Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 14, 2010
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
Front Page |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
New Delhi |
Other States |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to condone delay in filing a petition for restoring a writ petition against Chief Minister M.Karunanidhi for certain remarks he had made in 2002 which allegedly wounded Hindus' feelings.
In the condonation petition, R.Balasubramanian, advocate, said that at a meeting of Christian community at Egmore on October 24, 2002, the DMK leader with a “deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the feelings of Hindus” made certain remarks.
An advocate, R. Premnath, filed a complaint against Mr. Karunanidhi before XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. The police inspector obtained sanction for prosecuting Mr. Karunanidhi. The case was posted for trial and it was adjourned several times.
Mr.Balasubramanian said he was Mr.Premnath's counsel. On May 21, 2007 on verifying, he came to know that on August 17, 2006, the case had been withdrawn based on a memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge, without giving any opportunity or hearing the complainant or his counsel. The petitioner alleged that the earlier G.O. according sanction had been rescinded and a G.O. of May 27, 2006 was issued to withdraw the case. This was unsustainable.
A writ petition was filed before the High Court seeking to quash the G.O. of May 2006. Since there was no representation for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed on October 12 last year.
Subsequently, the petitioner preferred the present petition seeking to condone the delay in filing a petition seeking to restore the writ petition which was already dismissed.
In its counter to the condone delay petition, the State government said the petitioner himself had admitted that the writ petition was earlier posted for hearing continuously. Hence, having known that it had been posted, he ought to have represented the case for prosecution. The present plea was an excuse.
In its order, a Division Bench consisting of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and K.K.Sasidharan said the writ petition had been dismissed for default. It said after going through the counter, it saw no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, the petition was being dismissed, the Bench said.
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 | Ergo | Home |
Copyright © 2010, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of