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



S.G. Praveen Gowda v/s State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN INDIA LTD . [Active] CIN = L21029WB1983PLC036326

Company & Directors' Information:- SG AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51420DL1999PTC098995

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

    Writ Petition Nos. 24999 of 2016 & 2697 of 2017 (S-KAT)

    Decided On, 03 March 2017

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

    For the Petitioner: Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Nagaraj, AGA.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Order dated 07.08.2015 passed in Application No.4297/2004 vide Annexure-A and Order Dated 09.09.2015 passed in Review Application No.161/2015 vide Annexure-B passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore and allow the Main Application as well as the Review Application.)

1. The petitioner's father Sri S.G. Gange Gowda was working as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School and died on 28.02.1994. He left behind a widowed wife and two children. At that point of time the petitioner was studying in 5th Standard. Petitioner's mother made an application on 21.09.1994 to provide appointment to the petitioner on he attaining the age of majority. The Assistant Education Officer, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District issued an endorsement dated 08.02.1995 to the effect that the petitioner being a minor, he may make the application after becoming a major.

2. An application having been made by the petitioner on 04.12.2002, a memorandum dated 12.07.2004 was issued by the Block Education Officer, Kadur and it was notified that the proposal made by the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions on 23.01.2004 cannot be accepted as the petitioner did not attain the age of majority within one year period from the date of death of the deceased employee.

3. Assailing the said endorsement, an application under S.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was filed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. By reason of the order dated 07.08.2015, application having been rejected by observing that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria in accordance with Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Second Amendment) Rules, 2000, (for short 'the Rules') and as amended on 28.05.2002, a Review Application was filed. The same having been dismissed by reason of the Order dated 09.09.2015, these petitions were filed to set aside the said orders and direct the respondents to consider the application submitted for giving appointment on compassionate ground.

4. Sri Vijay Kumar, learned advocate contended that there is wrong rejection by the respondents of the lawful claim made by the petitioner. He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the case in the correct perspective and the orders passed by it vide Annexures - A and B are erroneous. The main thrust of arguments of Sri Vijay Kumar is that the Rules which came into being after 31.03.1999 has no application. According to the learned advocate, the Assistant Education Officer having issued the endorsement dated 08.02.1995 to the petitioner's mother to submit application through the petitioner, after the petitioner attaining the age of majority and the petitioner having submitted an application accordingly on 04.12.2002 and the case also having been recommended by the 4th respondent, there is illegality on the part of the 5th respondent in rejecting the claim. Learned advocate contended that the said action being arbitrary, the Tribunal has failed to consider the case in accordance with law and hence, impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Sri D. Nagaraj, learned AGA on the other hand made submissions in support of the impugned orders and sought rejection of the petitions.

6. Perused the record of the case and considered the rival contentions. The point for consideration is whether the impugned orders are arbitrary or perverse and illegal?

7. It is trite that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness, one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the breadwinner. Claim for appointment on compassionate grounds should be made without any loss of time, as an appointment made many years after the death of the employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

8. Appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Competent Authority, in case the claim has been made within the period allowed under law has to examine the penurious conditions of the family, if any and it is only, if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. Mere death of a Government servant cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.

9. In the case of CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS Vs. PRABHAT SINGH, (2012) 13 SCC 412, Apex Court has held that delay in making a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is an anti-thesis for the purpose for which compassionate appointment was conceived. It has been further held that the delay in raising such a claim is contradictory to the objects sought to be achieved.

10. In this case, the petitioner was only 10 years old at the time of death of his father. The first application to provide appointment to the petitioner was made on 21.09.1994 by his mother, even while the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner made the application on 04.12.2002, after attaining the age of majority. As there is intervening period of more than 8 years i.e., from the date of death of petitioner's father, till the application was made by the petitioner, the appointment cannot be said to subserve the basic object and purpose of the Scheme to provide appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the Rules. It is trite that there cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time the claimant becomes a major after number of years. The Rules made by the Government of Karnataka does not provide for reservation of vacancy in case of a minor dependent being the claimant, till he attains the age of majority and acquires the eligibility.

11. The family of deceased S.G. Gange Gowda having survived for such long period, no direction could have been issued by the Tribunal to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner, in contravention of the provisions of the Rules, in as much as the provisions of the Scheme or the Rules have to be complied with mandatorily and any appointment given or ordered to be given in violation of the Scheme would be illegal as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of A. UMARANI Vs. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (2004) 7 SCC 112.

