Madras High Court
S.Muthupillai vs The Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu on 29 November, 2023
Author: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala
Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.2, 2 & 2 of 2006
S.Muthupillai ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9111 of 2006
R.Narayanasamy ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9112 of 2006
K.P.Pasumpon ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9113 of 2006
Vs.
1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The State Human Rights Commission,
Rep. by Acting Chair Person,
Justice Pratap Singh Maligai,
Royapettah High Road,
Chennai -14.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
4.The Secretary,
Thoothukudi District Committee,
Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No.16, Masilamanipuram 3rd Street,
Thoothukudi.
5.R.Ganesan ... Respondents in all Writ Petitions
COMMON PRAYER : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
records relating to the case in S.H.R.C case No.4878 of 2004 on the
file of the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu, the second
respondent and quash the order, dated 27.03.2006 made therein.
In all Writ Petitions
For Petitioners : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu
For Respondents : Mr.T.Amjad Khan – for R1& R2
Government Advocate
Mr.T.Senthil Kumar – for R3
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.L.Shaji Chelliah – for R4 & R5
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2 of 8
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]
Heard Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr.T.Amjad Khan, learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondents 1 & 2, Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the third respondent and
Mr.L.Shaji Chelliah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4
and 5.
2. The petitioners in W.P.(MD)Nos.9111 and 9113 of 2006
have retired from service. The petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.9112 of 2006
is still in service.
3. The petitioners in all these petitions assailed the order
passed by the State Human Rights Commission, dated 27th March,
2006. Under the said order, the Commission held that these
petitioners are liable for Human Rights Violation and each of them
shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to
Witness No.1 - Ganesan.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
4. It is contended that Witness No.1 - Ganesan went to the
Police Station along with his uncle. In the Police Station, the
petitioners beat and tortured Ganesan and was allowed to go home on
further payment of Rs.10,500/- (Rupees Ten Thousand and Five
Hundred only) to settle the case with them. Ganesan was severely
beaten. He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient at 03.45 a.m.
5. The petitioners had denied the allegations.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
none of the witnesses were examined by the Commission, except
complainant i.e., the Communist Party (Respondent No.4). The enquiry
report is also not given to the petitioners. Principles of natural justice
are violated. The incidents are not proved.
7. The proceedings before the Commission is not criminal
in nature. The injuries on the person were substantiated by the family
members, viz., Witness Nos.2, 3 and 4. Witness No.5 is Dr.Justine
who testified about Ganesan being admitted at 03.45 a.m., and he had
given treatment. The details were given by Dr.Justine. The injuries on
Ganesan were proved by Dr.Justine. Ganesan was summoned to the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
Soorankudi Police Station, it is proved as he had visited the Police
Station.
8. This Court in its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal over the judgment of
the Commission. It would consider whether the Commission had
followed the proper procedure and that the order of the Commission is
not perverse or arbitrary. The evidence has been discussed and by
preponderance, the Commission has arrived at a conclusion.
9. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader
that Departmental enquiry was initiated against these petitioners. The
charges against Muthupillai were dropped and charges were proved
against Narayanasamy and Pasumpon and punishment was also
imposed on them of reducing the pay by two stages for a period of two
years with cumulative effect.
10. The departmental enquiry was conducted with regard to
the same incident. There also, two of the petitioners were found guilty
in the departmental enquiry.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
11. In light of that, as the Commission has arrived at a
probable conclusion, no further interference is called for.
12. The Writ Petitions as such are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.V.G., C.J.] [K.K.R.K, J.]
29.11.2023
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
RM
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
To
1.The Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The State Human Rights Commission,
Rep. by Acting Chair Person,
Justice Pratap Singh Maligai,
Royapettah High Road,
Chennai -14.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
RM
W.P(MD)Nos.9111 to 9113 of 2006
29.11.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
