Madras HC upholds setting aside of G.O.Ms.No.30 (PC-2) Department dated 05.02.2025

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 26 October 2026

Case: The Principal Secretary To Government vs Dr.V.Sathyavan
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan J.
Decided: 30 September 2026
Source: Indian Kanoon (Madras HC)

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In The Principal Secretary To Government vs Dr.V.Sathyavan, the Madras High Court on 2026-09-30 upheld a Single Judge's common order that set aside G.O.Ms.No.30 (PC-2) Department dated 05.02.2025 and its consequential orders. The appeals were filed by the State against the allowance of writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The court upheld the setting aside of a government order and its consequential orders by a Single Judge, indicating that the original writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus were correctly allowed.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should note that government orders can be challenged successfully through writ petitions seeking certiorarified mandamus. Litigants should be aware that the State may appeal adverse decisions concerning government orders.

Key Legal Takeaways

1A Single Judge's order setting aside a government order can be upheld on appeal.
2Writ petitions in the nature of certiorarified mandamus are effective tools for challenging government orders.
3The State, as a respondent, has the right to file writ appeals against orders setting aside its government orders.

The Legal Issue These appeals were filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, questioning a common order issued by a learned Single Judge on 2025-12-16. This order had allowed writ petitions filed by the respondents, Dr.V.Sathyavan and others. The writ petitions sought a certiorarified mandamus to quash G.O.Ms.No.30 (PC-2) Department dated 2025-02-05 and its consequential orders.

Court's Reasoning The Madras High Court, through C.V.Karthikeyan J., delivered the judgment. The court noted that the learned Single Judge had set aside the impugned Government Order and the consequential orders. The present writ appeals were filed by the State, which was the respondent in the original writ petitions, against this decision.

What Follows The Madras High Court upheld the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 2025-12-16. This means that G.O.Ms.No.30 (PC-2) Department dated 2025-02-05 and its consequential orders remain set aside, as originally determined by the Single Judge.