Madras High Court: In writ appeals filed by State challenging the Single Judge order, wherein the Court allowed the petition filed by M. Stalin and Durai Murugan challenging Government Order and a letter dated 28-09-2018, according permission to Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (‘DVAC’) to conduct a detailed enquiry against both the leaders, the division bench of R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu., JJ. while permitting the State to withdraw the two writ appeals filed during the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (‘AIADMK’) Government against M. Stalin and Durai Murugan, said that the Court cannot insist upon a party to conduct the case, particularly, when a party wishes to abandon his claim without reserving any right. Further, the Court closed the impleading application filed by AIADMK former Member of Parliament J. Jayavardhan, as it would be a futile exercise to allow the application when the appeals had been withdrawn.
Background:
During 2006-2011, the Tamil Nadu Government decided to construct new legislative assembly building. At that time, the MK Stalin and Durai Murugan served as Deputy Chief Minister and Public Works Department Minister respectively. Power shifted to AIADMK (rival party) in 2011, due to which, various allegations on how the construction has been done and regulated was aroused. A commission was set up by the then government led by Jayalalithaa, chaired by retired judge who resigned soon after taking the lead, thus another retired judge was appointed to lead to committee and summons were issued to MK Stalin, Durai Murugan and former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.
Challenging the appointment of the Commission of enquiry and the consequential summons and proceedings all three filed writ petitions in Madras High Court. The Single Judge had dismantled the Commission of enquiry with a direction to the Commission to hand over the records to the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu for him to look into the matter. However, the petitions were closed as M. Karunanidhi had died.
Thereafter, by a Government Order dated 24-09-2018 directed Secretary Commission of enquiry to hand over all the records including the report of the investigation agency, and the statement of evidence to DVAC. After that, the impleading petitioner – J. Jayavardhan had filed the complaint before DVAC. The Government accorded permission to DVAC to conduct a detailed enquiry on the subject.
Another petition was filed by M. Stalin and Durai Murugan challenging Government Order and a letter dated 28-09-2018 issued by the Government, which was allowed by the Single Judge. Thus, the present appeal has been filed by the State.
Issues:
-
Whether the impleading petitioner (J. Jayavardhan) is entitled to be impleaded as a party respondent in these appeals?
-
Whether the State being the appellant is entitled to withdraw the appeal filed by it?
Analysis:
After perusing the report filed by Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (‘DVAC’) as to the status of the complaint filed by J. Jayavardhan, the Court noted that J. Jayavardhan’s complaint to the DVAC authorities have been closed in view of the communication issued by the Government, wherein a detailed enquiry had been directed to be initiated. Even the same had been closed in view of the impugned order. The said report had not spelt out the dates on which such closures were made nor did the report indicate that the closure of the complaint of the J. Jayavardhan had been intimated to him. Such intimation is mandated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). As the J. Jayavardhan himself has been a complainant, he cannot be branded as a meddlesome interloper, as has been sought to be made by MK Stalin.
The Court reiterated that just because a person is a political opponent, it would not preclude him to agitate the cause of corruption and that the same should not weigh the minds of the Court in judicial dispensation.
The Court viewed that the reason attributed by J. Jayavardhan that the State had been prosecuting their cause hitherto and only when the State decided to withdraw itself, then such impleadment had become necessitated, thus the impleading application cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay and latches.
Concerning the right of the State to withdraw these Intra Court Appeals, the Court said that the contention of the J. Jayavardhan opposing the said cannot be sustained.
After taking note of Anurag Mittal vs. Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691, wherein it was held that when a person, had instituted or initiated a proceeding before the Court, it is always open to him to withdraw or abandon his claim. The Court said that the Court cannot insist upon a party to conduct the case, particularly, when a party wishes to abandon his claim without reserving any right.
The Court said that the Government Order and the direction issued by the Government to conduct a detailed enquiry which they now seek to wriggle out, cannot take away the right of J. Jayavardhan from seeking appropriate remedy in the manner known to law, if he is so advised, since his complaint has also been closed by DVAC.
[State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Stalin, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 575, decided on 28-03-2024]
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
