The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice to Tamil Nadu government on a public interest litigation by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which alleged that the 'government machinery in the southern districts had been paralysed due to interference by Chief Minister M Karunanidhi's elder son M K Azhagiri.'
Justice P K Misra and and Justice K Veeraraghavan ordered issue of notice to the chief secretary, the director general of police, deputy inspector generals of police, Madurai and Tirunelveli, Madurai police commissioner and Madurai district superintendent of police and posted the petition for next hearing on June 6.
The judges, however, refused to issue notice to the Union home secretary, the first respondent, and Azhagiri, the eighth respondent in the PIL.
The petition, which also referred to the May 9 attack on Tamil daily Dinakaran in Madurai allegedly by supporters of Azhagiri, sought appointment of a 'body of persons' to monitor law and order in the southern districts.
The judges said the decision regarding admitting the PIL will be taken after the counter was filed by the state government officials.
Counsel for the AIADMK, N Jothi, alleged that Azhagiri was 'functioning as an extra-constitutional authority' ever since the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam came to power last year and this was the main reason for 'the deterioration' of law and order in the southern districts.
Jothi referred to various incidents, including the attack on Dinakaran office in which three employees of the daily were killed, and said these showed that the 'state machinery had been paralysed besides becoming inactive and lethargic.'
He alleged that Azhagiri controlled the entire administration in the southern districts.
Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate Generals S Ramaswamy and P S Raman said there was no urgency to take up the PIL during the vacation.
Besides, the police had already taken action and arrested the culprits who were linked to the attack on Dinakaran office, they said and added police had been impartial.The petitioner, they said, was trying to take advantage of the situation prevailing after the attack on the daily. The petitioner was in no way linked with the Dinakaran daily, they submitted.
