The vacate stay petitions are taken up for consideration in view of the fact that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the Commission of Inquiry, appointed in the year 2011, is functioning without performing any duties and responsibilities for the past about 3 years. The financial sanctions are accorded to the Commission of Inquiry for more than Rs.2 crores without any performance of public duties and responsibilities. Thus, the tax payers' money are being spent in violation of the public interest and causing wrongful financial loss to the State Exchequer. This Court is of an opinion that any delay in disposing of the vacate stay petitions will cause great prejudice to the State Exchequer and, the public at large, cannot made to suffer on account of the interim stay granted and on account of the wrongful loss to the State Exchequer.

2. The word “writ petitioner” will indicate the petitioner in the main writ petition, the “first respondent” wherever stated will indicate “The Secretary, Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inlquiry, Government Bungalow, NCBI, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-600 028”, the second respondent wherever stated will indicate “Justice R.Regupathi (Retd.), Single Member, Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inlquiry, Government Bungalow, NCBI, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-600 028” and the “third respondent” wherever stated will indicate “The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Chennai-600 009” in these petitions.

3. The case was listed for hearing on 17.7.2018. At the request of the learned counsels, the matter was again posted on 18.7.2018. On 18.7.2018, request was made to adjourn the matter to get instructions and to ascertain the present status. The learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate General also argued certain points discreetly. Thus, the matter was posted for orders on 26.7.2018. Since the vacate stay petitions were filed in the year 2015 and for three years the vacate stay petitions are pending and, when the stay is in force for three years and, huge amount of tax payers' money is spent to the Commissions of Inquiry without performing any public duties and responsibilities. This Court thought it fit that the vacate stay petitions are to be disposed without any further lapse of time. When the matter was posted on 26.7.2018 for orders on that day, the learned counsels made a request for adjournment and again, the matter was posted on 1.8.2018, enabling the Advocate General to get the particulars regarding the Commissions of Inquiry. Again on 1.8.2018, the matter was adjourned for orders on 2.8.2018.

4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, requested for adjournments. The ground raised is that this Court cannot hear the final disposal of the writ petition on account of the roster and at the time of grant of interim order on 12.3.2015, this Court made an observation that the stay will be in force till the final disposal of the writ petition. Thus, even the vacate stay petition and the miscellaneous petitions need not be taken up for hearing. A memo was filed on 1.8.2018 stating that the copy of the vacate petitions were not served. However, this Court found that the copy of the vacate stay petitions were already served and necessary acknowledgements were obtained by the counsel for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel, then opposed by stating that he did not know who received the papers. This Court is unable to accept such an argument of a counsel and this Court immediately handed over the additional copies of the vacate stay petitions to the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and posted the matter for arguments on 2.8.2018.

5. On 2.8.2018, the learned Senior Counsel was not present and the counsel on record filed another memo setting out