AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Govindarajan, J.—Learned Government Advocate takes notice.
The Petitioner filed the above writ petition questioning the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 288, Home Court II dated 16.03.98, insofar as the case of
the Petitioner namely C.C. No. 4 of 1994.
Originally there was only one Designated Court constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 1110 dated 11.07.91. Under G.O. Ms. No. 199 dated
06.02.92, Mr. M. Soundarapandian, the third Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Additional Judge. Thiru S.M.
Siddick, J., the then 1st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge who was designated as the Judge of the Designated Court was having jurisdiction
with respect to the case of whole State of Tamil Nadu. While amending the said Government Order, the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms.
No. 1729, Home dated 21.10.92, the power has been given to the Designated Court No. 1 with respect to Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and
other cases arising from the whole State of Tamil Nadu excluding Coimbatore, Tiruchirapplli and Tirunelveli-Kattabomman Districts and also
excluding the cases mentioned in the above said Notification. In the Government Order dated 21.10.92, more Designated Courts have been
constituted for the cases or areas as specified in Column 3.
In the said Government Order, Thiru Soundarapandian was designated as Judge of the Designated Court No. 2. Subsequently, in the
Government Order dated 19.06.95, certain amendments were made to the earlier Notification. As per the said amendment, the learned 5th
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge was designated for Designated Court No. 2. That Court is entitled to dealt with cases other than the
cases mentioned under Column 3 of the Central Act 28 of 1987 arising in Madras City, Chengalpattu M.G.R., South Arcot-Vallalar, Villupuram
Ramasamy Padayatchiar, Thiruvannamalai-Sambuvarayar. North Arcot/Ambedkar and Dhannapuri Districts. Thereafter, Thiru R. Gurusamy, City
Civil and Sessions Judge was transferred as V Additional Sessions Judge. Pursuant to the said transfer, the said Judge was designated as Judge of
the Designated Court No. 2. Pursuant to his appointment as a member of the Public Service Commission, some other Judges were transferred as
5th Additional Judge and they been designated as Judges of the Designated Court No. 2.
Under the impugned Government Order dated 16.03.98, since Thiru Tamilvanan was transferred and posted as 5th Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, he had been designated as judge of the Designated Court No. 2. This Government Order is being challenged in the above writ
petition on the ground that the Government has no power to transfer the Designated judges.
u/s 9(4) of the Act 28 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ""The Act""), the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High
Court can appoint a Judge to the Designated Court. It cannot be denied that the Judge who occupies the post of District/Sessions Judge is liable
for transfer to any other Court. From the Notifications, I am able to see whoever appointed as V Additional Sessions Judge is being designated by
a Notification as Judge of Designated Court No. 2. Such a designation by Notification should be construed only as an appointment in so far as
Designated Court is concerned. Moreover under the Act, there is no prohibition to change of Judges in the Designated Courts.
In view of the appointment of Thiru R. Gurusamy as a member of the Public Service Commission, some other Judges were posted in the said
post and notified to exercise as a Judge of the Designated Court. We have to see only whether the said Judge has been vested with power under
Notification to exercise the powers of the Judge of the Designated Court under the Act. As stated earlier, in the absence of any prohibition to
change the persons, the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of High Court can confer power as Judge of the Designated
Court No. 2 to the Judge who has been transferred and posted as 5th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Chennai.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on Section 9(2) of the said Act, has submitted that a Judge who has been appointed as a Judge of
the Designated Court cannot be asked to go out even if he attained the age of superannuation. I am not able to accept the said interpretation given
by the learned Counsel. The said provision is only by way of clarification to enable the Government to make the said Judge to continue if it is
necessary. That does not mean the person who was appointed as Judge of the Designated Court, can claim to continue as a matter of right even
after superannuation. In view of the above, I am not able to accept the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the
persons appointed as a Judge of the Designated Court cannot be transferred.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner''s case in C.C. No. 4 of 1994 was registered in 1994 on the file
of the Designated Court No. 2. During the relevant time, the said Court has no power to take cognizance of the said case and only the Designated
Court No. 1 was having power. But unfortunately subsequent notification was made on 19.06.95 giving jurisdiction to the Designated Court No.
2, to try such cases also. Accepting that, the Petitioner participated in the proceedings and examined as many as 73 witnesses before the said
Court. So at this stage, the Petitioner cannot be allowed to raise such a plea while challenging the Notification issued by the Government dated
16.03.98.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence the said petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P. is
also dismissed. No Costs.