HC directs Director, Vigilance to register complaint

Madras High Court today directed the Director, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, to register and investigate a complaint, which alleged that the then District Environmental Engineer (DEE) of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board gave his consent by issuing No Objection Certificate to a factory to establish a Ready Mix Concrete Plant on a protected area in Puducherry "by obtaining illegal gratification".
Passing orders on a petition from one Ashok Anand, Justice Aruna Jagadessan said "in the instant case the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the then Inspector of police and has found irregularities and suppression of facts, thus substantiating the allegations made in the complaint.

"Therefore, in terms of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, this court is inclined to direct the Director of V&AC to take steps to register the complaint dated October 27, 2012 and investigate the matter in accordance with law bearing in the mind the principles laid down by the Apex court in Lalita Kumari's case".
Petitioner's counsel Abudukumar submitted that Ashok Anand was the Chairman of a residential cum-days-chool, affiliated to the CBSE, located near the Oussudu Lake.
The Puducherry government declared the lake as Birds Sanctuary and the surrounding area was to be protected from polluters and to safeguard the environment.

While so, the then DEE Arumugam in 2012 gave his consent by issuing NOC to one Balaji Ready Mix Concrete Factory for constructing the establishment nearby the lake, suppressing the facts and in violation of the environmental laws. Therefore, suspecting that Arumugam

received huge consideration, the petitioner gave a complaint to the V&AC but there was no progress, Abudukumar added.
The authorities filed a status report stating that an inspector of police of V&AC conducted an inquiry on the complaint and submitted his report, which was sent to the TNPCB, which after inquiry found that for the consent given no allegation can be made out against the officer.

On the direction of the court, the report of the Vigilance Inspector was filed and after perusing the report, the Judge noticed that the report stated that the entire inquiry revealed that the suspect officer in an unbecoming manner of the public servant colluded with the project proponent and suppressed several facts without conducting any file verification and granted NOC to the factory.
In spite of the irregularities and suppression of facts pointed out by the vigilance inspector, the TNPCB has stated that the inspection and issue of consent was in order and there was no substance in the allegation made against the officer, the judge pointed out.