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



Radhakishor Tongbram & Others VERSUS The State of Manipur represented by the Principal Secretary/Commissioner(Home), Government of Manipur, Manipur & 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

    WP(C) No. 1083 of 2018

    Decided On, 19 March 2020

    At, High Court of Manipur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

    For the Petitioner: H. Prabirkumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: H. Samarjit, GA.



Judgment Text


Judgment & Order (Cav)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings of the Class-III Review DPC held on 22.10.2018 for promotion from Havildar to Jemadar in the Manipur Police Department and the consequential promotion orders so far as it concerns the private respondents 3 to 11 only and to direct the respondents to hold a Review DPC again and to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Jemadar strictly in terms of the relevant provisions of the rules and directions given by this Court In W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016, dated 13.7.2017.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and the private respondents 3 to 11 were appointed as Havildars on 12.3.2007, 1.12.2001, 12.3.2007. 22.9.2009, 18.1.2001 and 11.11.2004 respectively. The petitioners have satisfactorily completed their probation period and they have rendered more than 11 years regular service in the grade of Havildars. The petitioners and the private respondents have also passed the Pre-Promotion Selection Test of Havildar. 0n 1.12.2014, the respondent authorities published final seniority list of Havildars, wherein the names of the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.1095, 1165 and 1359 respectively, while the private respondents were shown as Serial Nos.273, 1096, 1474, 1236, 1329, 1990, 1969, 221 and 465 respectively.

3. According to the petitioners, the next promotional post of Havildar is the post of Jemadar. Under the recruitment rules for the post of Jemadar, the method of recruitment is 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. 85% of the promotion quota shall be filled up from Havildar having passed Pre-Promotion Selection Test and having completed the probation with 5 years regular service in the grade. 15% of the promotion shall be filled up from Havildars having satisfactorily completed the probation with 3 years regular service in the grade having passed the Pre-Promotion Selection Test and who have been recommended by the DGP by promotion by reason of their conspicuous acts of gallantry in discharge of official duties or who are outstanding sportsmen recognised by the all India Police Sports Control Board.

4. When 69 vacancies falling under the promotion quota for promotion) to the Jemadar were available as on 23.3.2015, the DGP, Manipur, prepared a self-contained Note for DPC for promotion from the Haviidar to Jemadar. In the said Note for DPC, the year wise vacancies of 69 vacancies falling under the promotion quota are shown and the relevant provisions of the recruitment rules are also reflected. Even though at least 10 posts out of 69 which is 15% sub-quota reserved for out of turn promotion and ignored the case of the petitioners even though they are similarly situated as the private respondents in every respect.

5. On 16.3.2016, DPC for promotion of Havildars to the post of Jemadar was held and the said DPC recommended only 55 candidates, including the private respondents as against the 69 available vacancies falling under the promotion quota. By an order dated 25.04.2016, the DGP conveyed approval for promotion of the recommended candidates to the rank of Jemadar on regular basis and directed the concerned appointing authorities to issue formal promotion orders. Consequently, the concerned appointing authorities issued formal promotion order which includes the private respondents.

6. Being aggrieved by the recommendation of 7 candidates made by the DGP, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 383 of 2016 and the same was allowed by this Court on 13.7.2017 by holding that the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Jemadar is not sustainable in law and directed to hold a review DPC by considering the cases of the petitioners and the private respondents. When the concerned authorities failed to implement the orders of this Court, the petitioners have filed Contempt Case and during pendency of the Contempt Case, the concerned authority held the Class-III Review DPC on 22.10.2018 for promotion from Havildar to Jemadar. However, the result of the said Review DPC has not yet been declared and no appointment order had been issued on the basis of the recommendation of the said Review DPC. In fact, the case of the petitioners have not been considered in the said Review DPC dated 22.10.2018. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

7. The second respondent DGP filed affidavit in opposition stating that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016, the DGP constituted (i) an independent Committee under the Chairmanship of Smt. Vandana Karki, IPS, IGP (Training, HR & RTI) to review the earlier out-of-turn Committee's proceedings for 142 including three petitioners out-of- turn candidates sponsored by the concerned Units; (ii) increased the number of out-of-turn vacancies to 10 from 7. It is stated that the Committee submitted its review report on 28.8.2018 and based on which the DGP recommended the list of 10 candidates for 15% out-of-turn category based on their service records and achievements to the Chairman of the Review DPC on 22.09.2018.

8. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that despite clear and specific directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 383 of 2016, the Review DPC considered and recommended the private respondents only on the basis of the recommendation made by the DGP, Manipur. He would submit that except for increasing the number of out-of-turn vacancies to 10 from 7, all other actions taken by the DGP are contrary to the relevant rules as well as the order dated 13.07.2017 passed in the said writ petition.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that DGP or the independent Committee constituted by the DGP has no power or jurisdiction to undertake the exercise carried out by them and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State contended that based on the Review report submitted by the Committee dated 28.8.2018 and based on which the DGP recommended the list of 10 candidates for 15% Out-of-turn category based on their service records and achievements to the Chairman of the Review DPC on 22.9.2018. The Chairman of the Review DPC then submitted its proceedings to the DGP on 22.10.2018 recommending 59 Havildars for promotion to the rank of Jemadar, which includes the private respondents 3 to 11.

11. Thus Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

12. The case of the petitioners us that the respondent authorities failed to implement the orders of tits Court in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016 and despite directions issued by this Court in the said writ petition, the petitioners have not been considered instead the Review DPC considered and recommended the private respondents based on the recommendation made by the DGP, Manipur.

