Disposed

C.Arun @ Arunachalam v. the Chairman

Madras HC22 Jul 2021WP(MD)/10484/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a transfer of investigation into allegations of fake law college franchises from the Madurai Police to the CBI. Finding that the police had already filed a final report and the trial court had taken cognizance, the Court disposed of the petition and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; direction to trial Court to expedite trial.

C.Arun @ Arunachalam Vs the Chairman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 22.07.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

C.Arun @ Arunachalam

... Petitioner

1.The Chairman,

¶11

Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Puducherry,

¶12

High Court Campus,

¶13

Chennai – 600 104.

¶14

2.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch,

¶15

Madurai City.

¶16

3.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶17

4.The Joint Director and Head, Chennai Zone, Central Bureau of Investigation, 3^rd Floor, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 6. ... Respondents

¶18

[R.3 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 02.07.2013] [R.4 impleaded vide order dated 31.07.2013]

¶19

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Mandamus to transfer the investigation in Crime No.46 of 2013 on the file of the

¶20

2^nd respondent herein to the 4^th respondent.

¶21

[Amended vide order dated 31.07.2013]

¶22

1/8

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arun @ Arunachalam Party-in-person For Respondents : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar for R.1

¶26

Mr.S.Ravi, Standing Counsel for the State for RR.2, 3 *****

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is a practising Advocate and he filed this writ petition originally for a mandamus directing the respondents to take action based on his complaint dated 06.03.2013. His complaint was subsequently registered by the

¶29

second respondent Police in Crime No.46 of 2013 and therefore, the prayer was amended as per order dated 31.07.2013 in M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013 to transfer the investigation in Crime No.46 of 2013, which is pending on the file of the second respondent to the fourth respondent / Central Bureau of Investigation.

¶30

2.The case of the petitioner is that one Vivekananda

¶31

Manithaneya Payirchi College; Mass Tech Technologies; and 2/8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶34

Legal Education Counselling Centre are having fake

¶35

franchises from fake law colleges in the State of Karnataka

¶36

and Andhra Pradesh. They are also advertising in the newspapers, receiving fees and also issuing identity cards as college students. Believing their advertisements, several persons, who are not in a position to get a seat from the Tamil Nadu Law Colleges, are falling prey and are getting degrees. In fact, through these fake franchises, the rowdy elements are also getting law degrees. The petitioner, in this regard, has lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, on 06.03.2013 and the same was forwarded to the second respondent Police, who, in turn, has registered a case in Crime No.46 of 2013 for the offence under Section 420 IPC and took up the investigation.

¶37

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the conduct of the accused, under the guise of franchises of certain law colleges, is in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal & Another v. State of Chattisgarh and the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in S.Sengkodi v. State of Tamil Nadu .

¶38

3/8

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶41

4.The second respondent Police has filed a status

¶42

report that the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.03.2013 preferred before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, has been forwarded to him and the investigation has been conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch. The case was registered in Crime No.46 of 2013 under Section 420 IPC. They have visited the institutions, namely, Mastech Technologies and examined its proprietor, one Victor Jegan; and one Vivekananda Manithaneya Payirchi College and examined its proprietor, one Santhanam.

¶43

5.The status report further reads that the said Victor Jegan, proprietor of Mastech Technologies, gave a statement that he has admitted 15 students in Krishna College, Tumkur, Karnataka and another 15 students at Andhra Pradesh. Similarly, the said Santhanam, proprietor of Vivekananda Manithaneya Payirchi College, gave a statement that he has admitted 38 students in Krishna Educational Society, Tumkur. They have also enquired Krishna College of Tumkur and M.H.College and confirmed that through these persons, who

¶44

4/8

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶47

have acted as agents, 9 students from Tamil Nadu were

¶48

admitted in Krishna College and 11 students were admitted in M.H.College. These two colleges were affiliated by the Karnataka State Law University, Hubbli and also approved by the Bar Council of India. They also visited one PSR Colelge at Kakkinada, who submitted that they do not have any agents. The investigation revealed that the said Victor

¶49

Gegan and Santhanam sent students to other State Law Colleges from various districts in Tamil Nadu. The investigation agency has also filed the final report as against the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in C.C.No.80 of 2015.

¶50

6.This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the available materials.

¶51

7.The petitioner, a member of the legal fraternity, has

¶52

lodged a complaint that the students interested in pursuing law are being exploited by the accused under the guise of agents of law colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. They issued advertisements in newspapers, 5/8

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶55

collected fees, issued identity cards and various other activities that of the affiliated body of those colleges. The fact remains that the Colleges at Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are not prescribing any upper age limit for the students. Therefore, Students, who want to pursue law, are being exploited by these people claiming to be the agents.

¶56

8.As pointed out by the petitioner, with the help of these institutions, even rowdy elements are entering into this profession. Law profession is a noble profession, having a status and dignity in the Society, but this respect is slowly eroding because of some miscreants and unwanted elements. It is the duty of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to ensure that the right people are entering into the profession.

¶57

9.Insofar as the prayer in this petition is concerned,

¶58

since the final report has already been filed and also taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in C.C.No.80 of 2015, no further order is required to be passed in this petition.

¶59

6/8

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶62

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of, with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No gk To

¶64

22.07.2021

¶65

1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3.The Joint Director and Head, Chennai Zone, Central Bureau of Investigation, 3^rd Floor, EVK Sampath Building, College Road, Chennai – 6. 4.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.

¶66

7/8

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶69

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶70

¶71

W.P(MD)No.10484 of 2013

¶72

22.07.2021

¶73

8/8

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Arun @ Arunachalam v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Arun @ Arunachalam v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvam Vs The Forest Range Officer

Gnanamuthu Joseph.S Vs The Inspector of Police

Yovan Rajadurai Vs The Inspector of Police

R. Soundrapandiyan, Vs State Rep. by the Principal

Harishkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Senthilmurugan Vs The Inspector of Police