![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Friday, Mar 07, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| New Delhi |
![]() |
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
New Delhi
New Delhi: The manager of the Kodanad estate in Kothagiri taluk of the Nilgiris district has moved the Supreme Court to quash an order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing posting of the related cases “before the regular court” though major portion of the hearing had been completed. The manager, R. Ravichandran, had challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Coonoor, for removal of obstruction on the road passing through patta land in the estate. The order warned that it should be complied within 24 hours, failing which penalty under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code would be imposed. The petitioner submitted that the order under section 141 (1) (Procedure on order being made absolute and consequences of disobedience) was passed without providing an opportunity to him. With its passing, proceedings initiated under section 133 Cr.P.C. (conditional order for removal of nuisance) had come to an end. The order was final. He said the road was a private service road wholly belonging to the estate for at least last 100 years. It was not a thoroughfare and hence the SDM’s order was illegal. The grievance of the petitioner was that though Justice A. Kulasekaran had heard 95 per cent of the matter, it was taken off from him following his posting in the Madurai Bench. On February 21, a Division Bench passed an order directing that the batch of matters be posted “before the regular court.” The present special leave petition is directed against this direction. The SLP said that the Division Bench failed to appreciate that by reason of the impugned order connected writ petitions and criminal revision petitions which were consolidated would now go to different judges and this would lead to conflicting judgments. It failed to consider that the entire proceedings were baseless and initiated for political reasons. It prayed for quashing the impugned order and an interim stay of its operation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|