Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi on Sunday issued a final warning to AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa, saying that she should abstain from uttering mindless words against him. Her allegations were baseless, he said in a statement.
He was reacting to Ms. Jayalalithaa's claim that he was not able to give a proper reply to her allegations against the DMK government including its failure to control price rise and smuggling of rice meant for public distribution.
Mr. Karunanidhi said the DMK government, after assuming office in 2006, had registered 58,807 cases against rice smugglers and arrested 13,311 persons.
A total of 4,728 vehicles have been impounded and 270 driving licences cancelled. “On the other hand the AIADMK government protected the interests of the smugglers,” he alleged.
Online trading
As regards Ms. Jayalalithaa's another allegation that the State government had failed to prevent the online trading of rice, dhall and sugar, the Chief Minister said these three items were not included in online trading.
“She is not even aware of the commodities that are being sold through online trading. After I wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh objecting to online trading of these commodities, barring basmati rice, were excluded from the list of trade,” he said.
Mr. Karunanidhi also rejected Ms. Jayalalithaa's allegation against the government on spurious drug scandal, saying that those who were involved in the scandal had been arrested.
Spurious drug scandal
“The gang that had been doing the illegal trade from the days of the AIADMK government has also been arrested. Nineteen of them have been detained under goondas Act,” he said, explaining that licences of 9 pharmaceutical companies had also been cancelled in the wake of the scandal.
Mr. Karunanidhi attributed the power crisis to increasing industrialisation in the State.
Cauvery Dispute
Recalling various steps taken by the DMK government to get justice for Tamil Nadu in Cauvery Water Dispute, the Chief Minister said the advocates representing the State had brought the issue to the notice of the Supreme Court Bench which had posted the case to August.
