Madras High Court
Dr.Ms.T.Mohanashree vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 August, 2025
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 28.07.2025
Pronounced on 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
and
W.M.P.Nos.18007, 18011, 20264, 22764 and 28567 of 2025
W.P.No.15910 of 2025
Dr.MS.T.Mohanashree ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Chennai – 15.
4. The University of Madras,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
5. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
No.1, Audiappa Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
6. The University Grants Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110002. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
pertaining to impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the fifth
respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the fifth respondent to
reinstate the petitioner as the Principal with all attended benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)
Mr.D.Ravichaner (for R4)
Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Kuberan
(for R5)
Ms.V.Sudha (for R6)
*****
W.P.No.18109 of 2025
Dr.MS.T.Mohanashree ... Petitioner
Vs.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education,
Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education,
Chennai Region, Chennai – 15.
4. The University of Madras,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
5. The University Grants Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi – 110002.
6. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
No.1, Audiappa Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
7. The Hony. Correspondent,
Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
No.1, Audiappa Street,
Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the
show cause notices issued on 25.04.2025, 03.05.2025 & 07.05.2025 by the
seventh respondent, quash the same.
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash,
Government Advocate (for R1 to R3)
Mr.D.Ravichaner (for R4)
Ms.V.Sudha (for R5)
Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Kuberan
(for R6 & R7)
W.P.No.20193 of 2025
Dr.MS.T.Mohanashree ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The University of Madras,
Rep. by it's Registrar,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
Rep.by its Hony.Correspondent,
No.1, Audiappa Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
3. Vootukuru Sarathkumar
4. The Enquiry Officer,
C/o. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
No.1, Audiappa Street, Chennai – 600 001.
5. Kishore Kumar ... Respondents
4/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
relating to the impugned order made in Ref.No.SKPC/G/1&2/2024-2025/494
dated 15.05.2025 passed by the second respondent and the consequential
impugned order dated 30.05.2025 in Ref.No.SKPC/G/1&2/2024-2025/506
passed by the fifth respondent, quash the same and consequently reinstate the
petitioner in service with all attended benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.D.Ravichaner (for R1)
Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Kuberan
(for R2 to & R5)
Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
Dr.MS.T.Mohanashree ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The University of Madras,
Rep. by it's Registrar,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
2. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
Rep.by its Hony. Correspondent,
No.1, Audiappa Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
5/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )
W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
3. Vootukuru Sarathkumar
4. The Enquiry Officer,
C/o. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science
College for Women,
No.1, Audiappa Street, Chennai – 600 001.
5. Kishore Kumar ... Respondents
Review Application (Writ) filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC r/w
Section 114 CPC, to review the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 made in
W.P.No.20193 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.22764 of 2025 passed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.Mr.D.Ravichaner (for R1)
Mr.G.Sankaran,
Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Kuberan
(for R2 to & R5)
COMMON ORDER
All the above three writ petitions arising against the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, viz., Dr.MS.T.Mohanashree.
2. W.P.No.15910 of 2025 has been filed challenging the relieving order dated 04.02.2025 from the post of Principal. 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
3. W.P.No.18109 of 2025 has been filed challenging the show cause notices issued against the petitioner on 25.04.2025, 03.05.2025 and 07.05.2025.
4. W.P.No.20193 of 2025 has been filed challenging the suspension order dated 15.05.2025 and the enquiry notice dated 30.05.2025.
5. The brief facts, which are necessary for the effective disposal of the present writ petitions are that the fifth respondent college is affiliated with the University of Madras, and they are Linguistic (Telugu) Minority Institution. According to the petitioner, she is a distinguished academician with 26 years of service at the fifth respondent college. The petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on various grounds, such as violation of principles of natural justice, mala fide action, and based on other numerous grounds. However, the respondents contend that the present writ petitions are not maintainable against the private educational institution, as there are no public law elements involved in the lis. 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
6. From the submissions of either side, it becomes incumbent firstly to go into the maintainability of the writ petition, before we delve into the respective factual aspects.
7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen would submit that the respondent educational institution is rendering educational services, which are nothing but service involving a public law element. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has raised a service dispute against a private entity, since such an entity is rendering educational services that have a public law element, these writ petitions are maintainable. To substantiate the maintainability, the petitioner relies upon the following judgments:-
(i) Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM University, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 5301.
(ii) Rochan Abraham Vs. State of UP, reported in (2019 SCC ONLIne All 3935).
(iii) The Association of St.Christophers Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu (W.P.Nos.9612 and 9620 of 2014 dated 18.07.2019).
(iv) C/M Pratibha Inter College Vs. State of U.P (Special Appeal 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 No.115 of 2024 dated 03.07.2024).
(v) A.K.Kraipak and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1969) 2 SCC 262.
8. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. G. Sankaran, appearing for the contesting respondents qua the fifth respondent college, would submit that, though the fifth respondent is a private entity rendering educational services qua public duty, unless the act alleged by the petitioner has a nexus with public duty, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petitions.
9. Since the very foundation of these writ petitions, qua it's maintainability is under challenge, this Court does not want to delve into factual aspects at this juncture. To substantiate his contention, the Senior Counsel appearing relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 498.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions. 9/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
11. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent college is imparting education, which is nothing but service involving a public law element. Now, the issue to be considered is, since because the fifth respondent college, which is a private unaided linguistic (Telugu) minority educational institution, and having a duty that involves a public law element can an employee of such an institution maintain a writ petition in respect of their service dispute. To answer the above aspect, in paragraph 36 of the judgment in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, though a private entity is doing a service that is in the nature of a public law element, the employee has no right to enforce a contract of personal service. It is further held that, the service issue of retirement and termination, does not involve any public law element. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraph 54 of the St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“54. Thus, the aforesaid order passed by this Court makes it very clear that in a case of retirement and in case of termination, no public law element is involved. This Court has held that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private educational institution shall be maintainable only if a public law element is involved and if 10/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 there is no public law element is involved, no writ lies.
(emphasis supplied)
12. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), in paragraph 66, has held that mandamus is basically limited to the enforcement of public duty, and therefore, it is the Court's duty to find out whether the nature of the duty performed by the person comes within the periphery of public duty. It is further held in paragraph 75 of the judgment that individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts, without having any public law element as their integral part, cannot be rectified through a writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has further held that actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. For ready reference, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant paragraph of the judgment of St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 duty and thus its actions becoming amenable to judicial review by a constitutional court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a “public function” or “public duty” be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or backing, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service”
13. In the case in hand, the petitioner has challenged her show cause notice, relieving order, and suspension order; and they are all purely a service dispute. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, this is a contract of service. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the service regulations of the petitioner is dealt under the Tamil Nadu 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976, therefore, the contract of service which exist between the petitioner and the fifth respondent is having the backing of a statutory enactment. Accordingly, would contend that these writ petitions are maintainable.
14. In this connection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), after referring to the judgment in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733, has held in paragraph 74 that, merely because the State Government has regulatory power, the same by itself would not confer any right upon a private individual to enforce their rights under Article 226 of the Constitution against a private entity. For ready reference, it is appropriate to extract paragraph 74 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), which reads as follows:-
“74. In the aforesaid context, we may only say that merely because the State Government has the regulatory power, the same, by itself, would not confer any such status upon the institution (school) nor put any such obligations upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 the Constitution. In this regard, we may refer to and rely upon the decision of this Court in Federal Bank [Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733] . While deciding whether a private bank that is regulated by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 discharges any public function, this Court held thus : (Ramakrishna Mission case [Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya, (2019) 16 SCC 303] , SCC pp. 315-16, paras 33-35) “33. …‘33. …‘in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We do not find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor put any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank.14/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 The respondent's service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank.’ (Federal Bank case [Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733] , SCC pp. 758-59, para 33)
34. Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision. Hence, for instance, in K.K. Saksena [K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage, (2015) 4 SCC 670 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 654 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 119] this Court held that when an employee is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception to the general principle that a contract of personal service is not capable of being specifically enforced or performed.
35. It is of relevance to note that the Act was enacted to provide for the regulation and registration of clinical establishments with a view to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services. The Act, inter alia, stipulates conditions to be satisfied by clinical 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 establishments for registration. However, the Act does not govern contracts of service entered into by the hospital with respect to its employees. These fall within the ambit of purely private contracts, against which writ jurisdiction cannot lie. The sanctity of this distinction must be preserved.” (emphasis in original and supplied) (emphasis supplied by this Court)
15. In the case in hand, the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976 contains an inbuilt mechanism for redressing the grievances of teaching faculty against the orders of private colleges, by invoking appellate remedy provided under Section 20 of the said Act. According to Section 20(b) of the said Act, an order altering the conditions of service is amenable to appeal, and there is also a provision under Section 21 of the above Act for a second appeal.
16. It is also pertinent to mention here that Form 7-A of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Rules, 1976, provides a model agreement between the College Committee and the permanent teacher. All these factors would demonstrate that the petitioner has an appellate remedy 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 and that her service is a contract of personal service. As we have already discussed, though the fifth respondent, being a private entity performing a public duty, the dispute alleged has no nexus with such public duty, and it relates to a contract of service, which, according to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, cannot be enforced through writ proceedings.
17. This Court is conscious of the fact that in today's fast-expanding world, many institutions affect the rights of people. Therefore, as held in Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 691, we cannot put the definition of 'State' into a watertight compartment. That is why the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has, in many judgments, categorically held that, even against a private entity writ is maintainable, provided they have to perform a public duty. But, as already stated, in the case in hand, the issue raised has no nexus to the public duty of the fifth respondent college.
18. At this juncture, it is appropriate to deal with the judgment relied by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Janet Jeyapaul's case (cited supra), but the same deals with a Deemed University notified by the Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956. Further, since the Deemed University is governed by all the provisions of the UGC Act, it becomes an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, in the case in hand, the contesting respondent is a linguistic (Telugu) minority institution and has not been declared as an authority by any statute. Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of these cases.
19. The learned counsel, though relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rochan Abraham's case (cited supra), as noted that in the judgment of St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), to maintain a writ against a private entity, apart from such entity performing a public duty, the issue or dispute raised must have a nexus with such public duty. However, in the case in hand, the petitioner has raised a service dispute, which has nothing to do with the public duty performed by the fifth respondent. It is relevant to mention that the judgment of this Court in Association of St. Christopher's case (cited supra), which dealt with the 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 issue regarding selection process, but the case in hand relates to personal service dispute.
20. From the above detailed discussion, this Court absolutely does not find any ground to find a nexus between the petitioner's dispute and the public duty undertaken by the private entity, qua the fifth respondent as we have already elaborated, the service of the petitioner is contractual personal service. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case, on the other hand, the issue of maintainability has been elaborately considered by the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in St. Mary's Education Society's case (cited supra), where it has been categorically held that private contractual service cannot be agitated before a writ Court, though the private entity undertakes a duty that has a public law element. Apart from that, the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative remedy under the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act, 1976. Therefore, this Court is of the indubitable opinion that the instant writ petitions are not maintainable.
19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
21. In the result, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
22. In view of the dismissal of these Writ Petitions, the review application is closed. No costs.
29.08.2025 kv Index : Yes/No Speaking order /Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes/No To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Director of Collegiate Education, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
3. The Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai Region, Chennai – 15.
4. The University of Madras, Rep. by its Registrar, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025
5. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science College for Women, No.1, Audiappa Street, Chennai – 600 001.
6. The University Grants Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110002.
7. The Hony. Correspondent, Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science College for Women, No.1, Audiappa Street, Chennai – 600 001.
8. The Enquiry Officer, C/o. Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Arts and Science College for Women, No.1, Audiappa Street, Chennai – 600 001.
21/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm ) W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv W.P.Nos.15910, 18109 and 20193 of 2025 and Rev.Aplw.No.178 of 2025 29.08.2025 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:52:56 pm )