Madras High Court
M.L.Ravi .. Review vs Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 18 April, 2023
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Review Application No.22 of 2023
M.L.Ravi .. Review Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary / Chairman and
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
NPKRR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. .. Respondents
Prayer : Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section
114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order passed by this Court
in W.P.No.32564 of 2022, dated 21.12.2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram,
Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar,
State Government Pleader for R1
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
The review applicant had filed W.P.No.32564 of 2022 challenging
G.O.Ms.No.52, dated 06.10.2022, in and by which, the Government of
Tamil Nadu had conveyed its approval directing that a notification under
Section 7 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (Central Act 18 of 2016)
(hereinafter referred to as 'Aadhaar Act') for usage of Aadhaar
Authentication services in the second respondent Corporation namely,
TANGEDCO, to be published in extraordinary issue of the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette, dated 06.10.2022. The very many grounds raised by
the review applicant were dealt with and by the judgment, dated 21.12.2022,
the Writ Petition was dismissed upholding the Government Order.
Contending that there is error apparent on the face of the record, the present
Review Application is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
2. It is the contention of Mr.T.Sivagnanasambandan, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the review applicant that once Section 57 of the
Aadhaar Act, which enabled the corporate bodies and other persons to
utilise the Aadhaar Authentication notwithstanding anything contained in
the Aadhaar Act, is omitted, TANGEDCO, being a Company registered
under the Companies Act, 2013, cannot use the Aadhaar Authentication. He
would submit that the consequent circular which was issued for the usage of
Aadhaar for the individual benefit also goes in view of Section 57 of the
Aadhaar Act being omitted pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired) and Anr.
(AADHAAR) Vs. Union of India and Anr.1 .
3. We have considered the said submissions on behalf of the review
applicant and perused the material records of the case. It is true that apart
from the State and its agencies, Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, originally
enabled the other entities and corporates to use Aadhaar Authentication for
the purposes dehors the ones which are prescribed under the Aadhaar Act.
The said section is omitted and all the enabling circulars issued thereunder
1 (2019) 1 SCC 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
stood nullified after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired)'s case (cited supra). But, that does not in any
manner help the petitioner in the instant case. This is not a case of use of
Aadhaar Authentication by a private body. The State is providing subsidies
for the first 100 units of the electricity and other kinds of subsidies are also
provided for targeted consumers. The instant circular is in order in view of
the Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act read with Regulation 12 of the Aadhaar
(Enrollment and Update) Regulations, 2006 and therefore, the contention of
learned Counsel for the review applicant is absolutely without any merits.
Secondly, raising a new contention which the petitioner omitted to raise at
the time of arguing the Writ Petition cannot be a ground to term that there is
error apparent on the face of the record.
4. As such, on the grounds of the maintainability as well as on the
merits of the submissions made in the Review Application, the Review
Application is bound to fail and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Principal Secretary / Chairman and
Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation Limited,
NPKRR Maaligai,
144, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.No.22 of 2023
T.RAJA, ACJ.,
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
Review Application No.22 of 2023
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
