This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai. It summarizes the career history and promotions of the 2nd petitioner from 1983 to 2013 within Neyveli Lignite Corporation. It details legal proceedings between the petitioners and NLC regarding the 2nd petitioner's transfer and non-promotion. The petitioners claim the actions of NLC were malicious and caused harassment. The petitioners seek orders directing NLC to submit reports, calling for relevant records, and regularizing the petitioners' periods of service with compensation.
Mamma Affidavit to correct rating and regularisation of periodchandira thangavel
This document is an affidavit filed in the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira (1st petitioner) on behalf of herself and her husband R. Thangavel (2nd petitioner). It summarizes the career history of the 2nd petitioner in Neyveli Lignite Corporation spanning over 30 years, details allegations of harassment and victimization faced by the petitioners, and lists 12 orders passed in previous legal proceedings that the petitioners are seeking relief from through this writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the respondents to submit reports in the case and for records pertaining to the previous legal proceedings to be called for, in order to regularize the service period of the petitioners
1) P. Chandira and R. Thangavel have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking various reliefs regarding their employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).
2) They are seeking to quash certain proceedings against R. Thangavel regarding his transfer and disciplinary action. They are also seeking fixation of R. Thangavel's seniority and monetary benefits.
3) They allege harassment, victimization, and delay in various proceedings by NLC authorities. They pray that they be allowed to jointly file a single writ petition to address their grievances.
This document summarizes the background of a civil case between Madasama Goodway Sdn Bhd and Lim Eng Huat regarding the sale of a property. Key points:
- Lim Eng Huat had rented a property from Madasama and wanted to purchase it after a fire damaged the building. They signed an agreement on July 19, 2002 for RM270,000.
- Lim paid a deposit and took steps to obtain financing, but Madasama refused to complete the sale. Lim filed a lawsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
- The High Court ruled in Lim's favor, but Madasama appealed. The document outlines the claims and evidence presented by both sides regarding whether the agreement was
The court document discusses a case regarding a letter of undertaking signed by the 1st Appellant agreeing to pay the Respondent RM20 million for services rendered to secure a bridge project from the Malaysian government. The 1st Appellant argued the agreement was void as the consideration was opposed to public policy under section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950. However, the trial court found the 1st Appellant did not provide evidence that the Respondent's services were injurious to public welfare or opposed to public interest. The trial court concluded it could not regard the consideration as opposed to public policy based on the facts and surrounding circumstances.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Bombay regarding a writ petition filed by three widows seeking compensation for the death of their husbands who were manual scavengers. The court order discusses the facts of the case, including that the three men died while performing their duties cleaning a drainage tank at a private housing society. It also discusses the relevant laws regarding prohibition of manual scavenging and compensation. The court directs that the widows be paid compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each as mandated by law, with the developer and contractor being held jointly liable for payment since the incident occurred on their premises, though the state has offered interim payments of Rs. 1.25 lakhs each.
Abha singh v. state of maharashtra, january 29, 2020.sabrangsabrang
1. The petitioner filed a PIL seeking orders to compel the respondents to comply with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR Act), including constituting required committees and authorities.
2. The state government respondent filed an affidavit stating the directions sought have been complied with, but the petitioner disputed this, providing details of an FIR where the act was not properly applied.
3. The court allowed the petitioner to file additional affidavits and gave respondents time to file reply affidavits, adjourning further hearing to a later date.
State of Maharashtra Vs Manesh Madhusudan KotiyanAnubhuti Shreya
This special leave petition challenges the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent of rape charges. The petitioner argues that the special leave petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Article 136 grants the Supreme Court the power to grant special leave and hear appeals from any court or tribunal in India. Courts have interpreted this as providing the Supreme Court with broad supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts. The petitioner argues this special leave petition falls within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to correct errors and prevent injustice.
Mamma Affidavit to correct rating and regularisation of periodchandira thangavel
This document is an affidavit filed in the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira (1st petitioner) on behalf of herself and her husband R. Thangavel (2nd petitioner). It summarizes the career history of the 2nd petitioner in Neyveli Lignite Corporation spanning over 30 years, details allegations of harassment and victimization faced by the petitioners, and lists 12 orders passed in previous legal proceedings that the petitioners are seeking relief from through this writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the respondents to submit reports in the case and for records pertaining to the previous legal proceedings to be called for, in order to regularize the service period of the petitioners
1) P. Chandira and R. Thangavel have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking various reliefs regarding their employment at Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC).
2) They are seeking to quash certain proceedings against R. Thangavel regarding his transfer and disciplinary action. They are also seeking fixation of R. Thangavel's seniority and monetary benefits.
3) They allege harassment, victimization, and delay in various proceedings by NLC authorities. They pray that they be allowed to jointly file a single writ petition to address their grievances.
This document summarizes the background of a civil case between Madasama Goodway Sdn Bhd and Lim Eng Huat regarding the sale of a property. Key points:
- Lim Eng Huat had rented a property from Madasama and wanted to purchase it after a fire damaged the building. They signed an agreement on July 19, 2002 for RM270,000.
- Lim paid a deposit and took steps to obtain financing, but Madasama refused to complete the sale. Lim filed a lawsuit seeking specific performance of the agreement.
- The High Court ruled in Lim's favor, but Madasama appealed. The document outlines the claims and evidence presented by both sides regarding whether the agreement was
The court document discusses a case regarding a letter of undertaking signed by the 1st Appellant agreeing to pay the Respondent RM20 million for services rendered to secure a bridge project from the Malaysian government. The 1st Appellant argued the agreement was void as the consideration was opposed to public policy under section 24(e) of the Contracts Act 1950. However, the trial court found the 1st Appellant did not provide evidence that the Respondent's services were injurious to public welfare or opposed to public interest. The trial court concluded it could not regard the consideration as opposed to public policy based on the facts and surrounding circumstances.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Bombay regarding a writ petition filed by three widows seeking compensation for the death of their husbands who were manual scavengers. The court order discusses the facts of the case, including that the three men died while performing their duties cleaning a drainage tank at a private housing society. It also discusses the relevant laws regarding prohibition of manual scavenging and compensation. The court directs that the widows be paid compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each as mandated by law, with the developer and contractor being held jointly liable for payment since the incident occurred on their premises, though the state has offered interim payments of Rs. 1.25 lakhs each.
Abha singh v. state of maharashtra, january 29, 2020.sabrangsabrang
1. The petitioner filed a PIL seeking orders to compel the respondents to comply with the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (PEMSR Act), including constituting required committees and authorities.
2. The state government respondent filed an affidavit stating the directions sought have been complied with, but the petitioner disputed this, providing details of an FIR where the act was not properly applied.
3. The court allowed the petitioner to file additional affidavits and gave respondents time to file reply affidavits, adjourning further hearing to a later date.
State of Maharashtra Vs Manesh Madhusudan KotiyanAnubhuti Shreya
This special leave petition challenges the High Court's decision to acquit the respondent of rape charges. The petitioner argues that the special leave petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Article 136 grants the Supreme Court the power to grant special leave and hear appeals from any court or tribunal in India. Courts have interpreted this as providing the Supreme Court with broad supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts. The petitioner argues this special leave petition falls within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to correct errors and prevent injustice.
The PowerPoint presentation is uploaded on behalf of Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University. It will help the law students immensely in preparation of Memorials for either Moot Court Competitions or Internal assessment.
Baisil attippety (died) vs kerala water authortysabrangsabrang
The High Court of Kerala heard a writ petition regarding compensation for the families of two men who died while working in a sewerage pipeline manhole for the Kerala Water Authority. The Court summarized the relevant Supreme Court judgment that directed state governments to pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to families of those who died in sewer work since 1993. Noting that the contractor had already paid Rs. 4 lakh to each family, the Court still directed the State of Kerala to pay the additional Rs. 6 lakh to each family, as per the Supreme Court order. The Registry was instructed to provide the legal heir certificates to the Water Authority to process the compensation payments within two months.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The memorandum concerns five appeals challenging various actions relating to the Deer Temple property in Leoland state. The appeals question: 1) whether an 1898 agreement granting rights over the property to Mriga is binding; 2) the validity of a constitutional amendment affecting religious rights; 3) a state law taking control of the property; 4) using the property to address financial issues; and 5) whether officials are guilty of religious offenses for damaging structures. The appellants argue the agreement continues in force, the amendment and law violate procedural and substantive constitutional requirements, and the actions interfere with religious freedom and amounts to criminal offenses.
