The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Petition against Arumugam dismissed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Dec 12, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Petition against Arumugam dismissed

Special Correspondent

Allegations made against the Minister not substantiated: Court

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate, citing Minister Veerapandi Arumugam as a respondent.

S.Manokaran sought, among other things, constitution of a committee, comprising senior civil servants, to visit Salem city and examine vital aspects of violation of the High Court order passed in two earlier writ petitions and submit a status report with regard to the role of Mr.Arumugam in crippling the district administration, which, he claimed, resulted in the violation.

The earlier orders were on petitions seeking a direction to the police to take cognisance of a complaint relating to alleged forcible eviction from Angammal Colony, Salem, and to declare the 184-year-old Salem Collectorate building as an ancient monument.

In its order, the First Bench, comprising Chief Justice A.K.Ganguly and Justice K.Chandru, said that though the petitioner had made several allegations against the Minister, he had not substantiated it in a manner known to law. It was for the petitioner to prove such allegations.

Stating that the prayer was strange, the Bench said if the petitioner found there was violation of the earlier two orders, he could only file a contempt application.

The Bench said the Salem District Collector had filed counter affidavit to the writ petition. As regards the petitioner’s prayer to direct the Director-General of Police to conduct an enquiry into the alleged inaction of the DIG of Police, Salem and the Salem Police Commissioner, the Judges said that if the DIG, Commissioner and Pallapatti police Inspector had acted against the law, it was open to the DGP to take appropriate action departmentally, but the court could not give any positive direction to take departmental action against the officials.

The court said it was satisfied with the steps taken by the District Collector and Salem Commissioner in implementing the court order.

With regard to the Salem Collectorate building, the Collector had said his as well as a committee’s report had been submitted to the government for consideration. The petitioner ought to have waited for the government decision and thereafter taken a decision to question it in the manner known to law.

Since the petitioner, an advocate, had only attempted to make a complaint about the violation of the court order and wanted a committee to go into it, the Bench said it was not persuaded to non suit the petitioner on the ground of locus standi nor was it convinced that the matter should be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu