various representations against justice dinakaran
TRANSCRIPT
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
9th September, 2009
To
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India
Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Sirs, Sub : Representation against Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice, Karnataka High Court - amassing of huge assets, corruption and serious irregularities.
-------
As per newspaper reports (The Hindu dt. 28th August 2009)
Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, presently Chief Justice of the Karnataka High
Court, has been recommended by the collegium of the Supreme Court to
be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
The said Judge was a Judge of the Madras High Court between
19.12.1996 to 06.08.2008. We, the members of the Bar of the Madras
High Court are greatly perturbed by the news of his possible elevation to
the Apex Court, in view of disturbing reports that are strong pointers to
abuse of office and lack of probity by Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran.
We bring to your notice several aspects concerning the Judge
including (1) huge rural land holdings, illegal appropriation of
Government and public land amounting to land-grabbing, illegal
constructions, ownership of urban properties, (2) certain inappropriate
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
2
and startling judicial orders and (3) conduct raising issues of gross
impropriety and lack of probity. We feel the materials given below call for
a detailed investigation before taking up his case for appointment as a
Judge of the highest Court.
The following are the issues of deep concern:-
I. Amassing Wealth and Appropriation of Public Property
RURAL PROPERTY
It is common knowledge in the Bar at Madras that the Judge has
acquired vast extents of lands, near his hometown of Arakkonam, Vellore
District and in Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu. The acquisition started
before his appointment as a judge of the Madras High Court and is
reported to have increased manifold during his tenure as a judge.
All these land holdings in the villages are beyond the ceiling limit
under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961, as per which a family of five persons can possess not more than
15 standard acres of land.
However, more shocking is the unbecoming conduct of the judge in
encroaching upon Government lands and public property meant for the
villagers, amounting to land-grabbing and depriving the poor of their
resources and livelihood.
1. LANDS IN KAVERIRAJAPURAM VILLAGE (440 Acres)
(a) In the villages of Kaverirajapuram, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallur
District, Anaipakkam, Arakkonam Taluk, Vellore District and
Mulvoy, Arakknonam Taluk, Vellore District, the extent of lands
possessed by the Judge is approximately 500 acres. Most of the
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
3
property is in Kaverirajapuram, a village whose population
predominantly consists of dalits, Irulas (scheduled tribe), and
most backward classes like Naidus and Boyars and others. The
total extent of the village is about 1700 acres.
Annexed to this petition are:-
(i) A map showing the details of land held and owned by the
Judge and his family members; and public and
Government lands occupied by him, and
(ii) Extracts from village ‘A’ Register which provides the
classification of land of the relevant survey numbers in
the judge’s occupation, from reliable sources. The current
‘A’ register reflecting transfer of Patta is not accessible.
(iii) Photographs showing the naming of the village road
leading to his lands which is in Tamil and reads as
“Emperor of Justice P.D.Dinakaran Road,
Kaverirajapuram” (translation in English) and the fencing
of the land.
(iv) Extracts of Revenue Standing Orders on Assignment of
Land.
(b) In all, the judge is in possession of approximately 440 Acres in
Kaverirajapuram Village alone, almost one fourth of the village.
Out of this 440 acres:
(i) 310.33 acres are ‘patta’ lands owned by the Judge and
his family (In his name, his wife Dr.Vinodini’s name, his
two daughters – Amudha Porkodi & Amirthra Porkodi,
one Cannan and another person, the latter two are
reported to be his close relatives).
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
4
(ii) About 41.27 acres is public land classified as
Government poramboke, eri (lake, stream) and other
water bodies, pathway and Tamarind Grove.
(iii) About 88.33 acres are classified as Government
‘Anadhinam’ lands (which can be allotted only to
landless poor as per Board Standing Orders of the Tamil
Nadu Government).
2. Startling Modus Operandi
i) Reports are that the patta lands originally belonged to
backward and most backward classes. The purchase of lands
seems to have started before his appointment as a judge and
continued there after.
ii) Patta lands have been bought in the name of the judge, his wife
Dr. Vinodini, his unmarried daughters Amudha Porkodi and
Amirtha Porkodi, one Cannan and another person, the latter
two are reported to be close relatives. Daughter Amudha
Porkodi got married recently on 15.12.2008.
iii) Vast extents of Government ‘poromboke’ lands, Government
Anadhinam lands, waterbodies like lakes, canals, streams,
common village pathways and an ancient mud fortress abutting
his patta lands were progressively encroached upon.
iv) The villagers were then prevented access to these common
property resources. Nearly 600 families of dalits and landless
poor in the village are reported to have sought distribution of
Government poramboke and Anandhinam lands to them as per
G.O.(Ms)No.241 dated 12.09.2006 issued by the State
Government. They are yet to receive the assignment.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
5
v) Immediately thereafter, these common /government lands were
fenced in by the judge.
There is every possibility that after this representation the
fence around the encroached areas may be removed. But as on today, the fence exists around the Government lands and
village common resources and we write this after some of us personally inspected the fence and the relevant records and
maps. The fact remains that the common village lands near the judge’s property are out of bounds for the villagers.
Enquiry reveals that the local police is used to prevent access to the area.
iv) The Government Anadhinam lands are meant to be assigned only to
landless poor for small holdings and personal cultivation as per
Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue, Tamil Nadu Government.
v) The Government poramboke lands also are meant for common
enjoyment of the villagers and cannot be occupied by any individual.
Under a recent Scheme of the State Government, they can be
distributed to the landless poor.
vi) The water-bodies too are meant only for common enjoyment of the
villagers.
vii) By erecting a fence the judge has deprived the local villagers access
to common property resources of the village, on which many of them
depend for their livelihood.
viii) The villagers are not able to have access to the water bodies and
due to extensive use of water for the judge’s farm where there
are huge fruit orchards and other cultivations, the water source
for the village
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
6
has got depleted. Large bore wells/ open wells are said to have been
dug inside the farm.
ix) It is reported that the entire village administration and government
machinery has been exploited to provide facilities and free labour for
the judge’s property. It is reliably learnt that the judge is attempting
to manipulate revenue records to obtain pattas for the public and
government lands in his occupation.
x) It is an open secret in legal circles that the judicial officers and staff of
the judiciary are often asked to supervise and facilitate the
maintenance and upkeep of the farm.
xi) We have specific reports that anyone who seeks any information like
Survey Numbers and extent regarding even the village common
lands and Government lands is intimidated and not provided the
information. Villagers are under mortal fear in this regard.
xii) Even the village road that leads to the property has been named as
‘Neethi Arasar P.D. Dinakaran Saalai’’. (“Emperor of Justice, P.D.
Dinakaran road” )
3. Lands in Poovalai Village
The judge is also reported to possess more than 50 acres of lands
with mango orchards in Poovalai Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk,
Vellore District, Tamil Nadu. He has been seen visiting the orchard
periodically.
4. Land Value
The market value of these properties are in the range of about 20-25
lakhs per acre. It appears that the land holding is of an extent of
approximately 550 acres.
It needs to be ascertained whether the judge has filed returns
before the Tax authorities in respect of these properties. It also needs to
be verified if these disclosures of these assets has been made, and
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
7
updated, as per the 1997 Resolution regarding Declaration of Judge’s
assets.
URBAN PROPERTY
i) On the plot bearing Door No.28, East Park Road(junction of Pulla
Avenue and East Park street), Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030
allegedly owned by the Judge, a office/commercial construction has been
put up consisting of stilt + 5 floors, making it a multi storeyed building
under the Development Control Rules. Having regard to the dimensions
of the plot, fire safety requirements, etc., under the Development Control
Rules, construction of such a multi storeyed building is illegal. This is a
newly constructed building and he was frequently observed at the site to
check the construction.
ii) The Judge has been observed a number of times to be supervising
the construction of a building at J – 81, I Main Road, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai – 600 102. His involvement in this immovable property and
source of funding needs to be ascertained.
iii) In Arakkonam Town, the residential building ‘Anbagam’ (a
residential building said to be owned by Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran) was
recently renovated. It reportedly encroaches on the main road by 10 feet.
II. Inappropriate judicial orders in certain cases
A. JUDGMENT IN BINNY LTD.
Binny Ltd. was a BIFR company but subsequently came out
of it. It had extremely valuable immovable properties situated in
the heart of the city. These were directed to be auctioned by
Justice Dinakaran at 35% of the guideline value. Approximately
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
8
1260 grounds of land (about 70 acres) situated in Perambur was
sold to SSI Ltd. for just Rs.66 crores. At that time, the guideline
value was almost Rs.180 crores and the actual market value was
even higher.
The promoters of SSI Ltd. who had purchased the land from
Binny Ltd. were subsequently involved in extensive rigging of their
shares. The assessments of these promoters were reopened under
Sec.148, Income Tax Act, 1961. It is reported that the demand was
to the tune of more than Rs.52 Crores. Six Writ Petitions were filed
challenging the reopening of the assessment under Sec.148. The
Writ Petitions were heard by Justice P.D.Dinakaran. The judgment
is reported in 279 ITR 679.
Justice P.D.Dinakaran falsely stated that a “concession” was
made by the Counsel for the Income Tax Department. This was
objected to by the Counsel after receiving the copy of the Order.
Justice P.D.Dinakaran promised to expunge those sentences that
referred to the alleged concession but this was not done. Last
week, the Writ Appeals filed by the Department against this Order
have been allowed by the Division Bench presided by Justice
F.M.Ibrahim Kalifullah. The Standing Counsel for the Income Tax
Department offered to file an Affidavit stating that she never
conceded and also referred to the oral representation to Justice
P.D.Dinakaran. The Division Bench has allowed the six Writ
Appeals by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- each.
B. On 18-03-2009, the Times of India, Bangalore Edition carried the
following report :
“CJ leads speedy disposal of bail
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
9
BANGALORE. In a special drive to prevent pendency of cases, the High Court on Tuesday disposed of numerous bail applications out of around 300 petitions in a record time. Each bail plea was dealt with in about 30 seconds. Chief Justice, P.D.Dinakaran himself disposed of 46 cases in 20 minutes by granting bail (some conditional) in all of them.
The rapid fire sequence went something like this :- What is the
charge (section) ? What stage is the trial ? Completed or not ? Chargesheet has been filed ? Final report submitted. Bail granted. The cases were marginal and some pertain to charges of rape, theft, murder and dacoity including Vasanth Salian, accused in Chemmanur Jewellers dacoity case. The Chief Justice and five judges heard these cases between 4 and 4.45 p.m.”
The members of the Bangalore Bar state that while minor
cases were allocated to the other Judges, the ones posted before
Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran included cases of persons charged
with serious crimes under the Indian Penal Code and also those
who had serious cases filed against them by the Enforcement
Department. Bail was granted in all these cases. It is further stated
that this was a one-time disposal drive. This matter needs to be
investigated to ascertain the names of the accused and the gravity
of the offences.
C. Another matter of concern raised by the Bangalore Bar pertains to
cases of illegal mining filed against several influential persons.
These were transferred from the Dharwad Circuit Bench which was
hearing these matters to the Chief Justice’s Bench.
D. Yet another matter related to the mining lobby which wanted to
acquire 540 acres of forest land. The State Government had
granted leases in respect of 380 acres of forest land. This was set
aside by a Single Judge of the High Court who pointed out several
illegalities on the part of the State Government including that some
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
10
applicants had filed applications after the date of the opening of
the tender. The Writ Appeal Order passed by Chief Justice
P.D.Dinakaran granted licenses to all the applicants and even
increased the area allotted over and above what was granted by the
Government. The issues pointed out by the Single Judge were not
dealt with. This is a matter which has greatly agitated the
Bangalore Bar.
III. Number Plate of Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s Car – Contrary to Motor Vehicles Act
Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran, known to misuse office to exhibit
pomp and grandeur, had the number plate of his official car (KA-03-GA-
5767) done up in red background with gold embossed letters. This is
permitted under the Motor Vehicles Rules only for the President of India
and State Governors. Even the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of
India cannot use such a number plate. There were adverse news reports
in leading newspapers on this issue. (Midday dated 29.06.2009).
Our Appeal
We are greatly saddened that we are forced to impugn the conduct
of a holder of high judicial office; we are doing so only in the larger
interests of the institution of the judiciary which is sacred and since the
increasing reports against the judge have assumed alarming proportions.
Conscious of our responsibility not to lightly bring any judge to
disrepute, we have exercised due diligence to verify the allegations to the
best of the means available to us, including visits to some of the
concerned properties. However as private citizens and members of the
Bar we have severe limitations to call for information and to investigate
these matters. In fact there are reports against Mr. Justice P.D.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
11
Dinakaran of irregular acquisition of properties elsewhere, permitting
illegal appointments, favouritism and other improprieties in the discharge
of judicial and administrative functions as a judge of the High Court. The
information we have gathered so far is reliable and does not permit us to
let it pass without calling for urgent attention and appropriate action by
the Supreme Court and other Constitutional functionaries.
We also wish to convey the fear expressed by the villagers in
Kaverirajapuram, all of whom are greatly apprehensive of the severe
reprisals and consequences if they speak out. In fact, after speaking to
them we ourselves are greatly anxious for their safety. It also is evident
that the entire administrative machinery has been intimidated by the
judge, as no official is willing to respond to any queries regarding the
village properties, including innocuous questions like details about
government lands.
The allegations set out above are strongly suggestive of abuse of
office and corruption amounting to grave judicial misconduct. As the
matter involves the Head of the State Judiciary in Karnataka, it is one of
immense gravity and calls for immediate investigation and action. When
a judge’s reputation is clouded in such adverse reports, his elevation to
the highest Court of our country portends grave consequences for the
judiciary itself.
