Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
R. Mahendran - Appellant
Versus
The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 19558 of 2013
Decided On : 04-03-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 5(3), 13 (1) (e) – Held, It is also worthwhile to mention here that check period commenced from 1996 and there is bound to be inflationary effect on value of properties - In instant case, it was found to be only 5.03% which is very much less than suggested 10% - It is also to be taken into account that case pertains to year 2012-2013 and check period was fixed from 1996 making it all more reasonable for margin of 10% to be applied - Therefore, court do not find any reason to interfere with action of respondents 1 to 3 who according to me have acted in a fair manner - If findings of procedure conducted by third respondent is found fault with, it would only cause a blot to police officials who have done remarkable job - Further, most of these kind of cases are politically motivated and they have effect of damaging one's reputation belittling their image in eyes of public - Therefore, court beg to differ with conclusion arrived out in disposing writ petition directing third respondent to file First Information Report against fourth respondent - Court extended check period spreading over 22 years - Another prominent aspect to be mentioned here is that fourth respondent was engaged in real estate business and in preliminary enquiry no discrepancy was found in declaration in Form 26 given by him - It can also be observed that between findings of first Preliminary Report for a limited period and Second Preliminary Report for extended period, there is no significant finding against fourth respondent except for effect of inflation on value of assets which worked out to 5.03% - No other startling revelations or disclosures have come up to conclude that there is a prima facie cognizable offence - Third respondent has definitely applied his mind to all aspects of findings in second Preliminary Report and accordingly recommended for dropping any further action and same was accepted by Government - In such a scenario, court do not find any prima facie case made out against fourth respondent warranting registration of First Information Report - Any further action in this case would not serve any useful purpose and it would be only like flogging a dead horse - Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M. Sathyanarayanan. J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry on the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.10.2013 against the fourth respondent for the alleged purchase of huge assets, particularly those mentioned in the petitioner’s complaint, disproportionate to his known source of income by abuse of his public office within a stipulated time.
1. Mr.R.Mahendran filed W.P(MD)No. 19558 of 2013 against the respondents herein praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent herein, namely The Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai-600 009 [in short "DVAC"], to conduct a detailed enquiry on his complaint dated 10.10.2013 against the fourth respondent for the alleged purchase of huge assets, particularly those mentioned in his complaint, disproportionate to his known source of income by abuse of his public office within a stipulated time.
2. A Division Bench of this Court, after taking note of the materials placed and also the judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2013 (6) CTC 353 : (2014) 2 SCC 1] and recording the statement of undertaking given on behalf of the respondents that enquiry will be completed and action will be taken in accordance with law, has disposed of the writ petition accordingly, vide order dated 07.01.2014.
3. The Writ Petition was listed on 16.02.2018 under the caption "For Reporting Compliance" as to the fate of the preliminary enquiry No. 20/2013/PUB/HQ dated 13.09.2013 against the fourth respondent and time was sought to get necessary instructions. A Compliance Report was filed on the next date of hearing on 01.03.2018, wherein it has been stated as per the Final Report of the DVAC dated 13.01.2014, a decision has been taken to drop further action against the fourth respondent and the same has been accepted by the Government, vide letter dated 04.02.2014.
4. This Court, taking into consideration Statement No.IV of the Report dated 13.01.2014 as well as the contents of the same, was of the view that a detailed report as regards the occupation of the fourth respondent before becoming the Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA] in the form of sworn affidavit to be filed by the third respondent and further directed the Vigilance Commissioner, Public (SC) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to produce the files relating to the letter dated 04.02.2014.
5. Accordingly, a Status Report was filed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Cell, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai dated NIL. The Compliance Report of the third respondent dated 01.03.2018 as well as the affidavit dated 23.03.2018 were submitted and those reports were perused. This Court also heard the submissions of Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff for M/s.Ajmal Associates, who appeared for the fourth respondent. This Court has note of the rival submissions and also gone through the Manual of the Directorate and Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu, Second Education dated 30.12.1992 and in the light of the said Vigilance Manual has considered the Status Report dated NIL, Compliance Report of the third respondent dated 01.03.2018 as well as the affidavit dated 23.03.2018.
6. This Court having found that the fixation of check period was not proper and it should have been fixed from 1996 onwards for the reason that the fourth respondent was the Vice President and Vice Chairman of Local Body between 1996 and 2011, observed as follows:
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
