.
New Delhi: Supreme Court Tuesday asked ED whether its probe into the money laundering aspect of alleged massive corruption in liquor sale by Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac) amounted to interference in the state’s affairs and federal structure of governance, leading the agency to assert that under the anti-money laundering law it is obligated to investigate cases anywhere once an FIR is registered.“What happens to the federal structure? Law & order are a state subject. Would ED investigations into FIRs lodged by state police not amount to encroaching upon police probe? Can ED go and investigate any crime relating to corruption in any state for inquiring into the money laundering aspect,” asked a bench of CJI B R Gavai & Justice K Vinod Chandran.HC rules out giving more time to vacate Signature View aptsNew Delhi: A last-ditch effort by a few residents of Signature View Apartments to extend the timeline to vacate the towers failed before Delhi High Court on Tuesday as it said, “We will not put our seal at your risk.”A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedella pointed out that even the Supreme Court had highlighted that the buildings were in a dilapidated state. “In view of the order of the Supreme Court dated Oct 10, we are not inclined to grant any time extension,” the bench observed, dismissing the fresh plea filed by nine residents who had invoked the “mercy” jurisdiction of the court to seek a grace period. “If we extend time for you, we have to extend for all. This is a well-reasoned order; you challenged it, nothing was done. You are, in fact, under contempt. We will not put our seal at your risk; what if something happens to you tomorrow?” the bench orally observed. However, it suggested that the petitioners, several of them advocates, approach senior advocate Sanjay Jain, representing Delhi Development Authority, and left it to the agency’s discretion.Jain maintained that there was no scope for relief since SC itself had made observations. “The apex court said how can we take any responsibility on us if an untoward incident happens. No one can take any risk, given the fact the buildings are dilapidated,” he submitted.The high court, however, reminded Jain that the residents were “in this state” because of his client. “Let’s not forget that. People buy these flats with their hard-earned money and what do they end up with? The same issue is with other agencies, such as NBCC, pending before us,” it pointed out. In March, DDA issued a tender to demolish and reconstruct Signature View Apartments after Delhi High Court first cleared its proposal. Last week, the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging HC’s order that there would be no stay on demolition.
