HC seeks explanation from Udhagai dist judge for making oral orders

CHENNAI: A division bench of Madras High Court had directed the Udhagamandalam district judge to give an explanation as to why he has exceeded his authority by directing the Block Development Officer (BDO), Kotagiri to seal the commercial establishment of a litigant.

A division bench of Justice VM Velumani and Justice R Hemalatha passed the direction on hearing a petition filed by SA Manian. The petitioner sought a direction to quash an impugned order by BDO to seal the building on January 20. The restaurant of the petitioner was sealed on the same day by 3 pm.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, suits were filed against the restaurant before the district court and the same was dismissed. The government authorities filed an appeal suit before the district court, Udhagamandalam.

"The appeal was argued extensively by both parties. Though the case was posted for pronouncing judgment, it was adjourned on four occasions and till date, the judgment has not been pronounced," the petitioner noted.

The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the district judge, after hearing the parties in the appeal suit, posted the appeal for judgment and adjourned the same on four occasions.

Recording the submissions, the judge observed that from the above submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, it is seen that he has taken action by issuing the impugned order, based on the oral instructions given by the district judge, Udhagamandalam.

The High Court further added that it is unfortunate that the impugned order was issued based on the oral instructions of the District Judge, Udhagamandalam, who has got no authority to give such instruction to the BDO.

"In view of the above, the District Judge, Udhagamandalam is directed to give an explanation as to why he has exceeded his authority by directing the BDO, Kotagiri to proceed against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the District Judge, Udhagamandalam is directed to submit his explanation to this Court on or before 13.02.2023," the bench ordered.