E-Paper
ED asks high court to direct Tamil Nadu DGP to file FIR in mining case
The high court questioned whether the ED, an investigating agency, could seek directions to compel another agency to act in a particular case
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has moved the Madras High Court to seek directions to the Tamil Nadu government and the director general of police (DGP) o register a case on what the agency termed as “systemic and rampant illegal sand mining” in the state.
The high court on Friday issued notice to the state government, but also questioned ED whether one investigating agency could seek judicial directions to compel another agency to act.
“You are an investigating agency. Courts have said that unless a predicate offence is registered, you cannot have powers. Now, can you file an application saying they should be directed to register FIRs?” a bench of chief justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and justice G Arul Murugan asked ED.
In its petition, the agency contended that it had shared detailed information with the Tamil Nadu police about large-scale mining between June and July last year under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, but no FIRs were registered despite “credible evidence of massive illegal mining.”
The agency said the state government’s inaction violated Article 48A of the Constitution, caused serious ecological damage, and resulted in losses to the State exchequer to the tune of ₹4,730 crore.
Appearing for ED, special public prosecutor N Ramesh argued that the central agency had gathered substantial material showing widespread violations and that the state had failed to respond.
“We have sought a direction to the state authorities to act upon our communication. It is a matter of public interest,” he said, citing a Supreme Court verdict in which it was held that when ED uncovers an offence, it can pass the information to the competent authority, which is then “obliged to act and register a case.”
The high court said it was not questioning the existence of material in the ED’s possession, but rather the scope of its legal authority.
“Our only question is whether you can come here and ask this relief to another agency. We’re not saying that the materials are not there. But unless a case is registered, can you investigate?” the court said.
Opposing the petition, Advocate General PS Raman, who appeared for the Tamil Nadu government, said the ED can not compel the State to register FIRs.
“Registering an FIR is not the prerogative of the ED. Just because they give us information, we can’t act like a post office,” Raman said, adding that the state government could not take action earlier since the ED’s challenge to the high court’s earlier ruling in the same matter was pending before the Supreme Court until last month.
Last year, the Madras High Court quashed the ED’s provisional attachment orders in another case of sand mining, holding that the agency could not proceed under PMLA without a registered predicate offence. In that judgment, the court had reiterated that “ED is not a super-cop,” emphasising that only when a predicate offence exists can the ED investigate the proceeds of crime.
Raman also accused ED of “selective enforcement.”
“Four times more scams are happening in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Bihar. Have they taken any case against them? They seem to have eyes only on Tamil Nadu,” Raman said.
The high court observed that the issue reflected a “gap” in the PMLA framework.
“Two agencies should not have any doubt or quarrel with each other,” the court said. “The Act does not clearly specify what happens when a State fails to act on information shared by the ED,” the court said.
The high court told the state government to file its reply to ED’s plea within three weeks.
