The court also observed that questions posed by the court during hearing cannot be considered as orders passed by it.
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu was responding to a memo filed by an advocate that he was not interested in conducting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case filed by a final year law student as the client was harassing him.
The third year law student had filed a PIL seeking a direction to the state government to constitute old age homes in all the districts. The petitioner wanted each of these old age homes to house a minimum of 150 senior citizens in every home under Section 19 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.
The case was first heard on June 24 and the court asked whether the state government has not established any single old age home so far to which the petitioners advocate said that no such home was established.
The court after recording this statement passed an interim order stating that they would impose a heavy fine of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner if the statement was found incorrect.
The division bench also directed the state government pleader Muthukumar to take notice, returnable in a week.
When the case was listed Monday (July 31, 2023) the petitioner’s counsel filed a detailed memo listing out the events that transpired after the interim order was passed by the court on July 24 and said that he was not inclined to conduct the case further. He also cited harassment as the main reason for this.
The judges permitted him to withdraw from the case and also observed that he would be entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner.
–Ajit Weekly News
aal/dpb
News Credits – I A N S
