Charge of human sacrifice in illegal mining area serious: Madras HCChennai: Observing that the allegation of human sacrifice in the report on illegal mining submitted to the Madras High Court was a serious one, the court on Monday adjourned the mining issue to February 15.The
Chennai: Observing that the allegation of human sacrifice in the report on illegal mining submitted to the Madras High Court was a serious one, the court on Monday adjourned the mining issue to February 15.
The First Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, made the observation when the report by the then District Collector U Sagayam, appointed as Special Commissioner to go into the illegal mining, came up before it today.
Counsel for Sagayam submitted that as per the officer's report, actual loss to the public exchequer was more than Rs 1,11,000 crore. Human sacrifices were also found, he submitted.
AS officer U Sagayam, appointed by the Madras High Court as the Legal Commissioner to probe "illegal" granite quarrying in this district, has ordered digging of some sites where some persons were allegedly killed as human sacrifice and buried by quarry owners four years ago.
On September 12 last year, Sagayam had ordered digging of the sites at E.Malampatti on the banks of Manimutharu on a complaint that mentally challenged persons had been given as "human sacrifice" in one of the granite quarries.
The complaint was given by one of the drivers of heavy machineries working with a granite export company but no action had been taken.
The mining issue relates to a PIL filed by 'Traffic' Ramaswamy seeking an inquiry into illegal mining which caused Rs one lack crore loss to the state exchequer.
The First Bench headed by Chief Justice S K Kaul had appointed Sagayam as Special Commissioner. He had submitted an interim report with all details of illegal mining.
Counsel for Sagayam submitted today that "this Court has already passed an order whether this issue could be referred to the Central Vigilance Commission or not will be examined once the court has the benefit of the report of the Commission."
In the light of this order, the court has to examine the issue further, he said.
After hearing the arguments, the court adjourned the matter to February 15.