E-Paper
Murasoli Trust receives relief from Madras HC
Based on a writ petition filed by the Murasoli Trust, justice S M Subramaniam has set aside the notice and directed a fresh inquiry
The Madras high court on Wednesday quashed a notice issued to Murasoli Trust by BJP leader L Murugan when he was vice chairman of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) in connection with title to a land.
Based on a writ petition filed by the Murasoli Trust, Justice S M Subramaniam has set aside the notice and directed a fresh inquiry. The court directed the NCSC to issue a fresh notice and then hear the parties.
Murasoli Trust is in occupation and the erstwhile owner of the property, named Anjugam Pathippagam, had leased out a portion of the property to the petitioner, the trustee of Murasoli Trust and DMK’s organising secretary R S Bharathi. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property and patta has been transferred in his name. A complaint has been registered by a person, R Srinivasan with the NCSC, stating that the subject land is a panchami land assigned to the scheduled caste people which has been illegally transferred. The complaint was registered by the NCSC and a notice was issued to Bharathi.
Advocate P Wilson appearing for Bharathi raised issues — if the complaint is maintainable since it is filed by Srinivasan who is not an SC and hence not aggrieved and if NCSC possesses powers of civil court for purpose of granting declaration of title or other reliefs over an immovable property. “Therefore, NCSC has exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a vague complaint,” argued Wilson. “…intended to score political mileage and to defame the petitioner. Therefore, the writ of prohibition is entertainable.”
The additional solicitor general of India submitted that point of jurisdiction of the NCSC is untenable. Article 338 of the Constitution stipulates the duties of NCSC is to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the SCs under the Constitution or under any other law for the time being in force or under any order of the government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards, ASG argued.
“The ground of malafideness/political vendetta coexist with other grounds raised in the petition,” HC said. “The argument of political vendetta ought to be examined alongside other grounds raised in the petition and not as solitary ground…. The court finds that in a multitude of petitions especially those concerning political parties, there has been an indiscriminate use of the argument of malafideness/political vendetta. It is a fact that petitions are not devoid of vendetta. But can the entire petition be dismissed at the threshold only because it was lodged with a dose of vendetta. The importance accorded to the complaint should travel beyond this point.”
HC said that based on the documents provided by the Tamil Nadu government and other evidence, it cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings. The notice issued by Murugan lost its relevance, after he was made Union minister of state in 2021 and is presently not holding the post of Vice Chairman of NCSC, the court said.
