In yet another major development in the river sand mining-related money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in Tamil Nadu, the Madras High Court has reserved its judgement on a plea by three individuals to stay all proceedings arising out of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
Justices S.S. Sundar and Sunder Mohan deferred their verdict on petitions filed by R.S. Construction working partner A. Rajkumar of Chennai, Shanmugam Ramachandran of Pudukottai and K. Rethinam of Dindigul. The petitioners’ main plea was to quash the ECIR on the grounds that the investigation undertaken by the ED amounted to a gross abuse of the law.
The judges reserved orders after hearing the petitioners’ counsel as well as Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh, who vehemently opposed the plea to quash the ECIR registered on September 11, 2023 on the basis of predicate offences being investigated by the State vigilance directorate.
The petitioners pointed out that the State Government itself had filed writ petitions challenging the ED’s action and had obtained an interim stay on November 28, 2023 to the summons issued to the Collectors of Ariyalur, Karur, Thanjavur, Tiruchi and Vellore districts. The government’s writ petitions were thereafter adjourned to January 18, 2024.
The ED has been conducting an investigation in sand quarries across T.N. since September, looking into allegations that a large quantity of sand was excavated from riverbeds and sold illegally bypassing the online sales mechanism thereby causing a huge loss to the State exchequer.
In the meantime, filing an individual writ petition against the ECIR, Mr. Rajkumar said, R.S. Construction was a partnership firm started in 2015. It had been classified as a Class I contractor by the Water Resources Department. The firm was involved in excavation and other civil work at the sand quarries operated by the State government.
In September this year, the ED registered an ECIR on the basis of four First Information Reports (FIRs) that had been booked by the vigilance and anti corruption sleuths in Thanjavur, Dindigul, Theni and Thoothukudi in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2023 respectively. The petitioner claimed that he was not an accused in any of those cases.
Further, stating that his name did not figure in the ECIR, the petitioner said, even so, the ED had issued summons to him without disclosing whether he had to be examined as a witness or a suspect. He also said the ECIR had been registered in a hasty manner against 26 named accused including two individuals who had died long ago.
The petitioner claimed that allowing the ED to continue with the investigation would amount to infringement of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The other two petitioners - Mr. Ramachandran, involved in the excavator hiring business, and Mr. Rethinam - too, made identical submissions and urged the court to quash the ECIR.
Opposing their plea, the ASG told the court that the ECIR was only an internal record and not a legal document to be challenged by way of a writ petition. He also pointed out that the three petitioners had not sought a stay against the summons issued to them and said the investigation was at an initial stage and hence the petitioners must cooperate.
Further, making it clear that it would be difficult to state, at the present stage, as to whether the petitioners were being probed as suspects or witnesses, the law officer said, the ED requires certain clarifications from them regarding the materials collected so far and needs to record their statements before proceeding further.
