Suo motu against Min Periyasamy adjourned to decide over the legality of sanction by then Speaker

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has adjourned the hearing of suo motu initiated against Minister I Periyasamy for deciding over the legality of competent authority sanctioned against him which is the sole ground to discharge him from the disproportionate assets (DA) case.

The senior counsel N R Elango for minister I Periyasamy appeared before Justice G Jayachandran and contended that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) booked the case against Periyasamy, as he was allegedly involved in corrupt practices during his tenure as housing minster between 2007 - 2011.

Hence the sanction invoked against him in 2011, when he was not a minister but a member of the legislative, by the then speaker of Tamil Nadu assembly P Dhanapal is invalid as the competent authority was the Governor and not the Speaker, contended the counsel.

NR Elango further submitted that a minister of a State is appointed by the Governor with the recommendation of the Chief Minister, hence the Governor is the competent authority, not the speaker, he added.

After the submission, the judge adjourned the case on December 7 for further hearing.

On September 8, Justice N Anand Venkatesh initiated suo motu against the discharge of I Periyasamy from a DA case. In 2011 the DVAC booked a case against Periyasamy alleging he illegally obtained a HIG (High Income Group) plot in the Mogappair Eri Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to C Ganesan, an inspector in SBCID.

However, in 2021, a special court discharged the minister from the DA case.

In a similar suo motu initiation against minister K Ponmudy, the MHC adjourned the hearing to commence the arguments of the minister's wife P Visalatchi's side.

NR Elango appeared for the Ponmudy and contended before Justice G Jayachandran that there were erroneous entries in the investigation report against the minister.

He contended that the DA case registered for accumulating excess wealth of Rs.2.71 lakhs compared to the income of the minister. The counsel said that the DVAC marked depreciation value as an expenditure, which is an error. The counsel contended that there is no prima facie against the minister.

After the submission, the judge adjourned the case to commence the arguments of the minister's wife Visalatchi, who is also booked by the DVAC in the DA case.

In 2002, the DVAC had registered a case against Ponmudy, wife, his mother-in-law, and two others under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for acquiring properties that were disproportionate to his known sources of income from 1996 to 2001 when he was a minister in the DMK regime.