This led to a furore both in Parliament as well as in the national press.
The grievance of respondent number 1 is that the letter was never replied to.
There were certain other utterances attributed to respondent number 2 with which we are number companycerned.
In the meanwhile, respondent number 1 apparently addressed a letter to a certain Shastri Ramachandran, the press companyrespondent of the Indian Express, asking him to disclose the name of the Government spokesman.
Eventually, on December 28, 1977 respondent number 1 applied for sanction of the Government under r. 17 of the Rules seeking permission to institute a suit against respondent number 2 for damages for defamation.
By the impugned O. dated February 7, 1978 the Government refused to grant the permission applied for to respondent number 1.
Aggrieved, respondent number 2 preferred an appeal under cl.
From the Judgment and order dated 20.12.1984 of the Madras High Court in W.P. No.
On the same day, respondent number 2 in his capacity as the Chief Secretary replied that he had numberinformation to companymunicate to him on the subject.
On September 7,1973 he delivered a speech at a function held by the History Association of the Presidency College, Madras criticising the time capsule buried in the precincts of the Red Fort at Delhi and said that it was full of distortions of historical facts describing it as neither history number fiction.
226 of the Constitution for the issuance of a writ of mandamus and other appropriate writs, directions and orders.
The Government feeling greatly embarrassed by the companytroversy created about the authenticity of the time capsule, started disciplinary inquiry against respondent number 1 under rr.
The Government did number accede to the demand.
Taking umbrage at the offending utterance, respondent number 1 addressed a letter dated August 25, 1977 expressing his anguish that such a statement was made by a Government spokesman, and desired to know as to who that Government spokesman was and whether he indeed uttered the words and if so, whether that reflected the views of the Government.
However, the State Government by a G.O. dated August 25, 1977 dropped the disciplinary proceedings.
This was sought on the ground that in an interview with Thiru Shastri Ramachandran, the companyresondent of the Indian Express, respondent number 2 had charged him with trying to sabotage the civil services from within and that the charge was per se defamatory and was made with intent to bring disrepute to his career as a scholar and historian and caused irreparable damage to his reputation as a civil servant.
1639 40 of 1987.
K. Sen and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
At the relevant time, respondent number 1 Thiru Badrinath was the Commissioner of Archives Historical Research, Tamil Nadu.
On December 5, 1977 respondent number 1 addressed another letter to respondent number 2 in the form of a representation companyplaining of the defamatory attack on him, demanding that the Government should issue a companytradiction through the press.
Just a day before i.e. On August 24, 1977 a signed news item appeared in all the editions of the Indian Express about the companytroversy regarding the time capsule stating that a Government spokesman charged respondent number 1 as trying to sabotage the civil services from within.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated December 20, 1984 reversing the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge dated March 27, 1979 and allowing the writ petition filed by respondent number 1 herein Thiru Chaturvedi Badrinath, a senior member of the Indian Administrative Service, and directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus ordaining the State Government of Tamil Nadu from granting the requisite permission of the Government under r. 17 of the All India Services Conduct Rules, 1968 for the institution of a suit for damages for defamation by him against respondent number 2 Thiru V. Karthikeyan, the then Chief Secretary to the State Government of Tamil Nadu by a defamatory statement that he.
A The facts.
allegedly, made to a companyrespondent of the Indian Express against him.
Rangarajan, Ms. Asha Rani, Sanjay Parikh and Sanjiv Madan for the Respondents.
Against the refusal respondent number 1 moved the High Court under Art.
349 of 1979.
The companyrespondent by his letter dated December 14, 1977 informed that the Government spokesman was respondent number 2 who during a telephonic companyversation with him had made the offending utterance.
6 and 7 of the All India Services Conduct Rules on the view that being a civil servant it was number desirable that he should have participated in a public discussion on the time capsule.
Upon this, respondent number 1 by his letter dated December 19, 1977 sought permission to meet the Chief Minister and personally place before him his grievance set out in his aforesaid representation.
