Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 951 (MAD)

M. Ravichandran v. Uma Ramanathan

2022-04-19

M.DURAISWAMY, T.V.THAMILSELVI

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Review Application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed in W.P.No.11317 of 2021 dated 22.06.2021.) M. Duraiswamy, J. 1. The above Review Application has been filed by Mr.M.Ravichandran, Advocate, to review the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11317 of 2021. 2. The Writ Petition came to be filed in the name of the 1st respondent viz., Uma Ramanathan to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 3rd respondent dated 19.04.2021 and to quash the same. The 3rd respondent issued the notice dated 19.04.2021 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to stop the construction work with immediate effect. 3. When the Division Bench heard the Writ Petition, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the 1st respondent has not filed the Writ Petition and it was only her tenant by name R.G.Mohan Babu had fabricated her signature and filed the Writ Petition in her name. The affidavit filed in the Writ Petition was attested by one Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate and the Review Applicant viz., Mr.M.Ravichandran, Advocate has filed the Writ Petition. 4. The Division Bench, while dismissing the Writ Petition, made some observations against the Review Applicant and also against Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the Division Bench warned Mr.Gopalakrishnan, however, observed that he was innocent. Since the Division Bench made some observations which are against the interest of the Review Applicant, the Review Application has been filed by him to exonerate him from the criminal proceedings. This Court directed the Commissioner of Police to conduct enquiry in order to find the culprit and take criminal action against them. 5. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Review Applicant submitted that Mr.M.Ravichandran, Advocate has filed the Writ Petition believing the words of the tenant viz., R.G.Mohan Babu and that he also asserted that the affidavit was given to the counsel by the tenant, hence, he was not in a position to ascertain whether the 1st respondent had signed the affidavit or not. 6. As already stated, the affidavit was attested by Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate. Therefore, the person who knew about the signature of the 1st respondent would be Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, who had attested the affidavit. 7. 6. As already stated, the affidavit was attested by Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate. Therefore, the person who knew about the signature of the 1st respondent would be Mr.Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, who had attested the affidavit. 7. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel further submitted that since the affidavit was duly attested by a counsel, the Review Applicant had filed the Writ Petition believing the words of the tenant viz., R.G.Mohan Babu, who is not a party to the Writ Petition. This Court had taken a lenient view in respect of the attesting Advocate and exonerated him. 8. It is pertinent to note that the said Gopalakrishnan had not disputed his signature in the affidavit. When the affidavit was duly attested by a counsel, the counsel who had filed the Writ Petition viz., the Review Applicant, cannot be blamed or found fault with. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned senior counsel that the Review Applicant has got 30 years of standing in the Bar without any complaint or blemish so far. 10. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent fairly submitted that he has no objection for exonerating the Review Applicant for the reason that it would affect his future in the profession. 11. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, we are of the considered view that the Review Applicant viz., Mr.M.Ravichandran, Advocate, should be exonerated from the criminal proceedings to be initiated by the Commissioner of Police. Accordingly, the Review Applicant is exonerated from the criminal proceedings to be initiated by the Commissioner of Police with regard to the fabrication of the signature in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent. 12. In such view of the matter, the order passed by the Division Bench on 22.06.2021 is modified by exonerating the Review Applicant from the criminal proceedings as stated above. It is needless to say that the Commissioner of Police shall continue with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.06.2021. 13. With the above observations, the Review Application is disposed of. No costs.