits, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the petitioner. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

05-10-2020 Shekh Rafiq Versus State of Maharashtra, through it's Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M/s. Arun Kumar Kamal Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Selected Marble Home & Others Supreme Court of India
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-09-2020 Harish Trivedi Versus State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
29-09-2020 C. Sivasankaran Versus Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (FRRO), Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-09-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another Versus S. Indramoorthy High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 Manoj @ Sallar & Others Versus State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-09-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Assistant Labour Officer, Munnar, Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Versus Annakutty Varghese, Proprietress, M/s. Misha Holiday Home, Munnar High Court of Kerala
23-09-2020 Mahabooba Jailani Versus The Home Secretary, Home Department (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 Kumaresan @ Chetty Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Sundaram Home Finance Limited Versus Rahul Jayvantrao Kaulavkar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
14-09-2020 Vijay Vilasrao Sutare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary, home department, State of Maharashtra, Mantralay Mumbai & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-09-2020 Jeevitha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Home,Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-09-2020 K. Ravishankar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Mittal Electronics Versus Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 M/s. Smart Logistics, Unity Building Puthiyapalom, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner, M. Gopinath Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Home Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthauram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-09-2020 K. Ebnezer Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Mahendra Yadav Versus State of Assam Represented By Home Secretary Government of Assam & Another High Court of Gauhati
27-08-2020 Bhimsen Tyagi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government (Poll), Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-08-2020 Sumathi Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 G. Naganna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-08-2020 Salman @ Baba Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-08-2020 R. Suresh Kumar Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretary to Home Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 A. Pushpaganthi Versus The State rep by its the Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 Thripurala Suresh Versus The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 S. Thangam Versus The Home Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Mohemmed @ Bava Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Vadde Padmamma Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-08-2020 L. Srinivasan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-08-2020 Baliram Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Section Officer Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-07-2020 Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Versus The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravai High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-07-2020 M.G. Jose & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Government of Kerala, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
16-07-2020 Sasikala Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Sk. Imran Ali Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 K. Deepa Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-07-2020 Radhakrishnan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-07-2020 R.N. Arul Jothi & Others Versus The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Cts.V) Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 T. Angayarkanni Versus The Home Secretary (Prison), Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2020 Makuko Chukwuka Muolokwo Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Home Department, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-07-2020 Esakkimuthu Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-07-2020 Vettaiyan Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 V. Vijayakumarasamy Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by The Principal Secretary to Government Home (Transport II) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 R. Thangam Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department (Police IV) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 Sulochani Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Additional Chief Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-06-2020 Kamala Versus The State represented by its: The Secretary to Government (Home) Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 Dhanalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai. Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-06-2020 Malar Versus The Principal Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
25-06-2020 Sintu Kumar Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
22-06-2020 Vemuri Swamy Naidu Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-06-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by The Additional Chief Secretary To Government, Home & Vigilance Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus P. Pradeepkumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Records Bureau, Office of the District Police Chief, Thrissur Rural, Residing at Cheruvaickal, Sreekaryaym, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
18-06-2020 Bhawan Singh Garbyal & Another Versus State of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
16-06-2020 Jitendra Mohan Singh Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-06-2020 P.P. Ramachandra Kaimal Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Home, Kerala Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-06-2020 J. Antony Jayakumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Department of Home (Prison IV), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 M. Sujatha Versus State represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Home & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2020 Surya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
02-06-2020 Nayee Soch Society (Regd.) Versus Ministry of Home Affairs & Others High Court of Delhi
02-06-2020 Balraj Versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2020 Vijay Ganesh @ Vijay @ Kurangu Vijay Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
26-05-2020 L. Jayalakshmi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Parameshwaran Versus The Home Secretary (Prison),Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-05-2020 Rakesh Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
14-05-2020 Ramakanta Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura Represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala High Court of Tripura
12-05-2020 Sheik Madhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Exercise Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-05-2020 Allu Srinivasa Rao Versus State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-05-2020 Sandip Madhu Nair Versus State, thr Home Deptt & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-05-2020 Asa Uma Farooq Versus Union of India, through its its Secrtary, Ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 R. Sreedhar Versus The Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chief Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-05-2020 A. Palanisamy @ Palaniappan Versus The Home Secretary (Prison IV) Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-04-2020 AM (Zimbabwe) Versus Secretary of State for the Home Department United Kingdom Supreme Court
28-04-2020 HRT Builders, rep. by its Managing Partner Thondepu Ratna Srinivas Versus State of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 A. Mallikarjuna Versus Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, Disaster Management Division, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
17-04-2020 Santhosha Nanban Home for Boys, Rep by its Superintendent Dorothy Marry Versus Union of India, Rep by The Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 V. Krishnamurthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison IV) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 M. Mohamed Saifulla (Advocate – Madras High Court) Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Prison- IV) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
06-04-2020 N. Prakash Versus State of Kerala, Represented by its Secretary to Government of Kerala, Department of Home, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Another High Court of Kerala
25-03-2020 Elgizouli Versus Secretary of State for the Home Department United Kingdom Supreme Court
20-03-2020 V. Radha Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-03-2020 Jangam Tilak Raj Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
20-03-2020 B. Bhaskar Versus State of Telangana, represented by the Prl.s Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings at Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana