'Can't Compel Party To Continue Case When It Wants To Abandon Claim': Madras High Court Allows Govt To Withdraw Cases Against CM MK Stalin

While allowing the State's request to withdraw the case the bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the court could not compel a party to pursue the case when the party itself wanted to abandon the case without reserving any rights

In 2006-11, when the DMK party was in power, a policy decision was taken to construct a new legislative assembly building. In 2011, when AIADMK came to power, alleging that there were irregularities in the construction of the assembly building, an inquiry commission was formed under the Chairmanship of a retired judge of the High Court and summons were issued.

When a challenge was made to the summons, the High Court stopped the working of the commission asking the government to stop all funding. Thereafter, all the files were transferred to the DVAC and the Principal Secretary permitted DVAC to conduct a detailed inquiry and submit a report. These proceedings were challenged by the parties.

The court noted that the single judge while directing the State to suspend the commission had left it to the State Government to decide after analysing the materials available before it. Though a decision was taken to permit DVAC to conduct an inquiry, the decision was set aside. The state had initiated the case against this decision but had decided to withdraw the case. The court observed that it was always open to a party to withdraw or abandon his claim.

During the proceedings, Dr J Jayavardhan, a member of AIADMK filed an application seeking to be impleaded into the proceedings. Both State and Stalin challenged this plea and argued that Jayavardhan did not have any right to participate in the proceedings at a later stage. It was argued that Jayavardhan was only a fence sitter and was trying to exploit the situation to gain popularity which he was lacking.

The court, however, observed that Jayavardhan could not be branded as a meddlesome interloper as he had initially filed a complaint with the DVAC which was subsequently closed due to an order of the State permitting DVAC to conduct an inquiry.

The court took note of decisions of the Supreme Court where the Apex court had held that merely because a person was a political opponent, it would not preclude him from agitating the cause of corruption and the same should not weigh the minds of courts in the judicial dispensation. The court also observed that there were no latches or delays as Jayavardhan had decided to implead himself only when the State decided to withdraw itself from prosecuting the cause.

However, considering that the State had a right to withdraw the prosecution, the court said that it could not consider Jayavardhan's contention though he could be impleaded into the proceedings.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.S.Raman AG Assisted by Ms.S.Anitha Spl., G.P., and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl., P.P., for 1st and 2nd appellants, Mr.Hasan Mohammed Jinnah PP for 3rd

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Wilson Senior counsel for M/s.Wilson Associates

Counsel for Impleading Party: Mr.V.Raghavachari Sr., Counsel for Mr.A.P.Balaji

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 142

Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v MK Stalin

Case No: Writ Appeal Nos.847 & 850 of 2019