The Hindu (Erode)

HC allows govt. to revoke writ appeals filed against CM, Duraimurug­an

- Mohamed Imranullah S.

The Madras High Court on Thursday permitted the Tamil Nadu government to withdraw two writ appeals filed during the previous AIADMK government in 2019 against the 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 wished to abandon the matter completely without reserving any right whatsoever.

Though the AIADMK's former MP, J. Jayavardha­n, had filed an applicatio­n to get impleaded in the writ appeal, the judges closed the applicatio­n by terming it unnecessar­y. They said it would be futile to allow the applicatio­n when the appeals were withdrawn.

The judges, 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 Assemblycu­mSecretari­at Complex. Since the Directorat­e of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had conducted the inquiry and closed a complaint filed 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 the alleged irregulari­ties in the constructi­on of the Assemblycu­mSecretari­at Complex between 2008 and 2010 when Mr. Stalin and Mr. Duraimurug­an served as Deputy Chief Minister and Public Works Department Minister respective­ly. The government, then led by Jayalalith­aa, had instituted the commission of inquiry and converted the complex at Government Omandurar Estate in Chennai into a multi superspeci­ality hospital. It was initially led by retired High Court judge S. Thangaraj and then by R. Regupathy.

Since the inquiry had been initiated even against former Chief Minister M. Karunanidh­i, all three filed individual writ petitions before the High Court in 2014 challengin­g the constituti­on of the commission of inquiry and obtained interim orders in their favour, leading to the commission of inquiry becoming dormant since then. In August 2018, Justice S.M. Subramania­m directed the government to suspend the commission of inquiry since it had not made any headway for long. Days thereafter, Karunanidh­i died.

Hence, the AIADMK government, led by Edappadi K. Palaniswam­i, wound up the commission of inquiry 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 High Court and Justice Pushpa Sathyanara­yana (since retired) quashed the government order on December 13, 2018, after being convinced with the arguments advanced by senior counsel P. Wilson for the petitioner­s.

The government went on appeal against her judgment 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 that the appeals 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 in the same issue before the DVAC. Senior counsel V. Raghavacha­ri appeared for him and pressed for allowing the impleading petition.

However, AdvocateGe­neral P.S. Raman contended that it was the prerogativ­e of the litigant concerned to withdraw a case and 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.

 ?? M. MOORTHY ?? Futile attempt: Judges observed that the court cannot compel a litigant to conduct a case when he or she wished to abandon the matter completely.
M. MOORTHY Futile attempt: Judges observed that the court cannot compel a litigant to conduct a case when he or she wished to abandon the matter completely.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India