HC fixes Feb 5 to hear on Corpn poll petitions

Chennai, Jan 29 (UNI) Madras High Court today fixed February 5 as the hearing date on the petitions seeking to set aside the elections held on October 13 for the Chennai Corporation and order repoll in all 155 wards.

Mr Justice P K Misra, who was nominated as the third judge to hear the petitions filed by AIADMK MLA D Jeyakumar and others, as a Division Bench which heard the matter earlier gave a split verdict in the matter, fixed February five as the hearing date of the petitions.

When the matter came up for hearing, Mr N Jyothi, counsel for Jeyakumar submitted that he was ready to argue the matter and requested the court to fix January 31 as the hearing date.

However, Additional Advocate General P S Raman, stating that he was already engaged in case, which will come up for hearing before Kerala High Court on February seven and eight, appealed to the court to fix the hearing during the third week of February.

Taking strong exception to the long adjournment, Mr Jyothi said the government wanted long adjournment in order to make the petitions to become infructuous. It had clandestinely announced the election date yesterday.

The judge said, according to newspaper report, out of 99 councillors, one councillor did not resign. Hence the petitions will not become infructuous. While one judge said he cannot interfere with the elections held in 155 wards, the other judge said he would not interfere with the elections held in 56 wards. As a third judge, I cannot give any contrary decision beyond this.

Senior counsel G Masilamani said due to personal reasons he would not be availble till February 12.

Insisting that the date for hearing should be fixed as January 31, Jyothi said the government was deliberately delaying the hearing.

There cannot be long adjournment. The government was resorting to cheap tactics.

Reacting immediately, Mr Prakasam, standing counsel for Chennai Corporation said, ''you do not talk about the government in the open court.'' Some of the advocates who were next to him immediately whisked him away.

Jyothi said, ''this was the level of an advocate. He was doing this daily. Whereever I argue, this advocate behaves like this. I need protection'', Jyothi added and requested the court to order in camera proceedings.

The judge said camera should be fixed inside the Court Hall so that outsiders will know about this charted High Court.

UNI