Lawweb.in whether second wife of person who died in accident can claim compen...Law Web
Whether second wife of person who died in accident can claim compensation? - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2015/06/whether-second-wife-of-person-who-died.html?#sthash.WmrDY5ie.dpuf
Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High CourtOm Prakash Poddar
AO NUMBER : 668271/2019 dated 16-10-2019 for Written Arguments along with Affidavit filed before Patna High Court because Judge refused to hear on 14-10-2019
1. The prosecution is appealing the conviction of the accused Sunil in the High Court of Delhi.
2. Sunil was convicted by the sessions court of murder under section 302 IPC and acid attack under section 326B read with section 34 IPC for throwing acid on the victim Reema, which led to her death.
3. The prosecution is arguing that Sunil must be convicted on both charges. For the murder charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw acid on Reema with the help of his friend Ramesh, causing grievous injuries that led to her death, satisfying the conditions for murder. For the acid attack charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw the acid with help from R
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
The document discusses the case of Arun v. State of Maharashtra, where Arun appealed his conviction for murder and other offenses against his brother Sampatrao. It provides background on the family dispute and details of the incident where Arun attacked Sampatrao with a hammer and brick. The Supreme Court considered Arun's argument that he was exercising his right to private defense, though it ultimately dismissed his appeal based on eyewitness testimony finding his actions were not justified.
The document is a High Court order regarding a writ petition filed to request allocation of a permanent burial ground for the Arunthathiyar community in Madur Village, Kallakurichi District.
The Court notes that while death equalizes all humans, discrimination persists even in burial rites for some communities. It acknowledges that the Arunthathiyar community has temporarily used lands classified as an 'Odai Poramboke' to bury dead, but petitioners seek a permanent solution. The Court examines whether the right to dignity extends to burial/cremation, and cites past rulings affirming this. It directs officials to identify a suitable public land for a permanent burial ground.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan Anubhuti Shreya
This memorial addresses three issues in a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal case. The first issue is whether the special leave petition is maintainable, arguing that there was no grave injustice or ignorance of substantial questions of law by the High Court. The second issue is whether consent was given voluntarily, arguing that consent was given freely without force or misconception. The third issue is whether the respondent is punishable for rape, arguing that the essential elements of rape were not met. The memorial provides arguments for each issue and submits that the petition should be dismissed.
1. The court document discusses an application for regular bail filed by Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Epidemic Diseases Act for organizing an event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi without permission.
2. The prosecution argues that Preet Singh made inflammatory speeches and slogans against a particular religion, while the defense claims he is falsely implicated and did not engage in unlawful speech or activities.
3. The court must now determine whether to grant bail to Preet Singh based on the arguments made by the prosecution and defense regarding the evidence in the case and potential risks if he is released.
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
The PowerPoint presentation is uploaded on behalf of Moot Court Association, Faculty of Law, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University. It will help the law students immensely in preparation of Memorials for either Moot Court Competitions or Internal assessment.
Baisil attippety (died) vs kerala water authortysabrangsabrang
The High Court of Kerala heard a writ petition regarding compensation for the families of two men who died while working in a sewerage pipeline manhole for the Kerala Water Authority. The Court summarized the relevant Supreme Court judgment that directed state governments to pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to families of those who died in sewer work since 1993. Noting that the contractor had already paid Rs. 4 lakh to each family, the Court still directed the State of Kerala to pay the additional Rs. 6 lakh to each family, as per the Supreme Court order. The Registry was instructed to provide the legal heir certificates to the Water Authority to process the compensation payments within two months.
1. The appellant, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed, who was the original accused No. 3, filed an application for bail which was rejected by the special judge. He has filed this appeal against the rejection.
2. The key evidence against the appellant includes the recovery of an oath from his house pursuant to disclosure by an co-accused, and pointing out an electric switchboard in his house where an IED was allegedly soldered. Statements of witnesses also indicate the appellant participated in meetings where actions regarding perceived threats to Islam were discussed.
3. The prosecution argues the material is sufficient to show a prima facie case against the appellant and reasonable grounds exist to believe the accusations, thereby invoking the
The memorandum concerns five appeals challenging various actions relating to the Deer Temple property in Leoland state. The appeals question: 1) whether an 1898 agreement granting rights over the property to Mriga is binding; 2) the validity of a constitutional amendment affecting religious rights; 3) a state law taking control of the property; 4) using the property to address financial issues; and 5) whether officials are guilty of religious offenses for damaging structures. The appellants argue the agreement continues in force, the amendment and law violate procedural and substantive constitutional requirements, and the actions interfere with religious freedom and amounts to criminal offenses.
Lawweb.in whether second wife of person who died in accident can claim compen...Law Web
Whether second wife of person who died in accident can claim compensation? - See more at: http://www.lawweb.in/2015/06/whether-second-wife-of-person-who-died.html?#sthash.WmrDY5ie.dpuf
Written Arguments along with Affidavit before Patna High CourtOm Prakash Poddar
AO NUMBER : 668271/2019 dated 16-10-2019 for Written Arguments along with Affidavit filed before Patna High Court because Judge refused to hear on 14-10-2019
1. The prosecution is appealing the conviction of the accused Sunil in the High Court of Delhi.
2. Sunil was convicted by the sessions court of murder under section 302 IPC and acid attack under section 326B read with section 34 IPC for throwing acid on the victim Reema, which led to her death.
3. The prosecution is arguing that Sunil must be convicted on both charges. For the murder charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw acid on Reema with the help of his friend Ramesh, causing grievous injuries that led to her death, satisfying the conditions for murder. For the acid attack charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw the acid with help from R
The High Court of Kerala recalled three previous orders granting petitions to quash criminal cases relating to offenses of rape and under the POCSO Act. In recalling the orders, the Court noted it had failed to consider binding Supreme Court precedents holding that cases involving offenses like rape cannot be quashed solely due to settlements between the parties. While the petitioners argued the Court could not recall signed orders, the Court held this was not a review but rather pointing out a legal omission. The cases will be reheard in detail after the summer vacation.
This document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the bail application of Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under Sections 188, 269, 270, 153A IPC, and other sections related to violating COVID-19 restrictions and inciting communal disharmony. The defense counsel argued that Preet Singh did not make any offensive remarks against religions to incite violence. However, the prosecution argued that Preet Singh was a co-organizer of the event where objectionable slogans were raised and he made provocative statements in interviews. The court observed that it is not appropriate to determine if the statements constitute an offense under Section 153A IPC at this stage.
This document is a bail petition order from a court in India. It summarizes a case involving 15 individuals who were arrested and charged with various offenses related to participating in an unauthorized protest that turned violent. The defense argued the individuals were wrongly implicated and the charges were excessive. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the serious nature of the offenses. After reviewing evidence and considering the individuals had been in custody for 15 days, the court granted bail with conditions, finding continued custody was not necessary and the evidence did not fully support the charges.
The Supreme Court of India heard appeals challenging a High Court order granting bail to two individuals accused of terrorist activities. The individuals were accused of being members of a terrorist organization and charged with offenses under India's anti-terrorism laws. The High Court had set aside bail for one accused but confirmed it for the other. The appeals argued that the charges made out a prima facie case that the accused intended to further terrorist activities based on materials seized from them. However, the High Court found that the charge sheet did not show the accused had an intention to encourage or facilitate terrorist acts as required by law. The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant provisions and prior case law on this issue.
This document is a submission of written arguments to the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the petitioner's arguments that various government authorities have conspired over 12 years to violate his fundamental rights and harass him through frivolous legal cases and actions like trying to cut off his gas supply. The petitioner argues that 13 respondents, including government officials and his alleged wife, should be issued notices and the harassment stopped to protect his right to life. He provides details of past legal proceedings and harassment to support his case.
