Court censures officials for manhandling bailiffs

The Madras High Court has strongly condemned the behaviour of officials of a taluk office, who manhandled three bailiffs and threw them out when they went to discharge their duty.

In its order on petitions, a Division Bench, comprising Justices Prabha Sridevan and G.M. Akbar Ali, said court officers who were discharging their duties should be treated with respect.

Rathinam, Govindaraj and Lakshmanan, bailiffs, had filed a writ petition before the court praying for a direction to authorities to enquire into the manhandling that took place during the execution of attachment proceedings in a matter relating to land acquisition by the National Highways (NH) Department, and submit a report within a timeframe to be stipulated by the court.

A

suo motu contempt petition against S. Chandrasekharan, formerly Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, taluk office, Poonamallee, and now Excise Supervisory Officer-cum-Tahsildar, TANSI Polish unit, Ambattur Estate, K. Chandran, a former Tahsildar, now retired, and Sundaravadivelu, Firka Supervisor, Ambattur Estate, was also taken up.

Awards were passed directing the NH Department to pay compensation for acquisition of lands. Since the awards were not obliged, orders of attachment of movable properties were passed. When the bailiffs went to the taluk office to execute the warrant of attachment, they were manhandled by officials there. Hence, the writ petition. Meanwhile, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the three officials.

In the counter, besides tendering apology, the officials submitted that they were busy on the day the incident occurred as election process for the Poonamallee Assembly constituency had started. The Observers were holding a meeting when the bailiffs came to the office.

The Bench said one of the contemnors had since retired. Another had a health problem and was undergoing dialysis. In these circumstances, the Bench said while it had no doubt that the bailiffs who went to discharge their duty were manhandled and thrown out, it was accepting the explanation given by the officials that it was in the heat of the moment and tense situation that caused them to behave in that manner. The contemnors were also penitent for the way they treated the court officers. The Bench disposed of the writ petition. Accepting the apology, the Bench treated as closed the contempt proceedings.