Filing of affidavit by petitioner deprecated by Court.

Srinivasan, J.

The petitioner is the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. The first respondent is the Governor of the State. The fourth respondent presented a petition on 11. 1993 to the first respondent praying for sanction to prosecute the petitioner under Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on allegations of corruption and criminal misconduct. As no orders had been passed on the said petition, the fourth respondent filed W.P. No.7996 of 1994 in this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, who was described as "the Deciding Authority and His Excellency the Governor of Tamil Nadu, Madras" to grant necessary sanction for prosecuting the petitioner herein, who was the second respondent therein, under the provisions of Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The third respondent in that writ petition was the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Chief Secretary to Government. The court entertained a doubt as regards its maintainability and ordered notice of motion. The three respondents in the said writ petition contended that the same was not maintainable and relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, etc. v. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and others, (1994)1L.W. 145. A learned Judge of this Court passed an order on 29. 1994 dismissing the said writ petition as not maintainable in view of the ruling of the Division Bench referred to above.

2. The fourth respondent filed S.L.P. No. 17944 of 1994 in the Supreme Court of India against the said order. The Supreme Court ordered notice in that petition and on behalf of the first respondent herein an affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court by his Secretary praying for time till 35. 1995 to take a decision on the petition given to him by the fourth respondent herein. Referring to the said affidavit the Supreme Court passed the following order on 20.2.1995:

"Since the affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Governor by his Secretary asking for time till 35. 1995 for taking decision on the application made by the petitioner, the matters are adjourned to 7. 1995."

3. Subsequently, the first respondent passed an order on 23. 1995 according sanction to the fourth respondent to prosecute the petitioner for offences under Sec.169, Indian Penal Code and Sec.l3(l)(d) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said order reads as follows:

"Whereas, Dr.Subramanian Swamy residing at No.5, Pandi Pant Marg, New Delhi-110 001, presented a petition on 11. 1993 asking for sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J.Jayalalitha under Sec.197 of Criminal Procedure Code and under Sec.19 of Prevention Corruption Act, regarding allegations of corruption and criminal misconduct;

2. Whereas subsequently he has submitted detailed material claiming to be proof in support of the allegations in the form of 2 bound volumes;

3. Whereas the said Subramanian Swamy has made the allegations of corruption in the following matters: (a) Abuse of tender process in respect of import of coal specifically charging Corruption; (b) Purchase of Government land from TANSI in the name of Jaya publications for a low price alleging that the Chief Minister is a partner along with Smt.Sasikala.

4. Whereas in respect of the allegation about the import of coal to the effect that the contract has been given to M/s.Alagendran and Brothers International Private Limited and has produced the notings of the Public Works Department Secretary and the noting of Secretaries of various departments;

5. Whereas in respect of the purchase of TANSI Land to show that it is criminal misconduct various documents starting from the partnership deed of Jaya Publications showing Chief Minister J.Jayalalitha as partner, the agreement of purchase, sale deed and particulars of guidelines to show that properties worth Rs.4.42 crores has been purcha