12. The Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of S.3 read with S.8 of Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 has made the Karnataka Civil Services (appointment on compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996. Dependent of a deceased Government servant and the family in relation to deceased Government servant have been defined under Rule 2(1)(a) & (b). Rule 3 is with regard to eligibility for appointment. Sub-rule (1) makes clear that appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules shall not be claimed as a matter of right and shall not be given as a matter of course. Sub-Rule (2) makes clear that the appointment under the Rules shall be restricted to the dependent of a deceased Government servant in the order of preference shown thereunder. Widow of the deceased Government servant comes first in the order of preference followed by a son, if widow is not eligible or for any valid reason she is not willing to accept the appointment. Rule 4 provides the conditions of appointment. Sub-rule (1) makes clear that appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules shall be subject to the condition that the family of the deceased Government servant should be in a financial crisis or destitution. Sub-rule (2) shows that the person seeking appointment shall be within the age limit specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of a service or a post read with sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. Sub-Rule (3) makes clear that the persons seeking appointment should possess the minimum qualification specified for the post in the relevant rules of recruitment specially made in respect of a service or a post. The proviso thereunder makes clear that nothing in sub-rule (3) of the Rules, sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, so far as it relates to educational qualification shall apply to appointment to any Group-D post, under the Rules. Rule 5 enables every dependent of a deceased Government servant from seeking appointment under the Rules to make an application within one year from the date of death of Government servant to the Head of the Department under whom the deceased Government servant was working. Rule 5 provides for the period of limitation. Rule 9 is the transitional provision. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 makes clear that all applications for appointment on compassionate grounds made prior to 20th October, 1994 and the applications made on or after that date but before the date of commencement of the Rules and which are pending on the date of commencement of the Rules shall be disposed of in accordance with the Rules within a period of 3 months. However, the said sub-rule was amended as per Notification No.DPAR 11 SCA 97 dated 31.03.1999 with effect from 01.04.1999 introducing a deeming clause to the effect "deemed to have been made within the period specified in Rule 5 and shall be considered for appointment subject to other provisions of the Rules". Sub-rule (1-A) was inserted by Notification No.DPAR 11 SCA 97 dated 31.03.1999 with effect from 01.04.1999 and the same is extracted hereinbelow:

"[(1-A) Where any application made under sub-rule (1) is rejected on the ground that it is not made within the period specified in Rule 5, it shall be reconsidered for appointment subject to other provisions of these rules.]"

13. The Rule 5 was amended by the Amendment Rules with effect from 01.04.1999 by substituting the existing proviso in the following manner:

"Provided that in the case of a minor he must have attained the age of eighteen years within one year from the date of the death of the Government servant and he must make an application within one year thereafter:

Provided further that nothing in the first proviso shall apply to an application made by the dependent of a deceased Government servant, after attaining majority and which was pending for consideration on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) (Amendment) Rules, 1998."

14. A reading of the second proviso makes the position clear that unless the application is pending at the time of commencement of the Amendment Rules, the same can have no application. If the second proviso has no application, then the question of any subsequent application made being considered does not arise.

15. In COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS Vs. K.R.VISHWANATH, (2005) 7 SCC 206, respondent's father, who was a Government servant died on 21.12.1977. Respondent was born on 20.10.1977 and was about two months old at the time his father died. Having attained majority on 20.10.1995, he submitted an application on 02.12.1996 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996. The said application was rejected on 13.11.1997 on the ground that it had not been filed within one year of attaining the majority. Another application was made on 22.04.1998 and the same was not entertained. Amendments having been made to the 1996 Rules, which were operative with effect from 01.04.1999, the respondent filed another application on 29.11.1999 and the same was rejected on 09.06.2000 by stating that no application was pending when the amended Rules came into force and therefore, Rules as amended, has no application to his case. The said order having been assailed in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, by an order dated 19.09.2001 the application was allowed and the Government was directed to consider the case for appointment on compassionate grounds, without regard being had to any period of limitation referred to in the order of rejection dated 09.06.2000. The said order having been upheld by this Court and Apex Court having been approached by the Government, it was held that the Tribunal and the High Court were not justified in directing the respondent's case for consideration of the claim made for appointment in terms of the Rules without taking note of the limitation prescribed.

16. At the cost of repetition it is to be pointed out that the first application was made by the petitioner's mother on 21.09.1994 and th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e same was disposed of by issuance of the endorsement dated 08.02.1995. The date of birth of the petitioner is 07.11.1984. The application was made by him on 04.12.2002, obviously, after the Amendment Rules came into force. Thus, it cannot be said that the application was pending as on the date of commencement of the Amendment Rules i.e., 01.04.1999. The second proviso, reproduced in para-13 supra being inapplicable, question of second application made being considered did not arise. Thus, the action of the respondents in declining to consider the case of the petitioner for providing job on compassionate grounds is neither arbitrary nor illegal. 17. The petitioner has staked his claim on the basis that his father was an employee of the Government and he having died while in service, he has a vested right to obtain the job on compassionate grounds. The Rules make it clear that there is no vested right for a person to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The case of the petitioner does not come under the scheme of compassionate appointment as per the Rules made by the Government of Karnataka. Thus, the respondents are right in declining to provide appointment on compassionate grounds. For the reasons stated supra, the orders of dismissal passed by the Tribunal do not warrant any interference. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-07-2020 A. Praveen Kumar Versus The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-06-2020 State of Telangana Versus Polepaka Praveen @ Pawan Supreme Court of India
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
18-02-2020 Nisha Praveen Patil Versus Praveen Manohar Patil High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 S.G. Davis Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Chief Secretary To Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
03-02-2020 S.G. Narayana Versus The State of Karnataka & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
08-01-2020 Praveen Versus State of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
17-10-2019 Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
11-10-2019 R. Jaikrishnan @ Jaikrishnan Nair Versus G. Praveen Kumar High Court of Kerala
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-06-2019 S.G. Thrupthi & Another Versus P. Veena High Court of Karnataka
14-06-2019 Y.A. Praveen & Another Versus Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Neervaram, Wayanad High Court of Kerala
21-05-2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another Versus Praveen Dulta Chauhan & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
01-05-2019 Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya Versus Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya Supreme Court of India
27-04-2019 M. Mumthaj & Others Versus S.G. Inbavalli Aachi Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Praveen Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-04-2019 Praveen Kapila Versus Navin Soi & Another High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 Praveen Kumar Kommineni Versus The State High Court of Delhi
15-03-2019 The Management of Christian Medical College & Hospital, Vellore, Rep by its General Superintendent Versus S.G. Dhamodharan High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-02-2019 Praveen Versus The Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2019 B. Praveen Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-01-2019 Maithili Manhar Siswawala Versus Praveen Kenneth Samuel James High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Praveen Kumar Arora Versus Akshay High Court of Delhi
08-01-2019 Praveen Kakar & Others Versus Ministry of Environment & Forests & Others National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-12-2018 The Director of Insurance Medical Services, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Dr. V. Praveen High Court of Kerala
14-12-2018 H. Gayathri Versus S.G. Vittlapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
11-12-2018 S.G. Rajan & Others Versus The Commissioner, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-11-2018 Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Jagdish Prasad Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-11-2018 Ch. Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-11-2018 Kushal Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Ito Non Corporate Ward 5(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
06-11-2018 Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd. Versus Praveen Chandra Trivedi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2018 Praveen Poddar Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2018 Khandya Praveen @ Praveen Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
10-10-2018 S.G. Barapatre & Others Versus Ananta Gajanan Gaiki & Others Supreme Court of India
10-10-2018 S.G. Barapatre & Others Versus Ananta Gajanan Gaiki & Others Supreme Court of India
03-10-2018 Sankar Naskar Versus M/s. S.G. Group & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-09-2018 Meghna Gopal Versus Praveen Chandran High Court of Kerala
12-09-2018 M/s. SG Snacks India Pvt Ltd Versus Ito Corp Ward 3, Madurai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
21-08-2018 Praveen Arjun Patel Versus J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
13-08-2018 Manjunath Dasappa & Others Versus Trans Global Power Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Praveen High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 Praveen Agarwal, Agra Versus Dcit Central Circle, Agra Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
07-08-2018 Praveen Singh @ Bhaya Singh Versus State High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
02-08-2018 S.G. Goverdhan Versus Regional Authority, Dena Bank & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-08-2018 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-07-2018 P. Rithika, Minor, rep. by her father and guardian P. Praveen Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, School Education Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Praveen John Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Asma Praveen Versus Badru Nisa & Others High Court of Delhi
02-07-2018 S.G. Rao, Through Divisional Railway Manager, Nagpur Versus Krushna Lahanuji Bagulkar Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
25-05-2018 Dr. A.P.S. Guru Praveen Versus Directorate of Medical Education Government of Tamilnadu Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-05-2018 Praveen Engineering Works V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
24-04-2018 Praveen George Joseph & Another Versus Ramesh Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-03-2018 Praveen Versus Hanuman In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2018 Praveen Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-03-2018 Praveen Versus Deepa High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
19-02-2018 L.M.D. Athiya Praveen Versus N.B. Riyas Ahmed & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-02-2018 Praveen Maben Versus Nalini Maben High Court of Madhya Pradesh
18-01-2018 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Delhi
11-01-2018 K. Praveen Versus B.S. Nagaraj High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2018 C. Praveen Versus V. Prakash & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-01-2018 Sajeeda Praveen Shaik Versus The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-12-2017 Praveen s/o Krishnan Versus Public Prosecutor Supreme Court of Singapore
05-12-2017 Praveen Kumar & Another Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-11-2017 Kumar @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus State by Inspector of Police (Law & Order) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2017 Roopesh @ Praveen Versus Union of India, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency, [NIA] High Court of Kerala
24-11-2017 Dr. S. Praveen Kumar Versus The Senior Manager, Credit Card Division, ICICI Bank, Hyderabad Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
21-11-2017 Praveen @ Parveen Kumar Jain & Another Versus Earth Infrastructures Ltd., (Through its MD) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-11-2017 S.P. Shivakumar @ Kumara Versus S.G. Kathyayiniyamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
16-11-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus N. Surendra Kalyan Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-11-2017 Praveen Kumar Maakar Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
17-10-2017 Praveen Singh @ Pappu Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus M. Andalamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-10-2017 Nipun Praveen Singhvi Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-10-2017 Praveen R. Prasad & Another Versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2017 Praveen Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2017 A. Praveen @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The State through The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-09-2017 Rupesh Sharma Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-08-2017 Praveen Kumar Pandey @ Babua Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2017 B. Asaithambi & Another Versus Praveen Chordia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2017 Munja Praveen & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2017 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2017 R. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, Trichy District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 Praveen @ Bablu Versus State High Court of Delhi
16-06-2017 Vanjari Praveen Kumar Versus Vanjari Lakshmi Bhavani In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad