High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 09 MAD CK 0018

The Registrar General and The Registrar (Judicial) vs T.T. Ravichandran, The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, The Secretary, Union of India and The Registrar

Madras High Court · Decided on 4 September 2012 · Citation: (2013) 3 LW 159

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Venugopal, J · Elipe Dharma Rao, J
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No''s. 147 and 148 of 2012 and M.P. No''s. 1 + 1 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 316 words

Elipe Dharma Rao, J.—These review applications are filed to review the order dated 21.8.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 28144

and 28145 of 2010. The first respondent in both the review applications filed W.P. No. 28144 of 2010 before this Court for issuance of a writ of

declaration, declaring Amending Act 19 of 2010 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary bearing No. 154 dated

27.5.2010 so far as it pertains to the amendment in Sections 1 (1 & 2), 3 and 4 (2) of the aforesaid Amending Act, as void and ultra vires the

State Legislature and consequently, to strike it down as unconstitutional and also filed W.P. No. 28145 of 2010 for issuance of a writ of

declaration, declaring Section 3A of the Chennai City Civil Courts Act, 1892 as void and ultra vires the State Legislature and consequently strike it

down as unconstitutional. The said writ petitions were allowed by this Court by order dated 21.8.2012. To review the said order, the present

review applications have been filed by the review petitioners, who are second and third respondents in the writ petitions.

2.

When the above matters are taken up for consideration, it is brought to our notice that as against the interim order passed on 2.4.2012, the

Government of Tamilnadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Law, the second respondent herein has preferred a SLP before the

Hon''ble Supreme Court in C.C. No. 13795 and 13796 of 2012 and the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by order dated 24.8.2012, stayed the

operation of the said order.

Therefore, the matter is seized of by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. If the review petitioners want any order, it is for them to approach the Hon''ble

Supreme Court to get appropriate orders.

The Review Applications are dismissed accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, there shall be no order as

to costs.