The Madras High Court Bench here has initiated suo motu contempt of court proceedings against former Tiruchi Collector Jayashree Muralidharan, now Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister, for failing to prevent construction of a public toilet close to the statue of Dravidar Kazhagam founder ‘Periyar’ E.V. Ramasamy at Pullambadi Town Panchayat in Tiruchi district despite a status quo ordered by the court on August 13, 2013.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran directed Ms. Muralidharan to appear before the court on November 18 and explain how she permitted the Town Panchayat to complete the construction of the toilet which was inaugurated by Chief Minister Jayalalithaa on January 30, 2014 through video-conferencing from Chennai.
The judges felt that the Collector should have acted on the issue atleast after the petitioner had made a representation to her on the issue.
Public interest litigation
The status quo had been ordered on a public interest litigation petition filed by M. Thirunavukkarasu, an office-bearer of Dravidar Kazhagam.
Subsequently, in October 2015, the then Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat V. Bragantha Nayaki filed a counter affidavit in the court stating that the toilet was constructed under a scheme aimed at making the State free from open defecation through funds received from National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD).
Further, stating that the toilet was inaugurated by the Chief Minister, the officer said: “The new public toilet is being run properly and the same is being properly maintained by the appropriate authority.”
However, after the judges took serious note of the issue and initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, Ms. Nayaki filed an additional counter affidavit in court on Friday and claimed that the “earlier counter affidavit filed by me during 2015 is erroneous and contrary to the facts on ground.”
She claimed that the toilet was not put to use due to the interim order passed by the court in 2013 and that even electricity connection and water supply had not been provided to the sanitary complex till date. She also stated that the construction of the toilet had been completed on June 7, 2013 much before the court ordered status quo.
The incumbent Executive Officer P. Nalayini also filed a counter affidavit accusing her predecessor of having filed an erroneous counter affidavit last year.
After the filing of the additional counter affidavits, Additional Advocate General B. Pugalendhi told the court that the officials were ready to put the toilet complex to some other use after making necessary alterations.
However, when the judges wondered how could that be done after having obtained the funds from NABARD, he said that in such a case, a high raise wall could also be raised between the statue and the toilet set apart by around 15 feet.
He also pleaded with the court to dispense with the appearance of Ms. Muralidharan before the court on November 18.
Refusing to call back the order already passed by them, the judges said that they would consider the plea if he chooses to file an appropriate application with an undertaking that the Additional Secretary shall file a written explanation for the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against her.
