Madras High Court
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited vs Competition Commission Of India on 14 August, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
and WMP.Nos.21421, 21424, 21427,
21430, 21652, 21654 & 21657 of 2023
W.P.No.22263 of 2023 :
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited
Rep. by its Manager-Legal Mr.Deepak R
Having registered office at :
Dalmiapuram, Dalmiapuram Taluk
Tiruchirappalli District - 621 651
Tamil Nadu.
Having south regional office at :
No.26, Fagun Mansion
Ethiraj Salai, Egmore
Chennai - 600 008. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Competition Commission of India
Through the Secretary
9th Floor, Office Block-1
Kidwai Nagar (East)
New Delhi - 110 023.
2. Office of the Director General
Competition Commission of India
'B' Wing, HUDCO Vishala
14, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi - 110 066.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
3.Builders Association of India
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
D1/203, Aashirwad Complex
Green Park Main
New Delhi - 110 016. ... Respondents
W.P.No.22045 of 2023 :
The India Cements Limited
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Coromandel Towers
No.93, Santhome High Road
Karpagam Avenue, RA Puram
Chennai - 600 028. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Competition Commission of India
Rep by its Secretary
9th Floor, Office Block-1
Kidwai Nagar (East)
New Delhi - 110 023.
2.Builders Association of India
G-1/G-20, Commerce Centre
J.Dadajee Road, Tardeo
Mumbai - 400 034. ... Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.No.22263 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the
records and quash the order dated 05.07.2023 of the respondent No.1 in Suo
Moto Case No.02 of 2019, by which the impleadment application filed by
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
Respondent No.3 was allowed and Respondent No.3 was impleaded as a
party in the Suo Moto Case No.02 of 2019 pending on the file of the
Respondent No.1.
PRAYER in W.P.No.22045 of 2023 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
records of the first respondent in its order dated 05.07.2023 issued in Suo
Motu Case No.2 of 2019, quash the same.
In W.P.No.22263 of 2023 :
For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.Prahalad Bhat
For Respondents : Mr.Rohan K.George
for M/s.Samuel Partners [R1 & R2]
Ms.Anu Monga for R3
In W.P.No.22045 of 2023 :
For Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
For Respondents : Ms.Madhavi Divan, Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu for R1
Ms.Anu Monga for R2
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
COMMON ORDER
1.1 Under the Competition Act, 2002, (hereinafter would be referred to as the Act), the first respondent, the Competition Commission of India (hence forth would be referred to as the Commission) has initiated suo motu proceedings in Case No.02 of 2019 against various cement manufacturers which included the petitioners herein, presumably on suspicion that these manufacturers might have formed a cartel. The matter was referred to the Director General constituted under the Act to investigate the alleged contraventions vis-a-vis the affairs of the cement manufacturers which are of concern of the Act.
1.2 This Court is informed that the Director General has since filed the report. It is in these circumstances, the second respondent, the Builders Association, had taken out an application on 07.12.2021 before the Commission for impleading themselves in the said proceedings. This petition was rejected by the Commission vide its order dated 29.12.2021. This order was assailed by the second respondent before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.8958 of 2022. The Delhi High Court, vide its order 4/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 dated 26.09.2022, had granted liberty to the second respondent herein to approach the Competition Commission with a fresh petition for impleadment. Thereafter, on 27.09.2022, the second respondent filed his second application for impleadment, which was allowed vide order dated 05.07.2023. This order is now under challenge in these writ petitions. 1.3 It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the very same order is under challenge before the Delhi High Court at the instance of Ultratech Cement Limited, another cement manufacturer, and that orders were reserved in the said petition on 27.07.2023.
2. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court entertained a doubt whether these petitions assailing an order of the Competition Commission passed in New Delhi, must be entertained by this Court. The issue is not so much about maintainability since Article 226(2) vests jurisdiction in the High Court to entertain a writ petition against an order of a tribunal whose situs is outside the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court, provided cause of action, wholly or in part arises within the jurisdiction of the High court. (As to the distinction between maintainability and 5/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 entertainability in the context of Article 226 See: Godrej Sara Lee Limited v Excise and Taxation Officer [2023 SCC Online SC 95]).
3. The issue raised has two parts: (a) Whether any part of the cause of action viz-a-viz the order directing the impleadment of the second respondent has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court; and (b) Inasmuch as the Delhi High court has taken cognizance of the same issue in a challenge to the very same order which is now under challenge here, should this court refrain from entertaining these petitions on the comity of court-doctrine. The former relates to the entertainability of the petitions and the latter pertains to the propriety of entertaining them.
4.1 Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.22045 of 2023, and Mr.Vijay Narayan, the learned Senior counsel for Mr.Prahlad Bhat for the petitioner in W.P.No.22263 of 2023, Ms.Madhavi Divan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.R.Thirunavukkarasu for the first respondent in W.P.No.22045 of 2023 and Mr.Rohan K.George for M/s.Samuel Partners for respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.No.22263 of 2023, and Ms. Anu Monga for 6/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 M/s.Builders Association of India, the second respondent in W.P.No.22045 of 2023 and third respondent in in W.P.No.22263 of 2023. 4.2 Both sides relied on 1 2 to canvass their rival case vis-a-vis the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. While the counsel for the petitioners claimed that the order allowing the impleadment of the second respondent by the Commission has their ramification-effect or spill over - effect in Tamilnadu, and hence part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the seat of the Tribunal was located in Delhi. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that an order impleading the second respondent does not affect any of the substantive right of the petitioners in Tamilnadu, and hence this court may not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. This 1 Kusum Ingots & alloys Limited Vs Union of India and Another [(2004) 6 SCC 254]; R.Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs R.K.Mishra [(2010) 1 SCC 457]; Cement Workers' Mandal Vs Global Cements Limited [(2019) 20 SCC 517]; Sajos Jewellers Vs Syndicate Bank [2007-4-LW-473]; PSA Sical Terminals Limited Vs Union of India [2009 (3) CTC 719]; M/s.Duro Flex Pvt. Limited Vs M/s.Duroflex Sittings Systems and another [2014-5-L.W.673]; M/s.Sun TV Network Ltd Vs Union of India & Others [2016-3-L.W.331]; Ex.Rect (MP) A.Madurai Veera No.7779447K Vs Union of India [2006 (1) CTC 732]; 2 Damomal Kauromal Raisingani Vs Union of India [1965 SCC OnLine Bom 129 :AIR 1967 Bom 355]; Shanthi Devi alias Shanti Mishra Vs Union of India and Others [(2020) 10 SCC 766]; Vodofone India Limited Vs The Competition Commission of India [W.P.No.8594 of 2017 & batch etc., of High Court of Bombay];
R.K.Singh Vs Union of India & Others [2002 (3) Mh.L.J561] Wills India Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., and Others Vs. Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority & Others [2011 Vol.113 (2) Bom.L.R.1115]; Sachin Chhotu Pawar Vs Collector, Raigad & Others [2020 (6)Mh.L.J.285]; Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India & Others [(2014) 9 SCC 329]; Sun TV Limited Vs Tata Sky Limited and another [2007-3-L.W.401] 7/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 apart, they contended that the Delhi High Court has not only taken cognizance of the same dispute, but has also reserved the matter for pronouncing orders, and hence under the doctrine of comity of courts this Court may not exercise its jurisdiction.
5. A close reading of Article 226 shows that an aggrieved suitor may invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in two situations. The first is a case under Clause (1) of Article 226 when a writ is sought against any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Here, the High Court would normally entertain the writ petition unless the petition is hit by some other infirmity like laches, suppression of material facts etc which disentitles the suitor obtain any discretionary relief before the writ court. The second situation is contemplated under Clause (2) of Article 226 where the High Court may issue a writ to any Government, authority or person notwithstanding the fact that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within the territory of the High Court, provided the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. As is well known, Clause (2) of Article 226 was engrafted vide 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 the Constitution (16th Amendment) Act, 1963 in response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Election Commission v Saka Venkata Subba Rao [AIR 1953 SC 210] and Lt Col. Khajoor Singh v Union of India [AIR 1960 SC 532].
6.1 Clause (2) of Article 226 has introduced the concept of territorial nexus empowering the High Court to issue a writ to a person or authority outside its territorial jurisdiction, provided the cause of action, either wholly or in part, has arisen within its jurisdiction. The expression “cause of action” in the context of Article 226(2) was recently explained by the Supreme Court in State of Goa v Summit Online Trading Solutions Private Limited, [2023 SCC Online SC 254], in the following way:
“16.……. The expression ‘cause of action’ has not been defined in the Constitution. However, the classic definition of ‘cause of action’ given by Lord Brett in Cooke v. Gill that “cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court”, has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such ‘cause of action’ is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed.9/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the high court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the high court to decide the dispute and that, at least, a part of the cause of action to move the high court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests.” (emphasis supplied) There are three propositions that flow from the aforesaid passage: first, the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed must be pleaded and established; secondly, the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action must constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide the dispute; and thirdly, such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted.10/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 6.2(a) There is yet another factor, the fourth factor, which may weigh in the balance namely the doctrine of forum conveniens. In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, [(2004) 6 SCC 254], the Supreme Court observed that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens (See the decision of the Division Bench in Bharat Bhogilal Patel v. Union of India [(2014) 7 M.L.J.641] and the decision of the Full Bench in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [A.I.R. 2011 Delhi 74].
