The Tamil Nadu government made a major flip-flop in the Madras High Court on Monday. In the forenoon session, a submission was made on behalf of the government that it stands by the statements made by Advocate General P.S. Raman in Madras Race Club (MRC) case but in the afternoon, it was argued that the A-G’s statements “were wrong both in law and on facts.”
When an application filed by MRC was listed before Justice RMT Teekaa Raman in the forenoon session, Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran said: “ I am instructed to say that this government stands by the undertaking given by the A-G. At no point of time, we have differed with the undertaking given by the A-G. We respect his words and the government stands by them.”
The AAG clarified the issue since senior counsel P. Wilson, representing the Revenue Secretary, had on September 19 told the judge that the government had resumed the leased lands at Guindy in Chennai from MRC on September 9 itself and that a statement made to the contrary by the A-G before a Division Bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and K. Rajasekar on the same day was “not a correct statement.”
Immediately after the AAG’s submissions, senior counsel A.L. Somayaji, representing MRC and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the Tamil Nadu Race Horse Owners Association and Tamil Nadu Race Horse Trainers Welfare Association, requested Justice Raman record the submissions since they were crucial to prove that the MRC continued to be in possession of the lands till date.
However, when a request for a short pass over was made on behalf of Mr. Wilson, the judge told Mr. Somayaji that the recording could be done in the afternoon. In a ligher vein, he also asked: “Do you expect another turn of events by 2:30 pm?“ The question evoked laughter in the forenoon but turned out to be serious in the afternoon when senior counsel Dushyant Dave and Mr. Wilson argued jointly for the Revenue Secretary.
Asserting that the government had taken possession of the lands at 8 am on September 9, Mr. Dave said, MRC could not rely upon the statements made by the A-G before a Division Bench to claim that it continues to be in possession of the property. “I will be able to tell your Lordship that a statement which is wrong in law as also in fact is never binding on the client,” the senior counsel said.
At this point, Mr. Sankaranarayanan intervened to say: “I am sorry to interrupt my learned friend. Mr. Dave, on your behalf, the AAG had made a submission in the morning that they stand by the A-G’s statement. This is why we had asked the statement of the learned AAG to be recorded in the morning.”
However, the AAG vehemently objected to the interjection and said, the horse owners and horse trainers would have no role to play at a stage when MRC’s civil suit was yet to be numbered and the club had filed an application only seeking exemption from issuing a two month long pre-suit notice. He said, the issue related to dispensation of pre-suit notice was only between the government and MRC.
Thereafter, continuing his arguments, Mr. Dave said, a show cause notice was issued to MRC in 2018 for alleged violations of the 1946 lease conditions and the club too had replied to the notice. The reply was not satifactory and hence, a Government Order (G.O.) was issued on September 6 this year for terminating the lease and also directing the Chennai Collector take possession of the lands forthwith.
“It is in the context of the GO that Your Lordship will have to see the A-G’s statements. When the GO is categorical and says, lease stands terminated and Collector is directed to take possession forthwith, it is clearly a misconception on the part of the Advocate General itself. It’s an inadvertent error. We all make mistakes at the Bar as counsel. The statements are completely on the face of the G.O.,” he added.
Mr. Dave went on to state: “I respectfully submit that not much song and dance should be made of this statement which is clearly an error of fact. It happens. I agree that the learned Advocate General is a constitutional authority and Mr. Raman, in particular, is a very respected counsel but everyone of us makes mistakes. So, it can’t be said that because of the statement, possession is not taken.”
On the other hand, Mr. Somayaji argued that the lands continued to be in possession of MRC till date and submitted proof for the weekend horse races having been conducted even on September 14 and September 21. Since the government had given only 15 days’ time to vacate the property, he insisted that the requirement of issuing a two month long pre-suit notice must be dispensed with.
When the judge wanted to know whether there was any revenue proceeding to prove the lands having been taken possession of by the government, Mr. Dave said, no such proceedings were available with him immediately but contended that the government always had the right to take possession in case of violation of the conditions prescribed under the 1946 lease agreement.
Thereafter, Mr. Wilson began making his submissions but since he could not complete by the end of the day, the judge decided to continue the hearing on Tuesday.
Revenue Secretary P. Amudha too filed a counter affidavit on Monday stating: “”The lease agreement entered with the applicant/plaintiff was terminated on September 6, 2024 and the possession was taken at 8 am on September 9, 2024. The possession was taken on September 9, 2024 itself and as per the communication sent by the District Collector, Chennai, the applicant was called upon to remove all movables within 14 days.”
Published - September 23, 2024 08:45 pm IST
