The Madras High Court today issued notice through the Court and privately to Justice R Reghupathy Commission of Inquiry, appointed to go into construction of the new secretariat complex here, and directed it not to proceed further till a petition filed by DMK President M Karunanidhi is finally heard and disposed of.
Justice T S Sivagnanam, before whom the petition filed by Karunanidhi came up, seeking a direction to quash the questionnaire served on him by the Commission, directed it to file a reply within six weeks.
The judge also directed the registry to post the petition along with others filed by the DMK chief, challenging the very appointment of Justice R Reghupathy as Commission of Inquiry.
The AIADMK government, after assuming office, had appointed retired judge Justice Reghupathy to go into alleged irregularities in construction of the secretariat built during DMK rule at Omandurar Estate.
The Commission has issued summons for personal appearance of Karunanidhi, to which he moved the Court praying for dispensing with it. The court allowed his counsel to represent him.
On February 13, 2015 a questionnaire was sent to Karunanidhi. He challenged it and the Commission's observations in its order that day that his counsel was adopting delaying tactics by not listing petitions he filed to be disposed of by the HC.
Justice Sivagnanam today said that before considering the other submissions, it has to be pointed out that the Advocate General made a mention for early hearing of petitions. Since the court deals with the motion list where admission matters of the petition, adjourned admissions, miscellaneous and vacate stay petitions and specially ordered matters are listed, it was doubtful if an early hearing could be fixed within March 2015.
The judge noted that the senior counsel had also made a mention before this Court. So the Commission's observations in this regard may not be factually correct. In fact, their counsel also felt that it was unwarranted.
"Therefore, such observation by the Commission that the petitioner's counsel is adopting delay tactics has to be eschewed and is eschewed," the court said.
On other contentions of the counsel for Karunanidhi over some details sought for, the judge said these issues cannot be considered without the Commission filing a counter. This was also needed for the charge of denial of reasonable opportunity and the procedure adopted by the Commission.
The judge said wherever averments have been made against the state, the matter is adjourned to enable the respondents file their response. In the interregnum, notice has to be issued to the second respondent.
In the light of the above, the petition along with the other petitions is posted to April 13 for counter and disposal, the court said.
