M PALANIMUTHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE , the issue involved in both the writ petitions are identical, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in W.P.No.12868 of 2011, is an Advocate appearing in person and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation and sought for a direction upon the respondents to take appropriate action on his representation dated 24.05.2011, seeking to reconstitute the Joint Drafting Committee of Lokpal Bill with due representation to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women.

(3.) AT the out set, we have to point out that Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in paragraph 5 therein has stated that he has sent representation by fax on 21.04.2011, to reconstitute the Committee. Copy of such representation has been filed in page no.2 of the typed set of papers. To our dismay, we find that the representation has been sent by one Ms.Stella and she has claimed herself to be the P.A. of Traffic Ramaswamy. We deprecated the manner in which, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking for a direction to dispose of the said representation. Firstly, it is a false statement made by the petitioner, Traffic Ramaswamy, that he has sent a representation. It appears that the petitioner has scant respect for this Court, which is evident from the manner in which, he has moved the present writ petition. It is clear that the writ petition is a publicity oriented writ petition with no semblance of public interest. The manner in which, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition warrants deterrent action, but however, considering the petitioner's age, we refrain from doing so.