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 for wasting the court’s time.

Published: 01st September 2020 11:36 AM | Last Updated: 01st September 2020 11:36 AM | A+A A-
By Express News Service
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on an advocate for wasting the court’s time. The advocate, one K Muthiah Pasumpon of Madurai, had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) levelling allegations against the Joint Director of Kallar Reclamation C Amuthavalli that she was acting in a biased manner issuing transfer orders and charge memo to several staff working in Kallar Reclamation schools and hostels. He claimed that her actions were caste-motivated as she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and not Kallar community. He further added that only a person belonging to Kallar community ought to have been appointed in the said post and approached the court.

A Bench of 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.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME