CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday adjourned the petitions of Tamil Nadu government and its retail liquor business entity, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) challenging the search and seizures by the Enforcement Directorate at the latter’s premises to April 8 for final hearing.
The Central agency has alleged that the state government is trying to ‘obstruct’ lawful investigation into money laundering initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar ordered notice to the respondents including the Union Government and ED and adjourned the case for final hearing on April 8 and 9. It directed the respective counsels to complete their pleadings and serving of counter-affidavit and rejoinders by April 7.
TN government filed an amended prayer that included a declaration on the role of any government officers would be to assist the ED and the latter has to seek assistance from such officers under section 54 of PMLA.
Advocate General (AG) PS Raman told the court that the TASMAC was complainant in the predicate offence but the ED had chosen to search the complainant’s premises, that too extending to midnight by detaining the officers and employees.
The bench countered the AG with a poser, “Didn’t you (state agencies) conduct searches at midnight?”
The AG replied, “Certainly not at midnight.”
Activist S Muralidharan and advocate A Mohandoss filed petitions praying for impleading them in the case. The bench said it would decide on this after hearing them.
Counter-affidavit
The ED, in its counter-affidavit, stated that it has proceeded on the basis of the multiple FIRs registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) over the ‘high level corruption indulged in by officers in the rank of district managers and senior regional managers’.
Referring to the state and the TASMAC’s allegation that search warrant copy was not served, the Central agency said there is no statutory or other obligation to provide a copy of the search warrant and not officer was put under force to give acknowledgment of search warrant.
The ED said, “The allegations of illegal detention, harassment, procedural violations and unauthorised seizures are factually incorrect, misleading and an attempt to obstruct a lawful investigation into serious allegations of money laundering.”
Stating that the search was conducted by exercising the statutory powers under the PMLA, the ED said that duration of the search cannot render the search illegal and there is no upper limit for duration of the search in the law.
Denying violation of the human rights of the officers, the agency said, “Fundamental rights of individuals cannot be vicariously sought to be enforced by a company when such individuals have not come forward with any complaints. The object of the writ petition appears to be motivated to create hurdles in a legitimate investigation initiated under the PMLA.”
It said all the employees were given adequate rest and no staff, particularly women, were not forced to stay.
“The officers of ED took meticulous efforts for the safety and well-being of the employees of TASMAC (during the search). All women employees were given the option to leave the premises before nightfall,” it stated.
It also stated that the “reasons to believe” documentation is an internal, confidential investigative record that cannot be disclosed at this stage of investigation as it would prejudice the ongoing investigation and potentially alert the other suspects.”
