IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 24-06-2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.27766 of 2006 O.A.No.2483 of 1996 1.S.Dhanasekran 2.B.Nagarajan 3.P.V.Rajendran 4.B.Cibibalan 5.S.Mohamed Yasim 6.K.V.Vaithilingam 7.M.Radhakrishnan 8.P.Asaithambi 9.P.Ilangovan 10.S.Banumathi 11.R.Meenakshisundarm 12.A.Gandhimathinathan 13.S.Gnanagurumoorthy 14.R.Ramasubramanian 15.R.Senthilkumar 16.A.Jeganathan 17.R.Krishnamoorthy 18.D.Rajendran 19.R.Suriakalavathi 20.M.Naina Mohamed 21.G.Murugesan 22.S.Sankaramoorthy 23.A.Mani 24.S.Balakrishnan 25.A.Krishnamoorthy 26.S.Sankari 27.R.Jeyaram 28.R.Murugan 29.S.Parameswari 30.M.Vijayaram .. Petitioners/Applicants Versus 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5. 3.Thiru.R.Arunachalam 4.A.V.Rajasekaran 5.M.Gunalan 6.P.Gopalakrishnan 7.G.Sabanayagam 8.S.Paneerselvam 9.D.Clements 10.N.Gopalakrishnan 11.L.Mohandoss 12.A.Soundaraj 13.H.Shahul Hameed .. Respondents. (RR3 to 13 Impleaded as per order of the Court in MA No.7588/96 dated 29.11.1996) Prayer: This petition has been filed seeking for a writ of declaration, declaring Section 4(2) of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State) Act, 1993 (Act No.45 of 1994) as unconstitutional and ultra vires and consequently, declare all the actions taken by the respondents based on that also as unconstitutional and ultra vires and direct the respondents to re-draw the entire panel in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Cuort of India in Indira Sawhney's case reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 equivalent to 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 217. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Singaravelan For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate (R1 & R2) O R D E R Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents. 2. Though the prayer is for a larger relief, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners may be permitted to make a representation to the first respondent with regard to the relief sought for in the writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Government Advocate has no objection for this Court passing such an order. 4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the petitioners are permitted to make a representation to the first respondent with regard to the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, within a period of four weeks from today, and on such representation being submitted, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter. 5. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh To 1. The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2.The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5. +1cc to M/s.R.Singgaravelan, Advocate Sr 31897 +1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 32064 KSK (CO) km/7.7. Writ Petition No.27766 of 2006 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/