Blog Details

Co-Author- Aditi Das

1. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary Vs. R.Manikandan and others [2011 (5) CTC 1]

The address as to “Whether the Tamil Nadu Open Benefit Commission may confirm the validity of the Community Certificates for choice or their control to test the rightness of the information given within the certificates is restricted as it were to see as to whether the certificates are genuine or not?” came up for thought sometime recently the Total Seat of this Court. The court held:

• Only the District Level Vigilance Committee formed by the State Government in terms of the authenticity of the Scheduled Caste certificates will scrutinize the authenticity of the Scheduled Caste certificates G.O. (2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007. 
• The scrutiny of the genuineness of the Scheduled Tribe certificates can be made only by the State Level Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government in terms of G.O. (2D) No. 108, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 12.09.2007. 
• The Tamil Nadu, Public Service Commission, can not carry out such scrutiny of the certificates, whether Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
• To process the application and of allowing the applicant to take part in the written examination and subsequent oral examination, the Service Commission will have the right to verify that the candidate has produced a Caste Verification Certificate obtained from the respective Committees and that the candidate can not be selected if such a certificate has been produced;
• If a candidate does not create such a Caste Verification Certificate and if he is chosen, his name can not be withheld, and 7 may be forwarded for an appointment with a strong indication that the option is subject to Group Certificate verification.

2. Union of India, rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Social Welfare, New Delhi and Others [(2011) 7 MLJ 1]

In this Court considered the arrangements of "Child Labour and Regulations Act" and the requirements for legitimate execution of the National Child Labour Conspire and the reserves given to be utilized for the welfare of the children. This Court encouraged the District Legal Services Authorities to monitor the usage of the plans and yield periodical reports to the State Legal Services Specialist. This judgment, hence, shows the dynamic part that the Court plays in building a solid country and the care that we have to show within the prosperity of the children who are the long run of this nation.

3. K.Shyam Sunder vs The State of Tamil Nadu and others [2011 WLR 577]

The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted an enactment known as the Tamil Nadu Uniform School Education System Act, 2010 (Samacheer Kalvi Thittam) to bring about a Uniform Level of Education. Holding that the State had exceeded its authority to postpone the Revision Act, within the option detailed in this case, a penalty that had as of now come into restriction. Court alluded to the doctrine of colourable enactment and watched that on the off chance that an assembly has no control to legislate on an item either since it isn't included within the list relegated to it as per Schedule VII of the Structure or on account of the confinements forced under Part III of the Structure managing with the Basic Rights, however, when the legislature sanctions a statute in the presumption of such control, it is colourable legislation. It has referenced as it were to the authoritative ineptitude. On the off chance that the legislature enacts law in the presumption of the work out of its authoritative control, although really it does not have such power, the legislation stands void.

4. K.Rajamani and others Vs. Alamunagar Residents Welfare Association [(2011) 3 MLJ 69]

In the decision reported in this case, on the issue of whether the planning authority / State Government has the power to modify the conditions placed on the layout by allocating open space to be used for a public purpose. It was held by this Court that “the area reserved for a public purpose cannot be altered to be put to use for any other purpose”.

Once modern town advancement consent is agreed beneath Area 47 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and in that authorization, in the event that a specified area is reserved for an open reason, indeed the arranging specialist should not have the power to exclude that arrive for being put to utilize for any other reason. In that context, the State Government too cannot have any locale to modify the conditions forced within the format, whereby certain lands are preserved as open space to be utilized for open purposes. This Court held that the arrive once earmarked for open reason cannot be reserved for any other reason and particularly, to de-reserve or put to utilize as lodging plots. The Government's power to de-reserve the arrive isn't accessible after the format arranges is endorsed, but as per the arrangements of Area 90.

5. K. Santhanam Vs. S. Kavitha [(2011) 3 MLJ 34]

As regards the question whether, in the decision reported in this case, the signing of the complaint by an appointed agent could call for the rejection of the complaint in the absence of a power of attorney. 

This Court considered the state 'any individual appropriately authorised' by a party to sign the plaint, as appearing under Arrange 6 Run the show 14 C.P.C. and showing up as control of lawyer beneath Arrange 3 Rule 2 C.P.C. and 'some other person' enabled to confirm the pleadings as appearing in Arrange 15 Run the show 1 C.P.C. and held “While Arrange 3 C.P.C. empowers ‘the holder of a control of attorney’ to seem, apply and act on the sake of a party to a suit, as his ‘recognised agent’, Arrange 6, Run the show 14 C.P.C., empowers ‘any individual duly 30 authorized by a party to sign the pleading’ on the off chance that the party arguing is, because of absence or for other great cause, incapable of signing the arguing. Whereas Arrange 3, Rule 2, employs the expressions “recognised agent” and “persons holding powers of attorney”, Arrange 6, Run the show 14, employments the state "any individual appropriately authorized by him”. Rule 15(1) of Arrange 6 goes one step encourages and enables “some other person” to verify the pleadings, on the off chance that it is demonstrated to the fulfilment of the Court that he is acquainted with the facts of the case. The Court held that an error of procedure is merely an irregularity and that the plaintiff is entitled to correct the defect so that the plaintiff is not dismissed based on that error.