E-Paper
Madras HC fines ED for not filing counter affidavits in TASMAC case
The court imposed the fine on ED after finding that it had failed to file counter affidavits in three writ petitions filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran
The Madras high court on Wednesday slapped a fine of ₹30,000 on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for failing to file counter affidavits in three writ petitions relating to a case of alleged money laundering involving Tamil Nadu government’s liquor distribution arm, TASMAC.
A bench of justices MS Ramesh and V Lakshminarayanan imposed the fine on ED after finding that the central agency had failed to file counter affidavits in three writ petitions filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran, who challenged ED’s search and seizure operations at their residences and office in connection with the case.
The court had earlier granted time to ED to submit its counters, warning that it would be the last opportunity. Despite that, ED sought more time on Wednesday.
Senior counsel Vijay Narayan, representing the petitioners, told the bench that he was ready to argue the case. However, the court noted that ED had still not filed its response.
Special prosecutor for ED, N Ramesh, told the court that ED wanted to file a “comprehensive counter affidavit,” for which some more time was required.
The judges then agreed to grant another two weeks to ED but imposed costs for the delay.
Bhaskaran and Ravindran moved the high court in June this year, claiming ED had no basis to conduct searches at their premises. They argued that they had no links to the ongoing probe involving irregularities committed by TASMAC officials. The only alleged connection, they said, was that one of their phone numbers appeared in the contact list of TASMAC’s managing director. They told the court that there was no call, message, or other communication with the officials under investigation.
On June 20, the high court stayed further ED action against the petitioners. At the time, the court had reviewed the documents submitted by the ED in a sealed cover and observed that the agency had no incriminating material to justify its actions.
