Even as the State has submitted that the notification regarding completion of delimitation process as per the 2011 census would be done on December 15 paving way for holding the local body election within three months, a division bench comprising Justice M Sathyanarayanan and Justice M Sundar before whom arguments prevailed on the contempt plea moved by the DMK for failing to hold the elections as directed by the High Court to issue the election notification by August 6, summoned them before adjourning the case.

Earlier, senior counsel Narasimhan appearing for the State Election Commission contended that in the context of the constitutional requirement that the election ought to be held by the latest census and with the executive and legislature passing an amendment to hold it as per the 2011 census, the Election Commission, which is a body to hold the election, is bound by both the Statute and the Constitution.

Hence, there was no willful disobedience of the High Court Order on the part of the State Election Commission, with the amendment brought about by the State, he argued. The counsel appearing for the Municipal Administration submitted that legal advice was sought before the amendments were passed and argued that there was no willful disobedience of the High Court Order as the judgement was in a different context.

The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the State for its lack of stringent action like cancellation of permits or licences against transport operators, having stage carriage permits, who are charging over and the above the rates fixed by the Commissioner of Transport. A division bench comprising Justice Vineet Kothari and Justice Anita Sumanth expressed dismay over the failure of authorities in taking stringent action against violators and described the ‘Action Taken’ report submitted by the government as a mere “eyewash”. 

The petitioner had contended that private bus operators charge fees as per their whims taking advantage of the fact that the fares fixed are not displayed. Noting as many as 514 cases of overcharging have been registered, and a fine of Rs 8 lakh has been collected in the past three years, the bench wondered as to why the law which demands cancellation of permit for such violation was not implemented.

Noting that if at least 50 per cent of such permits were cancelled, that would have sent a strong message to such violators – the bench said the report only goes to establish the suspicion about officials hobnobbing with law breakers. The bench then granted the state two more months to file a fresh report about the action taken and posted the case for further hearing to second week of March.