CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed the petition filed by State Rural Development Minister I Periyasamy challenging the Enforcement Directorate's notice related to the attachment of his properties.
Earlier, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police had registered a case alleging that during his tenure as Minister for Housing between 2006 and 2011, Periyasamy had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs 2.35 crore. His wife, Suseela, and sons, Senthilkumar and Prabhu, were also named as accused.
The Dindigul court had discharged Periyasamy and others from the case; however, the Madras High Court set aside that order on April 28. An appeal challenging this order is presently pending before the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the Enforcement Directorate registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in connection with the matter and conducted searches at the residences of Periyasamy, his sons Prabhu and Senthilkumar, the DMK MLA Palani Constituency, his daughter Indira, as well as at the offices of the Minister and the MLA in August.
During the searches, the ED attached property documents, investment details, mobile phones, and bank account details of companies, among other materials.
Subsequently, the ED issued notices to the minister and his family members seeking their explanation regarding the proposed attachment of properties.
Challenging these notices as well as the ED investigation, Periyasamy and his family filed petitions before the Madras High Court. When the petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and G Arul Murugan, it was stated on behalf of the minister that the proceedings regarding the attachment of properties were still pending before the Adjudicating Authority of the Enforcement Directorate.
Following this, the judges directed them to approach the Adjudicating Authority and dismissed the petitions filed by Minister I Periyasamy and others. The bench added that if the parties feel aggrieved by the order of the adjudicating authority, they can approach the court challenging it.