The Madras High Court Bench here on Wednesday adjourned to Thursday the hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking quashing of a government order issued on June 30 permitting Director-General of Police T.K. Rajendran to continue in the post for two more years besides a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into his alleged involvement in the gutkha scam.
A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and G.R. Swaminathan adjourned the hearing to facilitate advocate A. Kannan to file a ‘ vakalatnama ’ (authorisation given by a litigant to a lawyer to represent him in court).
The judges refused to permit him to argue the case since he was not the counsel on record in the case filed through another advocate named P. Veerapandian.
‘Will obstruct probe’
When Mr. Kannan rose from his seat to present the case before the Bench on Wednesday, Mr. Justice Sasidharan said: “We cannot permit you to argue the case. Where is the counsel on record? You are not a designated Senior Counsel for us to allow you to argue a case filed by another lawyer. If you want, you file a vakalat in your name and then argue the case. There is no problem.”
The PIL petition had been filed by Madurai-based trade unionist K. Kathiresan who claimed that granting extension of service to Mr. Rajendran and allowing him to head the police force would make meaningless the ongoing inquiry by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) into the gutkha scam that took place during the latter’s tenure as Commissioner of Police, Chennai city.
‘UPSC not informed’
The petitioner pointed out that the Income Tax (I-T) Department conducted searches on a gutkha manufacturing company in Chennai last year and seized incriminating documents that revealed payment of huge amount of bribe to a Minister, senior police officers and others for letting the company sell gutkha in the State despite a ban on selling the product.
Stating that the Income Tax officials had also written a letter to the State government urging it to investigate the alleged bribe paid by the gutkha company, the petitioner alleged that the communication was kept in cold storage for long.
It was only when the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, M.K. Stalinquestioned the extension of service granted to Mr. Rajendran, the Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami replied that the I-T department’s letter had been referred to the DVAC.
