CHENNAI: “A litigant must understand that court proceedings are to be taken seriously and the rights have to be agitated sincerely before a court. The court will come to the aid of only such litigants. As far the petitioner is concerned, he was coming to this Court as if it was an amusement park and he got in and got out as per his own whims and fancies,” Justice N Anand Venkatesh held on dismissing and imposing a cost of Rs 1 lakh on a petitioner for filing petitions one after another.
The petitioner V Krishnamurthy, proprietor of Meena Advertisers sought directions to quash the revenue recovery proceedings notice issued by the Chennai district Collector as he has to pay two crores rupees to the government for acquiring tender to provide publicity for the South Asian Federation (SAF) Games conducted in 1995.
He also wanted to quash a GO issued by the Sports Development and Youth Welfare department to set aside the GO issued in 2000 to waive Rs 2 crore in favour of him.
However, the judge rejected his pleas observing that the petitioner has to necessarily face the consequences for such conduct, the judge added.
"The conduct of the petitioner right through also clearly indicates that he will use this court by filing petitions whenever the political climate is not in his favour and withdraw the same once it turns in his favour,” the judge noted and directed him to pay the cost to the Chief Justice relief fund within four weeks.
In 1995, when the AIADMK government was in power, the petitioner came out as a successful bidder to provide publicity for SAF games. After negotiations, he got the tender for three crore rupees with some rights. After the end of the SAF game, he wrote to the government seeking a waiver of Rs.2 crores citing several losses. In March 1996, the government passed a GO in 1996 to waive Rs.2 crores.
However, after the elections, the DMK came to power and found that the agency got the tender by influencing his affiliations. In 1998, the government passed a GO against the earlier one and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.2 crores.
Therefore, he moved the court and whenever the AIADMK government came to power, he used to withdraw the same saying that he would approach the government for a relief. In 2012, the AIADMK government did not accept his request and he again approached the court again which had invited the ire of the court.