The Madras High Court Tuesday ordered a Tamil Nadu MLA, who was disqualified by the Supreme Court, to refund Rs 21.58 lakh which included the salary and allowances received by him as a legislator.
Justice V Parthiban gave the order dismissing a petition by P Veldurai against a notice issued by the state assembly secretary seeking refund of salary and allowances which he had received between 2006 and 2011 as an MLA and a penalty, totalling Rs 21.58 lakh.
The judge directed the former MLA to refund the amount within four weeks.
Veludurai, elected from Cheranmahadevi constituency in the 2006 assembly election, was disqualified as MLA by the Supreme Court in April 2011, on the ground that he was a government road contractor at the time of filing nomination and hence, barred from contesting polls..
His disqualification came towards the fag end of his term.
Following the court order, the assembly secretary issued the notice seeking refund of Rs 21.58 lakh, which included penalty of Rs 500 per day for the 201 days Veldurai had attended the House proceedings.
Dismissing the petition, Justice Parthiban said the disqualification sets in from day one of the election. In fact, his candidature itself was struck down.
"If so, he cannot and could not have become a member of the House. That being so, all the emoluments received by him as such member is not legitimate sums in his hands. It is not liability or penalty imposed on him," he said.
The judge also rejected the contention of the petitioner that since he had earned the salary and allowances for his participation in the proceedings of the assembly, the question of refund of the money earned by him would not arise at all.
Concurring with the submissions of Additional Advocate General S R Rajagopal, who appeared for the state government, he said no MLA or MP stands in an election to get elected to the 'post' for the 'salary' on offer.
Unlike a government servant, who joins employment for livelihood and thus is dependent on the salary for his services, a member of the assembly or Parliament who is also a public servant will not belittle his position for the economic benefit available while occupying the seat, he said.
Even if the nomenclature "salaries" is used for elected members, it was different and distinct from salary paid to employees, Justice Parthiban held.
The judge also said the delay in dispensation of final verdict ought not to endure to the benefit of the disqualified member.
"Such disqualified individuals can make full use of the judicial rigmarole and come out unaffected and unscathed, notwithstanding his eventful disqualification achieved through the judicially protracted route," he said.
In case of a legal delay, the petitioner ought not to be allowed to have the last laugh at the justice delivery system much to the chagrin of public trust and faith reposed in him when he was voted to represent the public cause, Parthiban said.
In a case of this nature, the effect of adverse order should not be symbolic or notional, but it should be real, tangible and exemplary, the judge said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
