Dismissed

Abdulla v. the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Oct 2021WP(MD)/10418/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Article 226, the petitioner filed unsubstantiated allegations of corruption against various officials based on price comparisons with Amazon. The Court, relying on an affidavit stating allegations were vague and non-verifiable, dismissed the petition and cautioned the petitioner to exercise restraint by providing fullest particulars and material support in future. No costs w

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without any order; no costs imposed on the petitioner, but the petitioner is cautioned to provide material in future.

Abdulla Vs the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.10.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021

Abdulla

... Petitioner

1.The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Office, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 4.V.Dakshinamoorthy, I.A.S. 5.Shanmugam 6.Thamarai 7.Nazar 8.Nedunchelian 9.D.Veerapandian 10.Sankar 11.Ayyappan 12.Amuthan 13.Sundarampillai 14.Periyasamy 15.Annamalai 16.Kanagadhara 17.Sankaralingam 18.S.Dhamodharan 19.Agri S.M.Krishnamoorthy 20.Mr.Murugesan (Respondent Nos.4 to 20 are impleaded vide order dated 26.10.2021 made in in W.M.P.(MD)No.9187 of 2021) ... Respondents

¶7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶8

1/4

¶9

W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021

¶10

PRAYER: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 10.05.2021 within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony For Respondents : Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate General, Assisted by Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.Ganapathi Subramanian for R8,R12&R13 Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu for R4 Mr.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Ajmal Associates for R7 Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran for R18&R19 Mr.S.Vijaya Ganesh for R11 & R16 Mr.C.Masilamani...Mani for R17 Mr.G.Thalimutharasu for R20

¶12

ORDER

¶13

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶14

The petitioner is a regular visitor in this Court and in the present petition vague and unsubstantiated allegations, based on surmises and conjectures, had been levelled against several Government officials without any specific material against any one person.

¶15

2.An affidavit has been affirmed by the third respondent Director of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department of the State. In such affidavit it is stated, inter alia , that “the factual verifications disclosed that all the allegations are vague, exaggerated and bald in nature absolutely non-verifiable and without any proof to substantiate the allegations”. The affidavit also refers to 101 irrelevant documents, including copies of previous petitions, that had been relied upon to suggest that the respondents are engaged in mass-scale wrongdoing and misappropriation of funds.

¶16

3.The petitioner has a chequered career in filing petitions in public interest. While the petitioner claims that pursuant to some previous petitions FIRs came to be lodged against the concerned government officials, there is at least one order passed on a previous petition where the Court was constrained to impose costs on the petitioner for the reckless invocation of the jurisdiction. In the present case, advocate for the petitioner was required by this Court to indicate the best material in support of his allegations of

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

2/4

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021

¶20

corruption. To this, counsel for the petitioner refers to the purchase of some material at a cost of about Rs.4,400/- per unit by some of the respondents herein whereas, according to the petitioner, such commodity was available on Amazon at nearly half the price.

¶21

4.To begin with, the price at which any product is available on the online site of Amazon may not be a proper yardstick to assess whether in the acquisition of a similar product by a government body there has been any wrongdoing. It is nobody's case that the government officials are permitted to obtain products from Amazon, where the quality, quantity and the availability may not be ascertained before hand. Though there is also an online portal for government entities to buy therefrom, which is supported by the Union Government, not all State Governments subscribe to such online purchase methods.

¶22

5.Since the allegations in the present petition appear to be vague and unsubstantiated and responsible officers have gone through the allegations and have filed a report saying that the allegations are vague and unsubstantiated with little or no material in support, the present petition cannot be carried forward.

¶23

6.W.P(MD)No.10418 of 2021 is disposed of without any order. The petitioner is cautioned to be careful when the petitioner invokes this jurisdiction in public interest in future. The petitioner ought to exercise extreme restraint and when allegations of corruption or wrongdoing are levelled, the fullest particulars with material in support ought to be indicated for the Court to take any cognizance thereof. For the present case, no costs are imposed on the petitioner.

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

ps/vsm

¶27

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned .

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

3/4

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021

¶31

¶32

1.The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat Office, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

3.The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, No.293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, Advocate (SR-32760[F] dated 27/10/2021) +1 CC to M/s.K.PRABHU, Advocate (SR-32808[F] dated 27/10/2021) +1 CC to M/s.T.THIRUMURUGAN, Advocate (SR-32802[F] dated 27/10/2021) +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-32830[F] dated 27/10/2021 )

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.10418 of 2021 26.10.2021

¶36

PS(CO) RS/PM (09.11.2021) 4P 8C

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

4/4

Abdulla v. the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla v. the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Chandrasekaran Vs the District Registrar

Chellam Vs The District Collector

The Tahsilar Vs Somasundaram Chettiar Higher Secondary School

Sri Baalai Silks Vs the Authorized Officer

M/S. Ess Ess Tool Room Services Vs the Managing Director and

P.M.Neelamegam, Vs the Chief Manager