Sand mining scam in Tamil Nadu: ED’s 2024 communication to DGP challenged before Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (October 7, 2026) ordered notices to Tamil Nadu government and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) on a writ petition filed by the partner of a private construction company challenging the Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) 2024 communication regarding an alleged ₹4,730-crore sand mining scam during the erstwhile DMK regime.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, however, refused to grant an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the ED’s 2024 communication to the then Director General of Police/Head of Police Force or prevent the DVAC, which had now begun a detailed inquiry on the basis of the communication, from taking coercive action against the petitioner.

A. Rajkumar, partner of R.S. Constructions based at Nanganallur in Chennai, had filed the petition urging the court to quash the ED’s communication sent to the DGP/HoPF on June 13, 2024 and consequently forbear the DVAC from registering either a First Information Report (FIR) or taking any coercive action against the petitioner on the basis of the two-year-old communication.

Senior counsel AL. Somayaji, representing the petitioner, told the Division Bench that the ED had initiated proceedings against a host of individuals before 2024 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 solely on the basis of some unconnected FIRs registered by the State police regarding sand mining and in the absence of any substantial predicate offence for suspecting money laundering.

The High Court had quashed all the proceedings initiated by the ED and also set aside provisional attachment of several properties by the central agency. The Supreme Court too had refused to entertain an appeal filed by the ED challenging the High Court’s order. Those court orders were passed after taking into consideration the 2024 communication of the ED to the then DGP/HoPF, the senior counsel said.

However, now, it appeared the DVAC was planning to act on the basis of the 2024 communication and hence the petitioner had approached the court with a plea to quash that communication. State Public Prosecutor (SPP) R. John Sathyan told the court the DVAC manual provides for two types of inquiries — a preliminary inquiry and a detailed inquiry — into the complaints received by it.

ED had shared the information, available with it regarding the alleged sand mining scam, with the DGP/HoPF in compliance of the statutory obligation imposed upon it under Section 66(2) of the PMLA which mandates the central agency to share such information with the other law enforcing agencies. Hence, the DVAC had now begun a detailed inquiry on the basis of the ED’s dossier, the SPP said.

Justice Murugan wondered how could the petitioner urge the court to quash a communication sent by a central agency in compliance of its statutory obligation. The Bench, nevertheless, decided to order notice to the State government, DVAC and ED on the petition but refused to pass any kind of interim order in favour of the petitioner.