WP/41106/2015 of K.R.Ramaswamy alias Vs The Chief Election on 30 December 2015

1. The Chief Election Commissioner,

Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

2. The Secretary, To His Excellency the Governor of Tamilnadu, Governer Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Chennai. To His Excellency the Governor of Tamilnadu, Governer Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Chennai.

3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

4. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

5. Tamilnadu Housing Board, Rep. By its Chairman, Nandanam, Chennai. Rep. By its Chairman, Nandanam, Chennai.

6. The Secretary to Government, Department of Health Services, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9. Department of Health Services, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

7. The Secretary,

Medical Council of India, Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 077.

8. The Chairman, Ethics Committee, Medical Council of India, Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 077.9. The Director of Medical Education, No.162, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

10. All India Anna Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Represented by Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, General Secretary, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai.

11. Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Represented by its Chairman, No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai.... Respondents in WP.No.41106/2015 Represented by its Chairman, No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai.... Respondents in WP.No.41106/2015

... Respondents in WP.No.41106/2015

1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi. Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St George, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

3. The Principal Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St George Chennai 600 009.

4. The Chairman Tamilnadu Housing Board Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.

5. The Secretary to Government, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat. Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

6. The Director of Medical Education NO.162, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk Chennai 600 010.

7. The Secretary Medical Council of India Pocket-14, Section-8, Dwaraka, New Delhi 110 077.

8. All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam [AIADMK] rep.by its General Secretary, Lloyds Road Royapettah, Chennai 600 014.

9. Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Represented by its Correspondent, No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai. ... Respondents in WP.No.41107/2015

Prayer in WP.No.41106/2015:-Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamusforbearing the respondents 1 to 8 from allowing the 10[th]respondent to hold its General body meeting in the premises ofthe 11[th] respondent situated at Sri Ramachandra Medical Collegeand Research Institute at No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar,Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

Prayer in WP.No.41107/2015:- Writ Petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents 1 to 6 not to allow the 8[th] respondentpolitical party AIADMK to conduct its General Body Meeting atSri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute at No.24,Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041 belongingto the 9[th] respondent on 31.12.2015 or on any other date andconsequentailly direct the 1[st] respondent to take action against8[th] respondent by de-recognizing it and also prohibiting fromcontesting in any elections and also direct the respondents 2 to6 to take action against the 9[th] respondent in accordance withlaw in this regard within a reasonable time to be fixed by thisCourt.

Since the issue involved in the above writ petitions is oneand the same, both the writ petitions are taken up for finaldisposal and is being disposed of by the following common order.

2. The prayer in the writ petition filed byMr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy in WP.No.41106/2015 is forissuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents 1 to 8from allowing the 10[th] respondent to hold its General bodymeeting in the premises of the 11[th] respondent situated at Sri

Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute at No.24,Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

3. The prayer in the writ petition filed by the SattaPanchayat Iyakkam in WP.No.41107/2015 is three fold, viz., [a]for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing therespondents 1 to 6 not to allow the 8[th] respondent politicalparty AIADMK to conduct its General Body Meeting at SriRamachandra Medical College and Research Institute at No.24,Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041 belongingto the 9[th] respondent on 31.12.2015 or on any other date ; [b]to direct the 1[st] respondent to take action against 8[th]respondent by de-recognizing it and also prohibiting fromcontesting in any elections ; and [c]also to direct the respondents 2 to 6 to take actionagainst the 9[th] respondent in accordance with law in this regardwithin a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.

4. Before considering the arguments advanced by therespective counsel on either side, it is appropriate to statethat the main object for filing the present writ petitions inthe form of Public Interest Litigation is to prevent theconduction of the General Body Meeting and the Executive CouncilMeeting by the ruling party, viz., the All India Anna DravidaMunnetra Kazhagam, by its General Secretary to be held on31.12.2015 [tomorrow] at Sri Ramachandra Medical College andResearch Institute at No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur,Chennai – 600 041.

5. The arguments advanced by the Party-in-person[WP.No.41106/2015] ; the learned counsel for the petitioner inWP.No.41107/2015 and the learned Advocate General appearing forthe State are as follows:- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY MR.K.R.RAMASWAMY @ TRAFFIC RAMASWAMY[PARTY-IN-PERSON]:- The petitioner raised three contentions, viz.,

Arguments

The General Body Meeting to be convened by the All IndiaAnna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam on 31.12.2015 is a politicalmeeting and that the venue selected for holding such ameeting is an Educational Institution.Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam on 31.12.2015 is a politicalmeeting and that the venue selected for holding such ameeting is an Educational Institution.●The Banners and Flexboards/Hoardings illegally erected inthis regard are causing public inconvenience and theparking places are being utilised by the party personscausing hindrance.this regard are causing public inconvenience and theparking places are being utilised by the party personscausing hindrance.

