SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 34254

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


DATED : 16.03.2026


CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA


W.P(MD)No.10562 of 2016

and

W.M.P(MD)No.8215 of 2016


Jamal ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State Human Rights Commission, Represented by its Member Secretary, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-28.

2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District.

3.Uchinimhali Chettiar ... Respondents


For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha

For Respondents : Mr.Pozhilem for Mr.C.Arul Vadevel Sekar for R.1

Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl Side)for R.2

Mr.R.Boomirajan for R.3


[G.R.S., J.] [R.P, J.]


16.03.2026


NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No MGA To

1.The Member Secretary, State Human Rights Commission, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-28.

2.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District.


G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND

R.POORNIMA , J .


MGA W.A(MD)No.10562 of 2016


16.03.2026

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent made in SHRC Case No.1573 of 2008 dated 30.04.2015, and the consequential order of second respondent made in D.O.No.187 of 2016 - C.No.G5/549/2016 dated 01.02.2016 and quash the same.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The third respondent herein lodged complaint before the State Human Rights Commission, Tamil Nadu against the writ petitioner herein and two others. The complaint was disposed of by the Commission vide order dated 30.04.2015. A sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) was ordered to be paid to the complainant by the State. The said amount was recovered from the writ petitioner's salary. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

3.During the pendency of the writ petition, the amount has already paid to the third respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to pursue the matter.

4.This Writ Petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top