Indira’s lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan told reporters this after a case management today before the High Court deputy registrar.
“The defendants’ solicitor (Attorney-General’s Chambers) informed the court that they had filed a striking-out application and served it on the plaintiff (Indira) today.”
Rajesh said the court instructed Indira to respond to the striking-out bid through an affidavit before Jan 29 and for the government to reply before Feb 15.
The police and government, in their striking-out notice, said her lawsuit did not disclose any reasonable cause of action.
“This lawsuit is frivolous and an abuse of the court process as she (Indira) had wrongly commenced this proceeding.
“Her judicial review before the Ipoh High Court still stands and she should be seeking relief there,” they said.
Meanwhile, on Indira’s interrogatories application to seek answers from the inspector-general of police (IGP) over Riduan’s whereabouts, Rajesh said the court instructed the government to respond to the application by Feb 4.
The next case management for Indira’s lawsuit will be fixed on Feb 19.
In her statement of claim, Indira said the IGP had committed tort of nonfeasance in public office when he “knowingly and/or recklessly disregarded the mandamus order from the Federal Court”.
The Federal Court had in 2016 instructed the nation’s top cop to execute the warrant of committal against Riduan after he was found guilty of contempt by refusing to hand over their daughter, Prasana Diksa.
It said the Ipoh High Court judge would monitor the progress of the execution.
“The IGP, as a person holding public office, has misconducted himself by failing to exercise the powers which were conferred on him for the benefit of the public or a section of the public,” Indira said.
“The conduct by the IGP and the other defendants (the police, government and home minister) have directly or indirectly enabled Pathmanathan (Riduan’s name before his conversion to Islam) to evade capture.”
She also said that current IGP Abdul Hamid Bador told the media last year he knew where Riduan was and was “working on a happy ending” for her.
“His statement made it clear that he had not proceeded to arrest Pathmanathan and hand Prasana Diksa back to me despite being aware of Pathmanathan’s location,” she said.
Indira is seeking damages and a declaration that the IGP had committed tort of nonfeasance in public office.