A.Kannan, S/O. T.Alagarsamy, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.24651 of 2018 A.Kannan .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3.Mr.L.Balaji Saravanan, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Head Quarters), O/o.The Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City.
4.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Erode District.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents to take appropriate actions against third respondent in accordance with law for having misappropriated the public money by false claim of salary while he was staying at Tamilnadu House, New Delhi based on the petitioner's written representation, dated 16.07.2016 and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kannan [Party-in-person] For Respondents 1, 2 & 4 : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader.
For Respondent No.3 : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner is a practising lawyer and in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, among other things, would aver as follows:
The selection to the post of Group-I Services conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [TNPSC] for the year 20002001 was put to challenge before this Court and this Court, had set aside the entire selection, vide Judgment, dated 04.03.2011, in W.A (MD)Nos.1063 and 1287 of 2009.
2.It is further averred that S.L.P.Nos.8980 and 8981 of 2011 were filed by the Secretary, TNPSC, challenging the said Judgment and after admission, it was converted into Civil Appeal Nos.5877-78 of 2014. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide Judgment, dated 30.06.2014, had dismissed the said appeals. Thereafter, review petitions were filed in I.A.Nos.15 and 16 of 2014 and the review applications came to be allowed, on 15.09.2016 and thereafter, the selectees continued to remain in service.
3.The primordial grievance expressed by the petitioner is that while pursuing the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the selectees, in connection with their personal case, stayed at Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi on various occasions from 04.03.2011 to 30.06.2014 and as per the information furnished by the Public Information Officer cum Deputy Resident Commissioner attached to Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, dated 07.01.2015, the third respondent, who was the then Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Erode, stayed in Tamil Nadu House at New Delhi for 10, 10, 12 and 9 days respectively at various intervals and he had illegally claimed salary for all the days with the active collusion of other officials working along with him and defrauded the public money to the tune of lakhs of rupees by manipulating the tour diaries and other records by making false statement that he was on official duty on the said days.
4.It is further averred that in connection with the stay of 48 days starting from 30.06.2014 to 22.11.2014 at various intervals in connection with his personal case, if he has made false entries in his tour diaries with respect to the above said period and claimed salary, it will definitely attract crime and it also amounts to cognizable offence of defrauding of public money by making false entries and false representation to the Government and therefore, initiation of action on the part of the respondents 1 and 2, is very much required and hence, came forward to file this present writ petition praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 namely, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Home Secretary, Chennai-600 009 as well as the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004, to take
appropriate action against the third respondent in accordance with law for having misappropriated the public money by false claim of salary, while he was staying at Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, based on his representation, dated 16.07.2016, and pass appropriate orders.
5.It is to be noted at this juncture that even as per his own admission, the petitioner was one of the candidates appeared in the main written examination of Group-I Services conducted by TNPSC for the year 2000-2001.
6.The petitioner in paragraph No.1 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would also aver as follows: "... I have not filed any other Writ Petition for the same relief sought for herein".
7.The writ petition was entertained on 10.01.2019 and notices were ordered.
8.The third respondent, who has been arrayed in his personal capacity, has filed his counter affidavit stating among other things, that when he was working as Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarters in Erode District, had taken leave with proper permission to leave the headquarters from the leave sanctioning authority and therefore, stated that the allegations levelled by the writ petitioner that he has stayed in New Delhi for those days mentioned by the petitioner by making false entries in tour diaries, is completely false, mischievous and is not sustainable in law.
9.It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court by the third respondent in his counter affidavit that the writ petitioner has filed similar writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.3037 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015, praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 to initiate appropriate actions in accordance with law and rules against the respondents 10 to 31 therein by mentioning him as 11th respondent, based upon his representation, dated 11.02.2015 and the said writ petition was dismissed on 12.06.2015 by the Division Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, the Chief Justice (as His Lordship then was) and His Lordship Mr.Justice S.Manikumar]. It is further averred by the third respondent that the petitioner had filed yet another similar petition before this Bench in Crl.O.
P(MD) No.3783 of 2015 praying for the issuance of appropriate direction, directing the respondent therein, namely, the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai-600 028, to register First Information Report, based upon the complaint, dated 11.02.2015, given by him against the third respondent and other batch-mates, stating that they have availed concessional rate while staying in Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi and the learned Judge of this Court [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu], vide order, dated 06.04.
petition.
10.In paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit, the third respondent would aver that the petitioner has filed another similar petition in Crl.O.P.No.22953 of 2015 through his relative, namely, Mr.K.Kathiresan as petitioner, directing the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai-600 006, to register First Information Report, based on the petitioner's complaint, dated 24.08.2015, sent to the first respondent therein, namely, the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai-600 028, to investigate the matter and further to direct the second respondent to register First Information Report against Mr.
Jatindranath Swain, IAS, the Principal Secretary to Government and his staff, under Section 218 IPC and against the very same batch of Group-I Officers, which includes the third respondent herein, as to the alleged misdeeds as pointed out in the earlier writ petition, while they were stayed in Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi in connection with their personal litigations and the said criminal original petition was also dismissed on 12.07.2016 by a Single Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Subbiah]. It is also stated by the third respondent that admittedly the petitioner was one of the unsuccessful candidates, who has written TNPSC Group-I Examinations, during the year 2001-2002 and having failed in the said examination, though fit to file applications and harass the third respondent.
The third respondent once again denied the suggestion that without availing proper permission, he visited New Delhi and stayed in Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi and availed the concession and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition with exemplary costs.
11.The petitioner/party in person, who is also a practising advocate of this Court, sought to argue this writ petition on the merits of the matter. This Court has put a very pertinent question to him as to why he has failed to disclose the dismissal of earlier petitions, which had been brought to the knowledge of this Court in the counter filed by the third respondent.
12.This matter was taken up for hearing in the morning session and after lunch recess, it was taken up and at that juncture, the petitioner/party-in-person made an attempt to file an additional affidavit with the supporting documents, and however failed to come out with any plausible, tenable or acceptable reason as to why he has failed to disclose the said relevant and material facts in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition.
13.It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that the petitioner is a practising advocate of this Bar and in paragraph No.1 of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, made a specific averment that he did not file any other writ petition for the same relief sought for in the present writ petition.
14.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent, wherein it has been stated that the third respondent has denied the allegation that without obtaining proper permission from the concerned authority, left the headquarters, etc. and here again, the fourth respondent has stated about the fact of filing of earlier writ petition and criminal original petition by the very same petitioner. 15.In paragraph No.13 of the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent, it is averred that the third respondent, who is presently, working as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) in Coimbatore City, is having a very good track of service record with high integrity and also the recipient of prestigious Hon'ble Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Gold medal for "Excellence in investigation".
16.Mr.T.Lajapthi Roy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, has invited the attention of this Court to his counter affidavit as well as typed set of documents, dated 24.01.2019, and would submit that the petitioner knowing pretty well that he had filed two petitions in the form of writ petition and criminal original petition for the similar relief, had burked the said material fact and if he has disclosed the said material fact, the writ petition would not have been entertained at all and under the garb of filing these petitions, the only intention of the petitioner is to harass the third respondent to the maximum. 17.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent, on a legal plea, would submit that the principles of res judicata would clearly apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011)3 SCC 408 [M.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and Others].
18.This Court paid it's anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record.
19.A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents 3 and 4 as well as typed-set of documents filed by third respondent, would disclose the following facts: The petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.3037 of 2015 against the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009 and eight other official respondents and also against the private respondents 10 to 31, praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 7 herein to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law and rules against the respondents 10 to 31 and other delinquent officials based on the Government records, which
was supplied to the petitioner herein and was sent to the respondents herein on 11.02.2015 within a time frame fixed by this Court and consequently to place the respondents 10 to 31 under suspension forthwith pending completion of the departmental action and further order a judicial enquiry to enquire into the allegations levelled against the other remaining out of the 65 Group-I officers selected for the year 2000-2001 and at present working in the State of Tamil Nadu, who had made false entries as to their purpose of visit in the Tamil Nadu State Guest House, New Delhi and gained undue pecuniary advantage by illegally staying there between the period from 04.03.2011 to 25.11.2014. 20.It is to be noted at this juncture that the third respondent herein is arrayed as 11th respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed on 12.06.2015.
21.Thereafter, the petitioner filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.3783 of 2015 before this Bench against the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai - 600 028, praying for appropriate direction directing the said respondent to register First Information Report, based upon his complaint, dated 11.02.2015, and pass appropriate orders. In paragraph No.
4 of the said criminal original petition, the petitioner would aver among other things, that he came to know that the accused persons (namely, the private respondents) are staying in the Tamil Nadu Guest House when attending the proceedings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and further came to know that they are abusing their position to influence the Deputy Secretary to Government in charge of legal cell functioning at Tamilnadu House and the petitioner came to know that the accused persons are staying in the Tamilnadu Guest House at New Delhi in their official capacity and are attending the Court case at Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is purely a personal one and shocked with the same, to get authenticated records, the petitioner obtained the guest staying details of Tamil Nadu Guest House for the period from 01.07.2014 to 25.11.
2014 through his relative, namely, Mr.K.Kathiresan and the information received under the RTI Act by the said person, would show that the persons, accused herein, had stayed in Tamil Nadu Guest House during the period mentioned in the complaint, which he has already sent to the respondent stating as if they came to New Delhi on official duty, whereas the fact remains that they attended their personal case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said days. The learned Single Judge of this Court [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu], in paragraph Nos.8 and 9, of an elaborate and detailed order, dated 06.04.
"8.The petitioner is a person, who has lost in the competitive examination. It appears that he wants to settle his personal score by filing one petition or the other. It is the fact that those persons against whom allegations are made had stayed in the Tamil Nadu House at the concessional rate. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, irrespective of the fact
whether their private visit or official visit, they are entitled for concessional rate. Thus, there is no illegality in their using the Tamil Nadu House at the concessional rate. Thus, I do not find any offence warranting investigation by the respondent police. 9.It is also seen from the records that the petitioner has filed yet another Writ Petition also before this Court for similar relief. It shows that the petitioner is trying to have a parallel proceedings before two different Benches of this Court. It cannot be appreciated. In my considered view, the complaint do not make out a prima facie case to direct the respondent to register a case.
In the result, the Criminal Original Petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed".
22.The learned Judge while dismissing the said criminal original petition, has given a categorical finding that there is no illegality on the part of the private respondents using the Tamil Nadu House at the concessional rate and do not find any offence warranting investigation by the respondent police. 23.The petitioner on his own admission had stated that Mr.K.Kathiresan is his relative and through him obtained information under the RTI Act, which forms the basis for filing Crl.O.P(MD)No.3783 of 2015.
24.Mr.K.Kathiresan, who is the relative of the petitioner/ party-in-person, had filed Crl.O.P.No.22953 of 2015 before the Principal Bench of this Seat praying for appropriate direction, directing the second respondent, namely, the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai-600 006, to register First Information Report, based upon his complaint, dated 24.08.2015 sent to the first respondent therein, namely, the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai-600 028 and investigate the matter and further direct the second respondent to register First Information Report against Mr.Jatindranath Swain, IAS, the Principal Secretary to Government and his staff whose names not known and the concerned Police Officers of the first respondent, under Section 218 IPC.
It is to be noted at this juncture that in the said petition, the very same allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition as well as in the earlier writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3037 of 2015 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.3783 of 2015, were repeated. 25.The learned Judge while dealing with the rival contentions, in paragraph No.
also recovered and action was taken against the staff of the Tamil Nadu House and considering all these facts in proper perspective, the first respondent, namely, the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Chennai-600 028, had come to the conclusion that no cognizable offence has been made out warranting them to take action and the learned Judge also found that no infirmity on the part of the first respondent in arriving at the said decision. In paragraph No.11 of the said order, the learned Judge had taken note of Crl.O.P(MD)No.3783 of 2015 and W.P(MD)No.3037 of 2015 filed by the petitioner herein and also extracted the orders and in paragraph No.13, had observed as follows:
"Therefore, from the above facts, it is clear and apparent that the petitioner herein is well aware of the earlier proceedings in the above said W.P. and Crl.O.P. filed by his relative Kannan, and hence, as the same issue has already been dealt with and rejected by the Madurai Bench of this Court in the above said two cases, the present Crl.O.P. is not liable to be entertained". 26.The learned Judge after recording the reasons found that there was no valid reason to entertain the criminal original petition and also found no merit and accordingly, dismissed the said criminal original petition.