The document discusses the case of Arun v. State of Maharashtra, where Arun appealed his conviction for murder and other offenses against his brother Sampatrao. It provides background on the family dispute and details of the incident where Arun attacked Sampatrao with a hammer and brick. The Supreme Court considered Arun's argument that he was exercising his right to private defense, though it ultimately dismissed his appeal based on eyewitness testimony finding his actions were not justified.
The document is a High Court order regarding a writ petition filed to request allocation of a permanent burial ground for the Arunthathiyar community in Madur Village, Kallakurichi District.
The Court notes that while death equalizes all humans, discrimination persists even in burial rites for some communities. It acknowledges that the Arunthathiyar community has temporarily used lands classified as an 'Odai Poramboke' to bury dead, but petitioners seek a permanent solution. The Court examines whether the right to dignity extends to burial/cremation, and cites past rulings affirming this. It directs officials to identify a suitable public land for a permanent burial ground.
State of Maharashtra Vs. Manesh madhusudan kotiyan Anubhuti Shreya
This memorial addresses three issues in a special leave petition filed before the Supreme Court of India regarding a criminal case. The first issue is whether the special leave petition is maintainable, arguing that there was no grave injustice or ignorance of substantial questions of law by the High Court. The second issue is whether consent was given voluntarily, arguing that consent was given freely without force or misconception. The third issue is whether the respondent is punishable for rape, arguing that the essential elements of rape were not met. The memorial provides arguments for each issue and submits that the petition should be dismissed.
1. The court document discusses an application for regular bail filed by Preet Singh, who is accused of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Epidemic Diseases Act for organizing an event at Jantar Mantar in Delhi without permission.
2. The prosecution argues that Preet Singh made inflammatory speeches and slogans against a particular religion, while the defense claims he is falsely implicated and did not engage in unlawful speech or activities.
3. The court must now determine whether to grant bail to Preet Singh based on the arguments made by the prosecution and defense regarding the evidence in the case and potential risks if he is released.
This document summarizes three connected habeas corpus petitions filed by Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah challenging their detention under the National Security Act, 1980. According to the document:
- Parvez, Irfan, and Rahamtullah were arrested for allegedly cutting and selling beef in violation of cow slaughter laws, which disturbed public order.
- The District Magistrate of Sitapur ordered their detention under the National Security Act, citing the likelihood they would be released on bail and continue disturbing public order related to cow slaughter issues.
- The petitioners argue there was no evidence they would threaten public order and their detention violated their fundamental rights. They have petitioned for their release and to qu
This document is a court judgment regarding a writ petition filed by human rights advocate Nandita Haksar on behalf of 7 Myanmarese citizens who fled to India after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021. The petition seeks permission for the 7 individuals to travel to New Delhi to seek protection from the UNHCR. While the individuals entered India illegally without documents, the court recognizes that they meet the definition of "refugees" rather than "migrants" given the circumstances compelling them to flee Myanmar. The court rules that India is obligated under international law and its own constitution to respect the right of non-refoulement and protect the life and liberty of all individuals within its borders. Therefore, it
This document is a memorandum filed with the High Court of Madras regarding criminal cases and petitions. It summarizes several criminal cases and complaints filed by the petitioner against various government officials and departments. It requests the court to direct the respondents to submit reports and records regarding the cases, and to take necessary action against the accused officials to recover losses and prevent them from escaping punishment. It provides details of several FIRs filed, departmental investigations conducted, and complaints submitted by the petitioner to various authorities over allegations of corruption and misconduct.
1. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions seeking transfer of investigation into her complaints to other agencies like the Vigilance department or CBI, alleging a perfunctory investigation by the police.
2. The police counter stated that they summoned the petitioner and others for inquiry but the petitioner did not cooperate or provide documents. The inquiry found that work was awarded to a contractor through proper tender process, not the petitioner.
3. The court dismissed the petitions, saying the complaints were an attempt to avoid disciplinary action for irregularities. It imposed a fine on the petitioner for filing frivolous petitions.
This document is an affidavit filed in support of a writ petition being filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents from NLC, Neyveli. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to promote R. Thangavel to Deputy General Manager, regularize his transfer period as duty, quash disciplinary proceedings against him, correct his performance rating, and provide compensation for losses suffered due to harassment. The petitioners state they have common grievances and are seeking permission to jointly file a single writ petition.
The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.
The petitioner claims ownership in respect of the lands
situated in Survey Nos.34/2, 35/13, 35/1, 35/8, 35/9 and 13/2
situated at Jagirmangalam Village, Thirvalangadu Firka, Tiruttani
Taluk, Thiruvallur District and the properties are ancestral in nature
and he is cultivating the lands. According to the petitioner by playing
fraud the 5th respondent managed to obtain a patta in his name and in
this regard, he has submitted an application to the 2nd respondent who
has called him for an enquiry vide memo dated 11.02.2010 and
according to the petitioner he has also attended the enquiry on
19.02.2010 and since, nothing had happened thereafter, came forward
to file this writ petition.
3. Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Ezhil Raj, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional
Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents 1 to 4.
3
4. Though, the petitioner has prayed for a larger relief, this
Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, permits the
petitioner to submit one more representation to the 2nd respondent for
early disposal of his petition dated 04.02.2010 and referred to in the
summons vide Na.Ka.No.469/2010/A2 dated 11.02.2010 within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider
the representation on merits and in accordance with law, after putting
the 5th respondent on notice and pass orders as expeditiously as
possible and not later than eight weeks, thereafter and inform the
decision taken to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent.
The petitioner claims ownership of certain lands that have been ancestral property and have been cultivated by the petitioner. However, the fifth respondent fraudulently obtained land pattas for the properties. The petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent for an inquiry, and attended the inquiry on the scheduled date. As there was no subsequent action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The court allowed the petitioner to submit another representation to the second respondent within two weeks for expeditious disposal of the matter. The second respondent must consider the representation on merits after notice to the fifth respondent, and pass orders within eight weeks informing both parties of the decision.
N.deenan vs the_collector_on_16_april,_2015S.Ezhil Raj
The petitioner claims ownership of certain lands that have been ancestral property and have been cultivated by the petitioner. However, the fifth respondent fraudulently obtained land pattas for the properties. The petitioner submitted an application to the second respondent for an inquiry, and attended the inquiry on the scheduled date. As there was no subsequent action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The court allowed the petitioner to submit another representation to the second respondent within two weeks for expeditious disposal of the matter. The second respondent must consider the representation on merits after notice to the fifth respondent, and pass orders within eight weeks informing both parties of the decision.
1) The court is hearing a writ petition regarding alleged corruption in the procurement of paddy from farmers in Tamil Nadu.
2) The court notes contradictions between the report and counter-affidavit filed by respondents on the procurement process.
3) The court directs additional affidavits to address the contradictions and provide details on actions taken against negligent officials.
P. Chandira has filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Chennai seeking permission to represent her husband R. Thangavel and her father P.P. Pattappan in court cases. Chandira has submitted notarized copies of power of attorney documents from her husband and father authorizing her to represent them in legal matters. She is currently working as an Assistant Engineer but has also pursued various degrees including MBA and law. Chandira requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus or other directions allowing her to represent her husband and father in court.
Additional document against Second Appeal D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017Om Prakash Poddar
Additional documents against Second Appeal vide D.No. 183722 dated 03.11.2016 being filed vide D.No. 169135 dated 03.10.2017 before CIC New Delhi along with FAA, District & Session Judge's reply.
The petitioner seeks to quash criminal proceedings against him for offenses under Sections 172, 173 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(F), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The allegations are that the petitioner, who owns 5 acres 4 guntas of land, wrongfully claimed ownership of 3 acres 3 guntas of the second respondent's neighboring land and obtained revenue records in his name. However, the court finds that the dispute appears to be civil in nature regarding ownership of land between two parties. Further, the ingredients to prove offenses under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act are not made out based on the facts.
This document summarizes a court order from the Rajasthan High Court regarding two writ petitions filed by Jitendra Nath Tiwari challenging orders related to his government service. The court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the previous orders. It remanded both matters back to the Tribunal, directing them to reconsider in light of precedent that adverse entries in performance reviews can be challenged when appealing consequential orders related to government service. The Tribunal is instructed to prioritize these matters given when the initial appeal was filed.
