‘Ready for probe against OPS’
JULY 26, 2018 00:00 IST
When Senior Counsel N.R. Elango, representing Mr. Bharathi, wanted a specific direction to the DVAC to complete the inquiry within seven days, the judge said:
“Now that they have set the law in motion, wait for some time. Let them take up the investigation and do it in the right sense.”
“You shall also be given an opportunity to participate in it. If they do not proceed properly or delay the proceedings, you may approach the court once again.”
Questions to agency
In so far the NGO’s petition seeking a direction to the DVAC to register a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by it on December 12 last year was concerned, the judge said: “I can dismiss your writ petition straight away.”
“I’ll tell you why. In your petition, you are quoting some case registered [against Mr. Panneerselvam and his family members] in 2006 and closed in 2012. What were you doing all these years?”
Nevertheless, since the issues raised by the NGO as well as the DMK Member of Parliament were the same, the judge ordered that the information in the former’s complaint should also be taken into consideration while conducting the preliminary enquiry.
Undue delay
He gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the court once again if they were aggrieved that there was an undue delay in completing the enquiry or that it did not culminate in the registration of an FIR.
In his petition, Mr. Bharathi had accused Mr. Panneerselvam of having amassed wealth by abusing his official positions and investing the money in the names of his wife, three sons, brothers, other relatives and business associates. He also alleged that the Deputy CM had made false declaration of assets during the elections contested by him since 2006.
Similarly, the NGO alleged that the Deputy Chief Minister had invested crores of rupees in various businesses.
JULY 26, 2018 00:00 IST
When Senior Counsel N.R. Elango, representing Mr. Bharathi, wanted a specific direction to the DVAC to complete the inquiry within seven days, the judge said:
“Now that they have set the law in motion, wait for some time. Let them take up the investigation and do it in the right sense.”
“You shall also be given an opportunity to participate in it. If they do not proceed properly or delay the proceedings, you may approach the court once again.”
Questions to agency
In so far the NGO’s petition seeking a direction to the DVAC to register a case on the basis of a complaint lodged by it on December 12 last year was concerned, the judge said: “I can dismiss your writ petition straight away.”
“I’ll tell you why. In your petition, you are quoting some case registered [against Mr. Panneerselvam and his family members] in 2006 and closed in 2012. What were you doing all these years?”
Nevertheless, since the issues raised by the NGO as well as the DMK Member of Parliament were the same, the judge ordered that the information in the former’s complaint should also be taken into consideration while conducting the preliminary enquiry.
Undue delay
He gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the court once again if they were aggrieved that there was an undue delay in completing the enquiry or that it did not culminate in the registration of an FIR.
In his petition, Mr. Bharathi had accused Mr. Panneerselvam of having amassed wealth by abusing his official positions and investing the money in the names of his wife, three sons, brothers, other relatives and business associates. He also alleged that the Deputy CM had made false declaration of assets during the elections contested by him since 2006.
Similarly, the NGO alleged that the Deputy Chief Minister had invested crores of rupees in various businesses.
No comments:
Post a Comment