This case also exposes the shortcomings of the present procedure
adopted for choosing judges for appointment to the higher judiciary and
underscores the urgent need to put in place a Judicial Commission
which will have a more democratic and transparent functioning to enable
the choice of persons of impeccable integrity and calibre to dispense
justice.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
12
We, as responsible members of the Bar, duty bound to safeguard
the independence of the Judiciary, feel impelled in these circumstances
to request you
(i) not to appoint Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran as judge of the
Supreme Court of India; and
(ii) initiate a thorough enquiry into all the allegations against
Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of Karnataka High
Court and take appropriate action thereafter.
We request you to act on our representation in public interest, as
otherwise the confidence of the public in the majesty of law will be
shaken.
Yours truly,
sd/- R. Vaigai sd/- Sriram Panchu Senior Advocate sd/- K.R. Tamizhmani sd/- Anna Mathew sd/- S.S. Vasudevan sd/- Geetha Ramaseshan sd/- Sudha Ramalingam
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
sd/- N.L. Rajah sd/- D. Nagasaila sd/- S. Devikarani sd/- T. Mohan
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
17th September 2009
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sir,
Sub: Further particulars with supporting materials Regarding Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of Karnataka.
Ref: Our earlier representation dated 9.9.2009.
------
We are forwarding further materials that we have received regarding
Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran’s assets and his rather unusual judicial orders.
I. ASSETS & LAND GRABBING
A. Lands at Kaverirajapuram village.
More than 300 acres of land owned by the Judge and his family;
partly held in his individual name and that of his wife and two daughters
and by the following private companies. Enclosed within these fenced
properties are nearly 150 acres of Government and village common land
meant for community use.
1. All the Companies were incorporated on 23.08.2001,
after Mr. P.D.Dinakaran was appointed as judge of the
Madras High Court.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 2 ::
1. Annual Returns of all 4 companies state that all
shareholdings are held by the Directors and their relatives.
Company Some Directors:
Dear Lands Pvt. Ltd., Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
1. Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
2. Mr. J. Williams (reported to be Mr. Justice
P.D.Dinakaran’s sister’s husband)
Amudham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
2. Mr. J. Williams (mentioned as above)
3. Ms. Amudha Dinakaran,
Daughter of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
Amirtham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
1. Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
2. Mr. J. Williams (mentioned
as above) 3. Dr. Kingsley Alfred
Chandrasekaran (Brother of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran)
4. Mrs. D.A.P. Kamalakumari
Kingsley (Sister -in-law of Mr. Justice
P.D.Dinakaran)
Canaan Gardens Pvt. Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
1. Ms. Amudha Dinakaran, Daughter of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
2. Mr.J.Williams (as mentioned above)
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 3 ::
B. Urban Properties:
1. Another property at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai was owned by Justice
P.D.Dinakaran. He settled the same in his wife Dr.Vinodhini’s name in 2001-
2002. It is learnt that a loan of Rs.7 lakhs was taken by Dr.Vinodhini in
2002 from Corporation Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai but was closed in 2004.
In the last two years, a huge commercial complex has been built (photo
enclosed – Annexure 6). Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran was seen frequently
supervising the construction.
Recent estimates indicate that the cost of construction would be not
less Rs.2.5 crores.
2. Justice P.D.Dinakaran acquired a residential plot of 4800 sq. ft. at J-
81, Anna Nagar East, Chennai during 2005-2006 for a total cost of
Rs.90,50,040 lakhs. The property stands in the joint names of the Judge
and his wife Dr.K.M.Vinodini, as per the Certificate of Encumbrance on
Property (Annexure 7).
Construction of a building with two floors and above is on. By any
modest estimate, the cost of construction so far would have been more than
Rs.25 lakhs.
C. Other Properties:
There are strong reports of possession of extensive lands in other
districts of Tamilnadu including the Nilgiris hills. This may be enquired into.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 4 ::
II. Inappropriate Judicial Orders Pointing to Bias & Corruption
A. In Madras High Court:
The unusual order passed by Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran in (279 ITR
page 61) has already been referred to by us. Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran had
allowed the Writ Petition, challenging the notice to reopen assessment
falsely stating that a concession was made by the Counsel for Income Tax
Department. His judgment has now been reversed by an Order dated
22.7.2009 in W.A.No. 766 and 771 of 2005 by the Division Bench presided
by Mr. Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah. Relevant facts:
a). The I.T. Department issued notice to reopen assessment made
on the basis of a complaint given by SEBI, regarding ‘insider
trading’, alleging that the assessees had actually sold the
shares to benamis at Rs.800/- per share and within one
month thereafter, they sold the shares for Rs.5000 per share,
who thereafter remitted the entire proceeds to the assessees.
It was thus clear that it was not a simple case of long term
capital gain and that income escaped assessment to be taxed
as short-term capital gain. The price of the shares sold was to
the tune of Rs. 22,53,17,050/- resulting in huge escapement
of income chargeable to tax.
b). Writ Petition Nos. 10607, 10608 and 10628 to 10631 of 2005
were listed for admission on 31.3.2005 before Mr. Justice P.D.
Dinakaran.
c). No prior notice was issued to the Income Tax Department,
since in Madras High Court, Writ Petitions are listed for
admission exparte.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 5 ::
d). The Madras High Court cause list of that date is enclosed,
wherein only the name of Counsel for the Petitioner is printed
(Items 45- 47).
e). Yet Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran strangely recorded that Counsel
for the Income Tax Department ‘conceded’ that the impugned
orders had been wrongly passed, even as the said counsel who
happened to be present in the Court took notice.
f) At the admission stage itself, the Writ Petitions were allowed
and Writ of Certiorari issued.
g) Judgment dated 31.3.2005 of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran does
not disclose the facts of the case, viz., the order of the Income
Tax Department was based on the complaint by SEBI, instead
merely sets out legal provisions and suddenly says:
“18. Mrs. Pushya Seetharaman, Learned Counsel taking notice on behalf of the respondent, fairly concedes that the objections of the Petitioners ……….. were not considered
19. Learned Counsel for the respondent also concedes that the respondent committed an error apparent on the face of the record.”
h) Writ Appeal Nos. 766 to 771 of 2005 were filed by the Income
Tax Department with an affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner
of Tax stating “the Writ Petition was allowed at the stage of
admission itself without giving the Department an opportunity
to file counter or present its argument in detail. We have
verified this with our Standing Counsel and she says that she
did not concede the matter.”
The Writ Appeals stand allowed now by order dt. 22.07.2009.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 6 ::
Extracts from the Madras High Court causelist dt.31.03.2005,
the judgment reported in 279 ITR 61, the Grounds of Appeal and the
Affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax are filed as
Annexures 8 – 11.