1. The document is a letter from R. Thangavel's wife requesting monetary benefits and promotion to Deputy General Manager based on his outstanding performance and selection for a project in 1991.
2. It details Thangavel's career history in NLC since 1983 and argues the charge memo and delays in his case were illegal.
3. The letter references many legal documents and court orders, and requests his period of service be regularized and he receive benefits due based on a Supreme Court order on performance ratings.
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the Tambaram Municipality Commissioner (1st respondent) seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the commissioner to take further action pursuant to a notice issued regarding an unauthorized construction. The municipality stated in its counter that it found no unauthorized construction after inspection other than a fertility clinic operation. The municipality also prepared a note to withdraw the original notice. Considering the municipality's submission and noting that the petitioner did not object, the court closed the writ petition and the related miscellaneous petition.
Decision announced by CIC New Delhi against District & Sessions Judge-Cum-Appellate Authority Civil Court Begusarai under the Judicature of Patna High Court for Non-Compliance RTI Act 2005
This document provides information about pending whistleblower applications in an ongoing judicial matter. It notes that the whistleblower/applicant has 10 pending applications in the case that have yet to be decided, dating back to 2011. These applications include requests for records, to add parties to the case, and to present evidence. The document calls for the applications to be decided in sequential order so that the whistleblower can properly present evidence in the matter involving alleged criminal conspiracy. It also discusses how a pending probate case could impact the whistleblower's ability to prosecute the case depending on the determination of his locus standi or legal standing.
Final status of PRSEC/E/2018/18152 dated 09.10.2018Om Prakash Poddar
The complainant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition that the Supreme Court registry raised defects against, including objectionable remarks, and though the complainant responded the registry is now not responding to inquiries about the petition's status. The complainant is seeking a response from the registry on whether the Criminal Appeal will be registered or what action has been taken, and included copies of correspondence regarding curing defects for the President's Secretariat to take appropriate action.
Final status of PMOPG/ E/2018/0480386 dated 09.10.2018Om Prakash Poddar
Finally Department of Justice forwarded the complaint against felony of Registry of Supreme Court of India (which PMO had forwarded to DOJ) to Secretary General of Supreme Court of India.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding the refund of excess toll tax collected. The Cantonment Board floated tenders for collecting toll tax on commercial vehicles. Respondents 1 and 2 bid Rs. 1.02 lakh per day but later matched another bid of Rs. 1.25 lakh to collect the tax. When the higher bid petition was dismissed, the High Court ordered a refund of the excess amount to Respondents 1 and 2. The Supreme Court overturned this, finding no prejudice was caused to Respondents 1 and 2 by matching the higher bid voluntarily.
1) This memorandum outlines a writ petition filed in the Madras High Court regarding a property dispute and allegations of forgery.
2) It details the family history and property ownership of the late Perumal Mudhaliar and his sons, including complaints filed with the police by the petitioners against the respondent P. Kolandavel regarding a disputed will and efforts to seize the family property.
3) The petitioners allege that P. Kolandavel has filed fraudulent court cases and harassed family members in order to grab the property, and that a police investigation is needed to determine if the disputed will is forged. They seek dismissal of the civil case regarding the property.
The document is a letter from P. Chandira requesting permission to conduct a fast before the Chennai High Court. Chandira references 10 previous court orders from the Chennai High Court where he represented himself as aggrieved party. He states he sees the High Court as the "Temple of Justice" and the judges as "Gods". However, he is aggrieved by the orders passed. Specifically, Justice Manikumar did not allow him to argue as a party-in-person in one case. He humbly requests permission to fast either before the High Court or the Governor's office to seek justice.
This memorandum summarizes a writ petition filed before the High Court of Chennai by P. Chandira and R. Thangavel against 9 respondents. The petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari to regularize periods of absence from work as duty periods and to enforce an apartment agreement. They are also seeking compensation of 7 crores for losses and mental agony suffered due to the acts of the respondents. The petition provides background on each of the petitioners and respondents and the circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition.
The petitioner filed a criminal original petition with the High Court of Madras seeking to quash police reports and court proceedings related to a forged will case. The petitioner alleges that the police failed to properly investigate the forgery and register cases against the accused. The petition outlines 18 grounds claiming deficiencies in the police investigation and judicial proceedings and requests an order directing further investigation and registering cases against the accused.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed this writ petition challenging illegal charge memos and proceedings against him.
2) The petitioner had previously filed two writ petitions - one in 2012 challenging charge memos by the third respondent, and another in 2012 seeking national awards.
3) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to amend prayers and add respondents to his previous petitions. He asks the court to award him several state and national prestigious awards for 2007, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, and to quash respondent's opposing proceedings and resolutions.
1) The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, filed writ petitions in 2012 and 2015 seeking various state and national awards for 2007, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015, including the Kalpana Chawla Award and Padma/Asoka Chakra Awards.
2) The petitions challenged the selection processes and awarding of the honors to other individuals. Notices were issued to government respondents but no replies were submitted.
3) The petitioner provided documentation of the selection processes for the Kalpana Chawla Awards to argue that he was the most deserving applicant. He asked the court to transfer those awards to him and provide the others he sought.
The petitioners, Chandira and Thangavel, filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings related to their purchase of apartments in Pondicherry and Chennai. They allege undue harassment and mental agony by the respondents regarding the apartment deals from 2008 onward. They seek compensation of 7 crores and permission to jointly file this single writ petition as their grievances are common regarding the jointly purchased properties.
The petitioner filed a petition in the High Court of Madras seeking an order directing police to investigate the forgery of her grandfather's signature on a 1999 partition deed. The court notes that the police had already investigated and filed a report in 1999. The court ruled that a direction for new investigation in 2015 cannot be given for an incident from 1999, but that the petitioner can challenge the deed in a civil court. The petition was therefore closed and the registry's objection upheld.
Mrs. P. Chandira, an assistant engineer at the National Highways in Nagercoil, wrote to the Chief Vigilance Officer regarding Thiru. Natarajan cheating her without purchasing an apartment in Valasaravakkam, Chennai. Though Natarajan received money for the apartment, he did not register the property and made excuses when asked about it. Chandira requested the officer to take immediate steps in the matter.
1) The document details an agreement between two parties to construct a multi-story apartment building. The first party had originally been tasked with construction but could not, so they brought in the second party.
2) The first party had already spent Rs. 6,50,000 for approvals and work. This amount was received from the second party.
3) The agreement specifies that the first party will provide 14 apartments to the second party before any other units are sold.
1. The document is a response from the Central Public Information Officer of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited to an application under the Right to Information Act regarding employees posted to the Barshingsar Project.
2. It provides the names and details of employees posted to the Barshingsar Project in an annexure.
3. It also explains that as per terms of appointment and promotion orders, employees of the corporation are liable to be transferred to any branch, department, or subsidiary of the corporation anywhere in India, and experienced executives have been transferred to the Barshingsar Project for its successful implementation.
1. Shri. R. Thangavel has been posted as Deputy Superintendent/Mechanical in the scale of pay of Rs. 4600-150-5350-160-6470 at the Barshingsar Mining and Power Projects in Rajasthan.
2. He will be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade as per the time bound promotion policy and fixation of pay as per rules.
3. He will receive allowances such as Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, and City Compensatory Allowance as per rules and Project Allowance of 250 of basic pay subject to a maximum of Rs. 500 per month.
This document is a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding whether all entries in an employee's annual confidential report (ACR), or only adverse entries, must be communicated to the employee. The Court held that all entries, not just adverse entries, must be communicated so that the employee has an opportunity to make representations and request upgrades if they feel an entry is unjustified. Not communicating an entry was found to violate principles of natural justice and be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, rules or policies stating only adverse entries need be communicated were found to be illegal.
Mrs. Pattappan Chandra Thangavel is a 47-year-old female Indian citizen from Tamil Nadu who is being recommended for the Padma Award. She currently lives in Neyveli-3, Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu with her husband and works as an Assistant Engineer (H) for Nabard & Rural Roads in Panruti. She has previously received the Kalpana Award in 2007, 2012 and 2014 and a Central Award in 2012 for her work in public interest affairs.
