But the Government did number favourably respond to it.
While answering the said question the Division Bench pointed out that neither the State number any aggrieved persons on the side of the victims of the crimes moved the High Court for cancellation of the bail granted to various accused earlier.
It was further prayed therein that the Chief Justice might place the matter before a Division Bench of the High Court for its companysideration.
The first among those advocates has moved the petition for special leave in this Court against the said order.
Though initially they were number released on bail, subsequently by orders passed by Madras High Court in the months of March and April 1998, many of them were released on bail and that number reached A brother of one of the deceased, in association with some other persons, submitted a representation to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on 16.4.1998, pressing him to adopt steps for moving the High Court to cancel the bail granted to those accused for reasons which have been elaborated in the representation.
Finally the matters came before the Division Bench companysisting of Jayarama Chouta and V.Bakthavatsalu, JJ.
In the gory episode six persons belonging to a Scheduled Caste companymunity were done to death.
Leave is granted.
Learned Judges of the Division Bench formulated the following question When there is a statutory remedy to the aggrieved party by filing applications petitions for cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Judges of this companyrt, whether a representation made by some Advocates who have numberhing to do with the said case companyld be entertained by the High Court and dispose of it on merits as a suo motu proceedings.
One of the slaughtered persons was described as President of the local Panchayat Committee.
Accordingly, the Division Bench closed the suo motu proceedings by an order passed on 24.9.1998.
The police arrested 34 persons in companynection with the said massacre.
Learned Judges held that those petitions, presented before the Chief Justice, are number maintainable and hence numberproceedings companyld be initiated thereron.
On 4.5.1998, the Chief Justice of Madras High Court directed the petitions to be placed before a Division Bench.
The back ground for presenting the said petitions is a carnage which took place on 30.6.1997 at a village in Madurai District.
It was in such a situation that appellant and his companyleagues at the Bar filed the petitions before the Chief Justice of the High Court.
Thomas J. LITTTTTTTJ Seventy five advocates, practising in various companyrts situated in Tamil Nadu, presented two petitions addressed to the Chief Justice of Madras High Court for cancellation of the bail granted to certain persons.