B. In Karnataka High Court i) Cases relating to Vinod Goel
-- W.P. 8094 of 2009 Vinod Goel representing Jantakal
Enterprises filed a Writ petition to lift and transport 1,17,800
(one lakh seventeen thousand and eight hundred) metric
tonnes of iron ore which according to him was mined in the
year 1985.
1985 Vinod Goel’s mining lease expired. According to him he
obtained extension of lease.
1993 the mining area was declared a ‘reserved forest area’ and
hence clearance under the Forest Conservation Act was
mandatory.
1996 Accordingly he applied for clearance.
2008 Correspondence for clearance still continued.
2009 Vinod Goel asserted that minerals mined by him during 1965-
85 were not cleared because there was no market for iron ore
of grades less than 62% and 63%. The said mined mineral to
the extent of 1,25,000 metric tones was lying in the dump for
24 years. He wanted permission to lift the material in 2009 as
there was now a market for it. Since the ore was mined prior
to 1985, the Forest Department could have no objection for
the same.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 7 ::
02.03.2009 Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran allowed the Writ Petition by order
dated 02.03.2009 permitting the said Vinod Goel to lift and
transport 1,17,800 metric tones of iron ore from forest land.
ii) Order contrary to earlier order
In W.P. No. 12028 of 2008, the Petitioner M/s Jothi Brothers
was granted mining lease in Forest Land mistakenly treating it as Revenue
land. The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran and
Justice V.G.Sabahit held that such mining lease was invalid and that there
was collusion between the mining lessee and government officials to treat
forest land as revenue land and obtain mining lease. The court not only
directed an enquiry but also directed that damages have to be collected from
the mining lessee.
However, in W.P.No.12028 of 2008, in an identical fact situation
Vinod Goel obtained a very curious order.
A PIL was filed for cancellation of mining lease in S.N0.97 of
Rajathadipura Forest Area in Tunkur District originally granted to one B.D.
Hanuman Singh and subsequently transferred to Vinod Goel. The mining
site was declared as a Forest in the year 1939 itself. As per Sec.2 of the
Forest Conservation Act, 1980 no forest land can be diverted for non-forest
use without the prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forest,
Government of India. However the State Government granted mining lease
treating it as revenue land and not forest land.
But in this case the very same Division Bench headed by Chief
Justice P.D. Dinakaran directed Vinod Goel to give a representation to the
State Government for grant of alternate land to an extent of 71.20 acres and
directed the government to consider the representation and accord
preference to the said Vinod Goel over other mining lease applications.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 8 :: iii) Constituting a Full Bench to overrule a Div. Bench order when Supreme Court was considering validity of Div. Bench’s order
1992 Several persons filed application for grant of mining lease from
the State of Karnataka.
17.02.2003 Even as these applications were pending, the State of
Karnataka issued a notification dated 17.02.2003 de-reserving
all lands earlier reserved by it in the year 1958 under the
Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
15.03.2003 Notification calling for application from the general public.
-- Writ petition Nos.18445 of 2003 & batch were filed
challenging the notification dated 15.03.2003 on the ground
that the application for mining leases were not considered by
the Government on the wrong presumption that they were
reserved, though the Act has no provision for reservation.
They objected to the fact that applications of persons who
applied pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2009 were
being processed and given precedence over their applications
which were pending since 1992.
27.11.2006 Single Judge allowed Writ Petitions directing that applications
should be considered as per the date of application and
applications given pursuant to notification dated 15.03.2003
will be considered thereafter.
12.03.2009 Division Bench confirmed the order of Single Judge and the
Writ Appeal Nos.850 and 1353 of 2007 were dismissed.
-- In Supreme Court SLP Nos. 12100-12101 of 2009 were filed
against the Division Bench order. Notice was issued but stay
of operation of the order dated 12.03.2009 refused. SLP is still
pending.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 9 ::
-- Other writ appeals which were filed against Single Judge’s
Order were posted for admission. When these Writ Appeals
came up for admission before a Division Bench consisting
Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran and Justice V.G.Sabahit, the
Court was informed that the Writ Appeals were covered by the
order dated 12.03.09 in W.A. No.850 of 2007 and Batch. The
Court was also informed that the State Government did not
file SLPs against the order and the SLPs filed by private
parties were pending.
-- Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran, however, referred the writ
appeals to a Full Bench. He thereafter constituted a Full
Bench headed by himself.
28.08.2009
--
The Full Bench overruled the order dated 12.03.2009 of the
Division Bench in W.A.No.850 and 1353 of 2007 and held the
applicants who filed applications prior to 15.03.2003 will be
treated as having filed the applications on 15.03.2003 and
could claim no priority. The merits of the individual writ petitions were to be decided
by the Division Bench.
28.08.2009 Same day, after the Full Bench order was pronounced, Chief
Justice P.D. Dinakaran listed the entire batch before a
Division Bench presided over by him and dismissed the entire
batch.
It is learnt that the copy of the Full Bench Order and the
Division Bench Order are yet to be received.
By this unusual procedure, Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran through
the Full Bench overruled the Division Bench’s decision, even as the
latter’s correctness was being considered by the Supreme Court.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
:: 10 ::
There are strong rumours that by this unusual process, a few
business groups have been hugely benefitted.
Some of the judgments of the Karnataka High Court referred above
are enclosed as Annexures – 12 to 14.
There is a spate of information that is pouring into our Forum alleging
corrupt practices both moral and economic by Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran.
However, we have desisted from listing all of them without verifying their
credibility. But we do feel that the reputation of Chief Justice P.D.Dinakaran
definitely does not make him worthy of consideration for appointment to the
Supreme Court and his addition will only diminish the image of the great
institution.
The Supreme Court enjoys its powers because of the immense faith
reposed by our people. Their confidence will be rudely shaken if a judge who
has grabbed public property and has compromised public interest will be
appointed to the Supreme Court.
We therefore request you not to appoint Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran to
the Supreme Court of India and to initiate an enquiry into his conduct.
Yours faithfully,
sd/- R. Vaigai sd/- Anna Mathew
sd/- Sudha Ramalingam
sd/- Geeta Ramaseshan
sd/- D. Nagasaila sd/- S. Devika
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
1st October, 2009
To Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi.
Sirs, Sub: Details of more acquisitions by Justice P.D.Dinakaran
Ref: Our Representations dated 09.09.09 and 17.09.09.
------
Subsequent to our earlier representations referred to above additional
information regarding amassing of further properties and exercise of
judicial powers to decide cases in his own cause by Justice P.D.Dinakaran
has emerged. The information furnished below also provides further
documentary proof of his acquisitions detailed in our earlier representations.
I. Three housing plots from Tamil Nadu Housing Board near IT Corridor, Chennai in 2005.
1. In the year 2005, 3 plots of 3600 – 3800 sq.ft. each were obtained by
Dr.Mrs. Vinodhini Dinakaran and the two daughters Amudha and Amirtha.
