Mahalakshmi, W/O.Thekkamalai v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 21.09.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 10.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.15044 of 2017 and WMP.(MD).No.11880 of 2017 Mahalakshmi W/o Thekkamalai ..

Petitioner -vs1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Principal Secretary Department of Higher Education Fort St.George Chennai

2. The Vice Chancellor Anna University Guindy Chennai

3. The District Collector Office of the District Collector Dindigul District

4. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District

5. The Principal Anna University College of Engineering Dindigul District 624 622

6. Chitiraiselvi The Principal Anna University College of Engineering Dindigul District 624 622 ..

Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct enquiry and take action against respondent No.6 in accordance with law, consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the petitioner and her husband's service in Anna University College of Engineering, Dindigul with all service benefits in accordance with law.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents ::

Mr.D.Muruganantham Additional Government Pleader for R1, 3 & 4 Mr.M.Rajarajan for R2 Mr.A.Kannan for R5 & 6

ORDER

The writ petitioner, Mrs.Mahalakshmi seeks issuance of a mandamus, directing the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, the first respondent herein and the Vice Chancellor of Anna University, Guindy, Chennai, the second respondent herein to conduct an enquiry and take action against Tmt.Chithiraiselvi, serving as Principal of Anna University College of Engineering, Dindigul, the sixth respondent herein with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner and her husband in Anna University College of Engineering, Dindigul with all service benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and her husband were appointed as Scavengers in the Anna University College of Engineering at Dindigul, the fifth respondent herein from the month of April, 2013 on a monthly salary of Rs.4,500/-, whereas from July, 2016, they were paid with only Rs.251/- as daily wages through the Bank of Baroda account. Except one Scavenger, all the 14 Scavengers working in the fifth respondent college belong to Hindu Scheduled Caste Arunthathiyar community. While so, Tmt.Chithiraiselvi, the sixth respondent joined as Principal of the college two years prior to the appointment of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was compelled to come to her house to do domestic works.

Moreover, the sixth respondent compelled the petitioner to clean the toilets in her house and wash the dresses and even the inner dresses of her husband and children. When the petitioner and her husband are doing cleaning work in the college, the sixth respondent did not give any safety equipments to the Scavengers and they were compelled to clean the drainages and toilets without following the mandatory requirements under the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The sixth respondent also compelled the petitioner to stay in her house during night time. Since the petitioner refused to stay in her house, she was scolded by the sixth respondent using her caste name and finally directed the petitioner and her husband not to come for work. Thereafter, on 13.7.

2017, the petitioner narrated the said facts and submitted a representation before the District Collector, Dindigul, marking a copy to the Vice Chancellor of Anna University, Chennai, the second respondent herein and other officials. Thereafter, on receipt of the apology letter from the other co-scavengers, the sixth respondent permitted them, except the petitioner and her husband, to do the work in the college.

above facts, sent a representation on 19.7.2017 to the District Collector, Dindigul as well as to the State Human Rights Commission, and to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dindigul Range and other higher officials to take action in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that instead of taking action on the basis of the petitioner's complaint, even the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, the fourth respondent herein started harassing the petitioner and her husband and threatened them to withdraw the complaint. Since the petitioner and her husband are innocents and victims in the hands of the sixth respondent, the respondents 1 to 4 failed to do justice to them. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to approach this Court for the relief of a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct enquiry against the sixth respondent with a consequential prayer to the respondents 1 & 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner and her husband in the fifth respondent college.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the sixth respondent stating that both the petitioner and the sixth respondent Tmt.Chithiraiselvi belong to the same community, therefore, the frivolous allegation made by the petitioner against her that she scolded the petitioner using her caste name is a blatant falsehood. The learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that when the sixth respondent was also belonging to the same Scheduled Caste community, the deliberate falsehood made by the petitioner that she was abused by the sixth respondent using her caste name is highly unimaginary and a motivated falsehood.

Adding further, he submitted that when the petitioner and her husband are working only as daily wage Scavengers in the fifth respondent college along with the other Scavengers, the Supervisor used to shift the Scavengers working inside the hostel and Dean's office on rotation basis, so that the cleaning work in the two places would be uniformly maintained, for the reason that sometimes, if some workers are allowed to work regularly in a particular area, they will not properly clean the area. Therefore, shifting of Scavengers from one place to another place became necessary and it was a routine affair. While so, the petitioner was asked to take care of the Dean's office. As she refused to accept the allotted duty, the Supervisor Mr.R.Suresh came to the sixth respondent and informed her that the petitioner was refusing to do any work.