6.2(b) In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254], the Supreme Court has referred to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in S.S Jain and Co v Union of India [(1994) 1 CHN 445], which contains an insightful exposition on the principle of forum conveniens vis-
a-vis Article 226(2). The relevant passages are as follows:
“19. The High Court, in appropriate cases, can and should, examine the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action to see if some other 11/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 High Court can be said to be dominantly connected with the cause of action rather than itself. In case the High Court comes to such a conclusion, then in my opinion, it would be improper for the writ petitioner to proceed in the High Court having a far less, and a mere slender connection with the cause of action. The writ petitioner in that case should be relegated to seek his remedy before that other High Court, having the dominantly larger connection. Just as a litigant is not permitted to choose his judge, so also shall a litigant not choose his High Court in the matter of presentation of his writ application. He shall approach that High Court only which has by far the largest connection with the facts giving rise to his grievance.
20. There might well be cases where the distinction becomes too fine, and two High Courts might both be said to have roughly similar connection with the cause of action. Making too fine a distinction in these matters, moreover, would work injustice to the petitioner, and the Courts cannot deny relief to a petitioner upon too strict a decision in these matters. But if the cause of action is such as shows a preponderance of facts connected with the other High Court, and if the respondent authorities also happen to be within the local limits of that other High Court, than the High Court connected with only a small part of the cause of action should unhesitatingly refuse relief to the petitioner and send him elsewhere. It is a salutary principle to follow, as the prospective writ petitioners as well as the prospective respondents will know where approach is to be made, and none will try to bypass one High Court in preference for another. We, the Judges, look upon such preferment with suspicion, and deeply discourage any such tendency in any litigant.” 12/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 6.3 And, to this must be superadded a fifth factor, and this is the principle of comity of Courts. In Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India and Others, [AIR 1989 SC 2138], the Supreme Court has dealt with the principle of comity of High Court in a federal structure. Where one High Court is already in seisin of the lis on merits, it is appropriate for the other High Court to decline jurisdiction over the same subject matter. See:
Phonographic Performance Limited v Union of India [2015 SCC Online Del 8511 (DB)]. This is a salutary principle founded on judicial comity aimed at preventing inconsistent orders between two High Courts on the same subject matter.
6.4 These are the five principles or the ‘panch-tatva’ which must guide the High Court in exercising or declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226(2).
7. It is in this setting that this Court needs to evaluate whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court vis-a-vis the impugned order of the first respondent allowing the 13/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 impleadment application to implead the second respondent. Having examined the record, and heard the learned counsels, this Court is not persuaded to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition for the following reasons:
(a) What is now under challenge is not in the final order of the first respondent, which may have some ramification-effect within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, even though it may be passed outside its jurisdiction. What is under challenge is an order impleading the second respondent as a party before the Commission. The order allowing impleadment of a party is, at best, a procedural order and it cannot possibly have any spill over effect in Tamil Nadu. The impugned order has merely granted that second respondent an opportunity of being heard in the matter and no more.
(b) The proceedings have been initiated by the first respondent in Delhi. Initially, the second respondent had unsuccessfully attempted to implead itself before the 1st respondent. This led to the second respondent approaching the Delhi High Court in 14/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 W.P.(C) No.8958 of 2022, and it is only pursuant to the liberty granted by the Delhi High Court that the 2nd respondent approached the 1st respondent with another application for impleadment which has now been allowed by the 1st respondent.
Thus, the issue of whether the 2nd respondent should or should not be a party was first examined by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8958 of 2022. Having regard to the factual backdrop, and applying the principle of forum conveniens, this Court is of the considered view that the more convenient and natural forum for the parties is the High Court of Delhi and not the Madras High Court.
