The Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday recorded the submission of the Madurai District Police that no family member of Union Minister M.K. Alagiri had been or would be called for enquiry without a summons being issued in connection with a case registered against his son Durai alias Dayanithi Alagiri.

Justice M.M. Sundresh recorded the submission made by Additional Advocate General K. Chellapandian during the hearing of a petition filed by Dayanithi to quash the First Information Report registered by the Keezhavalavu police near here last month for his alleged involvement in the multi-crore granite quarry scam in the district. However, he refused to pass interim orders restraining the police from proceeding with the investigation until the next hearing of the case.

Earlier, the petitioner’s advocate Veera Kathiravan alleged that the police were harassing the Minister’s family members in the guise of enquiry. Stating that so far Dayanithi's friends as well as brother-in-law had been called to the police station for enquiry, the counsel sought for a court order permitting family members to be accompanied by their lawyers in future. Rebutting such a request, the AAG said all those enquired so far were accompanied by their lawyers and the police had no objection to that.

“Even he (petitioner’s counsel) is well aware of that. We have also never asked anyone to appear for an enquiry without issuing proper summons in accordance with law,” he added.

He also denied political motives behind the action taken against the petitioner and said the case was registered only on the basis of prima facie evidence available. He claimed that the petitioner had quarried granite illicitly from lands belonging to the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited, a State government undertaking, since 2006.

Justifying the registration of the case based on a complaint by Keezhavalavu Village Administrative Officer and not TAMIN officials who ought to have been the aggrieved party, the AAG said some of the TAMIN officials were hand-in-glove with the accused and hence they had also been arrested and put behind bars in connection with the same case.

The judge adjourned the hearing to October 11 in order to enable the prosecution to file a written objection to the petitioner’s plea of quashing the FIR.