This document discusses various legal cases and complaints filed by the author regarding corruption in awarding government contracts and honors. It mentions the author's applications for the Kalpana Chawla Award in 2007, 2012, and 2014, and alleges corruption in the selection process. It also describes complaints filed with police and vigilance departments against contractors and officials in various districts regarding corruption and harassment, but claims no action has been taken. The author requests sanctions for prosecution and investigations into the alleged corruption.
1. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Under Art226 of Indian Constitutional Law)
M.P.No:1/15
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E.,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,M.I.E.,
The Chief Manager, CPFNo:27329,
First Thermal Power Station,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli-607803,Cuddalore Dt. -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redesignated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
1. I, the 1st petitioner Mrs.P.Chandira W/o R.Thangavel aged about 47
years is working as an Assistant Engineer(H)Nabard and Rural Roads,Panruti and
the 2nd petitioner is Er.R.Thangavel,is aged about 56 years, the Chief Manager
2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation, First Thermal Power Station, Neyveli residing at E-
77,Anna Road,Block-27,Neyvei-3 is sincerely and solemnly state as follows:
2. The 2nd petitioner humbly pray that this Hon’ble High Court may
please to permit the first petitioner his power of Attorney and his wife
Mrs.P.Chandira to represent this case on behalf of the 2nd petitioner as she knows
the facts and circumstances of the case very well and humbly submits the copy of
power of Attorney before this Hon’ble High Court and the petitioner has already
appeared before this Hon’ble High Court against the NLC not to transfer the 2nd
petitioner from Tamilnadu to Rajasthan Barshingsar Project. Even though the 2nd
petitioner challenged the cases with malafide and in individual capacity,this
Hon’ble High Court has not permitted reasonable opportunity in accordance with
law. The Hon’ble High Court decided the case based upon the report of the 5th
respondent without calling for the records from NLC.On the contrary the fifth
respondent
3. The 2nd petitioner studied Bachelor of Engineering Degree in
Mechanical in Coimbatore Institute of Technology, Coimbatore in the year of 1981
and Master of Engineering, Design in Government College of Technology,
Coimbatore in the year of 1983. The 2nd Petitioner worked as Lecturer in
Coimbatore Institute of Technolgy,Coimbatore. The 2nd petitioner joined his duty
as Graduate Engineer Trainees on 15/11/1983 in esteemed Neyveli Lignite
Corporation. The 2nd petitioner was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer on
01.06.1985, Executive Engineer on 01.09.1989 and Deputy Superintendent (Scale),
Senior Executive Engineer on 01.09.1993. The 2nd petitioner availed Lien Service,
Foreign Service (Lien) in abroad in the period of 19.09.2001 to 30.10.2003 after
relieving from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 18.09.2001. The 2nd petitioner
rejoined his duty back to Neyveli Lignite Corporation on 31.10.2003.
3. 4. The 2nd petitioner was promoted as Deputy Chief Engineer E5 with
effect from 01.09.1997 by paper movement before the Departmental Promotion
Committee for his four years of his service completion as Senior Executive
Engineer, the Deputy Superintendent (Scale) 01.09.1993 to 30.08.1996. The 2nd
petitioner was promoted as Additional Chief Manager Scale E6 on 01.07.2005 and
subsequently on Additional Chief Manager, M-1 Grade/E6 on 01.07.2006.
5. In the mean time the petitioners purchased a land to construct an
apartment under PPA rules and regulation in the year of 2008 jointly with some
other Neyveli Lignite Corporation employees on 13.03.08 through
Thiru.Natarajan, the Chief Technician, Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli.
Thiru.Ananthakrishnan is also the one of the purchaser in Pondy. Thiru.Natarajan,
the Chief Technician and Thiru.Ananthakrishnan is doing real estate business from
2008 . In the mean the 1st petitioner was posted to Rajasthan Barshingsar Project
on 02.04.08 by Neyveli Lignite Corporation Proceeding. The petitioners submitted
several representations to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director of Neyveli Lignite Corporation and all the Directors of Neyveli
Lignite Corporation to permit to continue the 2nd petitioner to do his duty at
Tamilnadu until FIRNo: 10/03 filed by the Vigilance Anti-Corruption Department
is pending as the 1st petitioner is witness to Tamilnadu State Vigilance Department
subsequent orders in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated: 04.03.02, 14.03.02, 23.04.03 and
24.06.03.
6. When the 2nd petitioner were went to his native for her mother’s death
six month ceremonial function at his native he was deemed to be relieved on
14.04.08 without serving the Transfer order. The 2nd petitioner submitted a
representation on 18.04.08 to the Director (Power) and the Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director of Neyveli Lignite Corporation to permit to continue his duty at
Neyveli. Further the petitioners planned to purchase an apartment at Chennai
Valasarawakkam on 14.05.08 through Thiru.Natarajan. The Director (Power)
4. permitted the 1st petitioner to continue the duty up to 14.07.08 in his proceeding on
22.05.08.
7. The 1st petitioner filed a defamation case in C.C.No:314/02 on
08.10.02 before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Chidambaram against a)
Thiru.Tamilselvan, the former Divisional Engineer (H) (Regular) Cuddalore b)
Thiru.Ponnselvan, the former Assistant Divisional Engineer (H) (Regular)
Chidambaram c) Thiru.Haribabu, the former Junior Engineer (H), Nabard and
Rural Roads, KattumannarKovil. Subsequently the first petitioner filed 91CRPC
before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Chidambaram on 29.01.2003 and is still
pending and hence the transfer OP No: 4787/14 is filed before the Judicial
Magistrate Court-II, Chidambaram to the District Munisiff Cum Judicial
Magistrate Court, Neyveli. The 1st petitioner is the complainant in
W.P.No:39160/04 to regularise the period. When the 1st petitioner was in a position
to attend the Hon’ble High Court as party-in-person after getting vakalat from
Thiru.Nithiandam,the Advocate for NLC in the year of 2008,the 1st petitioner
authorised the 2nd petitioner to represent the case C.C.No:314/02 in the month of
March2008 and he is also one of the witness in the case.
8. The 2nd petitioner filed a W.P.No:17124/08 before this Hon’ble
High Court on 14.07.08 with M.P.No:1/08 to dispense the transfer order and to
stay the transfer order in M.P.No:2/08 against a) The Director (Power) NLC,
Neyveli b) The DGM (P&A) NLC, Neyveli c) The General Manager, Thermal
Power Station-I, Neyveli d) The DGM (P&A) Welfare, NLC, Neyveli e) The Chief
Manager (P&A) Neyveli. The Hon’ble High Court granted an interim stay in
M.P.No:2/08 in W.P.No:17124/08 on 05.08.08. Subsequently the 1st petitioner was
permitted to continue duty at First Thermal Power Station, Neyveli on 08.08.08. In
order to prove the malafide act of respondents in M.P.No:2/08 in
W.P.No:17124/08 ,the 2nd petitioner filed M.P.No:4/08 in individual capacity and
to extend the stay in M.P.No:5/08 before the Hon’ble High Court on 13.08.08.
During the hearing on 18.08.08 the Hon’ble High Court permitted the implead
5. petition in M.P.No:4/08 and added the six to tenth respondents in individual
capacity and extended the stay petition in M.P.No:5/08 until further orders.
9. The 2nd respondent DGM (P&A) filed counter in M.P.No:3/08 on
behalf of the one to five respondents in official capacities in W.P.No:17124/08.
The respondents in individual capacity has not filed counter in W.P.No:17124/08.
During the hearing on 01.09.08 the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the
W.P.No:17124/08 with the direction to the second respondent DGM (P&A) to
consider the grievances in accordance with law. The 2nd petitioner was forcefully
relieved on 05.09.2008 by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. The 2nd petitioner filed
Writ Review No: 103/08 with M.P.No:1/08 on 06.09.08. The Hon’ble High Court
issued notice to the ten respondents to file counter in M.P.No:1/08. The proof of
the Private notice also filed before the Hon’ble High Court High Court. During the
hearing on 18.09.08 the case is argued without counter by the one to ten
respondents and the case is adjourned for judgements. The Hon’ble Court passed
an order in Writ Review No: 103/08 without any order in M.P.No:1/08 without the
knowledge of the petitioners on 24.09.08. In the mean time the petitioners arranged
for an advocate N.R.R.Natarajan from Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram madam office.