Since she declined to attend the duty despite the instructions given by the Supervisor, the sixth respondent enquired her. On enquiry, the sixth respondent came to know that the petitioner was not feeling well, therefore, she was not able to accept the duty allotted to her in the Dean's office. In view thereof, the sixth respondent asked her to take leave and take care of her health. Immediately on 13.7.2017, the petitioner and her husband approached all the other Scavengers and told them that the sixth respondent had terminated their jobs, for which they wanted to go to the District Collector to make a complaint.

they did not accompany them to lodge the complaint against the sixth respondent, they would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on their heads.

5. In view of the above intimidation caused by the petitioner, some of the co-scavengers accompanied them to the District Collector's office, Dindigul, where they found many persons like naxalbaris waiting there including Mrs.Divya Bharathi and Mr.Selvam alias Perumal of the Tamil Puligal. Since these people were introduced to the other co-scavangers that they belonged to Naxabaris Tamil Puligal group, they informed the other scavengers assembled at the collectorate that if a complaint is given against the sixth respondent, then only their services would be regularized, for which they sought the cooperation of others. Thereafter, they also gave statements to the Press and the Media.

After knowing from the Media, the sixth respondent came to understand that they had falsely stated about her that she and her husband ill-treated them including sexual harassment. However, the District Collector, Dindigul also enquired all of them including the sixth respondent on the same day. After a few days, one Perumal alias Selvam of Tamil Puligal pasted wall posters stating that the Scavengers are being ill-treated by the sixth respondent and her husband and moreover one Mrs.Divya Bharathi, claiming to be the director of a film titled "Kakkos", and her team posted objectionable comments on the Facebook in the name of the sixth respondent and her caste name 'Pallan'.

However, surprisingly, on the very next day, all the Scavengers came in front of the college gate and the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station also came there and enquired about the agitation. After meeting the other Scavangers, realizing their mistake, except the petitioner and her husband, all of them gave their apology letter dated 15.7.2017 with a request to permit them to join duty. Accordingly, they were permitted to join duty on 17.7.2017. A perusal of the apology letter dated 15.7.2017 given by the other Scavangers would show that the complaint made by the petitioner is a blatant lie and falsehood.

6. Even prior to this incident, the petitioner's husband Mr.R.Thekkamalai was suspended for the acts of misbehavior including for consuming liquor inside the campus and sometimes even in the Dean's office. In view of the aforementioned misbehavior, he was suspended from service for the period from 21.10.2016 to 13.11.2016. During that time also, the petitioner's husband Mr.R.Thekkamalai, joining hands with the petitioner, spoke lot of untruthful statements, which were also uploaded in the Youtube and Facebook and that they acted at the instance of Mrs.Divyabharathi, Perumal alias Selvam and their team. Besides, when some of the Scavengers, except the petitioner, asked the said Perumal alias Selvam of Tamil Puligal about the objectionable wallposters and facebook posters, he made a criminal intimidation by abusing them with filthy language. In view of the same, they preferred a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station and the said complaint was also registered in Crime No.111 of 2017 for an offence under

Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. When these are all the background of the story, that shows that the petitioner and her husband, while serving as daily wagers, are resorting to blackmailing tactics for the purpose of regularization of their service. Adding fuel to fire, on and from 13.7.2017, the petitioner and her husband remained absent from duty and their whereabouts were also unknown to anyone. In the meanwhile, Mrs.Divyabharathi and Perumal alias Selvam threatened the other Scavengers to withdraw the complaint lodged against them, which is pending on the file of the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station.

When the petitioner has not even come forward to take part in the enquiry to prove her complaint as a genuine one, she cannot come to this Court with the present writ petition seeking the aforementioned prayer. Since the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a prayer to regularize her services along with her husband, who are not even appointed on regular basis, as they are serving only as daily wagers, that clearly shows that only for the purpose of getting the benefit of regularization of their service, blackmail tactics have been made by them against the sixth respondent.

7. Adding further, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that when the petitioner has made a complaint making a baseless allegation that the sixth respondent and her husband are compelling the petitioner and her husband to do domestic work in her house, the other co-scavengers have given their letter of apology dated 15.7.2017 disproving the allegation of the petitioner that even they were also blackmailed by the petitioner and her husband along with Tamil Puligal group. Secondly, at no point of time the petitioner and her husband appeared before the enquiry conducted by the police officials serving in the Reddiyarchatram Police Station. That shows their deliberate absence from enquiry and the apology letter by the other co-scavengers clearly proves that they are complaint-mongers and they are not prepared to work, but they want to blackmail the respondents for getting their regularization only, he pleaded.

