The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has accused the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) of attempting to create hurdles in an ongoing investigation into potential money laundering activities involving its officials and certain private entities.
In a detailed counter affidavit filed before a Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar on Tuesday, 1 April 2025, the ED questioned the maintainability of two writ petitions filed by TASMAC, which sought to declare the agency’s recent search and seizure operation at its headquarters illegal. The petitions also aimed to restrain the ED from allegedly harassing its employees under the guise of investigation. However, the ED countered that no individual employee had reported harassment or human rights violations.
The court granted TASMAC time until 8 April 2025 to file a rejoinder to the counter affidavit, which was signed by ED Assistant Director Vikas Kumar. The ED emphasized that TASMAC, as a state-owned corporation handling substantial public funds, must be subject to scrutiny in the larger public interest. The agency stated that its investigation was based on multiple FIRs registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against TASMAC officials and employees over corruption and malpractice allegations.
The FIRs detailed instances of unaccounted cash found at liquor retail vending shops and district offices, sale of liquor at inflated prices, bribery in staff transfers and appointments, and dubious dealings between TASMAC officials and liquor manufacturers. As these offenses fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is listed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2022, the ED justified its search and seizure operation at TASMAC’s headquarters in Egmore, Chennai, conducted from 6 March to 8 March 2025.
The ED asserted that the search was conducted lawfully and peacefully, in the presence of two independent witnesses from the State Bank of India. It stated that no coercion, threats, or inducements were used against TASMAC staff. Addressing concerns over the search duration, the ED argued that a three-day operation could not be deemed illegal solely based on its length. The agency further noted that all female employees were allowed to leave before nightfall, but General Manager (Administration) Sangeetha had chosen to stay voluntarily.
The counter affidavit also highlighted that key TASMAC officials, including Managing Director S. Visakan, Deputy General Manager (Purchase and Sale) M. Jothi Shankar, and Ms. Sangeetha, had written to the ED on March 17 and 18, seeking time to submit additional documents. The ED pointed out that these letters contained no allegations of irregularities in the search proceedings, contradicting TASMAC’s writ petitions, which claimed breaches of fundamental rights.
Dismissing the petitions as an afterthought and an abuse of legal process, the ED reiterated that the search and seizure were conducted in accordance with the law. It stated that no employee was subjected to excessive interrogation, with no individual statement recorded for more than two and a half hours.
Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu government and TASMAC have jointly filed a third writ petition and sought an amendment to their plea. The ED’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General A.R.L. Sundaresan informed the court that the agency would file a counter affidavit addressing the amendment petition by 8 April 2025.
(With inputs from The Hindu)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.