Chennai: With a view to sending a message to people who wish or attempt to abuse the process of the court, that they cannot escape or walk out freely from the court without facing the consequences, the Madras High Court has dismissed with exemplary cost of '50,000 a petition from a poojari/archagar of a temple, who suppressed the fact of dismissal of his earlier petition, challenging his removal from the post of a poojari.
“Needless to say that a person, who has chosen to deceive the court and abuse its process by filing successive petitions challenging the very same proceedings, more particularly, after having failed to succeed in the earlier petition, cannot be shown any indulgence or leniency by allowing him to withdraw the petition and go Scot free. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner's counsel for withdrawing the petition is rejected. Under the circumstances, I am of the firm view that this petition needs to be dismissed with heavy cost, so that a message will be sent to people like the petitioner who wish or attempt to abuse the process the court, that they cannot escape or walk out freely from this court without facing the consequences", said Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu while dismissing with the cost of '50,000, a petition from K.S. Manigandan. In the present petition, Manigandan sought to quash the order passed by the HR&CE, removing him from the post of a poojari/archagar of the Arulmigu Valeeswarar temple in Tiruvannamalai district.
When the case came up for hearing, special government pleader M. Maharaja informed the court that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition challenging the very same order and it was dismissed and he produced a copy of the order.
After perusing the copy of the order, the judge said it was evident that the petitioner has approached this court again and filed the present petition only for the purpose of getting some exparte order. Though the counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was not aware of the earlier petition and the order passed therein, this court was not inclined to believe such contention, the judge added.The judge said yet another vital factor to be noted was that the present petition was filed without filing the original order (removing him from the post).
The petitioner contended that the impugned order was misplaced by him while travelling and he was unable to find out the same. But the fact was otherwise.
When this court called for the earlier petition filed by him, it was seen that the original order was filed therein, and the same was available in the court records.