8. The Inspector of Police, Oddanchatram Circle has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. Mr.A.Balamurugan, who is serving as Circle Inspector of the jurisdictional police station, has stated in his counter affidavit that on a complaint dated 21.7.2017 received from the fifth respondent college stating that the Scavengers, namely, Mr.R.Thekkamalai and his wife Mrs.T.Mahalakshmi, who were working on daily wage basis in their college, remained absent from duty from 13.7.2017 and they had also restrained and threatened the other co-scavengers from doing their work in the college and in addition, they have also uploaded false information with video in the social media about the sixth respondent without any evidence, the Sub Inspector of Police of Reddiyarchatram Police Station registered a case in C.S.R.No.123 of 2017 on 22.7.2017. When the matter stands as above, again the sixth respondent, who is the Principal of the fifth respondent college, gave another complaint on 24.7.2017 stating that Mrs.Divyabharathi along with Polymer TV media

persons entered into the office without any permission and started causing problems with the staff of the college. Immediately on receipt of the said complaint dated 24.7.2017, the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station registered the same in C.S.R.No.125 of 2017 on 24.7.2017. Prior to the above incident, the petitioner along with 13 other Scavengers made a representation to the District Collector on 13.7.2017 raising certain allegations against Mrs.Chithiraiselvi, who is the Principal of the fifth respondent college and her husband. The said complaint was forwarded to the Reddiyarchatram Police Station and the same was also registered in C.S.R.No.126 of 2017 on 24.7.2017.

In view of the repeated complaints, the police officials from Reddiyarchatram Police Station went to the petitioner's house situated at Adidravidar colony, but nobody was available in the house. Therefore, to conduct an enquiry, summons were issued to the petitioner asking her to appear for the enquiry on 24.7.2017. However, finding no one in the house, summons were also served by way of affixure in the wall of the petitioner's house in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. In spite of the affixure of the said summons, the petitioner did not come forward to participate in the enquiry on 24.7.2017. Hence, once again, summon was issued to the petitioner through the Sub Inspector of Police asking her to appear for the enquiry.

Again finding that there was none in her house, the said notice was also affixed on the wall of the petitioner's house on 24.7.2017 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. In spite of repeated summons issued and affixed on the wall of the petitioner's house, it is not known how the petitioner and her husband did not come forward to participate in the enquiry. Their deliberate and repeated absence would go to show that they have given only a false complaint and have nothing to prove in the enquiry and they did not want the enquiry also.

9. In the meanwhile, the sixth respondent made one another complaint on 28.7.2017 stating that the petitioner's husband and some other office bearers of Tamil Tigers Organisation have pasted wallpapers spreading false information to damage her image. The said complaint was also registered in C.S.R.No.128 of 2017 on the file of the Reddiyarchatram Police Station and the Sub Inspector of Police also enquired the co-workers of the petitioner and got their statements recorded. All the statements made by 13 co-workers of the petitioner clearly reveal that due to some blackmail tactics made by the petitioner and her husband, the 12 co-workers have joined together in the complaint of the petitioner dated 13.7.

2017 before the District Collector and they have also added in their statement that when they had been doing the cleaning work in the hostel, rotation of work was given among the workers and on the relevant date, the petitioner and her husband made a request to the sixth respondent stating that on account of their illness, instead of office work, they may be given alternative work. Therefore, the sixth respondent had directed the petitioner and her husband to go for treatment, if they were not feeling well and to come back for duty after recovery.

they are working only on daily rated basis. In this case, when an enquiry was made with 13 other co-workers of the petitioner, all the other co-scavengers repeatedly informed that the allegations made by the petitioner and her husband are a blatant falsehood and that the other co-workers were also unnecessarily harassed by the petitioner and her husband to accompany them to the collector's office for the purpose of getting their services regularized. When the complaint was enquired, it was found that the allegations of the petitioner and her husband are totally a blatant falsehood. Even the complaint given by them against the sixth respondent is also full of falsity and a misconception. Further it was found out in the enquiry that when the request of the petitioner and her husband for their regularization was not considered, they have raised such allegations against the sixth respondent so as to damage her image.

