Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 230
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
A. Pattabi - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Registrar (Writ), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai & Others - Respondent
W.A(MD) SR. No. 2630 of 2018
Decided On : 15-03-2018
For the Appellant :P. Balasubramaniyan, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining respectful conduct towards the Judge and upheld the objections raised by the Registry on the grounds of maintainability.
Headnote:
Ragging - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Section 220 of I.P.C., 1860, Section 219 of I.P.C., 1860, Section 166 of I.P.C., 1860, Section 21 of I.P.C., 1860 - The court dismissed the writ appeal on the grounds of maintainability, upholding objections raised by the Registry. The appellant's prayer to quash a notice to vacate official quarters and to direct the CBI to investigate ragging and eve-teasing incidents were found unrelated. The court also noted the appellant's disrespectful conduct towards the Judge and upheld the objections raised by the Registry.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to quash a notice to vacate official quarters and to direct the CBI to investigate ragging and eve-teasing incidents. The court found the appellant's prayers unrelated and noted the appellant's disrespectful conduct towards the Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld objections raised by the Registry and dismissed the writ appeal on the grounds of maintainability.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ appeal, Unrelated prayers, Disrespectful conduct of the appellant towards the Judge
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the appellant's prayers unrelated and noted the appellant's disrespectful conduct towards the Judge. The court upheld objections raised by the Registry and dismissed the writ appeal on the grounds of maintainability.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ appeal as not maintainable.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The writ appeal in W.A(MD)SR.No.2630 of 2018 is against the order dated 14.11.2017, passed in W.P(MD)SR.No.62427 of 2017.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant and it is relevant to extract hereunder the main prayer in the writ petition as well as interim prayers sought for by him:
“(i) calling for the records pertaining to the notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent herein and Quash the impugned notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 and consequently, direct the 9th respondent herein, viz., the Director of CBI, Chennai to investigate into the totality of the fact of the offences of ragging by the R10 to R14 herein from 06.07.2016 in the SSVM.Girls Marticulation Higher Secondary School and offence of eve-teasing by the R15 to R20 herein against my daughter P.Jananni on/from 14.08.2016 in the TNPL Housing Colony premises at Kagithapuram in Karur District - 639 136 and committed offences by the officials of M/s.TNPL from 14.08.2016 to till date which heavily affected the fundamental Rights of Right to Education of my daughter P.Jananni and to file a report thereon within 60 days of receipt of this court order and to pass any such further or other orders.
(ii) To stay the impugned notice HR/Leg/17 dated 12.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent herein pending final disposal of the above Writ petition and
(iii) To Direct the District Collector of Karur and Chief Educational Officer of Karur to ensure the admission of my daughter P.Jananni in XIIth standard Biology group in a Government or a Government aided or a Private school in Karur District during the academic year 2017 - 2018 and safe, secured and peaceful continued studies of my daughter P.Jananni in XIIth std., and thus render justice.” [extracted as such.]
3. The Registry has returned the papers for certain compliance and it is relevant to extract hereunder the defects pointed out by the Registry and the second return dated 01.11.2017:
“WP.(MD).SR.No.62427/2017
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Balasubramanian, has already been deprecated by this Honourable court by order dated 06-06-2017 in W.P(MD)SR.No.11781 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)SR.No.11783 of 2017, for filing frivolous petitions and has also been directed to pay a cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only).
The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“After the dismissal of his earlier attempt to get fanciful reliefs under Section 482 Cr.P.C., P.Balasubramaniyan is now attempting to re-enter through the window of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also seen that P.Balasubramaniyan has enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. An Advocate belongs to a very noble profession and when he drafts pleadings, he is required to act with great circumspection, as he is in the position of an Officer of the Court. He cannot file reckless pleadings as in this case.
8. In the result, this petition is dismissed at the SR stage itself with costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by P.Balasubramanian to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.”
Whether the above order has been complied or not has to be stated.
Petitioner pleads in this petition to take action against the person who teased his daughter. Without any relevancy to the prayer sought for in the present petition, the petitioner has filed the letter dated 12.08.2017 issued by the Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited directing him to vacate the quarters. The averments in the affidavit runs contra to the pleadings filed by the petitioner.
The prayer and enclosures filed by the petitioner do not correlate. Hence returned.” [extracted as such.]
4. The appellant/writ petitioner is represented by Mr.P.Balasubramanian, Advocate, C/o. Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate, No.8, Lawyers Chamber, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023 an
