Chennai, April 28 Tamil Nadu Minister for Municipal Administration, Urban and Water Supply, K.N. Nehru, has moved the Madras High Court seeking a review of its earlier directive ordering the registration of an FIR in connection with alleged bribery in appointments within the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department.
The earlier order, passed on February 20, had directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a case based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate, which reportedly indicated prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
Appearing for the minister, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued before a division bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan that the order had been passed without granting Nehru an opportunity to be heard.
He urged the court to suspend the order until the review petition is decided, stating that the minister had been "accused of several things without even being heard".
Rohatgi further contended that a notice issued by the court registry on February 4 -- after the matter had already been reserved for orders -- was unauthorised and not issued by the bench itself.
He maintained that the notice was received only after the proceedings had concluded, thereby denying Nehru a fair hearing.
The bench observed that, upon examining the records, it was not immediately clear whether Nehru had been formally put on notice.
Acknowledging the need for a detailed hearing, the court adjourned the matter to the last week of June, after the summer vacation.
While Rohatgi pressed for an interim stay on the earlier directive to prevent the registration of an FIR, the court declined, noting that its February 20 order did not explicitly mandate the registration of a case against Nehru personally.
Meanwhile, the court recorded submissions from Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai, who had filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the earlier order. His counsel informed the court that the contempt plea would not be pursued during the vacation period.
The High Court had earlier criticised the state for delays in acting on the Enforcement Directorate’s findings, emphasising that authorities should act promptly in cases involving serious allegations. The state had subsequently informed the court that the delay in registering the FIR was due to its decision to file a review petition, which is now under consideration.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor