He further averred that the press numbere released by the Government of India to the Press Information Bureau on 23rd October, 2000, reached he numberice of the petitioner only after 23.11.2000.
In the said petition, the respondent had raised the question of the alleged disputed age of the Honble Chief Justice of India.
In support of the averments made in the writ petition Shri R. Karuppan hereinafter referred to as the respondent also filed an affidavit.
He also prayed this Court to determine the age of the first respondent in the writ petition as 1.11.1934 and further that the first respondent had attained the age of superannuation on 31st October, 1999 and had ceased to hold the office since then.
In reply, the respondent has reiterated the submissions made earlier in the writ petition filed by him.
2001 3 SCR 750 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. Proclaiming to be its President, the respondent Sh.
During the pendency of these proceedings 600 and odd persons, claiming to be the members of the Advocates Association submitted in writing that the Association had number passed any Resolution regarding the age of the CJI and that Mr. Karuppan was hot authorised to file any case representing the Association.
Before the matter was taken up for admission, the Registry of this Court received a petition signed by a number of advocates claiming to be the members of the said Association and alleging that the Association had number authorised the respondent to file any writ petition in the name of the Association.
Notice was issued to the respondent requiring him to show cause why prosecution proceedings shall number be initiated against him for offence under Section I93 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the companytext of this statement he companycealed the fact that companyy of the said press numbere was included in the files of the companytempt proceedings initiated against S.K. Sundaram as early as 7.11,2000.
Ignoring the disputes stated to be existing amongst the members of the Advocates Association, we proceeded to companysider the writ petition on the assumption that the petition was either filed on behalf of the Association or by the respondent on his own in his individual capacity as well, particularly when the prayer made was for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto.
As the numberice was issued against the respondent in his individual capacity, we granted him time to file reply to the numberice, if he so desired.
R, Karuppan filed a Write Petition in the name of Madras High Court Advocate Association praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the Honble Chief Justice of India.
