In a relief to DMK president M K Stalin, the Madras High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC) proceeding against him in connection with the alleged irregularities in the construction of the new Secretariat building in Omandurar Government Estate.
Madras High Court
Chennai:
A division bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh and Justice K Kalyanasundaram on granting the interim injunction based on an appeal moved by Stalin posted the plea for further hearing to October 22.
AIADMK leader Late J Jayalalithaa on returning to power in 2011 had converted the new secretariat complex, a pet project of former Chief Minister late M Karunanidhi, into a super specialty hospital. Subsequently, citing irregularities in the construction, Justice S Reghupathy Commission was appointed to hold a probe. Subsequently, the probe had become defunct following a court order which stayed the proceedings on a plea moved by Karunanidhi, the then Deputy Chief Minister Stalin and then PWD minister Duraimurugan against the commission’s proceedings. However, after three years, Justice S M Subramaniam who heard the case slammed the Government for wasting tax payer’s money on such commissions. While an order was passed on October 1, officially winding up the commission, Justice Subramaniam directed the State to initiate criminal prosecution if prima facie case is made out.
Based on this order, the government handed over the case to DVAC resulting in it commencing its probe. Based on this, Stalin moved the appeal contending that the judge ought not to have issued such a direction when as a petitioner in the case he had filed a memo to withdraw the writ petition and had made the necessary endorsements.
Further, pointing out that the judge while not considering the aspect that when a writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, there is no scope for issuing further directions in the said petition, Stalin said, “The judge has also not considered that the scope of a commission of inquiry is different from an investigating agency under a penal statute and the materials collected by the Commission of Inquiry cannot be equated to the materials collected by a prosecution agency.”
He also noted that the judge has not considered that when a petitioner wishes to withdraw a writ petition, the court cannot prevent him from doing so.