KOCHI: Amidst the controversy over handing over of 283 acres of forest land in the Nelliampathy hills, special government pleader for forest in the Kerala High Court T R Ravi resigned on Monday. He submitted the resignation before advocate general K P Dandapani, who will send it to the Law Department.
Ravi resigned from the post in the wake of an inquiry report submitted
by forest conservator E Pradeep Kumar to the additional chief conservator of forest on the issue of handing over of forest land to a private party at Nelliyampathy without the government permission.
The report said that the actions of the special government pleader T R Ravi and the DFO C T Joju were mysterious and alleged that Ravi had earlier represented the Nelliyampathy estate occupants in the High Court.
The report recommended the government to remove the government pleaders who had links with the estate owners. In his resignation letter, Ravi said that the report refers to an inquiry which was conducted behind his back and without taking the advocate general into confidence. “Whatever might be the legal sanctity of such an inquiry, I would not be able to function as a special government pleader, with such a report on file,” he said in the resignation letter.
When the case was taken up he requested the court for time to get written instructions. The court was not inclined to grant time and passed an interim order directing restoration of the land taken over.
The reason stated in the order was that the government order was passed without issuing a notice to the affected parties. “After getting the copy of the order, I had sent another communication to the principal secretary and others reiterating my view and suggested to withdraw the earlier order. I have also asked to issue a fresh order after issuing notice to the parties,” he said.
“The duty of the government law officer is not merely argue and defend all illegal orders passed by the government officers. If the officers are found to have made mistakes, whether legal or procedural, it is the duty of the law officer to point out and get them corrected at the earliest,” he said.
“It is not the duty of the law officer to advise the government to not obey orders passed by a court of law,” he pointed out.
The inquiry report against him is that the pleader sent the legal opinion, without having a copy of the court order, by the next day itself stating that there was no scope for appeal.