Pandian.P.K v. The Director General Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On :
18.07.2023 Pronounced On :
.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN P.K.Pandian ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
3. The Vigilance Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
4. M.Sathyaseelan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 take appropriate action against respondent No.4 by considering the 1/9
petitioner's representation dated 14.02.2022 and also provide protection to the petitioner and his family and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law during the period that may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to take action against the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department of Tamil Nadu, Dindigul.
2. The petitioner averred in the affidavit that the foruth respondent purchased a property in Kodaikanal Sub Registrar Office, vide Document No.958/2020. According to the petitioner, the said property was undervalued and by using his official position, he got registration for the minimum valued. The property was purchased as an agricultural land but the same was a housing plot and hence, he pressurised the Sub Registrar and got registration for a lesser value. According to the petitioner, the 2/9
value of the property is more than one crore, but, it was registered only for Rs.1,34,000/- and hence, he committed the offence of amassment of wealth and he has to be prosecuted under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of corruption Act and also the other relevant provisions. Therefore, he made a representation to the first respondent to take against the fourth respondent by submitting a representation dated 14.02.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted that he has been threatened by the fourth respondent over phone and hence, he seeks action to be taken against the fourth respondent.
3. Since the petitioner made a serious allegation against the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Vigilance Department, this Court directed the Director of the Second respondent to submit a report. Accordingly, the second respondent submitted a counter and report, and the relevant portion are as follows:
3/9
4/9
4. From the above, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police made a detailed enquiry without any bias and submitted a report stating that the allegation is not true and recommended to drop the proceedings. In the report, he specifically stated that the lands are the agricultural 5/9
lands and guideline value is proper and he properly intimated the purchase of the property to the department and the department also granted permission. The sale consideration is also within the known source of income and there was no disproportionate accumulation of the property over his lawful income. In view of the above finding, this Court does not find any merit in the allegations made by the petitioner. 5.Further, it is not the case of the seller of the property that the fourth respondent abused his power and purchased the property for under-valuation. Even for under valuation, there is a detailed procedure contemplated under Tamil Nadu under valuation of property Rules. The competent authority is deputy collector of Stamps. He never initiated any proceedings against the fourth respondent.
When the purchaser agreed to purchase the property for certain value and the seller agreed to sell the property for the said value, the Court has no jurisdiction to enquire the under valuation, when proper stamp duty was paid. In this case as per the report proper stamp duty was paid and the vendor did not raise any question of under Valuation.
6/9
6. The department also stated that the fourth respondent initiated action against the petitioner's friend under the prevention of corruption Act. In the said case, the allegation is that he accumulated the property disproportionate to the known source of income. It is also the allegation that the said officer purchased the property in the name of the petitioner also. Having grudge over the same, the petitioner preferred this frivolous complaint. This Court did not address this issue since the same cannot be gone into without relevant material. But in view of the above finding, this writ petition is misconceived one and hence dismissed. Since the department has not produced any material to show mala fides on the part of the petitioner that he is also involved in the earlier offence initiated against his friends, this Court is not inclined to impose cost.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
17.11.2023 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No sbn 7/9
To
1. The Director General of Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
2. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
3. The Vigilance Commissioner/Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
8/9
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN. J., sbn Dated : 17.11.2023 9/9