justices M Sathyanarayanan and P Rajamanickam stated that the litigant has not submitted any materials to support his claim that only a Kallar community member should have been appointed in the above post. They also pointed out that it is a service portfolio case and not a PIL and the litigant, despite being a practising advocate and a registered political party member, had not paid attention to the fact. Criticising the litigant for wasting the court’s time, the judge dismissed the PIL and directed the litigant to pay Rs 10,000 as cost to any one Kallar Reclamation school of his choice within two weeks.
ADVERTISEMENT SUBSCRIBE E-PAPER STOCK MARKET BSE NSE Home States Tamil Nadu Cost on advocate for wasting court’s time The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate...
