HC directs authorities to permit PRP Granite, PRP Exports to

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in interim orders, today said PRP Granites and PRP Exports could carry out business in other districts provided no cases were pending against the firms.
The orders were issued on a petition filed by P Senthilkumar, son of granite baron P Palanisamy and a partner in the firms, allegedly involved in the Rs 16,338-crore granite scam in Madurai, seeking to facilitate them to operate granite quarries situated outside Madurai district and export the same to foreign countries.
Justice T.Raja, who ordered issue of notice to authorities returnable in two weeks, in his order, said the firms could carry out business in other districts provided there were no cases pending against them.

The petitioner said the business had been suspended based on the report of then Madurai Collector U.Sagayam (now the Madras High Court-appointed officer to probe illegal granite quarries in Madurai) and his successor Anshul Mishra's follow- up action.
However, the firms' granite quarrying business in Madurai alone has been suspended and there was no disturbance to the firms' granite quarrying activities in other districts.
DSP, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurai, who is the investigation officer (IO) of the cases relating to alleged illegal granite quarrying activities, had sent letters to port authorities in Chennai and Tuticorin on August 12 and 21, 2012 requesting them to not permit exports of granites quarried by the granite firms of Madurai, they said.

The IO's letters stated that criminal cases had been registered against them and other firms. The IO has also sent letters to the RBI Regional Director (Tamil Nadu) to freeze the firms' accounts in six banks, petitioner said.
The petitioner claimed the report of the then Madurai Collector U Sagayam was an ex-parte report. Based on such a report, his successor Anshul Mishra took follow-up action, which resulted in police filing criminal cases against the petitioner' firms.
The IO's action is against the Indian Constitution's provisions, the petitioner said. Hence, a representation was sent to the IO on June 9 this year insisting on sending clarification to ports and banks concerned, they said.