A.Simon William Rajadurai v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and C.M.P(MD)No.18823 of 2025 A.Simon William Rajadurai ...Appellant/Petitioner /Vs./ 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police V)Department, St. Fort George, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai-600 020.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, 1/6
Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.
... Respondents/Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 29.08.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.16737 of 2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For R1 to R5 : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The instant writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge, dated 29.08.2025 passed in W.P(MD)No.16737 of 2.Heard Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned Additional Advocate 2/6
General, appearing for Mr.J.Ashok, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that though the appellant preferred a writ appeal, he restricted his argument as against the cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed against him. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the non-reference of certain writ petitions was only on the ground that those writ petitions are not relevant to the matters that was pending before the Court. Thus, he contended that there was no suppression of fact. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order to the extent of cost imposed against the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Advocate General has not raised any serious objection to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3/6
5.We have given our anxious consideration to either side submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 6.While looking at the facts of the case, this Court has not imposed cost in W.P(MD)Nos.14891 of and 21518 of 2018, but the cost was imposed only in W.P(MD)No.16737 of 2018. Since the appellant has come up with the present appeal only as against the cost and there are no serious objection by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court would like to give some leniency to the appellant. Hence, the present writ appeal is partly allowed to the extent of cost by setting aside the same. In respect of all other aspects, the order passed by the learned single Jude is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 26.11.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes Ns 4/6
To 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home (Police V)Department, St. Fort George, Chennai-600 002.
2.The Director General of Police, O/o.The Director General of Police, Chennai-600 004.
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, No.4, 9th Cross Street, Indira Nagar, Chennai-600 020.
4.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, O/o.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelvlei.
5/6
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Ns Order made in and C.M.P(MD)No.18823 of 2025 Dated:
26.11.2025 6/6