S.Murugesan, S/O Sanasi v. The Director,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 S.Murugesan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Director, Enforcement Directorate, (Money Laundering), Sastri Bhavan, No.26, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006.

2.The Director, Vigilance and Anticorruption, NCP 21/28, Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 008.

3.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

4.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), No.10, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.

1/6

5.SV.Subbiah ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent to take action by registering the case under Section 50(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, and proceed with in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayarajan, Standing Counsel for R1.

Mr.S.RA.Ramachandran, Addl. Government Pleader for R2 & R3.

Mr.J.Senthil Kumaraiah, Standing Counsel for R4.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, the learned Additional 2/6

Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 and the learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent. There is no representation for the fifth respondent.

2.The petitioner wants action to be taken against the fifth respondent under provision of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3.The learned standing counsel for the first respondent would point out that the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act will not be attracted unless there is a predicate offence. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 2 and 3 states that the complaint of the petitioner does not disclose any specific information of cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. When the petitioner is unable to furnish definite materials, it is not proper for this Court to issue any direction. This Court will not be justified in simply calling upon the authorities to go into the petitioner's representation. That would be like conducting a roving enquiry. Unless the petitioner comes to this Court with definite information, this Court cannot issue any direction to 3/6

conduct enquiry. This writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 31.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias To:- 1.The Director, Vigilance and Anticorruption, NCP 21/28, Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai - 600 008.

2.The Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

4/6

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 31.07.2023 6/6