CENTER FOR PIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) We are informed, that in furtherance of the Motion Bench order dated 6th January, 2017, publication was duly made in two leading newspapers in Malaysia, and yet, neither of the four accused mentioned in paragraph 5 of the order dated 6th January, 2017, namely, accused Nos. (iii) Mr. Augustus Ralph Marshall, (iv) Mr. Ananda Krishna Tatparanandam, (vi) M/s. Astro All Asia Networks Limited and (vii) M/s. Maxis Communications Berhad, Malaysia, have responded to the summons issued to them, nor have they entered appearance before this Court, for seeking modification of the above order (dated 6th January, 2017).

(3.) The order dated 6th January, 2017, suggested a course of action, that may be adopted for procuring the attendance of the above-mentioned accused persons. It is now submitted, that the suggested manner may not be appropriate. We agree with the submissions. We are therefore of the view, that it is necessary to clearly express, for the understanding of the accused concerned, that some other appropriate order for achieving the purpose, besides the one suggested by our order dated 6th January, 2017, may also be adopted. In such a situation also, in case, the accused do not respond or enter appearance, it will not be open to any of them to raise any objection, with reference to any monetary loss, that may be caused, as a result of our order.