The advocate issued contempt notice to the NLC management Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, to the Directors and DGM,
(P&A) of Neyveli Lignite Corporation. Further the 1st petitioner filed a Writ
Petition against the 1st respondent herein the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of
Neyveli on 14.05.2009 and the 2nd petitioner filed contempt petition which is
numbered as Cont.Pet.No:483/09 on 01.06.09. Even though the 1st petitioner filed
Writ Petition on 14.05.09 and 2b petition on 27.05.09 to add the 2nd petitioner in
the single writ petition, the Writ Petition was numbered in the second petitioner
only in W.P.No:11001/09 to call for the records on the file of
CORP/P&A/EE/0502/2008 Dated: 15.09.08 on the file of CGM (P&A) and all
further proceedings initiated by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation.
6. 10. In the mean time the 1st respondent has not conducted DPC in the
year of 2009. In the mean time the Project head, Rajasthan has issued a illegal
charge memo to the 2nd petitioner. Even though the 1st respondent permitted the
second petitioner to attend DPC in the year 2010, because of the illegal charge
memo created by the Project head the 2nd petitioner was not promoted as Chief
Manager. Even though the 1st respondent permitted the 2nd petitioner to attend DPC
in the year 2011, because of the illegal charge memo created by the Project head
the 2nd petitioner was not promoted as Chief Manager. The 1st petitioner submitted
complaints on 27.05.2012 to the 2nd respondent herein against
Thiru.Ananthakrishnan and Thiru.Natarajan .The 2nd respondent directed the Chief
Manager Thiru.Sivashanmugham to conduct the preliminary enquiry on
14.05.2012 .The 1st petitioner submitted seventeen pages of documents along with
three pages of written statement. The petitioner was promoted as Chief Manager
Scale E6A on 01.07.2012 and subsequently on Chief Manager, M-2 Grade/E6A on
01.07.2013.
11. The 1st petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Hon’ble High
Court on 07.10.2012 with twelve orders 1)FI.R.No:10/03 filed by the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore 2) The order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 01.09.08 3) The order of the Hon’ble High
Court in Writ.Review.No:103/08 Dated: 24.09.08 4) The Secretary,Highways and
Minor Ports Department Lr Dated:13.10.08 5) The order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.A.No:282/09 Dated: 18.03.09 6) The order of the Hon’ble High Court
in Writ Appeal Review.No:37/09 Dated: 30.04.09 7) The 2b Petition in
SRNo:41218 Dated:27.05.09 8)The substituted order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 02.07.09 9) The substituted order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 07.08.09 10) To set aside the order of the third
respondent dated:01.12.09 11) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No:11001/09 Dated: 13.02.09 12) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.O.P.No:22241/11 Dated: 11.11.11.The first petitioner filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No:11001/09 against the CMD,NLC,Neyveli which is numbered in the second
7. petitioner by the Registrar(Judicial) with the influence of the Principle
Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore and the Inspector of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore
and caused undue harassment to the petitioners. Hence the petitioners filed this
Writ Petition on 07.10.2012 to regularise the period of the petitioner and her
husband with damaged remedy and relief and thus render justice.
12. In the reasons stated the 1st petitioner humbly prayed on 07.10.2012
that this Hon’ble High Court may please to direct the CMD,NLC,Neyveli which is
numbered in the 2nd petitioner by the Registrar(Judicial) with the influence of the
Principle Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9,
the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore and the Inspector of
Police,V&AC,Cuddalore to file their report before this Hon’ble High Court based
upon the above case bundles and the representations submitted to them within the
stipulated period of time until disposal of the writ petition on 07.10.12 and thus
render justice.
13. In the reasons stated the 1st petitioner humbly prayed on 07.10.2012
that this Hon’ble High Court may please to issue the Writ of Certiorari or any other
Writ calling for the records on the file of respondents in 1)FI.R.No:10/03 filed by
the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore 2) The order of the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 01.09.08 3) The order of the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ.Review.No:103/08 Dated: 24.09.08 4) The
Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports Department Lr Dated:13.10.08 5) The order
of the Hon’ble High Court in W.A.No:282/09 Dated: 18.03.09 6) The order of the
Hon’ble High Court in Writ Appeal Review.No:37/09 Dated: 30.04.09 7) The 2b
Petition in SRNo:41218 Dated:27.05.09 8)The substituted order of the Hon’ble
High Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 02.07.09 9) The substituted order of the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 07.08.09 10) To set aside the
order of the third respondent dated:01.12.09 11) The order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No:11001/09 Dated: 13.02.09 12) The order of the Hon’ble High
8. Court in Crl.O.P.No:22241/11 Dated: 11.11.11 and consequently quash the illegal
proceedings of respondents on public interest to prevent the misuse of Government
funds and to regulate the period from the date of transfer order issued to the 2nd
petitioner to the date of his joining duty as duty period and promote him as Deputy
General Manager and regularization of Period 08.06.09 to 25.10.09 as duty to the
1st petitioner and promote the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer and the
compensation to the petitioners as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
14. The 1st respondent arranged for the departmental enquiry against
Thiru.Ananthakrishnan and Thiru.Natarajan in the month of January- 2014. When
the 1st petitioner had a plan to attend enquiry against Thiru.Ananthakrishnan at
Rajasthan Barshingsar Project with the 2nd petitioner,an accident happened at First
Thermal Power station on 20.05.2014 which is registered as FIRNo:59/14 by the
Inspector of Police,Thermal Power Station,Neyveli on the file of District Munisiff
Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,Neyveli and subsequently the 1st petitioner was
threatened on 24.05.2014 and falsely implicated in C.C.No:41/14 before the
Judicial Magistrate Court-II,Panruti which was transferred to the District Munisiff
Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,Neyveli. The 2nd petitioner submitted twenty three
pages of documents by fax to the departmental internal enquiry officer,Rajasthan
Barshingsar Project against Thiru.Ananthakrishnan. The 2nd petitioner submitted
nineteen documents to the departmental external enquiry
officer,A.R.Ramachandran against Thiru.Natarajan which is conducted in
Tamilnadu.
GROUNDS.
15) The 1st petitioner submitted complaints dated: 27.05.2012 to the 2nd
respondents to take necessary action against Thiru.Ananthakrishnan and
Thiru.Natarajan. The 2nd respondent had taken necessary steps to conduct an
enquiry through the 1st respondent department against Thiru.Ananthakrishnan
through departmental internal enquiry officer and an enquiry against
Thiru.Natarajan against through external enquiry officer Thiru.A.R.Ramachandran.
9. The respondents failed to serve the details of the action taken by them based upon
the complaints submitted by the petitioner to them is in violation of Principles of
Natural Justice and against law. Even though the petitioner requested the details
the presenting officer advised to get the details under Right to Information
Act2005. The first petitioner submitted an application under Right to Information
Act 2005 to the Central Public Information officer, Neyveli Lignite Corporation.
As the Central Public Information has not provided the details an appeal has been
submitted to the Appellate Authority, Right to Information Act2005.As the
Appellate authority also has not submitted the details the Second Appeal submitted
before the Central Information Commissioner to get the details and the respondents
are causing undue harassment to the petitioners in different ways.
16) The Hon’ble High Court passed an order in W.P.No:17124/08 on
01.09.08 and substituted on 02.07.09 and 07.08.09. The period between 01.09.08
to 07.08.09 is stay exist period.
17) The petitioner filed M.P.No:1/08 in Writ Review No:103/08 on
06.09.08.The Hon’ble High Court issued notice to the respondents in M.P.No:1/08
on 10.09.08. The proof also filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The respondents
in Writ Review not filed counter in the official capacity. In individual capacity not
filed counter and not appeared either in person or through advocate. The Hon’ble
High Court has not passed any orders in M.P.No:1/08 in Writ Review No:103/08.