The representation dated 29.12.2015 sent by him to theauthorities concerned, is yet to considered.authorities concerned, is yet to considered.

It is also submitted by the petitioner/party-in-person thathe has obtained favourable orders from this Court in these kindof matters and due to paucity of time, he could not file thesame before this Court today to substantiate his contentions.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY MR.T.SIVAGNANASAMBANDAM:- Concurring with the contentions made by Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy,the learned counsel made the following submissions by referringto the typed set of papers:- ●The announcement of conducting the said Meeting was made on28.12.2015 and the same was reported in various Dailies onthe next day, i.e., 29.12.2015.●The said land, viz., 7.44 acres of land was sold by theTamil Nadu Housing Board to Sri Ramachandra Medical Collegeand Research Institute during the year 2014 for a paltryamount and therefore, the said land cannot be utilised foranything other than for public purpose or for politicalpurpose.●He also relied on Clause 3 of the Sale Deed dated15.07.2014 executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board infavour of Sri Ramachandra Educational and Health Trust,Chennai-18, wherein it has been specifically stated thatthe “purchaser covenants with the vendor that the puchasershall use the property hereby conveyed only for the purposeforwhichitwasallotted,i.e.,publicpurpose/Institutional use Zone.”●The learned counsel referred to Frequently Asked Questions,in particular, Question No.62 of the Model Code of Conductfor the Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates andsubmitted that the use of educational institutionsincluding their grounds [whether Government Aided, Privateor Government] for political campaigns and rallies is notallowed.●The parking places have been blocked by the ruling partyfrom 29.12.2015 causing hindrance to the general public andthat the traffic in the said area has been affected badly.ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY MR.A.L.SOMAYAJI:- Refuting and resisting the contentions raised by thepetitioner/party-in-person in WP.No.41106/2015 and the learnedcounsel for the petition in WP.No.41107/2015, the learnedAdvocate General has made the following submissions:-

●The Model Code of Conduct comes into force only when theelection notification is issued and will be in force tillthe elections are complete and as on today, there is nonotification specifying the date of election and hence, thecontention raised on the petitioners side based on theModel Code of Conduct coupled with the Frequently AskedQuestions cannot be sustained.●With regard to the second fold of prayer inWP.No.41107/2015, viz., to de-recognise the particularPolitical Party and to prohibit the said party fromcontesting in any Elections, this Court cannot go into suchprayer as it is for the Election Commission to take note ofthe same. It is his further contention that even theElection Commission has no power to de-recognise anyPolitical Party and if at all the Election Commission hasany power, it can utmost, only de-register any PoliticalParty symbol and there is no power under the People'sRepresentation Act to de-recognise any political party andthe matter is pending before the Law Commission for passingappropriate recommendations. As regards the question ofde-recognition, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also observedin its order made in WP [C] No.157/2013 dated 12.03.2014[PRAVASI Vs. UNION OF INDIA], that recommendations havebeen made to the Law Commission.

The contention regarding valuation of the land during itspurchase in the year 2014, the said value has been upheldby this Court on 16.04.2015 in a writ petition filed inWP.No.25989/2015.purchase in the year 2014, the said value has been upheldby this Court on 16.04.2015 in a writ petition filed inWP.No.25989/2015.●With regard to Clause 3 of the Sale Deed, the learnedAdvocate General submitted that there is no violation ofthe said clause and in any event, the Covenancy of the SaleDeed cannot be a subject matter of the writ petitions.Advocate General submitted that there is no violation ofthe said clause and in any event, the Covenancy of the SaleDeed cannot be a subject matter of the writ petitions.●With regard to the non-consideration of the representationsent by the petitioners on 29.12.2015, the learned AdvocateGeneral submitted that the representation was sent by thepetitioner at 7.33 p.m. On 29.12.2015 and the E-Mail wassent only today, i.e., 30.12.2015 at 11.00 a.m., and beforeeven the said representation could reach the respondentsconcerned, the petitioners have rushed to this Court in ahurried manner, without giving any breathing time to therespondents to act on their representation.sent by the petitioners on 29.12.2015, the learned AdvocateGeneral submitted that the representation was sent by thepetitioner at 7.33 p.m. On 29.12.2015 and the E-Mail wassent only today, i.e., 30.12.2015 at 11.00 a.m., and beforeeven the said representation could reach the respondentsconcerned, the petitioners have rushed to this Court in ahurried manner, without giving any breathing time to therespondents to act on their representation.●Learned Advocate General has also relied on an order passedby this Court in WP.No.41045/2015 on 29.12.2015, dismissingthe writ petition filed by one Balambal, on the ground ofapproaching this Court at an earlier stage. He also reliedby this Court in WP.No.41045/2015 on 29.12.2015, dismissingthe writ petition filed by one Balambal, on the ground ofapproaching this Court at an earlier stage. He also relied

Conclusion

on a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court inWP.No.11504/2014 dated 23.04.2014 [A,MAHENDRAN Vs. THE HOMESECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU, SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9AND OTHERS].●The writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground thatthe respondents 8 and 9 in WP.No.41107/2015 and therespondents No.10 and 11 in WP.No.41106/2015 are privateparties and no writ is maintainable and no public duty isinvolved and no public right has been violated. Theconduction of meeting is purely an arrangement between twoprivate parties.●Among other contentions, the learned Advocate Generalvehemently contended that the present site where theMeeting is to be held, is a vacant land and there exists nobuilding or any Educational Institution as contended by thepetitioners herein.●Lastly, it is submitted that the allegations raised by thepetitioners are vague and no sufficient materials have beenproduced by both the petitioners to substantiate theircontentions. ●It is also his submission that the present writ petitionshave been filed with a mala fide intention and that thesaid writ petitions have to be dismissed with costs.6.To the submission of the learned Advocate Generalregarding non-violation of clause 3 of the Sale Deed, thelearned counsel for the petitioner and the party-in-personsubmitted that no Educational Institution can be exploited bypolitical parties and not only the parking areas are blocked butalso the pedastrian pathways are also been used by them fortheir political meeting.

7. This Court carefully considered the rival submissionsmade on either side and also perused the documents placed beforeit.

8. The first and foremost aspect to be considered in thesewrit petitions filed in the form of Public Interest Litigationis as to whether the political meeting of the All India AnnaDravida Munnetra Kazhagam can be conducted in an EducationalInstitution, viz., Sri Ramachandra Medical College and ResearchInstitute at No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai –600 041.?

9. Admittedly, there is no hard and fast rule forprohibiting anyone from conducting a meeting. In the cases onhand, the General Council Meeting and the Executive Meeting ofthe All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is scheduled to beheld at the place stated supra on 31.12.2015 [tomorrow] at 10.30a.m., and that the said venue is only a vacant land and nobuilding is existing in the said place, as admitted by thepetitioners themselves. Further, as regards the contention thatClause 3 of the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2014 is violated, thisCourt is of the view that the said contention is not thesubject matter to be dealt with.

10. Insofar as the consideration of the representationdated 29.12.2015 is concerned, it is seen that the saidrepresentation has been dispatched at 7.30 p.m., on 29.12.2015,as could be seen from the postal receipt. Regarding thecontention of the learned Advocate General that the E-Mail hasbeen sent only today at 11.00 a.m., this Court is of the viewthat the said E-Mail is only a print out and that it has beenspecifically stated that representation has been sent 13 hoursago, viz., at 9.36 p.m., on 29.12.2015. But, the petitionersshould have given some sufficient time to the respondentsconcerned to act on the said representation and without doingthe same, they have rushed to this Court by way of filing thesewrit petitions. This Court in an earlier writ petition filed bythe very same party-in-person along with one Rajaraman inWP.No.26696/2014 on 30.09.2014, by referring to the followingdecisions of the Apex Court, rejected the plea of thepetitioners therein. “10. In "Dr.B.Singh vs. Union of India -(2004) (3) SCC 363", the Supreme Court, inparagraph Nos.12 and 14, has held as follows:

