Attack On Court-Appointed Administrator Is Attack On Judiciary: Madras High Court Issues Contempt Notice To Top Cops Over 'Inaction'
The Madras High Court has called for an explanation from the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, and Assistant Commissioner of Police as to why no action had been taken against persons who misbehaved with a court appointed administrator at the Pachaiyappa Trust.
Justice G Jayachandran and Justice K Kumaresh Babu lamented that even after the matter was brought to the attention of the jurisdictional police, no action had been taken so far. This inaction on the part of police, according to the bench, was a direct attack on the judiciary as the administrator was appointed by the court and acting on its behalf.
“Unfortunately, even after the matter is brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Police, no action so far, has been taken and we are of the view that the abuse of the unruly elements and inaction by the Police is a direct attack on the Judiciary, as the Administrator appointed by this Court acts on behalf of it,” the court said.
In 2023, the court had appointed Justice V Parthiban (retired judge of the Madras High Court) as the administrator for looking into the management of Pachaiyappa Trust after being aggrieved by the mismanagement in the administration. While so, when the administrator was carrying on the management of the Trust, some unruly elements had barged into the college premises and misbehaved with the court appointed administrator. The court was also informed that the unruly elements used foul language and abused the court appointed administrator.
The court was informed that though a complaint was given by the Secretary of the Trust to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kilpauk, no action had been taken.
Coming down heavily on the conduct of the police, the court directed the officers to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for their inaction on the complaint. The court also directed the officers to appear before it in person on 30th January and file a report.
During the hearing, the Administrator also appraised the court regarding the pending litigations in connection with the trust. The pending litigations included cases in connection with the appointment of Assistant Professor, land encroachment related case, improper audit, etc. The court made it clear that the pending litigations should not come in the way of earlier directions issued by the court for conducting elections to the trust.
In 2008, the court had also framed scheme for the trust. During the earlier litigations, the court had asked the administrator to effect paper publications, calling for views on the scheme and for holding elections to the trust.
The administrator informed the court hat pursuant to the directions of the court, paper publication had been effected and various representations/suggestions had been received which were pending consideration. The court opined that if such representations and suggestions are placed before the court, it would throw light on how elections can be conducted.
The court thus directed the administrator to list out the representations/suggestions received and also offer his view.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Srinivas for Mr. S. Sai Sankar
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Om Prakash Senior Counsel for Mr. M. R. Jothimanian Mr. R. Sidhath Additional Government Pleader, Mr. A. K. Athiban Vijay
Case Title: G Anbazhagan v. S Jeyachandran and Others
Case NO: REV.APLC.No.116 of 2023