Government wants to administer Tamil film producers’ council for eternity, allege former office bearers

The counsel for the former office-bearers, appearing before Justice N. Sathish Kumar, said the government-appointed special officer’s tenure had ended a long time ago, but the officer was still continuing to administer

July 04, 2020 04:49 pm | Updated 04:49 pm IST - CHENNAI

The former office-bearers of the Tamil Film Producers Council (TFPC) on Friday accused the State government of wanting to administer their association for eternity, through a Special Officer appointed in April last, due to a factional dispute between the members.

Appearing before Justice N. Sathish Kumar, advocate Krishna Ravindran said he was actually representing the council until the government appointed the special officer and hence, he was now appearing for the former office-bearers who included actor-producer Vishal Krishna.

The counsel said the government had appointed N. Sekar, District Registrar (Administration), Central Chennai as the special officer at the first instance for a period of one year. Though his tenure had ended long back, the officer was still continuing to administer on one pretext or the other, he added.

However, Justice Kumar remarked that it would not be possible to conduct elections when the threat of COVID-19 was looming large. He also took note that Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had extended the time limit for conduct of elections from June 30 to September 30.

Further, the judge ordered filing of a counter affidavit to an application preferred by some members seeking a direction to the special officer to pay the premium for insurance coverage that had been taken for the members through a welfare trust managed by the council.

Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General P.H. Arvindh Pandian told the court that the council, as well as the trust, were two independent bodies and the former had absolutely no authority to transfer its funds to the trust. He sought two weeks’ time for filing a counter affidavit.

Accepting his submission, the judge adjourned the case with an observation that a separate suit could have been filed for payment of insurance premium instead of having made an application in a pending suit which was primarily related to conduct of elections for the council.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.