A plea to initiate criminal action against Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary Girija Vaidyanathan on charges of perjury was rejected by the Madras High Court on Monday. A bench comprising of Justices KK Sasidharan and PD Audikesavalu was hearing a case filed by Madurai-based trade union leader K Kathiresan who accused Girija Vaidyanathan of having filed false affidavit in the court on July 17, 2017.
Kathiresan argued that Chief Secretaryâs claim that a letter sent by the Income Tax Department to her predecessor P Rama Mohana Rao, regarding illegal sale of gutkha in the State, on July 9, 2016 was not available with her office was false.
Pointing out that the letter was discovered from former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaaâs Poes Garden residence Veda Nilayam by none other than Income Tax officials during a raid conducted on November 17, 2017, the High Court dismissed the case.
According to a report in The Hindu, the High Court stated, âThe documents seized by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) during the search at Poes Gaden supports the stand taken by the Chief Secretary. The documents were seized only from the residence of the then (sic) Chief Minister at Vedha Nilayam. Therefore, it is clear that the documents referred to in the affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary were not available with her office. It was very much available at Veda Nilayam.â
The judges also came down heavily on the petitioner for his successive public interest litigation petitions all targetted at Director General of Police TK Rajendran. Kathiresan had accused the DGP of having played a role in permitting illegal manufacture and sale of gutkha in the state and so requested for his removal.
Noting that his repetitive petitions aimed at one particular officer showed that he was âdancing to the tune of othersâ, the court dismissed his petition.
According to a report in The New Indian Express, the Division Bench had said, âHe has been lending his shoulder to others to fire the gun. He has given a brand name âPILâ to make it appear as if everything was in larger public interest. He is only making an attempt to give a new life to a dead litigation by producing documents which were very much available with him when the earlier writ petition was filed. The materials produced by him are not sufficient to quash the order âappointingâ Rajendran as the head of the police force. âWe are, therefore, of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.â