![]() Thursday, Sep 12, 2002 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Tamil Nadu
By J. Venkatesan
Continuing his arguments before a Bench comprising Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi, senior counsel T. R. Andhyarujina, (for one of the appellants, DMK advocate, R.S. Bharathi) said as Chief Minister, being the head of the Council of Ministers, "she has to ensure observance of the code and set an example to other Ministers and she cannot say that I will be outside the code". Counsel submitted that though the code might not have statutory backing, but it had been duly issued by the Governor as a G.O. and "because of the high office, the Chief Minister was expected to observe the code". He also said that the underlining principle under Sec. 169 of the IPC was that public servants were forbidden from purchasing government property. He maintained that TANSI, as per the Article of Association and Memorandum of Association, was fully under the control of the Government and its directors were appointed and removed by the government. TANSI was also a `State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, he added. Describing TANSI as the "third arm" of the government, he said: "Can a Chief Minister say that I cannot purchase a government property but I can buy the property of a government-controlled corporation". Counsel argued that "one cannot take shelter behind the corporate veil as it does not carry sense. To say TANSI is not a government is only technical and the court should lift the corporate veil to unravel the conspiracy". Counsel said the Chief Minister, having fiduciary relationship as a trustee had an obligation to protect the properties of the government and she could not defy the fiduciary responsibility by saying that the code would not apply to her. Asserting that he had made out a case for allowing the appeal, counsel sought quashing of the High Court order. Senior counsel N. Natarajan touched on the conspiracy angle and explained how it was hatched at various levels from the time of issuing the tender for the sale of the TANSI land and till it was purchased by Ms. Jayalalithaa. The Janata Party president, Subramanian Swamy, another appellant, said it was immaterial whether the property belonged to government or government-owned corporation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|