"12. Public interest litigation is a weaponwhich has to be used with great care andcircumspection and the judiciary has to beextremely careful to see that behind thebeautiful veil of public interest an uglyprivate malice, vested interest and/or publicityseeking is not lurking. It is to be used as aneffective weapon in the armory of law fordelivering social justice to the citizens. Theattractive brand name of public interestlitigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should beaimed at redressal of genuine public wrong orpublic injury and not publicity oriented orfounded on personal vendetta. As indicatedabove, Court must be careful to see that a bodyof persons or member of public, who approachesthe court is acting bona fide and not forpersonal gain or private motive or politicalmotivation or other oblique consideration. TheCourt must not allow its process to be abusedfor oblique considerations by masked phantomswho moniter at times from behind. Some personswith vested interest indulge in the pastime ofmeddling with judicial process either by forceof habit or from improper motives and try tobargain for a good deal as well to enrichthemselves. Often they are actuated by a desireto win notoriety or cheap popularity. Thepetitions of such busy bodies deserve to bethrown out by rejection at the threshold, and inappropriate cases with exemplary costs. "13. .... ..... ....

"14.The Court has to be satisfied about: (a)the credentials of the applicant; (b) the primafacie correctness or nature of information givenby him; and (c) the information being not vagueand indefinite. The information should showgravity and seriousness involved. Court has tostrike a balance between two conflictinginterests: (i)nobody should be allowed toindulge in wild and reckless allegationsbesmirching the character of others; and (ii)avoidance of public mischief and to avoidmischievous petitions seeking to assail, foroblique motives, justifiable executive actions.In such case, however, the court cannot affordto be liberal. It has to be extremely careful tosee that under the guise of redressing a publicgrievance, it does not encroach upon the spherereserved by the Constitution to the executiveand the legislature. The court has to actruthlessly while dealing with imposters andbusybodiesormeddlesomeinterlopersimpersonating as public spirited holy men. Theymasquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico,though they have no interest of the public oreven of their own to protect."

11. In 2008(4) SCALE 848 - Common Cause (AReg.Society) v. Union of India, the SupremeCourt has held as follows:

"We have gone deep into the subject ofjudicial activism and public interest litigationbecause it is often found that courts do notrealise their own limits. Apart from thedoctrine of separation of powers, courts mustrealise that there are many problems before thecountry which courts cannot solve, however muchthey may like to. It is true that the expandedscope of Articles 14 and 21 which has beencreated by this Court in various judicialdecisions e.g. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of Indiaand another - AIR 1978 SC 597, have givenpowerful tools in the hands of the judiciary.However, these tools must be used with greatcircumspection and in exceptional cases and notas a routine manner. In particular, Article 21of the Constitution must not be misused by thecourts to justify every kind of directive, or togrant every kind of claim of the petitioner. ..."

12. If this Court entertains the writpetition in the manner that the petitionerswant, it would amount to judiciary interferingwith the affairs of the Executive and the Stateand the prerogative of the elected Government,which has been deprecated in Union of India andanother v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, (2004) 10 SCC 1and Common Cause (A Reg. Society) v. Union ofIndia, 2008 (4) SCALE 848, referred supra.

13. As regards the prayer for 'consideringand disposing the representation, the Hon'bleApex Court has categorically held in "Union ofIndia v. M.K.Sarkar, reported in (2010) 2 SCC59, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, inparagraphs 14 and 16, as follows:

"14.The order of the Tribunal allowing thefirst application of respondent withoutexamining the merits, and directing theappellants to consider his representation hasgiven rise to unnecessary litigation andavoidable complications. The ill-effects ofsuch directions have been considered by thisCourt in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology andMining [(2008) 10 SCC 115] Para 9.

"9.The courts/tribunals proceed on theassumption that every citizen deserves a replyto his representation. Secondly, they assumethat a mere direction to consider and dispose ofthe representation does not involve any'decision' on rights and obligations of parties.Little do they realise the consequences of sucha direction to ' consider'. If therepresentation is considered and accepted, theex-employee gets a relief, which he would nothave got on account of the long delay, all byreason of the direction to 'consider'. If therepresentation is considered and rejected, theex-employee file an application/writ petition,not with reference to the original cause ofaction of 1982, but by treating the rejection ofthe representation given in 2000, as the causeof action. A prayer is made for quashing therejection of representation and for grant of therelief claimed in the representation. Thetribunals/High Courts routinely entertain suchapplications/petitions ignoring the huge delaypreceding the representation, and proceed toexamine the claim on merits and grant relief.In this manner, the bar of limitation or thelaches gets obliterated or ignored."

