Madras HC rejects PMK’s request for cancellation of proceedings
The Madras High Court rejected a plea by Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), led by Dr S Ramadoss, to quash proceedings to recover the loss suffered by the government for not operating its bus services due to the political party unrest in 2013.
âThe petitioner has not established incompetence or otherwise for the purpose of receiving the petition in brief. Admittedly, the notice of hearing is contested. Thus, the applicant is free to submit his objections, explanations, documents, evidence, etc., with the aim of defending his case by taking advantage of the opportunities offered to him, âsaid Judge SM Subramanian.
Last week, the judge had a motion to quash from PMK President GK Mani to quash a June 17, 2013 opinion from the Chief Secretary / Additional Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Department of Revenue- administration of disaster management and mitigation department, directing him to appear for an investigation. and file a written statement regarding the charge under the TN Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act 1992.
The notice sought compensation from the petitioner for the loss of income caused by the non-operation and partial operation of the buses of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) in the districts of Chennai, Kanchipuram and Tiruvallur, during the unrest carried out. by members of the petitioner party from April 25. , as of May 19, 2013.
Dismissing the plea and ruling on the motion, the judge noted that this motion in brief had been pending for approximately six years.
âThus, further delay would cause prejudice to one or the other of the parties. In these circumstances, it is necessary that the investigation be carried out without further delay â, declared the judge and ordered the official concerned to continue the investigation by following the envisaged procedures and giving the applicant the possibility to complete it in all. respect them, make decisions and issue orders on merit and in accordance with the law within four months.
The petitioner should cooperate for the speedy resolution of the investigation procedure avoiding unnecessary adjournments. Even in the event of postponement for serious reasons, the competent authority must record the reasons. In case of non-cooperation on the part of the parties, this non-cooperation should be recorded in the proceedings itself, said the judge and ordered the official to issue a circular to all district collectors and DSPs through the state to ensure immediate action in the event of damage or loss to property under the law.
Failure, if any, should be taken seriously and appropriate action should be taken against public authorities, all of which are responsible and accountable for their shortcomings, negligence and breach of duty, the judge added.