The plots for the daughters were applied for first in the names of Mr.James
Kuppusamy, father-in-law (then aged 83 years) and Mrs. M.G. Paripoornam,
mother-in-law (then aged 73 years). The plots were allotted by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board at Sholinganallur Village Neighbourhood Scheme
Phase III, Tambaram Circle, Kancheepuram District. Sholinganallur is a
suburb near the IT Corridor of Chennai City and any property there is
considered as prime property.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 2 ::
The allotments have been made in violation of many eligibility
conditions prescribed by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of Justice P.D.Dinakaran are
learnt to have said in their applications to the Housing Board that they were
not assessed to income-tax and their annual income was only Rs.56,668/-
and Rs.49,200/-, respectively. Thus they were not even eligible for the
allotment under the High Income Group for plots (annual income above
Rs.90,102), from the Housing Board.
2. Shocking modus Operandi to secure property beyond limit under a public housing scheme and acting as Judge in own cause
i) Joint Applicants:
Three joint applications were made on 19.06.2002 for allotment by the
Tamilnadu Housing Board by:
a) One V.Sarala (relationship not known) and Dr. Vinodhini
Dinakaran (wife) b) James Kuppusamy (father-in-law) and P. Vimala (sister of
P.D.Dinakaran) and c) J. Williams (brother-in-law) and Mrs. M.G. Paripoornam (mother-
in-law)
(ii) Withdrawal of co-applicants:
The joint-applicants withdraw on the same date, 27.03.2003, thus
leaving Dr. Vinodhini (wife), James Kuppusamy (father-in-law) and M.G.
Paripoornam (mother-in-law) as the sole applicants.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 3 ::
(iii) Wife and in-laws Sole allottees: Finally the allotment of one plot each was confirmed on 04.07.2003 by
the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as follows:
(a) Dr. Mrs. Vinodhini Dinakaran, wife - 360 sq.m. Plot No.HIG II/25
(b) Mr. James Kuppusamy (83 years), father-in-law - 336 sq.m. Plot
No.HIG II/43 and
(c) Mrs. M.G. Paripoornam (73 years), mother-in-law - 336 sq.m. Plot
No.HIG II/44.
(iv) Cost of purchase:
The sale deed for the properties were registered on 01.09.2005 for
Rs.6.90,770, Rs.5,15,900/- and Rs. 5,15,900/-, respectively. This is gross
undervaluation. However, the Housing Board actually seems to have asked
for escalated cost of Rs.8-11 lakhs. That the latter is the actual value is clear
from the entry two days later on 03.09.2005 as shown below.
v) Transfer of property to daughters
Within two days of the sale, viz., on 03.09.2005, both the father-in-
law and mother-in-law effect a “ settlement” of their plots on Justice
P.D.Dinakaran’s daughters Amirthaporkodi Dinakaran and Amudhaporkodi
Dianakaran, respectively, thus completely subverting and defeating a public
housing scheme meant to serve those without property and in need of
housing. The value of the property is shown as Rs.8,59,824/-. Within two
days the value shoots up by 3.5 lakhs, which is the real value. The Encumbrance Certificate dt.30.09.2009 and a translation of
relevant entries are enclosed.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 4 :: 3. Allotments in violation of Rules:
The Tamil Nadu Housing Board allotments are in complete violation of
the allotment Rules.
a) As per the Board’s condition No.1 for registration, not more than one
plot per family can be allotted, whereas the father-in-law and mother-
in-law of Justice P.D.Dinakaran have been given two separate plots.
This condition was further defeated when the two daughters of Justice
P.D .Dinakaran were given the plots on settlement, even as their
mother had been allotted a plot.
b) According to condition No.1, a person owning any property in any
town in India is not eligible to apply, whereas Dr. Vinodhini
Dinakaran, who already owns property at No.28, East Park Road,
Shenoy Nagar, Chennai was allotted a plot.
c) James Karuppusamy, the father-in-law and M.G.Paripoornam,
mother-in-law with Rs.56,668/- per annum and Rs.49,200/- per
annum, respectively, fell below the minimum eligible income limit for a
High Income Group allotment, but were still given the plots. It is
reliably learnt that these income details were declared by them in their
applications in June 2002 to the Tamilnadu Housing Board.
4. Subversion of justice for personal gain
While Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s wife Dr. Vinodhini Dinakaran, his
father-in-law and mother-in-law were beneficiaries of allotment of housing
plots in the Sholinganallur Neighbourhood Scheme Phase III, and the
Housing Board was yet to effect the sale in their favour, on the judicial side
the judge decided W.P.No.9075/97 by his Order dated 29.01.2004 ( Kuresh
A. Kapadia Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others- 2004 (1) MLJ 630 ) and upheld
the land acquisition for the very same Scheme. Consequently, the way was
cleared for the Housing Board to effect sale of land to the allottees and
Dr.Vinodhini and her parents were direct beneficiaries of Justice
Dinakaran’s judicial order. The sale deeds were thereafter registered on
01.09.2005. This is gross abuse of office and subversion of justice.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 5 ::
II. Property at Ooty, Nilgris District, Tamil Nadu in 2009. (market value Rs.8 -9 Crores)
1. Document
No.1078/2009 dt
28.08.2009 registered with
Sub-Registrar I, Ooty.
- 4.5 Acres property with a bungalow in
Survey No.4813/1C has been purchased in
the name of Mrs. Paripoornam, wife of late
James Kuppusamy, mother-in-law of Justice
P.D. Dinakaran, at the end of August 2009.
2. The Government Guideline value of property in this area is Rs.150/-
sq.ft., which works out to nearly Rs.3 crores for 4.5 Acres. The Government
Guideline value published on the Registration Department website is
enclosed. The market value is reported to be Rs. 8-9 crores approximately.
The cost of the bungalow would be in addition to the cost of the land.
However, the property was grossly undervalued at Rs.33,75,100/- as clear
from the Encumbrance Certificate which is enclosed. The Registration
Department has raised an objection under Sec.47-A of the Indian
Registration Act and the dispute is pending.
3. It is learnt that the parents in-law did not have resources to support
such investments, which is also apparent from their declarations in their
applications to the T.N.Housing Board. Mrs. Paripoornam, mother-in-law of
Justice P.D. Dinakaran retired as a Headmistress of a school and her
husband James Kuppusamy retired as Assistant Foreman (Security) in Ooty
and is no more.
III. Cost of properties at Shenoy Nagar and Anna Nagar, Chennai.
In our earlier representation we pointed out to the acquisition of
property by Justice P.D. Dinakaran at Shenoy Nagar and Anna Nagar,
Chennai. We now have further information and details in respect of the
same.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 6 :: A. Property at 27 & 28, East Park Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, (Office Complex).
The Shenoy Nagar property seems to have been partly purchased before
and partly after the appointment of Mr.P.D. Dinakaran as judge of Madras
High Court
The Encumbrance Certificate dated 30.09.2009 for 28, East Park Road
enclosed herewith reveals:
a) 3236 sq.ft. - purchased by
Mr.P.D.Dinakaran and
Dr. K.M.Vinodhini Dinakaran in
1990 for 5.5 lakhs and
subsequently his share was
settled in his wife’s name on
10.12.2001.
b) 2688 sq.ft. - purchased by Dr.K.M.Vinodhini
on 15.07.2002
Since, the second purchase was undervalued proceedings under
Sec. 47A(1) of the Indian Registration Act were taken and finally a stamp
duty of Rs. 1.49,721/- was paid. As per Government Guideline value of
Rs.1069/- per sq.ft., the cost was Rs.28,73,472/-
B. Property at J-81, Anna Nagar, Chennai, jointly purchased by Justice
P.D. Dinakaran (Rs.37,85,040), Dr. Vinodhini Dinakaran (Rs.28,35,000)
and Mrs. M.G. Paripoornam, mother-in-law (Rs.24,30,000/-) during
2005-2006 totals to Rs.90,50,040/-. (see EC sent with our
Representation dated 17.07.2009).
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 7 ::
IV. Loans availed
It is learnt that Justice P.D. Dinakaran and his wife Dr. Vinodhini have
taken loans running to more than Rs.1.59 crores in recent years.
a) Dr. Vinodhini Dinakaran availed two loans from Indian Overseas
Bank, Anna Nagar, Chennai (see EC dt. 23.09.2009 for 28, East
Park Road, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai)
(i) 2007 - Rs.62 lakhs
(ii) 2008 - Rs.35 lakhs
b) Justice P.D. Dinakaran is reported to have taken loans as below:
(i) Bank of Baroda - Rs.56 lakhs
(ii) Government Housing Loan – Rs.6 lakhs
(iii) Provident Fund Loan
The Bangalore Mirror dated 20.09.2009 reports the loans mentioned
at (i) to (iii) above.
It is learnt that the required EMI payments for these loans are close to
Rs.3 lakhs per month.
V. Other Violations
1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority approval plan dated
07.09.2007 granted to Dr.Vinodhini Dinakaran, sanctions an office
building with stilt+4 floors at No.27 & 28, East Park Road, Shenoy
Nagar, Chennai. However, 5 floors have been built. 5th Floor is wholly
illegal, yet the CMDA has on inspection issued a Completion Certificate
on 10.07.2008.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 8 ::
2. Earlier, we had detailed the encroachment of public property by the judge
and his family in village Kaverirajapuram. We enclose herewith
independent reports from national dailies and news magazines in this
regard, which show that the dalits and the landless poor in the village
are living in mortal fear and have been deprived of access to Government
lands and common village properties because of the illegal
encroachment by the judge and his family. The reports are as follows:
a) “The Hindu” dt. 23.09.2009,
b) “Mail Today” dt. 24.09.2009,
c) “The Indian Express” dt. 27.09.2009,
d) “The Pioneer” dt. 20.09.2009 & 21.09.2009,
e) “Outlook” dt. 05.10.2009.
VI. Operation – Personal Aggrandisement A Fraud on Public Trust
Corporate façade: We have already set out in our earlier
representations how hundreds of acres of lands are reported to be partly
acquired by four companies, viz.,
i) Dear Lands (India) Pvt. Ltd.
ii) Amudham Gardens Pvt. Ltd.
iii) Amirtham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and
iv) Canaan Gardens Pvt. Ltd.
The relationship of the Directors in the four Companies are given in
the annexed chart. It will be seen that James Kuppusamy (father-in-law),
M.G.Paripoornam (Mother-in-law), P.Vimala (Sister) and J.Williams (Brother-
in-law) are persons of poor financial resources as given in their applications
to the Housing Board in 2002 and were not even Income Tax payees then.
Yet companies are incorporated in 2001 with substantial shareholdings
shown for each of them.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 9 ::
Benami transactions: A cursory glance at the manner of acquisition of
properties by Justice Dinakaran’s wife and children reveals a clear pattern.
Properties are initially purchased in the name of the aged parents-in-law and
subsequently “settled” in the name of Dr.Vinodhini (wife) or Ms. Amudha
Dinakaran or Ms.Amirtha Dinakaran (daughters). For instance the 30%
share in house site in Anna Nagar first purchased by Mrs.Paripoornam
(mother in-law) was settled later to her daughter, Dr.Vinodhini Dinakaran
(wife of the judge) on 21.08.2006 i.e. in less than a year. The remaining 70%
share was bought jointly by Justice P.D.Dinakaran and his wife.
A similar pattern is evident in the Housing Board Allotments where the
applications were made by the aged parents-in-law of Justice P.D.Dinakaran
along with one other individual who subsequently withdraw the application
and the final allotment is made in the name of the parents-in-law. Within
two days thereafter, the parents-in-law have settled these properties in the
name of the two daughters of Justice P.D.Dinakaran. The expensive property in Ooty has also been bought in August 2009
in the name of the aged mother-in-law, Mrs.Paripoornam who is now close to
80 years. Fraud on public exchequer: There is also systematic and gross
undervaluation of the properties at the time of every registration of the sale
deeds, in order to evade payment to the public exchequer. The information and materials submitted by us so far, show clearly
that the assets possessed by Justice P.D. Dinakaran, his wife and children
are disproportionate to the known sources of his income. The so called
ownership of properties by his extended family is eyewash, as is clear from
their financial status and the fact that the property is invariably given over
by ‘settlement’ to either Justice P.D. Dinakaran’s wife Dr.Vinodhini
Dinakaran or their two daughters. The veil of ostensible documentations and
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 10 ::
corporate operations cannot hide the fact that the real ownership lies with
Justice P.D.Dinakaran, who has gained wealth through illegal and corrupt
means.
As persons interested in the integrity and independence of the
judiciary we are greatly alarmed and shocked at the machinations and
deception by a holder of high judicial office. Using the immunity attached to
the Constitutional post, Justice P.D. Dinakaran has with impunity
committed acts which are illegal, immoral and unethical. Far from holding
office in public trust, he has committed fraud and operated the system for
personal aggrandisement. The moral authority of the judiciary to judge those
who are brought to justice to face charges of corruption and public wrongs
will be completely eroded if Justice P.D.Dinakaran is allowed to continue as
a judge anywhere.
If Rule of Law has to prevail, we strongly feel and urge that
(i) an immediate investigation and enquiry should be initiated into
the allegations against Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of
Karnataka High Court and action for his removal through
impeachment should follow and
(ii) until the process of investigation, enquiry, impeachment and
removal is over, Justice P.D.Dinakaran should not be allowed to
discharge his judicial or administrative functions
This case also brings to attention the gaping void in our Constitutional
law that does not provide for any immediate suspension of a judge of the
higher judiciary, whose continuance so seriously compromises the integrity
of the judicial system. While there are precedents, where a Chief Justice of a
High Court or the Supreme Court of India can withhold allotment of judicial
functions to a judge pending enquiry, there are no precedents where the
conduct of the Chief Justice itself is in question.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 11 ::
We therefore appeal to you as members of the Supreme Court
Collegium to intervene urgently to advise Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief
Justice of Karnataka High Court to desist from exercising any judicial or
administrative functions pending completion of an enquiry and a final
decision on the same.
Yours faithfully,
sd/- R. Vaigai sd/- Sriram Panchu sd/- Anna Mathew sd/- S.S.Vasudevan sd/- Geeta Ramaseshan sd/- T.Mohan sd/- N.L.Rajah sd/- D.Nagasaila sd/- Sudha Ramalingam sd/- S.Devika
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
22nd October 2009
To
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, The Chief Justice of India
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V.Raveendran
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sirs, Sub: Details of more acquisitions and improper judicial conduct of Justice P.D.Dinakaran. Ref: Our representations dated 09.09.09, 17.09.09, and 01.10.09. ----- Further to our earlier representations, information about acquisition
of more properties by and improper judicial conduct of Mr. Justice
P.D.Dinakaran in another case, has come to our knowledge. Additional
information regarding the Housing Board allotments and the property at
Ooty referred to in our 3rd representation dated 1.10.2009 is also furnished.
I. Two more Housing plots from Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of Dr. (Mrs.) Vinodhini Dinakaran We had set out in our representation dated 1.10.2009 as to how three
plots were obtained in the year 2005 by Dr. (Mrs.) Vinodhini Dinakaran and
the two daughters of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran in violation of the one plot
per family norm, which has been uniformly followed by the Housing Board,
since its housing schemes are meant to cater to those without any other
residential accommodation.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 2 ::
In addition to the aforesaid 3 plots, Dr. (Mrs.) Vinodhini Dinakaran
was also allotted Plot No. HIG II/39 and Plot No. HIG II/40 by the Tamil
Nadu Housing Board and the sale deeds were executed on 1.9.2005, the
same date when the sale deeds for the 3 plots referred to earlier were
executed. The information regarding the additional 2 plots are as follows:
Name of Scheme: Sholinganallur Village Neighbourhood Scheme Phase III, Tambaram Circle, Kancheepuram District.
Plot No. and
Area of plot
Seller Buyer Sale Deed No. & Date
Sub Registrar
Office
Cost.
HIG II/39 395.85 sq.mts.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Dr.(Mrs.) Vinodhini Dinakaran
5044 dt.1.9.2005
Neelankarai 13,67,267/-
HIG II/40 395.85 sq.mts.
-do- -do- 5045 dt.1.9.2005
-do- 13,67,267/-
Thus in all Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran managed to have 5 housing
plots Nos. HIG II/25, 39, 40, 43 & 44 allotted to his wife and daughters, in
total violation of the Rules of the public body and against public interest. It
has to be noted that the plots are allotted abutting wide roads, which enable
future use for commercial purposes.
II. Property in Ooty in The Nilgiris District, Tamil Nadu Prime property: In our representation dated 1.10.2009, it was mentioned that 4.5
acres of property in survey No.4813/C with a bungalow was purchased
recently on 28.8.2009 in the name of Mrs. Paripoornam, mother-in law of
Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran. It has to be pointed out that the property was
undervalued at Rs. 33,75,100/-, whereas under the Government guidelines,
the value of land in Survey No. 4813/C is Rs. 150 sq.ft., which works out to
nearly Rs. 3 crores for 4.5 acres. We now understand that the gross under
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 3 ::
valuation of the property has been sought to be justified by showing the land
abutting to bungalow bungalow as agricultural land. This is contrary to the
classification made by the Government for the said property as Residential
Area Class III. It has to be noted that the property stands in the heart of
Ooty at Golf Link Road.
Source of Funds:
It is significant that the sale consideration of Rs. 33,75,100/- was
paid in the following manner as per the Sale Deed dated 28.8.2009:
S.No. Bank Name Demand Draft No.
Date Amount Rs.
1. Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore 560 001
125536 28.8.2009 9,00,000
2. -do- 125537 28.8.2009 9,00,000
3. -do- 125538 28.8.2009 9,00,000
4. -do- 125539 28.8.2009 6,75,100
Total 33,75,100
We had earlier pointed out that the purchaser, Mrs. Paripoornam is
the mother-in-law of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, a retired Headmistress and
pensioner of about 80 years of age and is not known to have financial
resources to support such a huge investment. The fact that the Demand
Drafts towards the sale consideration for purchase of Ooty property were all
obtained from a Bank in Bangalore, where Justice P.D. Dinakaran was and
is the Chief Justice of Karnataka, cannot be dismissed as a mere
coincidence and provides a lead to the source of funds and the real owner of
the property.
3. Information on funds for the Housing Board Plots:
For the 5 plots purchased from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the
sale considerations were paid in the following manner as shown in the Sale
Deeds:
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 4 ::
Sholinganallur Village Neighbourhood Scheme
(a) For Plot No.HIGII/39
Sale Deed No. 5044 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 395.85 sq.m.
Purchased in the name of : Dr. (Mrs) Vinodhini Dinakaran
S.No. Bank Name D.D./Cheque No.
Date Amount Rs.
1. Bank of Baroda,
594247 28.5.2002 30,765.00
2. Indian Overseas
Bank
803568 28.5.2002 90,000
3. Bank of Baroda 594352 18.6.2002 6,84,335
4. Bank of Baroda 594805 1.8.2002 1,51,000
5. Bank of Baroda 499387/88 22.3.2005 4,11,167
Total 13,67,267
(b) For Plot No.HIGII/40
Sale Deed No. 5045 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 395.85 sq.m.
Purchased in the name of : Dr. (Mrs) Vinodhini Dinakaran
S.No. Bank Name D.D./Cheque No.
Date Amount Rs.
1. Bank of Baroda,
594248 28.5.2002 30,765.00
2. Indian Overseas
Bank
803569 28.5.2002 90,000
3. Bank of Baroda 594352 18.6.2002 6,84,335
4. Bank of Baroda 594805 1.8.2002 1,51,000
5. Bank of Baroda 499387/88 22.3.2005 4,11,167
Total 13,67,267
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 5 ::
The aforesaid details are obtained from the certified copies of the sale-
deeds and the fact that the last three DDs / Cheques in the sale deeds for
Plot Nos. 39 & 40 are identical needs further probe.
(c) For Plot No : HIG II/25
Sale Deed No. 5046 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 360 sq.m.
Purchased in the name of : Dr. (Mrs) Vinodhini Dinakaran
S.No Name of Bank D.D./Cheque
No.
Date Amount
1. State Bank of India 467422 28.05.2002 48615.00
2. State Bank of India 467423 28.05.2002 48000.00
3. Indian Overseas Bank
804104 18.06.2002 547485.00
4. Indian Overseas Bank
805465 31.07.2002 161025.00
5. Bank of Baroda 31.03.2005 346155.00
Total
1151280.00
(d) For Plot No : HIG II/43
Sale Deed No. 5048 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 336 sq.m.
Purchased in the name of : James Kuppusamy
S.No Name of Bank D.D/Chq.No. Date Amount
1. Bank of Baroda 594250 28.05.2002 48307.00
2. Bank of Baroda 594251 28.05.2002 48308.00
3. Bank of Baroda 594351 18.06.2002 547485.00
4. Bank of Baroda 498848 28.12.2004 215724.00
Total 859824.00
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 6 ::
(e) For Plot No: HIG II/44
Sale Deed No. 5047 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 336 sq.m.
Purchased in the name of : M.G. Paripoornam
S.No Name of Bank D.D/Chq.No. Date Amount
1. Bank of Baroda 594249 28.05.2002 48307.00
2. Bank of Baroda 594252 28.05.2002 48308.00
3. Bank of Baroda 594353 18.06.2002 547485.00
4. Bank of Baroda 498847 28.12.2004 215724.00
Total 859824.00
The aforesaid information may provide the necessary leads to find out
the source of funds.
4. Another case of improper judicial conduct Contrary to accepted norms of judicial conduct that a Judge shall not
hear any matter to which a person close to him is a party, as otherwise it
erodes the confidence of the public in the impartiality of the judicial system,
Justice P.D.Dinakaran heard W.P. No. 39838 of 2005 in the Madras High
Court and passed certain questionable orders.
W.P.No. 39838 of 2005 was filed in the Madras High Court by a
Pentecostal Mission seeking a Writ of Mandamus, restraining Police
authorities from interfering with the peaceful possession of its property near
Chennai. Initially interim injunction was granted by Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.
Nagappan.
One Anandhi Murthy, wife of Karuna Murthy, resident of 532,
Cummer Avenue, North York, Oterio, M-2-K-2 MI, Canada contested the title
of the Pentecostal Mission to the property and filed a petition to be
impleaded in the Writ Petition. By an order dated 19.8.2006, Justice
P.D.Dinakaran allowed the said Anandi Murthy to be impleaded.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 7 ::
Not stopping with that, Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran continued to pass
extraordinary orders on 6.9.2006, 20.9.2006 and other dates recording that
the writ petitioner and his Senior Counsel conceded that the averments in
writ petition were false and passed other orders. According to the averments
of the writ petitioner in his appeal, viz. W.A.No. 1329 of 2006, no such
concession was made and that they had in fact wanted to withdraw the writ
petition and approach the Civil Court. Yet, Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
continued to hear the matter and pass highly questionable orders.
We do not wish to comment on the merits or demerits of the claim of
the petitioner or the claim of Anandi Murthy.
It is reliably learnt that Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran had earlier enjoyed
the hospsitality of the said Anandhi Murthy and her husband Karuna
Murthy. In fact, just a year before the said writ petition was filed, in the year
2004, Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran, his wife and two daughters visited
Canada en-route to the U.S.A. for admission of daughter Amudha Porkodi in
Suny College of Technology at the Utica, New York State, U.S.A. Mr. Justice
P.D. Dinakaran and his family stayed with Anandhi Murthy and Karuna
Murthy in Canada between 11th to 15th August 2004. Later, it is learnt that
the said Anandhi Murthy and Karuna Murthy actually joined the
Dinakarans at Utica, U.S.A. at the time of Amudha Porkodi’s admission to
College.
Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran thus had a close connection with one of
the parties to the case and despite that continued to hear the case, violating
the accepted code of judicial conduct as enunciated in the Bangalore
Principles. Value 2 of the said Principles under the Chapter “Impartiality”
reads as follows:
2.1. A judge shall perform his or her judicial duties without
favour, bias or prejudice…………………………….
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 8 ::
2.5. A judge shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in
any proceedings in which the judge is unable to decide the
matter impartially or in which it may appear to a
reasonable observer that the judge is unable to decide the
matter impartially. The aforesaid principles are not laid down merely for the benefit of the
parties to the case, who will have a remedy on review or appeal. However,
the code of judicial conduct is meant to preserve the image of the judiciary
as an impartial mechanism and it is this image Justice P.D.Dinakaran
lowered by his conduct. It is this conduct, which calls for scrutiny and
condemnation. The information so far provided by us coupled with the Report
submitted by the District Collector, Thiruvallur District, as widely reported
in the newspapers, show that Justice P.D. Dinakaran is guilty of not only
judicial misconduct but also of various offences under the Criminal Laws of
the country, including Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Mr. Justice P.D.
Dinakaran’s continuation in the judicial system jeopardizes the integrity of
the entire judicial system and in order to prevent any further damage, the
precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice V.
Ramaswami ought to be followed and Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran should not
be permitted to function now.
We are convinced that the information forwarded by us regarding
Justice P.D.Dinakaran’s actions while holding office as a Judge of a high
Court are sufficiently supported by documents furnished so far. The acts of
appropriating public property, amassing assets disproportionate to known
sources of income & the questionable judicial orders showing bias and
malafides are of such gravity that they cannot brook any further delay in
setting the regular course of criminal investigation in motion and immediate
attachment of his assets.
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 9 ::
When any Officer high or low in the executive commits any offence, it
is the administrative head or the police who initiate action for setting the
process of criminal investigation and prosecution in motion. The Supreme
Court of India, in order to protect the independence of judiciary has held in
K. Veeraswami –vs- Union of India {1991(3) SCC p.655} that it is the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of India, who has to ultimately sanction registration of an FIR
and investigation against a judge in the higher judiciary.
In keeping with the high principle of judicial independence, the
Supreme Court of India, as the highest judicial forum may call for a criminal
investigation and consequent action against Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran.
We, therefore, request that –
a) based on the information provided by us in our representations
dated 9.9.2009, 17.9.2009, 1.10.2009 and 22.10.2009 along with
any other information received by the Supreme Court Collegium,
the Central Bureau of Investigation may be directed to register a
First Information Report under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1947 and other relevant Laws against Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran,
Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India may grant the necessary permission for the same;
b) based on the result of the investigation, the Central Bureau of
Investigation may be directed to obtain necessary sanction from
the President of India in consultation with the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India to prosecute Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran;
c) advise Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran to go on leave and not to
discharge functions as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court;
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate
:: 10 ::
d) initiate immediate action for removal of Mr. Justice P.D.
Dinakaran from the office of Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court
and
e) direct immediate attachment of the assets of Mr. Justice
P.D.Dinakaran and ensure that no tampering of evidence takes
place, pending investigation and appropriate action.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
R.VAIGAI
SRIRAM PANCHU Senior Advocate
ANNA MATHEW
SUDHA RAMALINGAM
S.S.VASUDEVAN
S.DEVIKA
T.MOHAN
GEETA RAMASESHAN
N.L.RAJAH
D.NAGASAILA
FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate