The Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday disposed of two public interest litigation petitions mired in controversies following a telegram sent to one of the judges levelling charges of treachery against the petitioner’s counsel.
P. Dharmaraj (50) of Kadaneri in Peraiyur Taluk near here had filed one of the PIL petitions on July 26 to restrain the Madurai Collector from leasing out Mottamalai, a hillock in the village, for stone quarrying as it might damage a water body nearby.
On September 23, he filed another PIL petition claiming that the Collector had issued a notification in a Tamil daily to lease out the hillock in contravention of an undertaking given by him to the High Court during the hearing of the earlier petition.
The two petitions were clubbed together and posted before Justices Chitra Venkataraman and M. Duraiswamy on October 5 when the matter was taken up in the afternoon following a request made by Special Government Pleader R. Janakiramulu in the forenoon.
In the meantime, the High Court authorities received a telegram addressed to Ms. Justice Venkataraman purportedly sent by Mr. Dharmaraj claiming that there was a threat to his life as some politicians were intimidating him for having filed the case.
“My counsel is also colluding with the opposite party and compelling me to withdraw the case. Hence, I pray to adjourn my case and I will engage another counsel. I asked for change of Vakalat, but my counsel is refusing,” the telegram read.
It had been booked at a telegraph office functioning inside the High Court premises at 10.56 a.m. on October 5. The wire message was presented to the judge who sought an explanation from the counsel in the afternoon session.
Subsequently, N. Seshasayee, Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, received another telegram, also booked from the same telegraph office, on October 9 claiming that the petitioner had not sent any telegram to the judge on October 5.
“I came to know from my lawyer that a telegram was sent to the High Court in my name. I have not sent any such telegram… My advocate is entitled to appear on my behalf. I regret the inconvenience,” the second telegram read.
The petitioner also filed an affidavit to the Registrar stating that he had full faith in his lawyer and he does not want to change the Vakalat (a document authorising a lawyer to appear on behalf of the client).
Thereafter, the Division Bench took up the matter for hearing and disposed it of with a direction to the Collector to grant lease for quarrying only after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Public Works Department.
