Various Representations Against Justice Dinakaran

FORUM FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Room No.2, I Floor, 45 Armenian Street, Chennai-600 001. Ph : 044-25224597, Email – [email protected]

__________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Convenor: R. Vaigai, Advocate

9th September, 2009

To

Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India

Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal

Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.H. Kapadia

Hon’ble Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee

Hon’ble 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



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


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



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


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 and his family members; and public and

Government lands occupied by him, and

(ii) Extracts from village ‘A’ Register which provides the

classification of land of the relevant survey numbers in

the judge’s 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 Justice P.D.Dinakaran Road,

Kaverirajapuram” (translation in English) and the fencing

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.Vinodini’s name, his

two daughters – Amudha Porkodi & Amirthra Porkodi,

one Cannan and another person, the latter two are

reported to be his close relatives).



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


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 judge’s property are out of bounds for the villagers.

Enquiry reveals that the local police is used to prevent access 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 judge’s farm where there

are huge fruit orchards and other cultivations, the water source

for the village



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


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 judge’s 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 Judge’s

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. Inappropriate judicial orders in certain cases

A. 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 Justice’s 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. Dinakaran’s 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-GA-

5767) 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 judge’s 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 integrity and calibre to dispense

justice.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


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) not to appoint Mr. Justice P.D. Dinakaran as judge of the

Supreme Court of India; and

(ii) 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

Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal




Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sir,

Sub: Further particulars with supporting materials Regarding Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran, Chief Justice of Karnataka.

Ref: Our earlier representation dated 9.9.2009.

------

We are forwarding further materials that we have received regarding

Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran’s assets and his rather unusual judicial orders.

I. ASSETS & LAND GRABBING

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.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 2 ::

1. Annual Returns of all 4 companies state that all

shareholdings are held by the Directors and their relatives.

Company Some Directors:

Dear Lands Pvt. Ltd., Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.

1. Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran

2. Mr. J. Williams (reported to be Mr. Justice

P.D.Dinakaran’s sister’s husband)

Amudham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.

2. Mr. J. Williams (mentioned as above)

3. Ms. Amudha Dinakaran,

Daughter of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran

Amirtham Gardens (P) Ltd. Kaverirajapuram village, Tiruttani Taluk, Thiruvallur Dist.

1. Dr. K.M. Vinodhini, wife of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran

2. Mr. J. Williams (mentioned

as above) 3. Dr. Kingsley Alfred

Chandrasekaran (Brother of Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran)

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. Urban Properties:

1. Another property at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai was owned by Justice

P.D.Dinakaran. He settled the same in his wife Dr.Vinodhini’s name in 2001-

2002. 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 reopen assessment

falsely stating that a concession was made by the Counsel for Income Tax

Department. 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. We have

verified this with our Standing Counsel and she says that she

did not concede the matter.”

The Writ Appeals stand allowed now by order dt. 22.07.2009.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 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 Goel’s 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 Accordingly he applied for clearance.

2008 Correspondence for clearance still continued.

2009 Vinod Goel asserted that minerals mined by him during 1965-

85 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. Bench’s 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 Judge’s

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, however, referred the writ

appeals to a Full Bench. He thereafter constituted a Full

Bench headed by himself.

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 Bench’s decision, even as the

latter’s 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



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________




__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Convenor: R.Vaigai, Advocate

1st October, 2009

To Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.N. Agarwal




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.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 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 (mother-

in-law)

(ii) Withdrawal of co-applicants:

The joint-applicants withdraw on the same date, 27.03.2003, thus

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

Paripoornam (mother-in-law) as the sole applicants.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 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) Dr. Mrs. Vinodhini Dinakaran, wife - 360 sq.m. Plot No.HIG II/25

(b) 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-in-

law and mother-in-law effect a “ settlement” of their plots on Justice

P.D.Dinakaran’s 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 Board’s condition No.1 for registration, not more than one

plot per family can be allotted, whereas the father-in-law and mother-

in-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. Dinakaran’s 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

Dinakaran’s 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 lakhs and

subsequently his share was

settled in his wife’s name on

10.12.2001.

b) 2688 sq.ft. - purchased by Dr.K.M.Vinodhini

on 15.07.2002

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) 2007 - Rs.62 lakhs

(ii) 2008 - Rs.35 lakhs

b) Justice P.D. Dinakaran is reported to have taken loans as below:

(i) Bank of Baroda - Rs.56 lakhs

(ii) Government Housing Loan – Rs.6 lakhs

(iii) 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 façade: 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) Dear Lands (India) Pvt. Ltd.

ii) Amudham Gardens Pvt. Ltd.

iii) Amirtham Gardens Pvt. Ltd. and

iv) 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 (Brother-

in-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 Dinakaran’s 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. Dinakaran’s 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

Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, The Chief Justice of India

Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee


Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V.Raveendran

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. Sirs, Sub: Details of more acquisitions and improper judicial conduct of Justice P.D.Dinakaran. Ref: 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.

Plot No. and

Area of plot

Seller Buyer Sale Deed No. & Date

Sub Registrar

Office

Cost.

HIG II/39 395.85 sq.mts.

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Dr.(Mrs.) Vinodhini Dinakaran

5044 dt.1.9.2005

Neelankarai 13,67,267/-

HIG II/40 395.85 sq.mts.

-do- -do- 5045 dt.1.9.2005

-do- 13,67,267/-

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. Bank Name Demand Draft No.

Date Amount Rs.

1. Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore 560 001

125536 28.8.2009 9,00,000

2. -do- 125537 28.8.2009 9,00,000

3. -do- 125538 28.8.2009 9,00,000

4. -do- 125539 28.8.2009 6,75,100

Total 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. Bank Name D.D./Cheque No.

Date Amount Rs.

1. Bank of Baroda,

594247 28.5.2002 30,765.00

2. Indian Overseas

Bank

803568 28.5.2002 90,000

3. Bank of Baroda 594352 18.6.2002 6,84,335

4. Bank of Baroda 594805 1.8.2002 1,51,000

5. Bank of Baroda 499387/88 22.3.2005 4,11,167

Total 13,67,267

(b) For Plot No.HIGII/40

Sale Deed No. 5045 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 395.85 sq.m.


S.No. Bank Name D.D./Cheque No.

Date Amount Rs.

1. Bank of Baroda,

594248 28.5.2002 30,765.00

2. Indian Overseas

Bank

803569 28.5.2002 90,000

3. Bank of Baroda 594352 18.6.2002 6,84,335

4. Bank of Baroda 594805 1.8.2002 1,51,000

5. Bank of Baroda 499387/88 22.3.2005 4,11,167

Total 13,67,267



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 5 ::

The aforesaid details are obtained from the certified copies of the sale-

deeds 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

Sale Deed No. 5046 of 1.9.2005 Land Extent : 360 sq.m.


S.No Name of Bank D.D./Cheque

No.

Date Amount

1. State Bank of India 467422 28.05.2002 48615.00

2. State Bank of India 467423 28.05.2002 48000.00

3. Indian Overseas Bank

804104 18.06.2002 547485.00

4. Indian Overseas Bank

805465 31.07.2002 161025.00

5. Bank of Baroda 31.03.2005 346155.00

Total

1151280.00

(d) For Plot No : HIG II/43


Purchased in the name of : James Kuppusamy

S.No Name of Bank D.D/Chq.No. Date Amount

1. Bank of Baroda 594250 28.05.2002 48307.00

2. Bank of Baroda 594251 28.05.2002 48308.00

3. Bank of Baroda 594351 18.06.2002 547485.00

4. Bank of Baroda 498848 28.12.2004 215724.00

Total 859824.00



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 6 ::

(e) For Plot No: HIG II/44


Purchased in the name of : M.G. Paripoornam

S.No Name of Bank D.D/Chq.No. Date Amount

1. Bank of Baroda 594249 28.05.2002 48307.00

2. Bank of Baroda 594252 28.05.2002 48308.00

3. Bank of Baroda 594353 18.06.2002 547485.00

4. Bank of Baroda 498847 28.12.2004 215724.00

Total 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 Hon’ble 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 Porkodi’s 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. It is this conduct, which calls for scrutiny and

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.

Dinakaran’s 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.Dinakaran’s 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.



__________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________


:: 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 Hon’ble

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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 ::

d) initiate immediate action for removal of Mr. Justice P.D.

Dinakaran from the office of Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court

and

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

Documents

Transcript of Various Representations Against Justice Dinakaran