The court upheld DVAC's authority to investigate corruption allegations against Central Government officials, emphasizing that irregularities in investigation do not invalidate subsequent proceedings unless they cause a miscarriage of justice.

ORDER :

(M. Sundar, J.) :

Captioned 'Writ Petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed in this Court on 04.12.2023 as a 'Public Interest Litigation' ('PIL' for the sake of brevity).

2. Factual matrix in a nutshell is that PIL petitioner, who is a practising advocate says larger public interest is involved qua investigation pursuant to 'First Information Report dated 30.11.2023' ('FIR' for the sake of brevity) regarding Crime No.6 of 2023 on the file of 'The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti- Corruption' (hereinafter 'DVAC' for the sake of brevity); that the sheet anchor of PIL petitioner's plea is that this case should be transferred to the 'Central Bureau of Investigation' ('CBI' for the sake of brevity) as it pertains to an Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate ('Enforcement Directorate' shall be referred to as 'ED' for the sake of brevity) who is now serving in Madurai Sub-zonal Office of ED; that search on 01.12.2023 pursuant to said FIR is the epicentre of the issue i.e., search by DVAC in the Office of ED, Madurai; that this investigation should be transferred to CBI is the nucleus/lone plea qua mandamus prayer in captioned WP.

3. Mr.K.Rajeshwaran, learned counsel on record for PIL petitioner reiterated the aforementioned factual matrix in the hearing. Learned counsel submitted that the officer concerned in ED Madurai has sent a representation dated 02.12.2023 to the second respondent as regards the search on 01.12.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the search itself is illegal as according to him investigation qua an ED Officer can only be by the CBI and in support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the preamble and Section 8(c) of 'The Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (Act No.45 of 2003)' [hereinafter 'CVC Act' for the sake of brevity].

4. Issue notice.

5. Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor accepted notice for all four respondents. Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate General, State of Tamil Nadu, appeared on his behalf as regards first respondent (Home Secretary). Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah, learned State Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar as regards respondents 3 and 4 (DVAC) and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General appeared on behalf of Mr.Thiruvadi Kumar, as regards second respondent (Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu i.e., DGP). To be noted, while learned Advocate General and learned State Public Prosecutor were before us on a 'video conferencing' ('VC' for the sake of brevity) platform, Mr.K.Rajeshwaran, learned counsel for PIL petitioner, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor who accepted notice for all four respondents and Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Additional Advocate General were before us in the physical Court. This is recorded for the purpose of making it clear that the hearing is a 'Hybrid Hearing'.

6. All the State Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the captioned PIL does not hold water in the light of well settled principles of law. All the State Counsel submitted in unison in one voice that the entire matter or in other words the substratum of the bone of contention turns on pristine principles of law and therefore, they are ready to argue the main matter in the 'Admission Board' itself without going through the drill of filing counter-affidavit.

7. In the above scenario, with the consent of both sides, i.e., learned counsel for PIL petitioner and learned State counsel for all respondents, main WP was taken up and heard out. In this regard, this second limb of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 of Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 is of relevance. This provides for shorter Rule Nisi notices and therefore, we take recourse to second limb sub-rule (3) of Rule 19.

8. Detailed submissions were made by both sides. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the mandamus prayer in the captioned PIL deserves a dismis