Text of High Court order 2/03/09-See how the police treat judicial orders

SUO MOTU [Taken Up] W. P. [PIL] No. 3335 of 2009



HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN

MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU


[ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

Pursuant to the Court’s orders dated 19th February, 2009 and 21st February, 2009, the case has been listed today. While it is informed that the State Government has referred and entrusted the matter to the CBI, after perusal of the records, we are of the view that the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 has not been complied with by the respondents. This would be evident from the following facts:

1. On 19th February, 2009, this Court noticed all the relevant facts, information received from one or other sources and counter claim made by the police and the lawyers. The details regarding the incidents with time have been shown in the said order and in the said order, it has also been mentioned that the Court passed the order at about 6.40pm. The said order was dictated in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Government Pleader and certain lawyers. It was ordered to forward a copy of the said order to the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, New Delhi, who, in its turn, was directed to forward the same to the Director, CBI investigation. This was so ordered as that was the first information given to the Police Officials, viz., Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Chennai, apart from other Police Officials, who were present in the Court, which was to be registered as a case for the purpose of investigation by CBI. But from the records, it appears that no case has been registered in terms with the first information received by the Respondents vide Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. It appears that a separate case in Crime No. 15 of 2009 under Sections 147,353,332,450,436 & 307, IPC r/w Section 3[1] of the Tamilnadu Properties [Prevention of Damages and Loss] Act, 1992, made on the basis of a complaint made by a Sub-Inspector of Police, was forwarded by the State Government and a notification issued in this regard on 23rd February, 2009, on the basis of which the Union of India, from its Department of Personnel and Training issued a notification contained in letter No.228/10/2009 AVD.II dated 28th February, 2009.

2. We have also noticed that in the said Crime No.15 of 2009, no reference has been made with regard to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and the facts shown therein, including the time given, which also differ from the information received by the Respondents pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.

3. Counter Affidavits have been filed by the First Respondent/Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu and Fourth Respondent/Commissioner of Police, Chennai. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is a procedural matter, for which a case was to be registered, but such stand can be taken only if the FIR is lodged in terms with the facts recorded by the Court on its Order dated 19th February, 2009.

4. By order dated 19.02.2009, we directed the Respondents to adhere to their undertaking given before this Court with clear stipulation that on failure, it will be treated to be a violation of the Court’s order. Therefore, prima facie, we are of the view that the Respondents/authorities of the State have violated the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009, by not registering a case pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009 and asking the CBI to investigate the matter as per Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009. We, accordingly, grant time to the Respondents to file an affidavit in this regard by the next date. It will also be open to the Respondents/State Authorities and Union of India to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the first information received by them at 6.40pm pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19.02.2009. Any other information given subsequently at or about 19.20hours [7.20pm] cannot be treated to be a case registered pursuant to the Court’s order. It will also be open to the CBI to register a case on the basis of the Court’s order dated 19th February, 2009.

5. In public interest, it would be desirable to implead the Madras Bar Association, Madras High Court Advocates Association, Women Lawyers Association, Law Association and Tamilnadu Advocates Association as profroma respondents, as all of them have represented before the Supreme Court.

So far as the question as to who ordered to enter the High Court premises is concerned, we are not making any observation as the matter os pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Let the case be listed under the same caption on 11th March, 2009 at 2.30p.m.




[S. J. M. , ACJ] [V. D. P. J.] [K. C. J.]

2nd March, 2009.