The Madras High Court has been informed that a committee is set to be formed to streamline the issue of e-passes for travel during the lockdown, which has drawn severe flak for it being bribe-ridden from all quarters.
Chennai:
A division bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice R Hemalatha, before whom a plea related to a shortcoming in the issue of e-passes came up, was informed by the Additional Government Pleader that the government, taking into consideration the existing difficulties, is likely to form a committee and based on its recommendations would take further action.
Recording the statement, which relayed on a counter-affidavit, the bench said: “We only add that the committee to be formed shall also address the issue of the bogus and misuse of the e-passes.”
“A regulatory procedure will have to be followed to avoid such activities,” the bench added, adjourning the plea to August 27.
Another division bench led by Justice N Kirubakaran had come down heavily on the corruption in the issuance of e-passes.
Describing the officials as ‘cut-throat’ and ‘bloodthirst wolves’, the bench had held that though the government is not responsible for the present situation, some of the corrupt officials involved in issuing e-passes are bent upon making booty even in this worst scenario.
The bench, which made these observations in a plea relating to rescue of child workers from a textile factory, had sought the government to look into the issue seriously and deal with corrupt officials with an iron hand.
Suspension of official following arrest is rule
Self-serving averments alone cannot be grounds for challenging a suspension notice, observed the Madras High Court while dismissing a plea moved by a Village Administrative Officer (VAO), challenging his suspension following his arrest in a criminal case related to irregularities in the issue of patta to a private company.
Justice V Parthiban, before whom the plea moved by M Srinivasan who at that point of time was VAO, Injambakkam, Sholinganallur Taluk, came, said: “The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition contains a plethora of facts, attempting to explain as to how the petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case. The grounds raised in the writ petition strangely proceed on the same footing bereft of any legal substance.”
Also, holding that the court does not find a modicum of substance in challenging the suspension order based on the factual assertion and self-serving averments of the petitioner, Justice Parthiban said: “The entire substratum of the challenge is constructed on the factual averments as if the petitioner’s version is the gospel truth. If the writ petition is to be entertained, it amounts to accepting the explanation of the petitioner to the FIR registered against him, leading to a travesty of adjudication in this collateral proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
“The present suspension order is issued under the provisions of the governing Rules for ‘deemed suspension’, which comes into operation automatically as a consequence of a government servant being in custody for more than 48 hours,” Justice Parthiban added.