27.Admittedly, the petitioner, who is the practising advocate of this Bar, has suppressed the dismissal of W.P(MD) No.3037 of 2015 and Crl.O.P(MD)No.3783 of 2015 filed by him as well as Crl.O.P.No.22953 of 2015 filed by his relative, namely, Mr.K.Kathiresan. It is also to be noted at this juncture that in the present writ petition, almost a similar prayer has been made for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2, namely, Home Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009 and the Director General of Police of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 004 to take appropriate action against the third respondent in accordance with law, for having misappropriated the public money by false claim of salary, while he was staying at Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi, based on his representation, dated 16.07.2016. The said fact on the part of the petitioner, is liable to be contemned and it also appears that he has forgotten his noble and solemn duty as a lawyer, especially, an officer of this Court.
28.In (2011)3 SCC 408 [M.Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and Others], the applicability of constructive res judicata came up for consideration and it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 and the same reads as follows:
"11.We find that disregarding the aforesaid clear finding of this Court, the appellant, on identical issues, further filed a new writ petition out of which the present appeal arises. That writ petition, as noted above, was rejected both by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench in clear terms. It is obvious that such a litigative adventure by the present appellant is clearly
against the principles of res judicata as well as principles of constructive res judicata nd principles analogous thereto.
12.The principles of res judicata are of universal application as they are based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should for ever set the controversy at rest.
13.The principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties".
29.The petitioner having repeatedly failed in his endeavour once again made an attempt in the form of the present writ petition and while doing so, he has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the relevant and material information. Though the petitioner/party-in-person made an attempt to file an additional affidavit with supporting documents, when this case was taken up after lunch recess, we are not inclined to accept the said affidavit and typed-set of documents for the reason that the petitioner did not offer any explanation for having suppressed the material facts about the earlier round of litigations. 30.A Single Bench of this Court while dealing with Contempt Petition(MD)No.31 of 2012 and W.P(MD)No.6678 of 2011 filed by Mr.T.T.Balsamy against Smt.Sheela Balakrishnan, Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to Government, Chennai600 009, in the order, dated 12.09.2012, has considered the issue
relating to suppression of material fact and it is relevant to extract paragraph No.14 and the same reads as follows: "14.In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 16, pp. 874-76, the law is stated in the following terms: "1303. He who seeks equity must do equity.-In granting relief peculiar to its own jurisdiction a court of equity acts upon the rule that he who seeks equity must do equity. By this it is not meant that the court can impose arbitrary conditions upon a plaintiff simply because he stands in that position on the record. The rule means that a man who comes to seek the aid of a court of equity to enforce a claim must be prepared to submit in such proceedings to any directions which the known principles of a court of equity may make it proper to give; he must do justice as to the matters in respect of which the assistance of equity is asked. In a court of law it is otherwise: when the plaintiff is found to be entitled to judgment, the law must take its course; no terms can be imposed.
* * * 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.-A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject- matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim 'he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity', and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff's fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands.
In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design. The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle.
In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff's demerits."
35.In Prestige Lights Ltd., v. State Bank of India reported in 2007 (8) SCC 449, at Paragraphs 27, 33, 34 and 35, held as follows:
"33.It is thus clear that though the appellant- Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of Equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the Writ Court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter.
34.The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJ KB 257 : 116 LT 136], in the following words: "(I)t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help the Court is supposed to know the law.
But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied) 35.It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter.
The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts.
suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible."
31.The learned Judge after having note of the very many decisions as to the suppression of material fact, has dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the respondents. Though the petitioner/party-in-person would state that the suppression of materials facts is not deliberate or intentional, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission for the reason that having bar standing of nearly 15 years and also regularly practising before this Court, he is aware of the consequences/costs for not disclosing the relevant and material facts in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition. The grant of relief in the writ petition is also an equitable remedy and therefore, the parties who are approaching this Court, are also expected to come with clean hands and if they have failed to do so, the natural consequences and cost would follow.
32.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand only] and the cost shall be payable to Balamanthiram School, Old Natham Road, Madurai-625 002, within a period of two weeks from today. 33.Call on 07.08.2019 for reporting compliance as to the payment of cost.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar() // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) smn To 1.The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police, No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
3.The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Erode District.
COPY TO The Headmaster/Officer Incharge, Balamanthiram School, Old Natham Road, Madurai-625 002 +1CC TO MR.A.BALANI, Advocate Sr. No.76871 +1CC TO MR.A.KANNAN, Advocate Sr. No.76960 +1CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR.No.76838 ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.24651 of 2018 22.07.2019 SCR(CO) TR (02.08.2019) 13P 8C