SIDCO case: HC directs cops not to arrest DMK MLA till June 12

Justice G K Illanthiraiyan gave the direction orally and posted to Wednesday further hearing of the anticipatory bail petitions filed by them.

The judge also permitted the de facto complainant S Parthiban to file an intervening petition.

Parthiban, who had contested as an Independent against former Chennai Corporation Mayor Subramanian in the 2016 assembly election, had earlier submitted that Subramanian in his election affidavit had stated that the property belonged to his wife Kanchana.

Alleging that the information was false, he claimed the property was allotted to S K Kannan by the Industries and Commerce Department on February 14, 1959. Kannan had died in 2015, leaving behind six daughters and one son.

He alleged that Subramanian, using his political influence, had encroached the property by fabricating documents and in collusion with officials of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO), the property owner.

Later, he had demolished it and built a new house which was declared by him in his election affidavit, he said.

When the case came up, senior counsel P Wilson appearing for the former mayor and his wife submitted that the de facto complainant was a third party and he had nothing to do with the property.

He alleged that the complainant had made many attempts to tarnish Subramanian's image including filing of an election petition which was rejected.

Hence, the complainant filed another petition and obtained liberty to file a private complaint and a Metropolitan Magistrate court had forwarded the complaint to police, the counsel added.

Wilson said the petitioners were in possession of the property.

The SIDCO itself had issued a letter for regularization, he claimed.

Subramanian was a sitting MLA and he has to discharge his duties. Kanchana was in no way connected with the original allottee S.K.Kannan, who assigned the rights over the property to her, he added.

Vehemently opposing the plea, state public prosecutor A.Natarajan submitted that SIDCO had allotted the property only to labourers. As per a government order, the property can be assigned only to the legal heirs of the allottee.

There was no question of selling the property to third parties. Only for the purpose of grabbing the property, this assignment was fabricated, he alleged.

In the legal heir certificate, Kanchana's name was not mentioned. Only investigation was pending."It requires custodial interrogation," the public prosecutor said.

In their petition, Subramanian and his wife submitted that they had valid documents to establish that they were in lawful possession of the property.

Only to harass them in one way or the other and as part of political vendetta, the de facto complainant was being used as a tool against them, "for obvious reasons," they added.