SC asks 5 Tamil Nadu DMs to appear before ED in probe related to illegal sand mining

Terming the plea of Tamil Nadu as ''strange and unusual'', the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed five district collectors to appear before the Enforcement Directorate in connection with an ongoing money laundering probe pertaining to alleged illegal sand mining.

The Madras High Court, on November 28, last year, stayed the summons issued by the central probe agency seeking presence of district collectors of Vellore, Tiruchirappalli, Karur, Thanjavur and Ariyalur in connection with its ongoing probe.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) moved the top court against the high court order, saying the non-cooperation will hamper its probe.

The top court stayed the high court order granting relief to the district collectors and said the plea of Tamil Nadu and its officials was ''strange and unusual'' and may lead to stalling the investigation of ED in money laundering aspect in connection with the FIRs.

''The writ petition (of Tamil Nadu and others in the high court) is thoroughly misconceived. Accordingly, the execution of the impugned order (of the high court) is stayed and thus the district collectors shall appear before the Enforcement Directorate on the next date,'' a bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal said.

''The high court granted interim stay on the impugned summons against district collector and this is a very strange and unusual writ petition filed by the state of Tamil Nadu along with additional chief secretary, district collectors under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ which would indirectly stall or detain the investigation,'' the bench said.

It hardly needs to be mentioned that Article 256 of the Constitution obliges a state government to exercise the executive powers, the bench said, adding the ED has the power to issue summons under the money laundering laws.

The Article 256 provides that the executive power of every state shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament.

The bench then posted the plea of ED for hearing after four weeks and directed that the pleadings may be completed during this period.

At the outset, the bench asked senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Mukul Rohatgi and Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the state government and its officials, as to why the Tamil Nadu government filed the writ petition against the summons.

''These are preliminary inquiries (by ED). The information sought from district collectors is to do with the predicate offences in these FIRS. If information is sought from the collectors, then how the state is aggrieved,'' Justice Trivedi asked.

Sibal referred to the records and argued that the ED cannot seek information from all the district collectors in the absence of the main FIR.

Moreover, the ED must satisfy the test of 'proceeds of crime' in terms of the definition and the proceeds of crime must relate to scheduled offence, Sibal said.

''Question of law is as to what jurisdiction ED has in the absence of an FIR,'' he said.

Rohatgi said that the ED has been demanding Aadhaar and passport details of the district collectors for their identification as if they are accused.

To this, Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, said that these details may not be needed and they must have been sought routinely as done in cases of others.

''We are investigating the section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) aspect and also look at the attitude of the state. It appears that the state is trying to protect the accused. Why is the state agitated about it,'' Raju said.

Earlier, the top court had said that the state machinery should help the ED in finding out if an offence has been committed as there is no harm in it.

''State and its officers should help the ED in finding out if there is any offence,'' the bench observed, adding, ''If the state machinery is asked to help, what is the harm caused?'' The high court, while staying the summons, had said that the ED was venturing into a fishing expedition to find out whether information and evidence collected from the district administration could be processed further from other sources to find out a commission of the scheduled offences.

Raju had told the apex court that the district collectors were not among the accused and were summoned only as witnesses.