Madras High Court Stays ED Summons To Private Contractors In Sand Mining Money Laundering Case

Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan granted a stay on a plea by A Rajkuamr, partner of RS Construction, Shanmugam Ramachandran, and K Rethinam. The court had previously also stayed the operation of summons issued to the District Collectors in connection with the investigation.

Rajkumar had claimed that the summons issued by ED against him was not only a gross and blatant abuse of the process of law but also an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Rajkumar had contended that he was in no way connected to the four FIRs based on which the ED had launched its investigation nor was he remotely associated with the accusations therein. He had also argued that the ECIR was registered by the ED in a hasty manner and with an ulterior motive for reasons best known to them.

Rajkumar informed the court that he had received a summons from the ED on 11^th December 2023. However, he added that the summons was vague and did not disclose any specific purpose for which he was being called either as a witness or as a suspect.

He also pointed out another plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the ED summons to the District Collectors to argue that the ED did not have any powers to proceed with the investigation. He added that while staying the ED summons, the High Court had itself commented that the ED was carrying out a “fishing expedition” without having any materials.

Thus, claiming that the ED did not have any powers to proceed with the investigation and that the summons was contrary to the spirit and essence of settled law, Rajkumar sought for quashing the ECIR as non-est in law.

Opposing the pleas, the Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, submitted that the ED required certain clarifications from the petitioners with respect to the materials already collected and could not at present state whether they were being probed as suspects or witnesses. The ED also argued that the ECIR was not a legal document but only an internal document and could not be challenged in the court.

Counsel for Petitioners: Senior Advocate Abdul Hameed, assisted by Elambarathi, Senior Advocate Vikrem Chowdry, Senior Advocate Abdul Saleem, Advocate Vijay Meghanath and Advocate Saravanan

Counsel for Respondent: ASG ARL Sundaresan, assisted by N Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor for ED

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 6

Case Title: A Rajkumar v Union of India

Case NO: WP 35515 of 2023