Jayalalithaa’s niece, nephew yet to approach DGP seeking police protection, government tells High Court
[8/13, 10:05] Sekarreporter 1: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/jayas-niece-nephew-yet-to-approach-dgp-seeking-police-protection-govt-tells-hc/article32339769.ece/amp/
[8/13, 10:46] Sekarreporter 1: NEWS STATES TAMIL NADU
TAMIL NADU
Jayalalithaa’s niece, nephew yet to approach DGP seeking police protection, government tells High Court
J. Deepa
J. Deepa
Legal Correspondent
CHENNAI 13 AUGUST 2020 00:23 IST
UPDATED: 13 AUGUST 2020 01:41 IST
Court had directed police protection while declaring them as legal heirs
The State government on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that it could not provide police protection to former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa’s niece J. Deepa and nephew J. Deepak, as directed by the court while declaring them as her legal heirs, since they were yet to approach the Director General of Police to complete formalities.
A Division Bench of Justices Vineet Kothari and Krishnan Ramasamy were informed by Additional Advocate General S.R. Rajagopal that the siblings were directed by the court on May 27 to pay for the security, even by liquidating one of their aunt’s assets, but they were yet to approach the DGP expressing their inclination to do so.
The AAG also said that a suggestion made by the court to give up the process of acquisition of Jayalalithaa’s Poes Garden residence Veda Nilayam, for being converted into a memorial, was considered by the government actively and that it was finally decided to go ahead with the acquisition as per the government’s policy decision.
Advertising
Advertising
“The file went on circulation once again and the policy decision taken earlier to acquire the property was reaffirmed,” he said.
The submissions were made when the cases related to declaration of legal heirs, by a Bench of Justices N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quddhose, were listed for reporting compliance of certain directions issued by the court which had also recorded an undertaking given by the siblings to form a public welfare trust named after their aunt.
After being declared as the legal heir, Mr. Deepak had filed a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the State government in 2017 to acquire his aunt’s residence Veda Nilayam at Poes Garden here for the purpose of converting it into a memorial. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh referred that petition to the Division Bench.
Hence, it was also listed before the Bench led by Justice Kothari on Wednesday but one more writ petition preferred by Ms. Deepa this month challenging the award by the Land Acquisition Officer on July 27 was not listed and hence the judges decided to hear all the cases together next week and issued appropriate directions to the Registry.
Opposing both the writ petitions, the AAG told the court that the siblings had taken a contrary stand with one challenging the entire acquisition proceedings and the other challenging the award alone when the court had specifically declared both of them as joint legal heirs entitled to inherit the estate left behind by their aunt.
However, Mr. Deepak’s counsel S.L. Sudarsanam said his client had been objecting to the acquisition right from the beginning. He said a resident welfare association from Poes Garden too had filed a writ petition before Justice Venkatesh last month objecting to the conversion of Veda Nilayam into a memorial.
“Then, the government informed the court that the suggestion made by the Division Bench to drop the acquisition proceedings was under its active consideration. However, within days after that, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award and deposited the money in the City Civil Court,” he complained.
![https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1730767165954130191?t=EDthE5QcXUucGocmaZIjSg&s=08 Secondly, if the reasoning of the Competent Authority in refusing to seize the property is considered, it focuses essentially on whether payment has been made by the petitioners for the purchase of shares in the Singapore based company, which is forbidden under Sec.3(b) of the Act. Sec.3 of the Act prohibits, (a) dealing in or transfer of any foreign exchange or foreign security to any person not being an authorised person under Sec.2(c) of the Act, or making payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India. Sec.4, on the other hand, prohibits acquiring, holding, owning, possessing or transferring inter alia any foreign securities (which by definition in terms of Sec.2(o) includes shares in a company) by a resident Indian. The way statute has presented Sec.3 and Sec.4, it appears to create independent class of prohibitions. Now, if the reasoning of the Competent Authority is required to be transmitted into the adjudicatory process contemplated under Sec.16, as was canvassed by the petitioners, then it may involve a need to read Sec.3 into Sec.4. The permissibility of reading Sec.3 into Sec.4 requires to be considered independently, and the present stage is too premature for considering it. At any rate it cannot be considered in this proceedings, for, it was held in Raj Kumar Shivhare case [(2010) 4 SCC 772], FEMA is a complete Code, and it must be allowed its free space to work itself. 16. The foregoing discussion leads this Court to the only conclusion: That these petitions are not entertainable. Now it is time to resume the enquiry by the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioners will be entitled to take all such defences which they are entitled to take under law. 17. In conclusion, subject to the observations made in paragraph 16, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30.11.2023. ds Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Order To 1.The Special Director Adjudicating Authority Directorate of Enforcement Southern Region Shastri Bhavan, III Floor, III Block No.26, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006. 2.The Assistant Director Authorised Officer Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue 3rd, 4th & 5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan – C Block No.26, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006. N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery order in W.P.Nos.21096, 21100, 21102, 21105 & 21359 of 2023 and WMP.Nos.20491, 20493, 20496, 20498, 20499, 20500, 20502, 20504, 20764 & 20767 of 2023 30.11.2023. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel (in all WPs) Assisted by Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan (in all WPs) Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.Rajnish Pathiyil Special Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 COMMON ORDER](https://sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)