Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3639 (MAD)

T. T. Ravichandran v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2012-08-21

Elipe Dharma Rao, M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Order Elipe Dharma Rao, J. Writ petition No.28144/2010 has been filed to issue a writ of declaration declaring Amending Act 19 of 2010 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary bearing No.154 dated 27.05.2010, so far as it pertains to the Amendment in Sections 1 (1 and 2), 3 and 4 (2) of the aforesaid Amending Act, as void and ultra vires the State legislature and consequentially, to strike it down as unconstitutional. Writ of declaration declaring Section 3A of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act 1892 as void and ultra vires the State Legislative and consequentially, strike it down as unconstitutional. 2. Originally, the above writ petitions were heard by the Hon'ble First Bench of this court on 10.12.2010 and on that day, the Hon'ble First Bench has made the following observations: "2. The very same petitioner had earlier filed two writ petitions before this court viz., W.P. Nos. 16127 and 16128 of 2010 with identical prayers. Those writ petitions were heard by this Bench and by a reasoned judgment dated 04.08.2010, the aforesaid amending Act was upheld and it was held that the State Legislature is competent to make such legislations. As against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, being Nos.26951-26952 of 2010. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner withdrew the Special Leave Petitions and the Supreme Court, on 29.10.2010, passed the following order: "After hearing the case for a while and realizing that he will not be able to convince the Court on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition filed for striking down the amendment made in Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1934 without impleading the State of Tamil Nadu as a party, learned counsel made a prayer that his client may be permitted to withdraw the special leave petition, as also the writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition. The request of the learned counsel is accepted and the special leave petitions are dismissed with liberty in terms of the prayer made." From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the Honourable Supreme Court that the State of Tamil Nadu (Secretary to Government, Law Department, Omandurer Government Estate, Secretariat, Chennai.2) was a party in the writ petition as respondent No.1 However, the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner. 3. 3. Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ petitions may be transferred to another Bench for hearing on two groundsfirstly, since this Bench has decided the matter earlier and secondly, that a local Judge only can hear and decide the writ petitions. 4. The aforesaid submission is wholly improper and unjustified A Judge is not supposed to decide any case on the basis of the local environment and the public views; rather, the court is supposed to decide the cases on the basis of law which is applicable for the time being in force. However, since a doubt has crept in the mind of the learned counsel, we direct the matter to be listed before the Division Bench presided over by Elipe Dharma Rao, J." 3. That is how the writ petitions came to be listed before this Court. As early as on 21.12.2010, the writ petitions were admitted and they were directed to be posted for hearing on 18.01.2011. Thereafter, at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the matter was adjourned several times. On 02.04.2012 this Court, after hearing the learned counsel appearing on either side, observed that, if the assent of his Excellency the President of India is not obtained within a period of eight weeks from that date with regard to the issue involved in these writ petitions, then, this Court would consider granting an order of interim stay as prayed for. Even thereafter, the matter came to be adjourned several times at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that, though this Court facilitated the respondents to rectify the lacuna yet, the respondents have not shown any interest to comply with the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by this court. 4. In view of the non-compliance of the said order passed by this court, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 1.TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE - EXTRA ORDINARY. [Reproduced as Footnote to the Preamble] - Amendment of Tamil Nadu City Civil Courts Act 1872 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act 1892. NO.154 - CHENNAI, THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010, Vaikasi 13, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2041-Part IV -Section 2 - Tamil Nadu Acts and Ordinances..... No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 1.TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE - EXTRA ORDINARY. [Reproduced as Footnote to the Preamble] - Amendment of Tamil Nadu City Civil Courts Act 1872 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act 1892. NO.154 - CHENNAI, THURSDAY, MAY 27, 2010, Vaikasi 13, Thiruvalluvar Aandu-2041-Part IV -Section 2 - Tamil Nadu Acts and Ordinances..... The following Act of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly received the assent of the Governor on the 25th May, 2010 and is hereby published for general information:- Act No.19 of 2010 An Act further to amend the Tamil Nadu City Civil Courts Act 1872 and the Chennai City Civil Court Act 1892. Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu in the Sixty-first year of the Republic of India follows:- Short title and commencement - 1.(1) This Act may be called the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts and the Chennai City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 2010. (2) It shall come into force at once. Amendment of Central Act III of 1873 - 2. In section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, in the first paragraph, for the exression "five lakh rupees", occuring in two places, the expression "ten lakh rupees" shall be substituted - Central Act III of 1973. Amendment of Central Act VII of 1892 - 3. In the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1892 - Central Act VII of 1892. 1) in section 4, in sub-section (2).- (1) for the expression ‘five lakh rupees' occuring in two places, the expression ‘ten lakh rupees' shall be substituted; (b) for the expression ‘ten lakh rupees' , the expression ‘twenty five lakh rupees' shall be substituted; (2) in section 15, the existing sub-section (2-C) shall be renumbered as sub-section (2-D), and before sub-section (2-D) as so renumbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- "(2-C) All appeals pending in the High Court of which the amount or value of the subject matter of such appeals exceeds three lakh of rupees but does not exceed five lakh of rupees shall stand transf erred to the Chennai City Civil Court." Transitory provision - 4. (1) All suits pending in a District Court on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Subordinate Court under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Civil Courts Act 1893 (Central Act III of 1873), as amended by this Act, shall stand transferred to the Subordinate Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter. (2) All suits pending before an Additional Judge or a Principal Judge or in the High Court on the date of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Chennai City Civil Court under the provisions of the Chennai City Civil Court Act 1892 (Central Act VII of 1892), as amended by this Act, shall stand transferred to the Assistant Judge, Additional Judge or the Principal Judge, having jurisdiction over the subject matter. (By order of the Governor) S.DHEENADHAYALAN, Secretary to Government, Law Department. [Review Appln.Nos.147 and 148 of 2012 And M.P.Nos. 1+ 1 of 2012, from this order was dismissed by Judgment dated 4.9.2012 of the Division Bench consisting of the same Honourable Judges and it is reported at the end of the judgment as appendix]