CHENNAI: The Madras high court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh on a person who questioned Army chief General V K Singh's continuation in the post.
The bench concurred with the submissions of the additional solicitor-general of south India M Ravindran, who submitted that General Singh had been validly appointed.
The petition filed by Dr S Vishwa Murti said General Singh, who took over as Army chief on March 31, 2010, had a dispute with the government regarding his date of birth and became the first serving officer of the Indian Army to drag the government to court. The Army chief's allegation that a bribe of Rs 14 crore was offered to him to clear a tranche of 600 substandard vehicles was a revenge attack on the Centre, timed to coincide with the parliamentary session as well as the fourth edition of the BRICS summit, it said.
Dr Murti wanted the Army chief to be stripped of his post for having embarrassed the government by alleging that the force's tanks were out of ammunition and that infantry's preparedness was also not up to the mark. These remarks amounted to violation of the Oath of Affirmation administered to the general during induction into the Army, he said.
Dismissing the petition, the bench said: "When a specific question was put to counsel for the petitioner with regard to the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the matter of quo warranto, he was unable to answer. Further, when the bench required the counsel to state the reason and necessity to issue quo warranto when the matter was admittedly entrusted to the CBI for inquiry, he was unable to answer," the judges said.
Concluding that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and bonafide intentions, the bench said the petitioner should pay Rs 1 lakh to the Madras Society for Protection of Children, Old Washermenpet, within two weeks. Permitting counsel for the petitionerto withdraw the petition, the judges then dismissed it as withdrawn.
Only a couple of weeks ago, the same bench imposed Rs 5 lakh on the INTACH, which had filed a PIL against the demolition of the rear portion of the P Orr & Sons buildings. The bench had rapped the INTACH for stepping into the shoes of the building owner/tenant, despite being part of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC) which concluded that the rear portion housing workshops could not be considered a heritage structure. When the matter was taken up on appeal, the Supreme Court, however, modified only the quantum of the cost imposed on the INTACH. Now, instead of Rs 5 lakh, the INTACH has to pay only Rs 50,000.
