Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3457 (MAD)

M. Murugesan v. Inspector of Police, Chennai

2012-08-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the second respondent and his agents not to execute any sale, in respect of the property bearing S.No.407/3A/2A, having an extent of 50 cents, situated at No.28, Perungalathur village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the property in question belongs to the wife of the petitioner, as it had been purchased, by way of a sale deed, dated 18.1.2007, bearing document No.237 of 2007. Since the date of its purchase, the property in question has been in the possession and enjoyment of the wife of the petitioner. While so, the petitioner had applied for patta, in respect of the said property, on 20.7.2009 and 29.5.2010, before the third respondent. However, the third respondent had not issued the patta, as prayed for by the petitioner, till date. Instead, the third respondent had issued a patta, erroneously, in the name of the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society, under the ‘Metro Classic City Housing Site Scheme’. 4. It had also been stated that the patta had been issued in favour of the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society, based on forged documents. The second respondent Housing Co-operative Society had also obtained the lay out approval, from the fourth respondent, fraudulently. Based on the approval granted from the fourth respondent, the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society had started executing and registering sale deeds to its members, even though the property in question belongs to the wife of the petitioner. 5. It had also been stated that the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society is involved in a large scale scam, by selling the property belonging to the wife of the petitioner. Inspite of several complaints having been lodged before the Police, the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society is carrying on the illegal transactions. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a criminal original petition, in Crl.O.P.No.22603 of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated 28.9.2010, had directed the first respondent to conduct a fair and proper enquiry and to take suitable action against the anti-social elements, who are interfering with the property belonging to the wife of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred a criminal original petition, in Crl.O.P.No.22603 of 2010. This Court, by its order, dated 28.9.2010, had directed the first respondent to conduct a fair and proper enquiry and to take suitable action against the anti-social elements, who are interfering with the property belonging to the wife of the petitioner. However, no effective steps had been taken by the first respondent to stop the illegal transactions of the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the second and the fourth respondents had submitted that the present writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits. They had also pointed out that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the relief prayed for by the petitioner is against the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society, which is a registered Co-operative Society, as held by a Full Bench of this Court, in MARAPPAN K. Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, ( 2006 (4) CTC 689 ). 7. It has also been submitted that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the present writ petition, are purely of a civil nature and therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. In such circumstances, this Court had expressed its view that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and that it would be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate civil forum to establish the right of title, in respect of the property in question. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is noted that the issues arising for the consideration of this Court relate to the title of the wife of the petitioner, in respect of the property in question. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the party concerned to establish her rights before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the party concerned to establish her rights before the appropriate civil forum, in the manner known to law. Further, the main prayer in the present writ petition is against the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society, which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a direction to the second respondent Housing Co-operative Society, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in MARAPPAN K. Vs. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL, ( 2006 (4) CTC 689 ). Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed, without this Court going into the merits of the matter, as it is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 9. While disposing of the present writ petition this Court deems it fit to record, with concern, the inappropriate and condemnable behaviour of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The final hearing of this writ petition had been postponed, on several occasions, due to the request of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 3.7.2012, after hearing the counsels appearing for the respondent, this Court had adjourned the writ petition to 4.7.2012, for orders. Further, the matter had been listed for hearing on 5.7.2012, 10.7.2012, 11.7.2012, 12.7.2012 and 13.7.2012. Again, on the request of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it had been adjourned to 19.7.2012, for orders. Once again, the matter had been listed, on 26.7.2012, for the passing of orders. 10. On the several dates, when the matter had been listed for hearing, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had been attempting to get the matter adjourned, for one reason or the other, raising flimsy grounds. Therefore, this Court had insisted that the counsel for the petitioner should make his final arguments in the matter, as several adjournments had been granted, at his request. 11. Therefore, this Court had insisted that the counsel for the petitioner should make his final arguments in the matter, as several adjournments had been granted, at his request. 11. In the course of the hearing of the matter this Court had also asked the counsel as to how the writ petition was maintainable, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the issues arising for the decision of this Court involved dispute questions of fact, relating to the title of the property in question. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner, thinking that the writ petition is likely to be dismissed, had been attempting to get it adjourned, by requesting for adjournments, on several occasions. He had also raised a question, in the open Court, on 19.7.2012, when the matter had been listed for hearing, as to why this Court is interested in disposing of the matter, expeditously. In such a situation this Court had stated that it is expected to dispose of every matter that is listed for hearing, before the Court, after hearing the counsels concerned and that there was nothing unusual about the matter being taken up for final hearing, as it had been adjourned, on a number of occasions, at the request of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. On 26.7.2012, when the matter had been listed for further hearing and for orders, after having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that he was addressing a letter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for listing the matter before some other Court. However, this Court had no knowledge of the contents of the said letter. Thereafter, it was learnt that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted a letter to the Registry, dated 23.7.2012, addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, making certain unwanted and irresponsible statements therein. This Court is of the opinion that the act of the counsel for the petitioner is highly irresponsible, reprehensible and condemnable in nature. It is a clear attempt, by the counsel to dissuade this Court from passing an adverse order against the petitioner. 12. This Court is of the opinion that the act of the counsel for the petitioner is highly irresponsible, reprehensible and condemnable in nature. It is a clear attempt, by the counsel to dissuade this Court from passing an adverse order against the petitioner. 12. In such circumstances this Court is of the considered view that it is a clear case of `Forum Shopping’, by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on his coming to know that the writ petition is likely to be dismissed. He had got the matter adjourned on several occasions, without having valid reasons for the same. Thereafter, he had made certain comments in the open court and had also submitted a letter, dated 23.7.2012, addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, with a view to get the writ petition listed before some other Court. Such an unhealthy practice has been deprecated by the Supreme Court, as well as by this Court, in a number of their decisions. Such unwarranted and irresponsible statements made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner calls for serious condemnation. Unless such attempts which are made with the view to subvert the authority of the courts of law by causing unwarranted interference in the course of justice, are nipped in the bud it would lead to serious consequences, resulting in the failure of the system of dispensation of justice. Therefore, in order to discourage such an unhealthy trend from attaining cancerous proportions, this Court finds it appropriate to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/-, on the petitioner, while condemning the irresponsible act of the counsel for the petitioner, in making such unprofessional statements, in an attempt to bring discredit to the system of justice and the reputation of the judiciary, which is as an institution involved in the dispensation of justice, without fear or favour. 13. In the decision, reported in Jaswant Singh Vs. Virender Singh, 1995 (Supp.1) SCC 384), the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Virender Singh, 1995 (Supp.1) SCC 384), the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “It is most unbefitting for an advocate to make imputations against the Judge only because he does not get the expected result, which according to him is the fair and reasonable result available to him. Judges cannot be intimidated to seek favourable orders. Only because a lawyer appears as a party in person he does not get a licence thereby to commit contempt of the court by intimidating the Judge or scandalizing the courts. He cannot use language, either in the pleadings or during arguments, which is either intemperate or unparliamentary. These safeguards are not for the protection of any Judge individually but are essential for maintaining the dignity and decorum of the courts and for touchy to fair and reasonable criticism of their judgments. Fair comments, even if, outspoken, but made without any malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice and made in good faith, in proper language, do not attract any punishment for contempt of court. However, when from the criticism deliberate, motivated and calculated attempt is discernible to bring down the image of judiciary in the estimation of the public or to impair the administration of justice or tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute the courts must bister themselves to uphold their dignity and the majesty of law. The appellant, has, undoubtedly committed contempt of court by the use of objectionable and intemperate language. No system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person, be he a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of scandalizing a court by casting unwarranted, uncalled for an unjustified aspersions on the integrity, ability, impartiality or fairness of a Judge in the discharge of his judicial functions as it amounts to an interference with the due course of administration of justice.” 14. In the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in M/s.Chetak Construction Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash & Ors, 1998(4) SCC 577 , it had been held as follows: “Indeed, no lawyer or litigant can be permitted to brow beat the court or malign the presiding officers with a view to get a favourable order. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities of justice would become a casualty and Rule of Law would receive a set back. Judges shall not be able to perform their duties freely and fairly if such activities of justice would become a casualty and Rule of Law would receive a set back. The Judges are obliged to decide cases impartially and without any fear or favour. Lawyers and litigants cannot, be allowed to “terrorize” or “intimidate” judges with a view to “secure” orders which they want. This is basic and fundamental and no civilized system of administration of justice can permit it. We certainly, cannot approve of any attempt on the part of any litigant to go “forum shopping”. A litigant cannot be permitted `choice’ of the `forum’ and every attempt at “forum shopping” must be crushed with a heavy hand.” 15. The petitioner shall pay the exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed by this Court, to the Tamilnadu Legal Services Authority, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it would be open to the Tamilnadu Legal Services Authority, to recover the said amount, from the petitioner, in the manner known to law. 16. In view of the observations made by this Court, with regard to the unprofessional and condemnable conduct of the counsel for the petitioner, the Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the Chairman, Bar Council of Tamilnadu, for further action, if any.