The trial in the case took place on December 21. Besides Jayalalitha and Selvaganapathy, former IAS official H M Pandey, hotel executive director Rakesh Mittal and chairman Palai Shanmugam are the accused in the case.

The judge ordered issuance of notice, returnable on February 5.

In their petition, Jayalalitha and Selvaganapathy said that the hotel management had permission to construct two storeys, but constructed seven floors and later sought the State Government's assistance to relax the rules and regularise the same.

They said the State Government hadmoved a bill in the Assembly for amending Section 217 of the District Municipalities Act. The entire House voted for the amendment, whose purpose, it was later felt, was to help the management build seven floors though the rules prohibited it.

But, in the petition they said that the Legislature, in its collective wisdom, had regularised the construction, and hence, the motive for the amendment was irrelevant. It was significant and relevant that the Legislation was the product of Assembly proceedings, in which they had also taken part.

They said no evidence was collected to show that they had even known Mittal then and no allegation of corruption had been made against them.

Jayalalitha and Selvaganapathy recalled that in 1971, the Supreme Court had ordered the eviction of one Varadai, a tenant at Globe Theatre here, and wanted the property to be handed over to its owner.

They alleged that the then chief minister M Karunanidhi, to resolve the situation arising out of the Apex Court verdict, had got alegislation passed in the Assembly to amend Section 12 of the City Tenant Protection Act with retrospective effect, though this had been objected to by the IAS officers concerned.

The petitioners contended that they were bringing this to the notice of the court to demonstrate that the Government's views on several issues might differ from those of the court. Thus, an ulterior motive should not be inferred and that the prosecution launched by the present Government should not be entertained. This was not permissible by law, they argued.