Begin typing your search...
Row over Medical Council president resignation ends
The row over the resignation of Dr Senthil, president, Tamil Nadu Medical Council (TNMC) has come to an end.
By
migrator
migrator
Chennai
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed the impugned resolution of TNMC accepting the alleged resignation of the president and consequential communication appointing Dr A Jayallal, vice-president, as president in-charge.
Justice S Vimala ruling in favour of Dr Senthil held that “From the records placed before the Court, there is no proof to show that the Executive Committee meeting has been convened by following rules. Hence it is a case where the impugned resolution dated August 17, 2016 and the consequential communication are liable to be quashed and they are quashed accordingly.”
As per the case, owing to a misunderstanding among few council members, Dr Senthil, elected as president of TNMC on February 15, 2016 had handed over an undated resignation letter to a executive member Dr M S Ashraf. But later, he decided to withdraw the proposed resignation letter.
But since Dr Ashraf resorted to delay tactics in returning the letter, Dr Senthil sent a representation to the State Principal Secretary and Secretary and Registrar of TNMC on August 18, 2016 through email asking them not to accept the resignation letter.
The letter was acknowledged by the Registrar on August 16, 2016 while the principal secretary forwarded the mail to the registrar calling for his remarks. But, a resolution was passed in this regard on August 17, 2016 and his resignation was accepted. This prompted Dr Senthil to approach the court.
The respondents including the Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare had contended that it is not necessary that they have to accept the resignation and merely sending it itself is sufficient to put an end to the tenure of the post. It was also submitted that the resignation is brought into force as soon as it is sent and therefore the petitioner has no locus standi to claim himself as president of the Council.
Justice Vimala on noting that before acceptance, the offer for resignation can be withdrawn, said “Evidence available in this case would go to show that before the letter of resignation was placed for acceptance, letter for revocation has reached the hands of the concerned authorities. Therefore, when both the letters have not been considered together, the alleged acceptance, even assuming it to be true is not valid.”
Steep hike in fee for issue of driving licence challenged
The Madras High Court has been moved challenging the steep increase in the fees for issue of driving licence from Rs.40 to Rs.200 by the Road Transport Ministry.
A division bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu and N Athinathan who heard the plea issued notice to both the State and Centre Tamil Nadu Driving Schools Owners Federation has contended that while fees for issuing a driving licence has increased fivefold, taking a driving test has gone up six times when compared to the Rs.50 charged earlier.
The plea said most people who learn to drive are economically backward and use it as a source of employment while others use the skill for commuting to office and jobs related to work and education. It was also contended that the Centre already collects excise duty on vehicles at the point of manufacture and thereafter the end user pays Value Added Tax, Motor Vehicles Tax called as Road Tax. Further, there is tax for the fuel used, which included excise and VAT. Hence, under these circumstances, the State and Centre should issue licence by collecting a nominal fee.
Notice to State, Centre on NOC on fixing location of petrol stations
The Madras High Court has issued notice to the State and Centre on a plea seeking to comply with the guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress (IRC) for issue of a no objection certificate for site approval of road-side petroleum outlets by Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) within Tamil Nadu.
First bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar ordered notice and sought the State and Centre to file their counter within four weeks. The case has been listed for hearing on Feb 27. The petitioner VBR Menon, an advocate, had contended that IRC, an apex body comprising of experts drawn from Road Transport and allied sectors have framed guidelines for access, location and layout of road-side fuel stations and service stations with the objective to ensure free flow of traffic on the roads along the fuel stations and to ensure safety of vehicles on the road. But even though, it has been prescribed under clause 10 of the above IRC guidelines that the prospective applicants must be advised at the time of applying for new outlets to comply with the guidelines, none of the OMCs operating in Tamil Nadu or the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has taken any steps till date.
Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!
Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!
Click here for iOS
Click here for Android
Next Story
