Madras High Court Asks State To Respond To Plea By Retired IAS Officer For Restoring Police Protection

It may be noted that in 2014, the Madras High Court had appointed Sagayam as a commission to probe into the alleged mining irregularities across the State. Since Sagayam started getting threats following this, the court had ordered protection for him. As this protection was withdrawn in December 2023, Sagayam had approached the court seeking to restore the same.

Justice AD Jagadish Chandira directed the State to file its counter within two weeks and adjourned the case.

Background

In his plea, Sagayam submitted that while serving as the District Collector of Madurai in 2012, he noted large-scale instances of excessive mining and violations of license conditions. Noting serious irregularities and substantial loss to the state exchequer, Sagayam submitted a report to the Government of Tamil Nadu. However, no action was taken on the report and Sagayam was transferred to a different post.

Sagayam submitted that in 2014, a plea was filed in the Madras High Court calling for central and State action against illegal mining activities in Tamil Nadu. It was submitted that Sagayam had been appointed a Special Officer to inspect the mines across the State and submit a report. It was further submitted the total loss calculated was Rs. 1,11,000 crores.

Sagayam submitted that police protection was ordered for him in 2014, perceiving death threats. However, on December 2023, this protection was withdrawn. Sagayam argued that the Madras High Court had previously recognised the threat perceptions against him and withdrawing the same was against the observations of the court.

He further submitted that since the trial in connection with the illegal mining case was ongoing, he was called to appear before the Special Court to deal with offences for Contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act. He further submitted that because of apprehension of threat, he could not appear before the trial court to give evidence. He added that without adequate security, there was a likelihood that he would be subjected to threats.

He had thus sought directions to the State Government to consider his representation and restore the police protection.

Case Title: U Sagayam v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP (Crl) No 1296 of 2025