Table assets of past councillors, Election Commission told

Justice N Kirubakaran on perusing the property tax details of the councillor, who is said to have amazed wealth, after getting elected, said “A perusal of the property tax details, produced before this court, would show that all the independent bungalows have been charged only meagre amounts of Rs 55 and Rs 110.” Also, the judge on directing the Corporation to place the entire records pertaining to the properties before the court, said “Though this court prima-facie would find fault with the officials, this court has got every reason to believe that the officials would have been coerced to determine the lower tax amount.” 

Further, Justice Kirubakaran directed the SEC to produce the statement of assets made by the councillor at the time of filing nominations in 2011 and 2016. Along with this, the judge directed the SEC to produce the statement of declaration of assets, made by the councillors from 2006 to 2016 and posted the case for further hearing to December 2. The petitioner Pon Thangavelu of Injambakkam had submitted that owing to rampant corruption in the Chennai Corporation, he had suffered a lot during the recent floods.  He further noted that on several occasions he had met the Mayor and the Commissioner and sought them to prevent the role of middle men and the councillors. 

Pointing out that the stoic answer merely pertained to lack of revenue and that the authorities have no choice but to act as per the whims and fancies of the councillors, said “Based on this I made enquiries and found that V Annamalai, a sitting councillor and trustee of Corporation properties, had misused his official position and forced the officials to assess tax at a lesser amount for his properties situated in Injambakkam.” Holding that his representation to the authorities seeking to cancel all the illegal assessment of his properties failed to evoke any results, he had no choice but to move the court.

Even as HC is seized of Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons to Karti Chidambaram in Aircel-Maxis case part of 2G scam, his father and former Union Minister P Chidambaram has filed an affidavit claiming that ED proceedings were merely a bid to politically embarrass him and besmirch his reputation and that of his family.

The affidavit filed before Justice B Rajendran, stated that during the hearing on November 25, ED’s prosecutor had observed that the investigation against his son was about the approval granted by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB), while the probe on the approval was a done matter, with the CBI filing a charge sheet and  submitting status reports to the SC. Also, on noting that the charge sheet in the Aircel-Maxis case was filed on August 28, 2014 and that the CBI had not found any offence pertaining to the said FIPB approval, Chidambaram said “Hence, no scheduled offences exists, proceeds of crime do not exists and thus the ED absolutely lacks jurisdiction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to proceed further.” As per ED, the summons pertain to further probe relating to FIPB approval, given when Chidambaram was Finance Minister in 2006.

The state informed the High Court that it is taking all necessary steps to ensure prompt provision of funds for the judiciary. State finance secretary in a response to two PILs filed in 2002 and 2011 on the issue of fund allotment to the judiciary, told a full bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justices TS Sivagnanam and R Mahadevan, said “it was indeed a fact that the state’s finances are under stress for the past two-three years mainly due to its own tax revenue falling short of the projection, particularly in commercial taxes. This has resulted in the significant increase in the revenue deficit over the years and until October last itself, the revenue deficit has touched Rs 15,652 crore.” 

However, the counter stated that the state was giving utmost importance for allocating necessary funds for the infrastructure and running of the judiciary and that it had no intention to declare financial emergency. It may be noted that on November 11, the full bench agitated over the enormous delay in allotment of funds for judiciary had asked the state as to whether it was proposing to declare a financial emergency.