High Court of Judicature at Madras
C.T. SELVAM, J.
Balakrishnan
Versus
T.K. Rajendran, Director Vigilance & Anticorruption & Another
Cont.P. No. 932 of 2012 & Sub. Appln. Nos. 191, 301 & 302 of 2012
Decided on : 26-08-2013
Contempt of Court - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code - 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - 2007 (1) Supreme Court Cases 110 - G.O.(D) No.1, P&AR (Per-N), dated 28th January 1992
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for registration of a case based on a complaint. The court directed a preliminary enquiry, which revealed irregularities in obtaining planning permission for a construction project.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conduct of the Member Secretary, CMDA, amounted to contempt of court and deliberate attempt to bypass court orders. The court directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to register a case for the wrongdoings.
Issues: Violation of court orders, irregularities in obtaining planning permission, contempt of court, and the interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conduct of the Member Secretary, CMDA, in not informing the Secretary to Government about court orders and objections constituted contempt of court. The court also emphasized that ignorance of law is not an excuse and deliberate attempts to bypass court orders are unacceptable.
Final Decision: The court held the second respondent guilty of contempt of court and directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, to register a case for the wrongdoings.
1. This petition seeks an order of this court punishing the respondents for contempt of its order passed in Crl.O.P.No.10255/2010 on 27.08.2010.
2. In Crl.O.P.No.10255/2010 the petitioner had sought that a direction be issued to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, towards registration of a case on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 10.06.2009.
3. For easier understanding of the issue involved, it would be appropriate to reproduce the order of this court passed in Crl.O.P.No.10255/2010 on 27.08.2010.
"This petition has been filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking direction to the respondent towards registration of a case on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner dated 10.06.2009.
2. The complaint of the petitioner reads as follows -
I am residing at the above mentioned address. I got General Power from one Chinniyan and others for S.No.299/1A 1.76 Acre and S.No.230/7A. 3.00 Acres in Koyambedu Thirumangalam village. Some cases are pending between us and Sri Krishna Tiles Pottaries (P) Ltd. for the above mentioned land W.P.No.12613/01 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Madras. Moreover Sri Krishna Tiles Pottaries (P) Ltd. sold the above said 4.76 acres of land to Ozone Construction (P) Ltd. We have impleaded them as a party in W.P.No.12613/01 which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court.
In the meanwhile on 20.07.2002 I sent my objections to CMDA not to issue planning permission in the above said 4.76 acres of land, till the disposal of W.P.No.12613/01.
I filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16346/07 against 1. CMDA 2.M/s.Sri Krishna Tiles 3.M/s.Ozone Constructions (P) Ltd. on 02.05.07 the Hon'ble High Court granted interim injunction against CMDA and others for not to give planning permission in the above said 4.76 acres of land. Moreover on 28.06.07 the Hon'ble High Court has ordered in W.P.No.16346/07 that CMDA to consider my objections dated 20.07.2002 within 4 weeks and also give a fresh objection within a week. I had given my objections on 16.07.2007.
In this situation the then CMDA member secretary had sent a letter dated 16.06.2008 on 20.05.2008 to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department. In that letter, he had not mentioned about the issue with regard to giving permission to M/s.Ozone Projects (P) Ltd. And concealed my objections and the above mentioned pending cases. The CMDA Member Secretary had willfully omitted to state my objections even after the order of the Hon'ble High Court.
I state that by suppressing the real state of affairs to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the then Member Secretary, CMDA attempted to get planning permission in favour of M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited.
This act by abusing his position as a public servant and obtaining a valuable thing i.e. Planning Permission in favour of M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited is punishable u/s 13(1) (d) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
I understand apart from Mr. Mohan the then Member Secretary, other officials in collusion with M/s.Ozone Projects Private Limited are involved in the said offence.
Thus I request you to register a case and investigate the matter against Mr. Mohan, Ozone Projects (P) Ltd. and others.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that in seeking the permission of the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, the Member Secretary, CMDA was duty bound to inform the objections if any to the grant of planning permission. The position that the above said rule has not been complied with itself would be sufficient to register a case under Section 13 (1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Only upon registration of a case and investigation thereupon it would be possible to ascertain if or not a offence stood committed. The respondent has filed a counter informing that the challenge of the petitioner herein to the grant of patta to a rival party in W.P.No.12613/01 was negated un
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.