Various Representations Against Justice Dinakaran

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email forjudact@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________
9th September, 2009
To Honble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Honble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal Honble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia Honble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee Honble 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
_______________________________________________________________ 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
_____________________________________________________________
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 (ii) and his family members; and public and Government lands occupied by him, and Extracts from village A Register which provides the classification of land of the relevant survey numbers in the judges 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 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.Vinodinis name, his two daughters Amudha Porkodi & Amirthra Porkodi, one Cannan and another person, the latter two are reported to be his close relatives). of Justice P.D.Dinakaran Road, Kaverirajapuram (translation in English) and the fencing
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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 judges property are out of 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 judges farm where there are huge fruit orchards and other cultivations, the water source for the village bounds for the villagers. Enquiry reveals that the local police is used to prevent access
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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 judges 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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
7 updated, as per the 1997 Resolution regarding Declaration of Judges 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.
A.
Inappropriate judicial orders in certain cases

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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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 Justices 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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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. Dinakarans 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-GA5767) 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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 judges 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 justice. integrity and calibre to dispense
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
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) (ii) not to appoint Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran as judge of the Supreme Court of India; and 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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
sd/N.L. Rajah sd/D. Nagasaila sd/S. Devikarani sd/T. Mohan
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
17th September 2009
Honble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Honble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal Honble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia Honble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee Honble 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. Our earlier representation dated 9.9.2009. -----We are forwarding further materials that we have received regarding Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakarans assets and his rather unusual judicial orders. I. ASSETS & LAND GRABBING
Ref:
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.
_______________________________________________________________ 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 Dear Lands Pvt. Ltd., Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist. Some Directors: 1. Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran 2. Mr. J. Williams (reported to be Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakarans sisters husband) 2. 3. Mr. J. Williams (mentioned as above) Ms. Amudha Dinakaran, Daughter of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran
Amudham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
Amirtham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.
1. 2. 3.
Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran Mr. J. Williams (mentioned as above) Dr. Kingsley Chandrasekaran (Brother of Mr. P.D.Dinakaran) Alfred Justice
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)
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 3 ::
B. 1.
Urban Properties: Another property at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai was owned by Justice
P.D.Dinakaran. He settled the same in his wife Dr.Vinodhinis name in 20012002. 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 Department. reopen assessment falsely stating that a concession was made by the Counsel for Income Tax 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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. did not concede the matter. The Writ Appeals stand allowed now by order dt. 22.07.2009. We have verified this with our Standing Counsel and she says that she
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 Goels 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 2008 2009 Accordingly he applied for clearance. Correspondence for clearance still continued. Vinod Goel asserted that minerals mined by him during 196585 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 8 :: iii) Constituting a Full Bench to overrule a Div. Bench order when Supreme Court was considering validity of Div. Benchs 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 9 ::
--
Other writ appeals which were filed against Single Judges 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, Bench headed by himself.
however, referred the writ
appeals to a Full Bench. He thereafter constituted a Full
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 Benchs decision, even as the latters correctness was being considered by the Supreme Court.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
1st October, 2009
To Honble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Honble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal Honble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia Honble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee Honble 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.
_____________________________________________________________
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 (motherin-law) (ii) Withdrawal of co-applicants: The joint-applicants withdraw on the same date, Paripoornam (mother-in-law) as the sole applicants. 27.03.2003, thus
leaving Dr. Vinodhini (wife), James Kuppusamy (father-in-law) and M.G.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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) (b) Dr. Mrs. Vinodhini Dinakaran, wife - 360 sq.m. Plot No.HIG II/25 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-inlaw and mother-in-law effect a settlement of their plots on Justice P.D.Dinakarans 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 Boards condition No.1 for registration, not more than one plot per family can be allotted, whereas the father-in-law and motherin-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. Dinakarans 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 Dinakarans judicial order. The sale deeds were thereafter registered on 01.09.2005. This is gross abuse of office and subversion of justice.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 his lakhs share and was subsequently 10.12.2001. b) 2688 sq.ft. purchased by Dr.K.M.Vinodhini on 15.07.2002
settled in his wifes name on
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).
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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) (ii) 2007 2008 Rs.62 lakhs Rs.35 lakhs
b) Justice P.D. Dinakaran is reported to have taken loans as below: (i) (ii) (iii) Bank of Baroda - Rs.56 lakhs Government Housing Loan Rs.6 lakhs 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 faade: 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) ii) iii) iv) Dear Lands (India) Pvt. Ltd. Amudham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. Amirtham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and 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 (Brotherin-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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 9 :: Benami transactions: A cursory glance at the manner of acquisition of
properties by Justice Dinakarans 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. Dinakarans wife Dr.Vinodhini Dinakaran or their two daughters. The veil of ostensible documentations and
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
22nd October 2009 To Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, The Chief Justice of India Honble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Honble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee Honble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir Honble Mr. Justice R.V.Raveendran Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sirs, Sub: Ref: Details of more acquisitions and improper judicial conduct of Justice P.D.Dinakaran. 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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. Seller Buyer Sale Deed Sub Cost. Plot No. No. & Date Registrar and Office Area of plot HIG II/39 Tamil Nadu Dr.(Mrs.) 5044 Neelankarai 13,67,267/395.85 Housing Vinodhini dt.1.9.2005 sq.mts. Board Dinakaran HIG II/40 395.85 sq.mts. -do-do5045 dt.1.9.2005 -do13,67,267/-
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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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. 1. Bank Name Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore 560 001 -do-do-doDemand Draft No. 125536 Date 28.8.2009 Amount Rs. 9,00,000
2. 3. 4.
125537 125538 125539
28.8.2009 28.8.2009 28.8.2009 Total
9,00,000 9,00,000 6,75,100 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:
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Bank Name Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda 594352 594805 499387/88 18.6.2002 1.8.2002 22.3.2005 Total 6,84,335 1,51,000 4,11,167 13,67,267 D.D./Cheque No. 594247 803568 Date 28.5.2002 28.5.2002 Amount Rs. 30,765.00 90,000
(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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Bank Name Bank of Baroda, Indian Overseas Bank Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda 594352 594805 499387/88 18.6.2002 1.8.2002 22.3.2005 Total 6,84,335 1,51,000 4,11,167 13,67,267 D.D./Cheque No. 594248 803569 Date 28.5.2002 28.5.2002 Amount Rs. 30,765.00 90,000
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 5 :: The aforesaid details are obtained from the certified copies of the saledeeds 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 Land Extent : 360 sq.m.
Sale Deed No. 5046 of 1.9.2005
Purchased in the name of : Dr. (Mrs) Vinodhini Dinakaran S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Name of Bank State Bank of India State Bank of India Indian Overseas Bank Indian Overseas Bank Bank of Baroda D.D./Cheque No. 467422 467423 804104 805465 Date 28.05.2002 28.05.2002 18.06.2002 31.07.2002 31.03.2005 Total Amount 48615.00 48000.00 547485.00 161025.00 346155.00 1151280.00
(d) For Plot No :
HIG II/43 Land Extent : 336 sq.m.
Sale Deed No. 5048 of 1.9.2005
Purchased in the name of : James Kuppusamy S.No 1. 2. 3. 4. Name of Bank Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda D.D/Chq.No. 594250 594251 594351 498848 Date 28.05.2002 28.05.2002 18.06.2002 28.12.2004 Total Amount 48307.00 48308.00 547485.00 215724.00 859824.00
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 1. 2. 3. 4.
Name of Bank Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda Bank of Baroda
D.D/Chq.No. 594249 594252 594353 498847
Date 28.05.2002 28.05.2002 18.06.2002 28.12.2004 Total
Amount 48307.00 48308.00 547485.00 215724.00 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 Honble 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 Porkodis 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.
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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. 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. Dinakarans 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.Dinakarans 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. It is this conduct, which calls for scrutiny and
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 Honble 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;
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
:: 10 :: for
d)
initiate and
immediate
action
removal
of
Mr.
Justice
P.D.
Dinakaran from the office of Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court
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
_____________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

Various Representations Against Justice Dinakaran

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Various Representations Against Justice Dinakaran

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

_______________________________________________________________ Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

On the plot bearing Door No.28, East Park Road(junction of Pulla

Inappropriate judicial orders in certain cases

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

sd/Sriram Panchu Senior Advocate

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

_______________________________________________________________ Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

4. Mrs. D.A.P. Kamalakumari Kingsley (Sister -in-law of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran)

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Justice P.D.Dinakaran acquired a residential plot of 4800 sq. ft. at J-

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran, Bench headed by himself.

however, referred the writ

appeals to a Full Bench. He thereafter constituted a Full

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

leaving Dr. Vinodhini (wife), James Kuppusamy (father-in-law) and M.G.

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

The Government Guideline value of property in this area is Rs.150/-

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

settled in his wifes name on

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

125537 125538 125539

28.8.2009 28.8.2009 28.8.2009 Total

9,00,000 9,00,000 6,75,100 33,75,100

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

(c) For Plot No :

HIG II/25 Land Extent : 360 sq.m.

Sale Deed No. 5046 of 1.9.2005

(d) For Plot No :

HIG II/43 Land Extent : 336 sq.m.

Sale Deed No. 5048 of 1.9.2005

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY