V. Santhanam vs V. Tamil Selvan and Others

A.R. Lakshmanan, J.—Heard Mr. M. Ravindran, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner. These two petitions have been filed by Mr. V. Santhanam, Learned Counsel for Petitioner in W.P. Nos. 6503 and 6504 of 1992 to expunge certain adverse remarks contained in paragraphs 32 and 36 of the Common Order dated 13.10.1992 in the above two writ petitions. The Petitioner Mr. V. Santhanam moved the Supreme Court for expunging, the remarks. The Supreme Court by its order dated 3.8.1993 in I.A. Nos. 1, 2 of 1993, has permitted the Petitioner to withdraw the petition from the Supreme Court by giving an opportunity to him to move this Court for expunging the questioned remarks. Mr. Santhanam has sworn to an affidavit He has also explained in his affidavit as to why he did not mention some of the facts relating to the prior, proceedings. He has stated that it was not his intention to burk any facts before this Court. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the above two petitions read as under:

6) It is most humbly submitted that I have never failed in my duty to the Court as well as to my clients at any point of time during the past 31 years of my practice in the Bar. I honestly state that I have not knowingly or wilfully suppressed any material particulars or obtained any order by misrepresentation or by misleading this Hon''ble Court. I do honestly state that I have no other relationship with the Petitioner except that of the relationship as advocate and client. When I came to know that the writ Petitioner got an order suppressing the dismissal or earlier writ petition. I wanted to withdraw from the case.

7) In the above circumstances, I tender apology and pray that this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to expunge the following adverse remarks and observations made against me.

Mr. Ravindran, learned Senior Advocate states that the Petitioner ought to have expressed his unconditional apology at the earliest point of time and that good sense has prevailed upon him only now and hence the apology now made be accepted Mr. Ravindran''s persuasive argument is impressive in nature. Now that Mr. V. Santhanam has tendered his unconditional apology, the same is accepted and taking a lenient and sympathetic view, the following adverse remarks in para-32 of my common order--

I have absolutely no hesitation in my mind in coming to the conclusion that a member of the Bar, who is expected to assist the Court has joined hands with the unscrupulous Petitioner and has taken the Court for a ride. It is very painful to note that a member of the Bar has failed in his duty to the court and has been a party to the unholy act of the Petitioner....

are expunged. Further, the following adverse remarks in para 36 of my common order--

However, I cannot help observing that the conduct and behaviour of the Petitioner as well as his counsel M/s V. Santhanam and V. Seshaiyan are most reprehensible and deserve to be deprecated. I, however, part with this case with a heavy heart expressing my strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour.

are expunged. However, I make it clear that the observations are expunged only in so far as they relate to Mr. V. Santhanam. Both the petitions are ordered accordingly.