In the mean time the fourth respondents passed impugned proceedings on
15.09.08.
18) The 1st petitioner humbly submits that the Postal department receipt
despatched from NLC management on 12.03.09 through the post office in vide
serial No:A687 to the 2nd petitioner, in vide serial No:688,to the District
Collector,Cuddalore and in vide serial No:689,to the Secretary, Highways/Govt of
Tamilnadu Highways Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9.
10. 19) The 1st petitioner humbly submits that the Central Public Information
officer Letter No: PRD/CPIO/0062/2008-6 Dated: 08.07.2008. As per the terms
and conditions of appointment and promotion orders of the employees, they are
liable to be transferred to any branch/Department/subsidiaries/undertaking of the
Corporation situated anywhere in India. There is a need of experienced and
dedicated executives at the Project site for coordinating and executing various
activities for smooth implementation of the Project. Barshingsar Project at
Rajasthan is an upcoming and Prestigious, Mining-Cum-Power Project of NLC and
several senior and experienced executives have been transferred so as to
commence the project of NLC and several senior and experienced executives have
been transferred so as to commence this project as envisaged as per schedule.
Transfer is administrative decision and Prerogative of the Management and
transfer orders are issued deployment of employees who well experienced and
trained, so as to get best results for the Organisation. The 2nd petitioner as per the
direction of the Hon’ble High Court joined his duty on 19.08.09 and submitted a
representation to the 1st respondent to regularise the litigation period as duty and
promote the 2nd petitioner as Deputy General Manager and performed his duty for
the period of two years at Rajasthan Barshingsar Project.
20) The 1st petitioner humbly prayed on 07.10.2012 that this Hon’ble
High Court may please to direct the CMD,NLC,Neyveli which is numbered in the
second petitioner by the Registrar(Judicial) with the influence of the Principle
Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore and the Inspector of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore
to file their report before this Hon’ble High Court based upon the above case
bundles and the representations submitted to them within the stipulated period of
time until disposal of the writ petition on 07.10.12 and thus render justice.
21) The 1st petitioner humbly prayed on 07.10.2012 that this Hon’ble
High Court may please to issue the Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ calling for
the records on the file of respondents in 1)FI.R.No:10/03 filed by the Vigilance and
11. Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore 2) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 01.09.08 3) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
Writ.Review.No:103/08 Dated: 24.09.08 4) The Secretary,Highways and Minor
Ports Department Lr Dated:13.10.08 5) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.A.No:282/09 Dated: 18.03.09 6) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in Writ
Appeal Review.No:37/09 Dated: 30.04.09 7) The 2b Petition in SRNo:41218
Dated:27.05.09 8)The substituted order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 02.07.09 9) The substituted order of the Hon’ble High
Court in W.P.No:17124/08 Dated: 07.08.09 10) To set aside the order of the third
respondent dated:01.12.09 11) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
W.P.No:11001/09 Dated: 13.02.09 12) The order of the Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.O.P.No:22241/11 Dated: 11.11.11 and consequently quash the illegal
proceedings of respondents on public interest to prevent the misuse of Government
funds and to regulate the period from the date of transfer order issued to the 2nd
petitioner to the date of his joining duty as duty period and promote him as Deputy
General Manager and regularization of Period 08.06.09 to 25.10.09 as duty to the
1st petitioner and promote the petitioner as Assistant Divisional Engineer and the
compensation to the petitioners as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. The petitioner also
filed another Writ Petition to regularise the period and Rating of the Petitioner as
“Out Standing”.
22) The petitioner humbly submitted a representation Dated: 11.02.15
to the second respondent to fix the seniority of Engineers based upon their date of
joining at Rajasthan .The second respondent transferred the representation to the
third respondent. The third respondent failed to fix the seniority of the Engineers as
per the date of Joining at Rajasthan.
23) The Petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may please to
direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the Engineers based upon their date of
12. Joining at Rajasthan Barshingsar Project, to permit the second petitioner to attend
DPC 2015 for the post of Deputy General Manager.
24) In the above circumstances the first petitioner humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondents to stay the further
proceedings in Lr.No: CORP/ HR/EB (Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date: 12.04.2015 in
Departmental Promotion committee to fix the seniority of the Engineers based
upon their date of joining at Rajasthan Barshingsar Project, the 2nd petitioner to
attend DPC 2015 until disposal of this Writ Petition and thus render Justice.
25) In the above circumstances the petitioners humbly prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may please to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records on the file of the fifth respondent in his Lr.No:CORP/
HR/EB(Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date:12.04.2015 ,the Chief Manager and other
Engineers list in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the details of employees joined
in Rajasthan Barshingsar Project to quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to fix the seniority of the Chief Manager based upon their date of
joining at Barshingsar Project as directed by the second respondent office
Lr.No:VIG/NLC/CTS/AA/0025/2015 Dated:03.03.15 based upon the
representation of the 1st petitioner dated:11.02.15 and thus render Justice
Sincerely and solemnly as sworn
On 20.04.15 at Chennai Signature of the Petitioners-in-Person/
Power of Attorney and his wife.
13. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesiginated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respon/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
14. MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
M.P.No:1/15
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E.,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,M.I.E.,
The Chief Manager, CPFNo:27329,
TPS-I,NLC,Neyveli-607803,Cuddalore Dt. -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redesignated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager(P&A Redesignated as HR),LC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents.
DIRECTION PETITION
In the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the 2nd Petitioner
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondents to fix
the seniority of the Engineers based upon their date of Joining at Rajasthan
Barshingsar Project, to permit the 2nd petitioner to attend DPC 2015 for the post of
Deputy General Manager and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on 22.02.15 Petitioners-Party-in-Person
15. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesignated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respon/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
16. MEMORANDUM OF WRIT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
M.P.No:1/15
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E.,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,M.I.E.,
The Chief Manager, CPFNo:27329,
TPS-I,Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli-607803,Cuddalore District. -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redesignated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR),LC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager (P&A Redeginated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents
STAY PETITION
In the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the 2nd Petitioner
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may please to direct the respondents to stay
5th respondent Lr.No:CORP/ HR/EB(Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date:12.04.2015 the
Departmental Promotion committee to fix the seniority of the Engineers based
upon their date of joining at Rajasthan Barshingsar Project until disposal of this
Writ Petition and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on 22.02.15 Petitioners-Party-in-Person
17. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesiginated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respon/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
18. MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E.,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore Dt.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,M.I.E.,
The Chief Manager, CPFNo:27329,
TPS-I,Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli-607803,Cuddalore District -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redeginated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager(P&A Redesignated as HR),LC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents.
WRIT PETITION
The First Petitioner:
The first petitioner is Mrs.P.Chandira, W/o R.Thangavel, E-77, Anna
Road,Block-27, Neyveli-3 and the address for service of all the notices are as
stated above and appearing as Party-in-Person.
The Second Petitioner:
The second petitioner is R.Thangavel,the Chief Manager,First Thermal
Power Station,Neyveli Lignite Corporation,Neyveli-607803 and the address for
19. service of all the notices are as stated above and appointed his wife,the first
petitioner as power agent.
The First Respondent:
The First Respondent is the Chairman cum Managing Director, Neyveli
Lignite Corporation,Neyveli and the address for service of all the notices are the
Chief Law officer,NLC,Neyveli.
The Second Respondent:
The second Respondent is the Chief Vigilance officer,Neyveli Lignite
Corporation,Neyveli and the address for service of all the notices are the Chief
Law officer,NLC,Neyveli.
The third Respondent:
The third respondent is the Director (Personnel Redeginated as HR),
NLC, Neyveli and the address for service of all the notices are the Chief Law
officer,NLC,Neyveli.
The fourth Respondent:
The fourth respondent is the The CGM(P&A Redeginated as HR)
NLC, Neyveli and the address for service of all the notices are the Chief Law
officer,NLC,Neyveli.
The fifth Respondent:
The DGM (P&A Redeginated as HR)NLC, Neyveli and the address for
service of all the notices are the Chief Law officer,NLC,Neyveli.
