The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation petition which sought to restrain its Registrar General from entertaining any PIL petition filed by a group of individuals who had withdrawn petitions filed by them last year against the burial of AIADMK chief Jayalalithaa’s mortal remains at the Marina beach here. The cases were withdrawn in August this year to clear the legal hurdles in burying DMK patriarch M. Karunanidhi’s remains at the beach.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Manikumar and P.T. Asha refused to issue any direction to the Registrar General as sought by the petitioner R. Varaaki. The judges rejected the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the Supreme Court had held that no PIL petition could be allowed to be withdrawn by the litigants after the court had spent considerable amount of time to hear it in public interest.
They pointed out that the Supreme Court had actually left it to the individual discretion of the court concerned to take a call on allowing a PIL petition to be withdrawn. Since the court concerned had taken such a decision on a plea made by advocates S. Doraiswamy, K. Balu and others to withdraw their petitions against Jayalalithaa’s proposed mausoleum at Marina, it was not for the present petitioner to object to such a withdrawal and seek punitive action, they said.
‘Political motive’
The petitioner had alleged that the PIL petitions against Jayalalithaa’s mausoleum had been withdrawn for “political and personal benefits.” Hence, he wanted those petitioners to be restrained from filing any kind of PIL petitions in the High Court in the future. He also sought for a direction to the High Court Registry to frame regulations on filing and withdrawal of cases that were purportedly filed in public interest.
When the Bench led by Mr. Justice Manikumar decided to dismiss his case at the admission stage itself, the petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition. However, the senior judge refused to accept the request by stating that the plea for withdrawal was contrary to the purpose for which the PIL had been filed. “You have filed a case against withdrawal of other cases. Now you cannot be allowed to withdraw your own case,” the judge said.
