'Govt. cannot claim property ownership'

By A. Subramani

CHENNAI, OCT. 5. A crucial phase in the former Chief Minister, Ms. Jayalalithaa's appeals against her conviction in the `TANSI land deal cases' ended today, with her senior counsel, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, winding up his arguments. Ms. Sasikalaa's counsel, Mr. Bobde, also completed his brief submissions today.

Mr. Venugopal submitted that the Government could stake no claim whatsoever over the ownership of TANSI properties, as the public corporation was a legally independent entity having powers to sell, dispose of, hire or to let or lease its properties to anybody on its own accord.

According to him, the grantee-entity would have absolute ownership over the property vested with it under the Government Grants Act. While disposing of such properties the public sector unit must obtain prior Government permission, he said, adding that in the case of assets acquired by the Corporation on its own, the question of approval would not arise.

At this juncture, Mr. Justice N. Dinakar asked as to how could one exercise control over a property without being its owner. Mr. Venugopal said the control was administrative in nature. ``From time to time, the Government controls the TANSI through various provisions such as appointing Board members and the managing director.''

Still unsatisfied, Mr. Justice Dinakar asked, ``who is the owner of TANSI and who are its share-holders?'' Mr. Venugopal replied that it was a company wholly owned by the Government and could be said to be a ``private limited company in the public sector.''

He faulted the Special Judge and the prosecution for having left out two important officials who were responsible for the approval of the TANSI transaction and rejection of a similar one proposed by the RR Industries.

Had the then Joint Secretary of Finance, Mr. Kuthalingam, and the then Chief PWD Engineer (buildings), Mr. Madakannu, been examined, the rationale behind the rejection of the RR Industries' proposal would have come to light, he argued. (Its bid for another TANSI plot was rejected and re-tender ordered because the price quoted was `too low'). ``They were neither arraigned as accused nor examined as witnesses.''

During his arguments, Mr. Bobde submitted that just because Ms. Sasikalaa happened to be a partner in the Jaya Publications and lived in the same house with Ms. Jayalalithaa, one cannot describe her as a conspirator. ``Assuming, for a moment, the first-accused (Ms. Jayalalithaa) had committed some offence, can anyone say all partners in the business venture were conspirators?''

Also, there was no substantial evidence to show that Ms. Sasikalaa played a role in the so-called conspiracy, he maintained, adding that it was officials and others in power who met, decided to approve the land sale and passed the relevant G.O.

Counsel for other four accused in the case are scheduled to make their submissions on Monday, followed by Mr. Bobde's arguments for Ms. Jayalalithaa in the `Sasi Enterprises case'.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : CB-CID clueless in TANSI case
Next     : Rain throws traffic out of gear in city