AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the summon of the Sub Divisional Magistrate (Executive Sub Collector), Tindivanam dated 9.11.1994, asking the petitioners to appear in person or by duly authorised agent before the Sub Collector, Tindivanam at 10.00 a.m. on 21.11.1994 in connection with the enquiry ordered under P.S.O. 144 (3) regarding the opening of fire in the air on 14.6.1993 at Tindivanam, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions.
On 15.12.1994, this Court ordered notice of motion to the respondents. Pursuant to the said notice, both the writ petitions are posted for orders.
Since identical averments are made by both the petitioners, for the convenience, I shall refer the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.20686 of 1994.
According to the petitioner in W.P.No,20686 of 1994, he was a member of Parliament for four terms and was the Minister of Commerce, Law and Justice in the Central Cabinet. He is a recognised international scholar of Economics and also taught for a number of years in Harward University, U.S.A. At the time of filing the writ petition, the petitioner was the Chairman Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade, Government of India, in the rank of Union Cabinet Minister. He further stated that he had set up a Committee called "Tamilaga Nallatchi Iyakkam" with the aim of bringing good Government in the State of Tamil Nadu. Having come to know about the active participation of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in Trade and business particularly a partnership Firm by name " Jaya Publications", he presented a petition to the Governor of Tamil Nadu stating that the Chief Minister had incurred disqualification under Article 19(l)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that enraged by the act of bringing to the notice of the public about the misdeeds and mal-administration of the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, he was subjected to stone throwing wherever he went in Tamil Nadu and was humiliated even when he went to attend the Courts, by the goondas. Therefore, he was given Central Police Protection whenever he toured Tamil Nadu.
It was during the course of his campaign against the Government of Tamil Nadu, on the night of 14.6.1993, he arranged a roadside meeting at Tindivanam. There was a large gathering. It is further stated that in order to the thwart his addressing the public, the ruling party persons gathered in thousands and stones were thrown on his car, in which he was travelling. There was an imminent danger to the life of the petitioner and the petitioner in W.P. No. 20725 of 1994, who is the President of Janata Party, Tamil Nadu, who was also in the car. Finding the inaction of the local police to quell the crowd, who surged forward to attack him, the Special Police Personnel, who were giving protection to them alerted themselves. When the incident had gone out of the hands, the Security Personnel opened fire in the air to scare the crowd. However, nobody was subjected to any injury on account of opening of fire in the air. Finally, both the petitioners escaped and reached Madras from Tindivanam.
While so, the Sub Collector, Tindivanam issued a memo thereby directing the petitioner to appear before him on 21.11.1994 at his office in connection with an enquiry ordered under Police Standing Order 144 (3) regarding the opening of fire in the air on 14-6-1993 at Tindivanam. On receipt of the said memo, he preferred a petition informing the officer that he is ready and willing to extend all co-operation in the conduct of the enquiry. Considering his position, safety and security, he informed the second respondent to have the enquiry at Madras. It is further stated, in spite of his representation/petition, the second respondent has directed him to appear before him on 21.11.1994 and threatened that in case of failure, he will have to invoke the provisions of Section 2 of the Revenue Enquiry Act, 1893. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the said memo dated 9.11.1994.
The other petitioner has also raised similar averments arid hence I am not referring the same once again.
The respondents have not chosen to file counter affidavit disputing the various averments made by the petitioners.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned-Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2.
I have already referred to the case of the petitioners as mentioned in the affidavit. At this juncture, it is unnecessary for this Court to go into the merits of the enquiry, to be conducted by the second respondent. The only grievance of the petitioner is that by virtue of their office, activities, position as well as safety and security, it would be difficult for them to appear in person at Tindivanam as claimed by the second-respondent.
After going through the various details furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petitions and in the absence of any counter affidavit by any one of the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioners may be permitted to submit their case by way of an affidavit to the Sub Collector, Tindivanam, the second respondent herein, with reference to the issue raised in the impugned summons. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has no serious objection with regard to submission of their case by filing an affidavit to the Enquiry Officer, Tindivanam. Taking note of the various averments made in the affidavit and also of the fact that the incident has taken place on 21.11.1994, I am of the view that the request of the petitioners may be accepted.
Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to submit their stand / case in the form of an affidavit to the Sub Collector, Tindivanam within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if the Enquiry Officers wants any further clarification or any details, the petitioners are permitted to furnish the same. On receipt of such information as stated above, it is for the Enquiry-Officer to pass proper orders in accordance with law. It is further made clear that it is open to the petitioners to raise all objections including legal objections regarding maintainability of the impugned proceedings by the Sub Collector, Tindivanam.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps are closed.