10. In the meantime, on account of the wall posters pasted in the social media spreading some unnecessary information against the sixth respondent and her husband, First Information Report was also registered under Section 4A(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 on 28.7.2017 arraying Perumal alias Selvam as an accused. When the case was under investigation, one Karthigaidevi, who is also one among the sweepers, made a complaint before the Reddiyarchatram Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.111 of 2017 for an offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC against the said Perumal alias Selvam and after registration of First Information Report in Crime No.111 of 2017, the said Perumal alias Selvam was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.8.2017.

Later on, he was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchatram and the case is also under investigation. As a matter of fact, when the enquiry was conducted, the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station also submitted a report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchathiram, who in turn examined the other co-workers and submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul, the fourth respondent herein. Now all these reports, namely, the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Staton and the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram are repeatedly indicating that a false case was attempted to be made by the petitioner and her husband.

Moreover, when the sixth respondent and the petitioner are belonging to the same Scheduled Caste community, there is no chance of scolding her in the name of her community. That itself shows that the complaint made by the petitioner against the sixth respondent is an utter falsehood to state that they were harassed by the sixth respondent. When the petitioner had made a complaint and when the enquiry was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police of Reddiyarchatram Police Station with all the other persons who participated in the enquiry, the petitioner and her husband, in spite of repeated notices/summons issued to them, did not turn up.

other co-workers to give a wrong statement against the sixth respondent. When the petitioner and her husband are only daily rated scavengers employed by the fifth respondent college, the prayer made by the petitioner in the present writ petition to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to conduct enquiry and take action against the sixth respondent with a consequential direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to regularize the services of the petitioner and her husband in the fifth respondent college with all benefits, clearly shows that only for regularization of their service, the petitioner has made a false complaint. Besides, when the petitioner has not even enclosed a copy of the appointment order as Scavenger in the fifth respondent college, her prayer for regularization cannot be considered. Moreover, when the petitioner Mrs.

Mahalakshmi and the sixth respondent Tmt.Chithiraiselvi, who is the Principal of the Anna University College of Engineering, Dindigul are belonging to the same community, as per the counter affidavit filed by the Circle Inspector of Oddanchathiram, it is a blatant falsehood to state that the sixth respondent was harassing them. The reason is that when both the petitioner and the sixth respondent belong to the same community, it is not known how the petitioner who was working as a daily rated Scavenger can make a complaint that the sixth respondent had harassed her by using her caste name, the learned Additional Government Pleader pleaded.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

12. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was serving as daily rated Scavenger in Anna University College of Engineering, Dindigul, she made a complaint against the Principal of the college alleging that she was compelled to come to her house to do domestic work and for cleaning the toilets in her house and wash her dresses including the inner dresses of her husband and children. The Supervisor of the college Mr.R.Suresh, as a routine affair, used to shift the Scavengers who are working in the college hostel and Dean's office to go to different places. When some Sweepers are working inside the college for a week, they would be shifted on a routine basis for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in their work. While so, when the petitioner was to take care of the Dean's office in July, 2017 and this was informed to her through Mr.

R.Suresh, Supervisor of Sweepers who are working on daily wage basis, the petitioner refused to accept the allotted duty and she declined the duty despite the order vehemently. When this was enquired by the sixth respondent, the petitioner gave a reply to the sixth respondent that she was not keeping well, hence, she would not be in a position to do any work in the Dean's office. In view of her illness, the sixth respondent asked her to take treatment and come back to work after recovery.

and wash the dresses and inner dresses of her husband and children. Since the petitioner had asked the other co-workers to come to the collector's office at Dindigul informing the co-workers that if they failed to accompany her, she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself, some of the co-workers accompanied the petitioner to the collector's office. However, after seeing that a false complaint has been made against the sixth respondent, they returned to the college and gave an apology letter narrating the events that only the petitioner threatened the other co-workers to accompany her to the collector's office, Dindigul to make a complaint against the sixth respondent. A perusal of the apology letter dated 15.7.2017 given by all the co-workers clearly shows that the petitioner has made a complaint as if the sixth respondent had tortured her.

13. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner was serving as a daily rated employee and her nature of work is to clean the premises including the restroom and also to wash the clothes, it is not known how the petitioner can exceptionally make a complaint that the sixth respondent had compelled her to clean the toilets in her house and wash her dresses and inner dresses of her husband. When she is employed as a Scavenger/Cleaner in the fifth respondent college and on routine basis, she is also posted in her house, she has to clean the toilets in the house and also wash her dresses irrespective of the fact that whether it is her dresses or the inner dresses of her husband or other members. It does not make any difference.