13. On the other hand, it is the say of the official respondents that the Review DPC conducted as per the directions of this Court and relevant recruitment rules and considering their status, recommended 59 Havildars for promotion to the rank of Jemadar and therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

14. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are recipients of various gallantry awards. Thus, if their juniors were considered, there is no reason for the authorities to ignore their claim. Since the rules do not provide for giving preference or precedence to those who had been given gallantry awards earlier, there cannot be any reason for ignoring the petitioners. The date of receipt of gallantry award will have relevance with reference to the year wise consideration of vacancies.

15. Earlier, when the DGP, Manipur approved for promotion of the recommended candidates to the rank of Jemadar on regular basis and directed the concerned authorities to issue formal promotion orders, the same has been challenged by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016 in so far as the private respondents 3 to 11. By the order dated 13.07.2017, while setting aside the promotion order dated 25.04.2016 in so far as the private respondents herein, this Court observed as under:

"14. Under the above facts and circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, the present petition is allowed by holding that the promotion of the private respondents to the posts of Jemadar is not sustainable in law.

However, their promotion is not interfered with and not disturbed for the reasons discussed above, and this Court directs the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioners along with private respondents again for promotion to the posts of Jemadar by holding a review DPC and in the event, the petitioners are also found to be suitable, they are to be given promotion and be assigned seniority on the basis of the inter se merit position so determined by the review DPC along with the private respondents. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are recommended for promotion to the posts of Jemadar by the review DPC, they are also t to be given promotion from the date when the private respondents were given promotion to the posts of Jemadar. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. With the above observation and direction, writ petition is allowed."

16. According to the official respondents, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 13.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016, the DGP Manipur had constituted an independent Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri L. Kailun, IPC, Inspector General of Police (Zone-II), Manipur to review the earlier out-of-turn Committee's proceedings for 142 including the petitioners sponsored by the concerned Units and by the impugned proceedings dated 22.10.2018, the Committee recommended 59 Havildars for promotion to the rank of Jamadar, wherein the private respondents names were found place at Serial Nos.14, 20, 21, 22, 32, 38, 57, 58, 59.

17. In fact, in the said proceedings dated 22.10.2018, there is no whisper as to the consideration of the petitioners name for promotion to the post of Jemadar. Though this Court issued directions on 13.07.2017 to hold a review DPC, the official respondents have not taken care of and only after filing of the Contempt Case, the DGP constituted a Committee, which has approved the names of the private respondents recommended by the DGP. The same is clear on a reading go the impugned review DPC dated 22.10.2018, wherein in paragraph 4, it has been stated that as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Manipur order dated 13.07.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016 and Home Department letter Nos.20/1(44)/2016/H(LC) dated 19.04.2018 & 11.09.2018, Director General of Police, Manipur has furnished review recommendation in respect of 10 (ten) candidates for out-of- tum promotion under 15% category after careful study and examination of their service records and achievements and accordingly given the names of the private respondents and one L.Nilakumar Singh. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, not even there is no discussion qua eligibility and non- eligibility of the petitioners for promotion in the impugned review DPC dated 22.10.2018.

18. When this Court issued direction to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioners along with private respondents again for promotion to the post of Jemadar by holding a review DPC, it is the bounden duty of the DGP and/or the review DPC to consider the case of the petitioners also. Nothing on record to show that the petitioners were put in notice by the review DPC while holding the meeting and also nothing on record to show that the petitioners were given opportunity to put forth their grievance before the review DPC. On a perusal of the impugned review DPC, there is no whisper qua issuance of notice to the petitioners. On the other hand, the review DPC has recommended the names of private respondents furnished by the DGP. More over, facing with the Contempt Case, the DGP or the Committee appointed by the DGP has issued the. impugned review DPC recommending the names of the private respondents. There is no discussion about the non-eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Jemadar in the impugned review DPC.

19. It is clear that the DGP, Manipur and the review DPC have considered and recommended the case of the private respondents by totally ignoring the case of the petitioners in complete violations of the provisions of the relevant rules and orders of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.383 of 2016, dated 13.07.2017. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the consideration and the recommendation of the private respondents by the review DPC in its review meeting held on 22.10.2018 by ignoring the cases of the petitioners, who are seniors to some of the private respondents, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and nor in accordance with the orders of this Court earlier passed in W. P (C) No. 383 of 2016.

20. When, the DGP, Manipur and the review DPC has not considered the case of the petitioners in tune with the orders of this Court, the only course open to this Court is to remit the matter again to the authority concerned to consider the case of the petitioners along with the private respondents for promotion to the, post of Jemadar.

21. In view of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed by holding that the review DPC dated 22.10.2018 is not sustainable in so far as the private respondents 3 to 11 are concerned and the matter is remitted back to the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with the private respondents again for promotion to the posts of Jemadar by holding a fresh review DPC. While holding the fresh review DPC, the official respondents are directed to specifically state how the petitioners and the private respondents are eligible and not eligible for promotion to the post of Jemadar. 22. In order to avoid future litigation, if any, this Court directs the official respondents to afford sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and private respondents to put forth their cases during review DPC to be held. As directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 383 of 2016, in the event, the petitioners are also found to be suitable, they are to be given promotion and be assigned seniority on the basis of their inter se merit position so determined by the review DPC along with the private respondents. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are recommended for promotion to the posts of Jemadar by the review DPC, they are also to be given promotion from the date when the private respondents were given promotion to the posts of Jemadar. 23. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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
03-06-2020 P. Murugesan Versus State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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