Rubt Mhc Advt: Justice Chandru You claimed that “The Law College Professors case is not a PIL but one of quo warranto” that’s fine but define what is PIL? The difference between M/s. Row & Reddi and mine are different QW Writs.
[5/15, 16:19] Rubt Mhc Advt: Justice Chandru You claimed that “The Law College Professors case is not a PIL but one of quo warranto” that’s fine but define what is PIL? The difference between M/s. Row & Reddi and mine are different QW Writs. The one filed them is not a PIL but mine is a PIL. The QW Writ against those three Judges appointments they would have questioned and confined exclusively to it Constitutionality. The 1st one with reference to age aspect Article 217(1) of CoI and 2nd and 3rd would be to Article 217(2)(a) and (b) of CoI I doubt that in the other QW Writs they would have projected it as PIL since in the 60’s PIL never existed and therefore their QW Writ was in the pattern of 1862 but not a PIL arising under QW. It was Late Justice Krishna Iyer for the first time in India coined the Public Interest Litigation in the case of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. M/s Abdulbhai Faizullabhai and later it was held by him that just a post card to Judge is sufficient enough to treat it as a Writ Petition if the interest of the general public is affected. In my case it was projected only as a PIL under QW Writ and it was accepted by the Judge. Hence you can’t say mine not a PIL. The judge holding it PIL is binding on you. It was specifically contended before the Judge that Respondent-1 illegal appointment affects the entire academic set up, the present and future students of law and the public as today’s students are tomorrows Bench and Bar. I find that you are not coming out openly to claim that those 3 QW Writs were the 1st PIL in MHC. Instead it is expressed by you that “My firm M/s. Row & Reddy has filed quo warranto writs against appointment of High Court Judges in the 60’s” which you are trying to say indirectly it’s not mine! But Row & Reddi. Why should I stand corrected when PIL came only in 1976 and my PIL case was in 1980. [5/15, 18:42] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🍁
![[3/10, 14:36] Sekarreporter 1: Madras HC dismisses the first election petition preferred after the 2016 Assembly polls in TN. Rejects a plea filed by AIADMK candidate SP Rajendran challenging the victory of DMK’s P. Seethapathy by a margin of 101 votes from Tindivanam (reserved) constituency. @THChennai [3/10, 14:36] Sekarreporter 1: #Breaking : நடிகர் சங்க தேர்தல் நடத்த பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவுக்கு இடைக்கால தடை * விஷால் தொடர்ந்த வழக்கில், சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு * தேர்தலை 3 மாதத்திற்குள் நடத்தி முடிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற தனி நீதிபதியின் உத்தரவுக்கும் இடைக்கால தடை (1/2) #NadigarSangam | #Vishal | #HighCourt https://t.co/8VM1FJ45ra](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
