Madras HC adjourns the FIR quash plea of Periyar varsity VC
Based on the G.O. the petitioner has established Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation (PUTER), said the counsel.
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court (MHC) adjourned the FIR quash petition preferred by Salem, Periyar University Vice-Chancellor (VC) R Jagannathan.
The case was listed before Justice N Anand Venkatesh. The counsel appeared for the petitioner submitted that in 2013 the State had issued an order granting permission to the Periyar University to establish Incubation and Technology Transfer Centers (ITTC) to foster incubation activities and entrepreneurial skills among the students.
Further, the State also allotted Rs.14.50 lakh to the Periyar University to establish the ITTC. Based on the G.O. the petitioner has established Periyar University Technology Entrepreneurship and Research Foundation (PUTER), said the counsel.
The counsel appeared for the police has contended that the petitioner established the PUTER within the campus of the university without the permission of the State and the syndicate of the university. The petitioner established the PUTER for his personal gains after his retirement in the future. He also assigned 2034 square feet of land to establish the PUTER which is in violation of rule 9 of the Periyar University Act, said the counsel. The petitioner also entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with four private entities and transferred funds, submitted the counsel.
When the complainant, Elangovan, the legal advisor of Periyar University Employees Union (PUEU) questioned about the illegality of the establishment of PUTER, the petitioner used abusive words calling the caste name of the complainant, said the counsel.
The police have registered a case against the petitioner under various sections of the IPC and Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (SC/ST) Act, 1989.
However, the counsel for the petitioner objected to all the submissions and submitted that the PUTER is registered under section 8 of companies, hence the allegation of the complainant is meaningless. Further, the petitioner has submitted his agenda for the establishment of PUTER before the State and syndicate of the university and is waiting for the response said the counsel.
The counsel also submitted that not even a single penny has been transferred with PUTER.
After the submission, the judge posted the hearing of the case to Friday (January 19) for further submission.
