How can you ignore Governor on probe against Surappa: HC
The Madras High Court on Friday questioned the State authorities for not having taken Governor Banwarilal Purohit, in his capability because the Chancellor of Anna University, into confidence earlier than constituting a Commission of Inquiry final 12 months into the fees of bribery, corruption, malpractice, monetary irregularities, irregular appointments and so on against M.K. Surappa, whose three-year tenure as Vice-Chancellor ended on April 11.
Justice M. Govindaraj requested how the federal government may “ignore” the Governor regardless of him being the executive head of the college.
The query was posed when Additional Solicitor-General R. Sankaranarayanan, representing the Chancellor, mentioned the Governor tried to seek out an amicable answer to the hostile relationship between the federal government and Mr. Surappa, within the curiosity of the establishment, however the authorities didn’t reply.
‘The sole purpose’
Mr. Surappa had made the Chancellor too as one of many respondents to a writ petition filed by him in February this 12 months.
The petition had challenged a Government Order issued on November 11, 2020, for the structure of the Commission of Inquiry. His counsel N. Vijayaraghavan contended that the only function of the structure of the Commission of Inquiry, underneath Section 11 of the Anna University Act, 1978, was to take away his consumer from the put up of Vice-Chancellor.
Now that his tenure had come to an finish by the efflux of time and no extension had been granted, there can be no use in persevering with the inquiry, he mentioned, insisting that the federal government be requested to reply as as to whether it nonetheless needed to proceed the probe.
“Where are they going to remove me from? My residence? Their jurisdiction does extend beyond Chennai. What will they do if I go to Karnataka?” he requested.
In response, Special Government Pleader E. Manoharan mentioned the Commission of Inquiry was being headed by a retired decide of the High Court. Since Advocate-General Vijay Narayan needed to argue the case on behalf of the State, he urged the courtroom to adjourn the matter to allow Mr. Narayan to seem.
Request granted
Accepting his request, the decide adjourned the case until June and prolonged, till additional orders, an interim order handed by the courtroom in favour of Mr. Surappa on February 27.
By approach of the interim order, Justice S. Vaidyanathan, the then portfolio decide, had restrained the federal government from taking any determination, for a interval of two weeks, if the Commission of Inquiry accomplished its probe and submitted a report.
On March 31, the interim order was prolonged until April 19. Since authorities counsel sought an adjournment on Friday, Justice Govindaraj determined to listen to the case after the summer season trip and prolonged the interim aid till additional orders.