20. In the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may please to issue a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records on the file of the fifth respondent in his
Lr.No:CORP/ HR/EB(Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date:12.04.2015 ,the Chief Manager
list in the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the details of employees joined in
Rajasthan Barshingsar Project to quash the same and consequently direct the
respondents to fix the seniority of the Chief Manager based upon their date of
joining at Barshingsar Project as directed by the second respondent office
Lr.No:VIG/NLC/CTS/AA/0025/2015 Dated:03.03.15 based upon the
representation of the 1st petitioner dated:11.02.15 and thus render Justice.
Dated at Chennai on 22.02.15 Petitioners-Party-in-Person
21. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesiginated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respondents/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
22. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Under Art226 of Indian Constitutional Law)
M.P.No:1/15
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E(M.B.A)(B.G.L)
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,
The Chief Manager,TPS-I,
NLC,Neyveli- 3,Cuddalore District -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redeginated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager(P&A Redesignated as HR),LC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents.
2b Petition filed by the Petitioner.
In the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the
petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon’ble High Court may please to permit the
Petitioners to join together and file a single Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Dated at Chennai on 20.04.2015 Petitioner-in-Person
23. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesiginated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respon/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
24. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
CHENNAI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Under Art226 of Indian Constitutional Law)
M.P.No:1/15
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E(M.B.A)(B.G.L)
Wife and Power of Attorney to R.Thangavel,2nd Petitioner,
E-77, Anna Road,Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,
The Chief Manager,TPS-I,
NLC,Neyveli- 3,Cuddalore District. -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel Redesignated as HR),NLC,Neyveli.
4) The Chief General Manager(P&A Redesignated as HR),LC,Neyveli.
5) The Deputy General Manager (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli. ----------Respondents/Respondents.
AFFIDAVIT FILED BYTHE 1st
PETITIONERS ON HER BEHALF AND ON BEHALF
OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
1. I, P. Chandira, wife of R. Thangavel, Hindu, aged 47 years, residing at E-
77, Anna Road, Block – 27, Neyveli, now temporarily come down to Chennai, do
hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows.
25. 2. I am the 1st Petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of this
case. I am filing this affidavit on my behalf and on behalf of the 2nd Petitioner, who
is my husband. I am authorised by the 2nd petitioner to file this affidavit on his
behalf. The Petitioners submit that the above Writ Petition is being filed In the
reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners humbly prayed that
this Hon’ble Court may please to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling
for the records on the file of the fifth respondent in his Lr.No:CORP/
HR/EB(Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date:12.04.2015 ,the Chief Manager list in the
Neyveli Lignite Corporation, the details of employees joined in Rajasthan
Barshingsar Project to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to
fix the seniority of the Chief Manager based upon their date of joining at
Barshingsar Project as directed by the second respondent office
Lr.No:VIG/NLC/CTS/AA/0025/2015 Dated:03.03.15 based upon the
representation of the 1st petitioner dated:11.02.15 and thus render Justice. The 1st
Petitioner is witness to Tamilnadu State Vigilance in FIRNo:10/03 filed by the
Inspector of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore and Neyveli Lignite Corporation Vigilance
Department against Thiru.Ananthakrishnan and Thiru.Natarajan and the cases are
proved.The 2nd petitioner is victimised due to the accused in the both the cases.The
Petitioners crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to read the affidavit filed in support
of the above writ petition as part and parcel of this affidavit.
3. The Petitioners submit that the grievances of the Petitioners are common and
the compensation for the both the petitioners. Hence, the Petitioners pray that they
may be permitted to join together and file a single Writ Petition.
4. In these circumstances, the Petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to permit the Petitioners to join together and file a single Writ Petition and
thus render justice.
Sincerely and solemnly sworn The 1st Petitioner-in-Person
At Chennai on 20th day of April-15 2nd Petitioner through his wife, 1st petitioner.
26. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
IN
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,W/o R.Thangavel,
E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3
2) R.Thangavel,
The CM, TPS-I,NLC,
Neyveli-607803 ---Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli.
2) The Chief Vigilance officer,
NLC,Neyveli.
3) The Director (Personnel
Redesiginated as HR),
NLC,Neyveli.
4) The CGM(P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli.
5) The DGM (P&A Redesignated as HR)
NLC,Neyveli---Respon/Respondents
.
P.CHANDIRA
PARTY-IN-PERSON
27. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHENNAI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Under Art226 of Indian Constitutional Law)
In
W.P.No: /15
1) P.Chandira,M.E.,(M.B.A)(B.G.L),
W/o R.Thangavel, E-77, Anna Road,
Block-27, Neyveli-3,Cuddalore District.
2) R.Thangavel,M.E.,M.I.E.,
The Chief Manager,CPFNo:27329,
First Thermal Power Station,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli-607803,Cuddalore District. -------------Petitioner/Petitioner
Verses
1) The Chairman cum Managing Director,
NLC,Neyveli. &Four others -------Respondents/Respondents.
TYPED SET
S.No Date Description of documents P.No
1 08.07.08 NLC CPIO Lr No: PRD/CPIO/0062/2008-6 1
2 12.03.09 The postaldepartment communication 2
3 27.05.09 2b petitioner filed by the first petitioner 3
4 01.11.11 The Power of Attorney. 4
5 11.02.15 The representation submitted to the first
respondent to fix the seniority by speed post.
5
6 03.03.15 Lr.No:VIG/NLC/CTS/AA/0025/2015
Dated:03.03.15
6=7
7 15.04.15 The fifth respondent in his Lr.No:CORP/
HR/EB(Exe)/517/CM/ 2014-1 Date:12.04.2015
8-15
Dated at Chennai on 20th April 2015 Petitioner-in-Person
28. REGISTERED POST WITH ACK DUE
NEYVELILIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED
(‘Mini Ratna’-A Govt of India Enterprise)
P.O.NEYVELI-607801, CUDDALORE DISTRICT, TAMILNADU
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: P.R.DEPARTMENT
LetterNo.PRD/CPIO/0062/2008-6 Dated:08.07.2008
To
Smt.P.Chandira,201,Jawaharlal NehruStreet,Vridhachaam,CuddaloreDistrict.
Madam,
Sub:Informationon EmployeesPosted/JoinedandProcedure forSelectionof employeesfor
BarshingsarProjectunderthe Rightto InformationAct,2005-Reg.
Ref:1.Applicationdated:12.06.2008 receivedon16.06.2008 from Smt.P.Chandira,201,Jawaharlal
NehruStreet,Vridhachalam,Cuddalore District.
2. This office LetterNo.PRD/CPIO/0062/2008-1 dated:13.06.2008.
3. Paymentof ApplicationfeeforRs.10/bybanker’scheque receivedon21.06.08.
4. This office LetterNo.PRD/CPIO/0062/2008-4 dated:04.07.2008
5. Your letterdated:07.07.2008 alongwitha DD for Rs 14/-
-----------------------
Withreference toyourapplicationcitedabove andsubsequentpaymentof fee, the information
on employeesposted/joined and procedure for Selection of employees for Barshingsar Project under
the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Q.1&2.The name and details of the employees posted to Barshingsar Project in NLC furnished in
Annexure-A.
Q.3 .As per the terms and conditions of appointment and promotion orders of Employees, they are
liable to be transferred to any Branch/Department/Subsidiaries/Undertaking of the Corporation
anywhere in India. There is a need of experienced and dedicated executives at the Project site for
coordinating and executing various activities for smooth implementation of the project, Barshingsar
Project at Rajasthan is an upcoming and Prestigious, Mining-Cum-Power Project of NLC and several
seniorandexperiencedexecutiveshave beentransferred is administrative decision and prerogative of
the managementandtransferordersare issuedfordeploymentof employeeswhoare well experienced
and trainedso as to get best results for the Organisation. If you are aggrieved against the above reply,
you may prefer an appeal within 30 days of receipt of the same, to the Appellate Authority whose
address is given below:
The Chief General Manager/TA, Appellate officer under RTI Act,
Township Administrative office,NLC Limited,Neyveli-607801.
CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
Enclosure:As above(7 Pages)