A two-page note, signed by a Joint Secretary in the Law Ministry, states that FERA board chairman, Sarvesh Chandra, will complete his five-year term on May 12 and that he should be ``re-appointed'' for an unstated period. The note, which also says that this has Minister M Thambi Durai's approval, will now go to the Cabinet Committee on Appointments.

Curiously, this note mentions that former Law Minister Ramakant Khalap had commented adversely on its performance. It states that while the board was to decide "at least" 75 appeals in a month, it had disposed of as few as five in some months.

Officials in the Law Ministry admit, in private, that the attempt to re-appoint Chandra has political ramifications. For, on March 25,Dhinakaran, who is also the elder brother of Jayalalitha's foster son V N Sudhakaran, had filed an appeal against the Enforcement Directorate's penalty of Rs 31 crore, slapped on February 6, 1998.

The ED is probing transactions worth Rs 35 crore allegedly involving Dhinakaran. So far, it's been able to pin him down with "documentary proof" on transactions worth Rs 19 crore (the interest and penalty on this is Rs 31 crore).

Dhinakaran was the first among Jayalalitha's associates to be booked by ED on charges for which he was detained under COFEPOSA. In 1996, ED officials travelled to London and issued a Letter Rogatory to the British Government which gave the ED certified copies of Dhinakaran's accounts in Barclays Bank. And papers on Dipper Investment, a London-based company of which Dhinakaran was a director.

In his appeal to the FERA board, Dhinakaran claims he's unable to pay the "extraordinary" amount (Rs 31 crore) due to lack of funds. He has also asked for a waiver of the clause of pre-depositingthe entire penalty before the appeal can be entertained.

In the appeal, Dhinakaran has also said that the ED moved with "electronic speed" on his case and that there should be no presumption that the documents the Directorate has collected from foreign countries were genuine documents.

He has claimed that the funds for which he was being booked under FERA actually belonged to Naineesh Desai, a solicitor in England and that he had nothing to do with the 21 cheques he is alleged to have deposited in London.

His appeal also states that FERA isn't applicable in the countries where the payments are alleged to have been made.

"At no point of time the petitioner had control or disposing power over the funds as a owner... the honourable court should set aside the order passed by Special Director of Enforcement..," he has said.