Madras High Court permits Tamil Nadu government to withdraw writ appeals filed against Stalin, Duraimurugan

Justices R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu say, court cannot compel a litigant to conduct a case if he/she/it chooses to abandon the matter midway without reserving any right

March 28, 2024 11:58 am | Updated 12:12 pm IST - CHENNAI

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. File

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin. File | Photo Credit: N. Rajesh

The Madras High Court on Thursday, March 28, 2024 permitted the Tamil Nadu government to withdraw two writ appeals filed during the previous AIADMK government in 2019 against incumbent Chief Minister M.K. Stalin and Water Resources Minister Duraimurugan.

A Division Bench of Justices R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu observed that the court could not compel a litigant to conduct a case when he/she/it wishes to abandon the matter completely, in the midst of the hearing, without reserving any right whasoever.

Though AIADMK former Member of Parliament J. Jayavardhan had filed an application to get impleaded in the writ appeal, the judges closed the application by terming it as unnecessary. They said, it would be a futile exercise to allow the application when the appeals had been withdrawn.

Authoring the verdict, Justice Kumar however, said, Mr. Jayavardhan could seek appropriate legal remedy against the State’s present attempt to wriggle out of a Government Order issued on September 14, 2018 to conduct a vigilance inquiry into the construction of a new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex.

Since the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had conducted the inquiry and closed a complaint lodged by the impleading petitioner too, he could always seek appropriate legal remedy in the manner known to law if he was so advised, the Division Bench said.

Case history

The issue relates to a Commission of Inquiry instituted in 2011 to probe into alleged irregularties in construction of the Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex between 2008 and 2010 when Mr. Stalin and Mr. Duraimurugan served as Deputy Chief Minister and Public Works Department Minister respectively.

The then government led by Jayalalithaa had instituted the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) and converted the complex at Government Omandurar Estate in Chennai into a multi super speciality hospital. It was initially led by retired High Court judge S. Thangaraj and then succeeded by R. Regupathy.

Since the inquiry had been initiated even against former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi too, all three filed individual writ petitions before the Madras High Court in 2014 challenging the constitution of the CoI and obtained interim orders in their favour leading to the CoI becoming dormant since then.

In August 2018, Justice S.M. Subramaniam directed the State government to suspend the CoI since it had not made any headway for long. Days thereafter, Karunanidhi died and hence, the then AIADMK government led by Edappadi K. Palaniswami wound up the CoI and instead ordered a DVAC inquiry in September 2018.

Mr. Stalin and Mr. Duraimurugan challenged the conduct of the DVAC inquiry by way of a writ petition before the Madras High Court and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana (since retired) quashed the GO on December 13, 2018 after being convinced with the arguments advanced by senior counsel P. Wilson for the petitioners.

Thereafter, the government went on appeal against her judgement in 2019 but after the DMK returned to power in 2021, the Government Pleader submitted a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court on July 23, 2023 requesting the appeals to be listed before the Division Bench for withdrawal.

Immediately, Mr. Jayavardhan filed an application on July 24, 2023 wanting to get impleaded as a party in the two writ appeals on the ground that he was a complainant regarding the same issue before the DVAC. Senior Counsel V. Raghavachari appeared for him and pressed for allowing the impleading petition.

However, Advocate General P.S. Raman contended that it was the prerogative of the litigant concerned to withdraw a case and such withdrawal could not be objected to by a third party. Mr. Wilson too placed similar arguments and contended that even the court could not refuse permission to a litigant to withdraw a case.

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.