W.P.No.34845 of 2018 and Crl. O.P.No.23428 of 2018 THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE and SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. —-+minister velumani case order—No view is expressed at this stage, particularly since this Bench has not dealt with the matter previously. Since the State election is round the corner, it may not be appropriate to take up this matter before the summer vacation. It is also made clear that the mere pendency of this matter should not be regarded as any adverse inference being drawn against the concerned Minister just as the writ petitioner suggests that mere obtaining of the inquiry report does not absolve the concerned person. The matter will appear at least three weeks after the summer vacation.

by Sekar Reporter · Published February 19, 2021 · Updated February 19, 2021

W.P.No.34845 of 2018

and Crl. O.P.No.23428 of 2018

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

and

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon’ble Chief Justice)

The matter pertains to the perceived dealings of a Minister and the inquiry report submitted in connection therewith. The inquiry report finds no wrong-doing on the part of the Minister. The concerned Minister is represented as is the State Government. On behalf of the Minister, the very maintainability of the present public interest litigation is questioned. The State says that the matter should be closed since the inquiry reveals nothing against the concerned person and the remedy of the writ petitioner lies elsewhere and not by way of a public interest litigation.

The writ petitioner says that the inquiry was thought of and orchestrated for the purpose of giving the concerned Minister a clean chit.

No view is expressed at this stage, particularly since this Bench has not dealt with the matter previously. Since the State election is round the corner, it may not be appropriate to take up this matter before the summer vacation. It is also made clear that the mere pendency of this matter should not be regarded as any adverse inference being drawn against the concerned Minister just as the writ petitioner suggests that mere obtaining of the inquiry report does not absolve the concerned person.