L.K.Charles Alexander v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI L.K.Charles Alexander .. Petitioner-in-person Vs 1.The Union of India, rep. by its Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2.State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
3.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Public Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
4.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Law Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
5.Bar Council of India, rep. by its Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110 002.
6.Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, rep. by its Secretary, Gate No.4, NSC Bose Road, George Town, Chennai-600 104.
7.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 6 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's e-mail representation dated 12.7.2024.
For the Petitioner : Mr.L.K.Charles Alexander Petitioner-in-person For the Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekanandan Dy. Solicitor-General for respondent No.1 : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar State Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent No.7
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 6 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.7.2024.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the trot advocates are being targeted and brutally murdered and effective steps should be taken by respondents 1 and 6 against such occurrences. The petitioner has submitted a representation through e-mail to respondents 1 and 6 on 12.7.2024. As the said representation did not evoke any response, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Questioning the maintainability of this writ petition with an omnibus prayer, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that qua the occurrences that took place while the advocates were discharging duties, cases were registered against the accused and after completion of investigation the cases have been committed to Sessions Court. In some cases, trial has been concluded and in some
cases trial is going on. He would submit that if such occurrence takes place due to personal enmity, nowhere connected with the profession, it is for the family of the victim to take action against the accused person in accordance with law.
4. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, this court is unable to fathom as to what relief the petitioner is seeking. He seeks an omnibus direction to ensure that the effective steps are taken to prevent the murders of practising advocates. The petitioner has not pointed out any specific instance, where the powers that be have not taken cognizance of the crime or not set the criminal law in motion. The asseverations made by the petitioner are as vague as it could be. No solitary instance of inaction on the part of the respondents is highlighted.
5. Additionally, we are unable to comprehend what steps the first respondent [Union of India] and the sixth respondent [Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry] should take in this regard.
6. When a public interest litigation is filed, that too by a
practising advocate, he should be more cautions and ferret out the information about any specific instance where the authorities who are ordained to act in accordance with law, have not exercised such power or not acted on the complaint. No such information in support of any allegations is enclosed along with the writ petition. Without any basis, this court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the bald allegations levelled in the writ petition or direct respondents 1 and 6 to consider the representation of the petitioner.
In view of the above, the writ petition being bereft of particulars does not merit consideration. The writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(D.K.K., ACJ.) (P.B.B, J.) 22.08.2024 Index :
Yes/No NC :
Yes/No bbr
To:
1.The Joint Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.
2.The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Home, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamilnadu, Public Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamilnadu, Law Department, Tamilnadu Secretariate, Fort St. Geore, Chennai-600 009.
5.The Chairman, Bar Council of India, Disciplinary Committee, No.21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110 002.
6.The Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Puducherry, Gate No.4, NSC Bose Road, George Town, Chennai-600 104.
7.The Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.B.BALAJI, J.
bbr 22.08.2024