TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andamus directing the Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR on the basis of the complaint lodged by him and to constitute an SIT for the purpose of investigation. It may be necessary to note that both, the writ petition and Crl.O.P., were tagged and heard together. 4. Broadly, the allegation against the Appellant is that while he was serving as a Minister, he is alleged to have misused his powers to influence the tender process and ensured that tenders were awarded to his close aides. 5. When the aforesaid writ petition was listed for the first time before the High Court, the High Court issued notice and directed the Respondents therein to file their counter affidavits. On 18.10.2019, when the aforesaid writ petition came up for hearing, the High Court passed following order: 13. In the light of the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the 4th Respondent is one of the senior Ministers in the Cabinet and the investigation is being carried by an Officer who is in the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, this Court is of the considered view that the preliminary enquiry hereinafter shall be carried on by M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted before this Court in a sealed cover. 10. As the matter stood thus, there was a change in the political dispensation of the State Government. Interestingly, the State, while relying upon a CAG report, subsequently recanted from its earlier stand. The High Court, without applying its mind, passed the following order on 19.07.2021: 3. It is submitted on behalf of the State that the performance of the contractors and the contracts in general engaged the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General and adverse comments have been made. The State says that it will investigate into the matter to ensure that those involved are taken to task. For the purpose of conducting investigation, the State seeks some time. 4. Let the matter appear in the second week of October, 2021. The State should spare no effort in getting to the bottom of the matter and proceed against those found to be responsible for the irregularities. 5. Counter-affidavit may be filed by the Respondents in the meantime. 11. Relying on the aforesaid observations, the State registered an FIR, being FIR No. 16/2021 dated 09.08.2021, against 17 Accused persons, including the Appellant herein Under Section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended orally and through written submissions as under: (i) That there is no reason for not making over the documents to the Appellant as the State has not claimed that the documents are privileged. (ii) The reliance on two reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (hereinafter "CAG") by the State of Tamil Nadu is misplaced as there is no criminality disclosed in the aforesaid report. (iii) That FIRs cannot be lodged solely on basis of the CAG report. (iv) The Appellant should have been given an opportunity to counter the allegations, and the State could not have registered the FIR in a haste, based on certain general observations by the High Court. (v) This case is a clear case of regime revenge wherein change in political dispensation has resulted in the State recanting its initial position to abuse the process against the Appellant herein. 16. On the contrary, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu has contended that: (i) There is no provision of law which mandates disclosure of preliminary Enquiry Report before the stage contemplated Under Section 207 of the Code o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade by the learned Counsel for the State, the High Court has made sweeping observations which are prejudicial to the Appellant. It was the High Court which had ordered that a preliminary enquiry be conducted and a report be submitted by the special investigating officer. However, once the enquiry was completed, the High Court failed to even peruse the said report. Rather, the High Court left the decision completely in the hands of the State Government. Such an approach, as adopted by the High Court in the present matter, cannot be countenanced in law. 21. It is a settled principle that the State cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. When the State Government changed its stand, the High Court neither provided the Appellant an opportunity to defend himself, nor sought a reasoned justification from the State for having turned turtle. Although the High Court directed the Appellant to file a counter affidavit in the writ proceedings, the State hastened to register the aforesaid FIR on 09.08.2021. 22. It is noteworthy that the initial affidavit filed by the State was categorical that they did not intend to pursue action against the Appellant herein. However, the subsequent change ....