(c) This Court was informed that in the case of Dalmia Cements (W.P.No.22263 of 2023), during the investigation, the Director General searched and seized the documents within Tamil Nadu and hence, this Court has jurisdiction. Even so, what is now under challenge is not the search and seizure of documents, but an order in an application to implead the second respondent. The Court must remind the suitors that the facts pleaded as forming part of 15/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 the cause of action must have a nexus with the subject matter of challenge. The argument based on search and seizure is really a smoke screen for it has no relevance to determine the issue of the impleadment of the 2nd respondent.
In Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs UOI [(2014) 9 SCC 329], relied on by the petitioner, it is held :
“16. ...there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action has arisen wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the court's jurisdiction.” In UOI Vs Adani Exports Ltd., & Another [(2002)1 SCC 567], (which is referred to in R.K.Singh Vs Union of India & Others, 2002(3) Mah LJ 561, relied on by the petitioner) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held :
“ In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application..., the High Court, must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to 16/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned.” In ONGC Vs Utpal Kumar Basu & others [(1994)4 SCC 711], the Supreme Court had a word of caution to the High Court when it says:
“12. ..... ...... ...... ....... If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion.”
8. Another crucial factor is that one of the cement manufacturers operating within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court has approached the said Court, challenging the very same order of the Competition Commission. The Delhi High Court has heard the matter and reserved the same for orders in Ultratech Cement Ltd., Vs. Competition Commission of India and another [W.P.(C) No.9854/2023]. Where another High Court has already taken cognizance of the same proceedings, then the doctrine of 17/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 comity of courts comes into play. This requires that other High Courts, as a measure of deference, must refrain themselves from considering the same issue to avoid any possibility of conflicting judgments. In Phonographic Performance Limited v Union of India [2015 SCC Online Del 8511], the Delhi High Court was faced with a situation where writ petitions had been filed in a case where statutory appeals had also been filed before this Court. In that context, the First Bench of the said High Court has observed :
“21.The principle of Comity between the High Courts requires that once one High Court is in seisin over a subject matter, the other High Court, particularly in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should refrain from taking cognizance of the same.” This Court concurs with the aforesaid dictum of the First Bench of the High Court. Here, the petitioner in India Cement’s case would contend that its writ petition in W.P.No.22045 of 2023 was filed first, and the petition before the Delhi High Court was only filed thereafter. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is a distinction without a difference. Admittedly, it cannot be disputed that the Delhi High Court is possessed of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute raised before it as regards the very same impugned order now under challenge in these petitions. The Delhi High Court has heard the matter at length and has reserved its judgment. On the 18/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 other hand, this Court is yet to examine the case on merits since the issue of territorial jurisdiction required a probe. Where one High Court has delved into the merits and has reserved judgment, it is clearly a matter of propriety and good order that another High Court must decline to test the very same order on merits as there is a likelihood of producing conflicting decisions.
9.1 What now remains to be considered is the effect of the ratio of the various authorities that were cited in support of the proposition that this Court ought to entertain the present set of writ petitions. These may be grouped into two categories: the first set of cases relates to the general principles governing the issue of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2). The second set of cases relates to the challenge of the orders of the Competition Commission/TDSAT etc before some of the Benches of this Court. So far as the former set of cases is concerned, they state the principles, and this Court does not and cannot differ from them. And, this court tested the issue of territorial jurisdiction only on the touchstone of the principles so laid.
19/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 9.2 The second set of cases relates to matters where this Court had entertained challenges to the orders of the Competition Commission. Suffice it to say that not one of these cases relates to a challenge to a procedural order of the Commission of the nature now impugned in these petitions.
10. This Court considers that it is not necessary to burden this order with those authorities given the fact that what is a precedent and what is not is to be judged in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N. [(2002) 3 SCC 533], wherein it was observed as follows:
“9.Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case, said Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : 1972 AC 877 (HL) [Subnom British Railways Board v. Herrington, (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)]]. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.” 20/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023
11. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this Court must necessarily decline to exercise jurisdiction Article 226 both on the ground of forum conveniens as well as the comity of courts. These writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the parties to approach the appropriate Court for whatever remedies that may be open to them in law. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds To:
1.Competition Commission of India Through the Secretary 9th Floor, Office Block-1 Kidwai Nagar (East) New Delhi - 110 023.
2. Office of the Director General Competition Commission of India 'B' Wing, HUDCO Vishala 14, Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi - 110 066.21/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds W.P.Nos.22263 & 22045 of 2023 14.08.2023 22/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis