How could ED move court to ask TN police to register case, asks Madras high court

CHENNAI: Being itself an investigating agency, how could the Enforcement Directorate approach the court for a direction to the Tamil Nadu police, which is another investigating agency, to register cases based on the information it provided regarding alleged illegal sand mining in the state, asked Madras high court on Friday.The first bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan made the observation on a plea moved by the ED seeking a direction to the Tamil Nadu DGP to register FIRs in respect of the cognisable offences disclosed through the communications under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) through communications dated June 13, 2024, and July 18, 2024.Responding to the query, the ED submitted that the PMLA allows the ED to request other agencies to act upon its findings.

Opposing the plea, Tamil Nadu advocate-general P S Raman contended that the state police could not be treated as a ‘post office’ to merely act on the ED’s letters.

He further pointed out that states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Gujarat have four times as many sand mining cases as Tamil Nadu, yet the ED has not taken any action there but seems to focus only on Tamil Nadu.To this, the ED submitted that the petition was filed only in the public interest and that having collected this much evidence, it is concerned that the materials must not be wasted. Responding to the argument, the AG said, “if public interest is the basis, can the Tamil Nadu govt similarly approach the Gujarat high court seeking action on illegal sand mining in the state?”A similar case was filed by the ED before the Supreme Court against the Delhi govt in which the Supreme Court asked the ED under what right it approached the court with such a prayer. Subsequently, the additional solicitor-general said he did not want any findings from the court and withdrew the petition, Raman said.Since the AG submitted that the state was ready to inform the court about the future course of action to be taken in the issue through a counter affidavit, the court adjourned the hearing by three weeks.