Similarly, when a sweeper/scavenger is employed, he/she has to clean up the toilet also, because she was appointed for washing the clothes of all the family members for which she has been paid therefor. Hence, being a domestic maid appointed as Sweeper and Cleaner, she has to wash all the clothes irrespective of the clothes, whether it is inner cloth or outer cloth. Similarly, a Sweeper cannot complain that she cannot be compelled to clean up the toilet, therefore, making a complaint that the scavenger was compelled to clean up the toilet, is wholly unacceptable.

Moreover, when the petitioner has also taken some of the co-workers from the fifth respondent college with an intimidation against all the coworkers not to work in the fifth respondent college, for which all the co-workers tendered an unconditional apology letter stating that but for the threat given by the petitioner, they would not have abstained from work. When the complaint was given on 21.7.2017 by the sixth respondent as Principal of the college to enquire into the matter, since some of the outsiders were misguiding the innocent people against the image of the fifth respondent college, the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiarchatram Police Station has stated that the petitioner and her husband who are working on daily rated wages in the college remained absent from 13.7.

2017 and they had urged other workers with intimidation not to do any work in the college and that they have also uploaded false information with video about the sixth respondent without any evidence and the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station on receipt of the said complaint dated 21.7.2017 registered the same in C.S.R.No.

2017 on 22.7.2017. During the enquiry, the sixth respondent also made another complaint dated 24.7.2017 stating that one Mrs.Divyabharathi along with Polymer TV personnel entered into the college without permission and started causing problems with the staff of the college and the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiarchatram Police Station registered a case on the basis of the complaint dated 24.7.2017 in C.S.R.No.125 of 2017 on 24.7.2017. Thereafter, summon was issued to the petitioner asking her to appear for enquiry on 24.7.2017. But there was no response. Since there was none in the house, summon was also served by way of affixure on the wall of the petitoner's house in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. Even after noticing the notice affixed on the wall of the petitioner's house, she did not turn up for enquiry on 24.7.

2017. Once again, summon was issued by the Sub Inspector of Police asking her to appear for enquiry. However, finding no one in the house, notice was affixed on the wall of her house on 25.7.2017 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not turn up for enquiry. When the petitioner did not even appear before the Reddiarchatram police station in spite of repeated summons to prove her case against the sixth respondent, that shows her attitude for having made a false complaint against the sixth respondent to damage her image. Moreover, the apology letter dated 15.7.2017 given by other co-workers also shows that the petitioner had blackmailed the other co-workers stating that if they did not cooperate with her, she would commit suicide by pouring kerosene on herself.

This fact has been clearly spelt out by the Inspector of Police of Oddanchatram circle in his report. However, the enquiry conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiarchatram Police Station and one another enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram on the complaint given by the parties would clearly show that both the petitioner and the sixth respondent are belonging to the same community. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioner against the sixth respondent that she abused her by using the caste name is nothing but a calculated falsehood. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

14. Secondly, on the basis of the First Information Report registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Reddiarchatram Police Station in Crime No.110 of 2017 for an offence under Section 4A(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959 arraying Perumal alias Selvam of Tamil Puligal Organisation as an accused, the counter affidavit filed by the Inspector of Police clearly shows that Perumal alias Selvam was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.8.2017. Later on, he was released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathiram and the case is also pending investigation. As the sixth respondent, being the Principal of the fifth respondent college, has made a serious complaint on 24.7.2017 that the staff of Polymer TV entered into the college without permission and started causing problems with the staff of the college, the respondent police are directed to expedite the laying of the charge sheet against them after thorough enquiry,

since they have misled the last grade servants like the Scavengers working in the fifth respondent college from discharging their duty. On the basis of the final report, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oddanchathiram is also directed to expedite the trial in accordance with law.

15. Thirdly, for the false allegations made by the petitioner against the Principal of the fifth respondent college, the Principal of the college is also at liberty to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against her, if deemed fit, in accordance with law.

16. Since the petitioner has unnecessarily wasted the precious time of this Court, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the sixth respondent directly, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, W.M.P.(MD) No.11880 of 2017 is also dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government Department of Higher Education Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

2. The District Collector Office of the District Collector Dindigul District

3. The Superintendent of Police Office of the Superintendent of Police Dindigul District.

+1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 41502 +1cc to M/S.R.Alagumani, Advocate SR.No. 41917 +1cc to M/S.M.Rajarajan, Advocate SR.No. 41342 Order in W.P.(MD)No.15044 of 2017 10.01.2018 SS JM/SV MMS/SAR 4/13.02.2018/11P/7C