CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday reserved orders on the petitions seeking a direction to the DGP to register an FIR based on the communication sent by the Enforcement Directorate on the alleged irregularities committed in the recruitments made to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) department.
After completion of arguments by the respective counsels for petitioners — Athinarayanan of Madurai and AIADMK Rajya Sabha member I S Inbadurai — and the respondent authorities, the first bench of the HC comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved the orders.
The bench described the bonafides of Athinarayanan as “doubtful” as it was informed that 32 criminal cases were registered against him; 18 of them were closed and 14 including two murder cases were still pending. It questioned the counsel why such antecedents were not disclosed in the petition.
Senior counsel V Raghavachari, appearing for Inbadurai, submitted that the government has not taken any action for about three months on the 268-page communication along with documents sent by the ED to the DGP on October 27, 2025.
N Ramesh, representing the ED, submitted that there was no need for a preliminary inquiry when the agency had shared the materials under Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Advocate General P S Raman, representing the state government, informed the court that the government expeditiously acted upon the communication that mandated the DVAC to hold a “detailed inquiry”.
Questioning the rationale behind the ED sending the communication, he pointed out that a division bench of the HC, in April, quashed the predicate offence in a bank fraud case and the subsequent ECIR registered by the ED, by consent.
The purported materials shared by the ED were collected during the investigations into the bank fraud case and it had sent them to the DGP only after the division bench quashed the predicate offence and ECIR.
Senior counsel N R Elango, representing the DVAC, submitted that the agency is going by its manual on investigation of complaints and as such the detailed inquiry is being held.
He said the ED’s information cannot be considered as ‘first information’ and it will be taken as a statement under Section 161 of CrPC. The DVAC will send its findings of the inquiry to the government which will take further action.
Senior counsel Vikram Chaudhry, appearing for the DGP, contended that private parties such as the petitioners have “very little scope to make any interference on this matter since the documents are confidential and were shared by one agency to another”.