Don’t file half-baked reply, Corporation officials warned

Taking strong exception to a half-baked reply in response to an ongoing PIL proceedings on hawkers’ menace in North Chennai, the first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Jus- tice M Sundar said, “We are not satisfied with your explanation. Nothing is mentioned in your two-page affidavit. You are on the verge of contempt. Let your officers come. Ask your commissioner to come.” 

However, the bench then directed the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation and additional commissioner of police (traffic) to file a detailed affidavit explaining the allotment of alternative shops for pavement vendors. 

Trouble began when the two-page report filed by Chennai Corporation’s zonal officer-V merely claimed that of the 1,252 hawkers, who were provided with shops as per the Justice A Ramamurthy Committee recommendations, as many as 284 vendors violated terms and conditions by annexing shops of neighbouring hawkers. 

Based on this, showcause notices were issued to all 284 hawkers asking them to restore the shops as per the size mentioned in the allotment orders. But, the bench, on finding that neither the recommendations nor the copy of the committee had been enclosed with the counter, asked, “How were the allotments made? You say that it is on the basis of Justice Ramamurthy Committee report, but where have you mentioned the committee report in the counter-affidavit? 

And what where the recommendations of Justice Ramamurthy Committee report?” The bench, on warning the counsel appearing for the Corporation that they could not take the orders of the court casually, said, “When you say something, see that it is supported by some documents.”

Big relief for eight actors in defamation case proceedings

In another big relief to as many as eight actors, including Surya, Sathyaraj and Sripriya caught up in a criminal defamation case, the Madras High Court on Tuesday granted an interim stay on all further proceedings against the actors.

Justice M V Muralidharan, before whom the Criminal Original Petition (Crl.O.P) filed by Sripriya and seven others came up for hearing, also dispensed with their personal appearance before the trial court till the final disposal of the criminal original petition. 

Stating that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent for granting interim stay of further proceedings before the trial court, the judge, in his order, said “The interim stay already granted on December 14, 2011, is extended till the disposal of the Crl. O.P. The appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with till the disposal of Crl.O.P. The matter is directed to be posted for judgment to July 5.” 

The actors in their common affidavit had explained how their plea got dismissed for default owing to their non-appearance as well as their counsel and subsequent happenings which led to the dismissal of their Cr.O.P on March 14, 2017, leading to the Udhagamandalam Magistrate proceeding with the case. It may be noted that on May 25, Justice S Vimala granted interim stay on the non-bailable warrants issued against the actors for their non-appearance before the Udhagamandalam court. 

The matter relates to a defamation case filed by a freelance journalist M Rozario in 2009 against the actors for their reported derogatory speeches against all journalists, based on the report published by a Tamil daily on the arrest of an actress for prostitution in Chennai.