The Madras High Court on Monday commenced final hearing on a suo motu revision against the discharge of Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy from a case booked for alleged irregular allotment of a Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB) plot to the personal security officer of former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh heard exhaustive arguments advanced by senior counsel Ranjit Kumar, on behalf of the Minister, for nearly three hours on Monday and decided to hear Advocate General P.S. Raman, representing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), on Tuesday.
The issue relates to the allotment of a high income group plot in Chennai to Ganesan, for being an “impeccable and honest government servant” when Mr. Periyasamy served as Housing Minister during the DMK regime in March 2008. The DVAC had booked the case after the AIADMK came to power in 2011.
On December 17, 2012, the then Legislative Assembly Speaker P. Dhanabal had granted sanction for the prosecution. However, in 2016, Mr. Periyasamy filed a discharge petition on multiple grounds including the ground that the sanction must have been obtained from the Governor and not the Speaker.
A special court for MP/MLA cases dismissed the discharge petition in July 6, 2016 and its order was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court in November and December 2022 respectively. Mr. Periyasamy filed another discharge petition before the special court on February 21, 2023.
The second petition was also filed on the ground that the competent authority to grant sanction was the Governor and not the Speaker. This time, the special court accepted the contention and passed the discharge order on March 17, 2023 leading to the present suo motu revision taken up in September 2023.
Defending the Minister in the suo motu proceedings, Mr. Kumar contended that the trial court was entitled to stop the proceedings at any stage if it comes across the fact that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
He also asserted that the Minister had allotted the plot strictly in accordance with the rules and hence there could not have been a sanction to prosecute him. The senior counsel also relied upon many Supreme Court verdicts to validate the discharge order passed by the special court.