15.......

16. A court or tribunal, before directing"consideration" of a claim or representationshouldexaminewhethertheclaimorrepresentation is with reference to a "live"issue or whether it is with reference to a"dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue ordispute, the court/tribunal should put an end tothe matter and should not direct considerationor reconsideration. If the court or tribunaldeciding to direct "consideration" withoutitself examining the merits, it should make itclear that such consideration will be withoutprejudice to any contention relating tolimitation or delay and laches. Even if thecourt does not expressly say so, that would bethe legal position and effect."

The Division Bench of this Court in A.MAHENDRAN's case [citedsupra] has also held in paragraph 3 as follows:-

“3.It is well settled that a Constitutionalauthority or any other authority is entitled tohave a reasonable time for consideration of arepresentation, if any, sent to them. A SevenJudge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.S.RATHOREVs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS [1990 AIR10 = 1989 SCR SUPP [1] 43 = 1989 [4] SCC 542]has held that in case of statutoryrepresentation or appeal, the minimum periodrequired is three to six months.”11.The next question that arises for consideration of thisCourt is to the maintainability of the writ petitions. The writpetitions may not be maintainable against the private parties,viz., the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and SriRamachandra Medical College and Research Institute, if these twoalone shown as parties. But, the prayer sought for by thepetitioners is against the other official respondents. Withoutgoing into the maintainability of the writ petitions, we findthat the relief sought for cannot be granted on the followinggrounds:- ●Firstly, there is no proof that the representation ofthe petitioners has reached the respondents concerned.●Secondly, even if there is any violation as regardsClause 3 of the Sale Deed dated 15.07.2014, the remedyfor the petitioners is not under the Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India and the remedy lies beforethe Civil Forum.

12. As regards the violation of the Model Code of Conductby the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, as on todaythere is no notification regarding the holding of any electionand that the said Code of Conduct comes into force only from thedate of Notification fixing the date of election and that existstill the completion of the elections. Hence, the contentionthat the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam has violatedthe Model Code of Conduct, has to be rejected at its threshold.

13. Though there is no averments with regard to removal ofhoardings/flex boards/banners in the respective affidavits andthough the said contentions were raised during the course of thearguments, this Court posed a question to the learned AdvocateGeneral as to whether appropriate permission has been obtainedfrom the concerned authorities under the Chennai City MunicipalCorporation Licensing of Hoardings and Levy and Collection ofAdvertisement Tax Rules, 2003.?

14. The learned Advocate General answered that appropriateapplications have been made before the authorities concerned forerecting the hoardings/banners/flex boards as per rules and thesaid contention of the petitioners has been raised by them inanother writ petition and the First Bench of this Court hasceased of the matter.

15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of theconsidered view that the writ petitions are liable to bedismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are alsodismissed.

16. The learned Advocate General is directed to furnish thedetails of the following before this Court on 05.01.2016 :-

[a]The copies of the applications submitted by respectivepersons of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam to erecthoardings/banners/flex boards and the permission granted by theauthorities concerned and the details of the payments remitted;[b]Thedetailsregardingthesizeofthehoardings/banners/flex boards ; width of the road and the namesof the persons in whose names the permission have been soughtfor erecting such hoardings and the names of the persons thatappear in the said hoardings/banners/flex boards.

[c]If such hoardings/banners/flex boards are erected in anyresidential premises, the copy of the permission taken from therespective landlords to be furnished.

[d]It is made clear that the payment/post-remittance of theamount by the party persons will not cure defect.

Post on 05.01.2016 for reporting compliance. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarAPTo1. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi.2. The Secretary, To His Excellency the Governor of Tamilnadu, Governer Secretariat, Raj Bhavan, Chennai.3. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.4. The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.5. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai.

6. The Secretary to Government, Department of Health Services, Government of Tamilnadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

7. The Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 077.

8. The Chairman, Ethics Committee, Medical Council of India, Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 077.

9. The Director of Medical Education, No.162, EVR Periyar Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

10. All India Anna Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Represented by Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, General Secretary, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai.

11. The Chairman, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, No.24, Dr.Vasudevan Nagar, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai.

+1cc to Mr.T.Sivagnansambandam, Advocate, S.R.No.69783

+2cc's to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.69787

+2cc's to Mr.Traffic Ramasamy, S.R.No.69781

SG(CO)CA(31/12/2015)