Disposed

C.Manickam v. the Director

Madras HC22 Oct 2024WP/31534/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to the vigilance and police respondents to initiate action against the 3rd respondent under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court directed the respondents to conclude the preliminary enquiry within six months and take appropriate legal action.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to conclude enquiry within six months and take appropriate action.

C.Manickam Vs the Director — Corruption | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 22.10.2024

¶4

CORAM : MR.J USTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

¶6

C.Manickam ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Director Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption No.293, M.K.N. Road Alandur, Chennai 600 016

¶9

2.The Superintendent of Police Chennai City Range DVAC, Chennai - 16

¶10

3.P.Kaliraj ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 25.07.2024 and conduct an enquiry, initiate an appropriate action against the 3rd respondent as per law.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) - R1

¶13

1/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has preferred a complaint to the respondents to initiate action against the 3rd respondent on certain allegations that falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶18

2.Dr.C.E.Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, and he makes a statement on instruction that a preliminary enquiry has been initiated by the 2nd respondent and added that necessary action will be taken once the preliminary enquiry is concluded.

¶19

3.This Court now directs the 2nd respondent to conclude the enquiry as per the procedure established and take such appropriate action as may be necessary within the contours of law. This exercise may be completed preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date on which the copy of this order is posted in the official website.

¶20

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

¶22

4.With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of . No costs.

¶23

22.10.2024

¶24

kas Index: Yes /No Neutral Citation

¶25

To 1.The Director Directorate of Vigilance & Anti Corruption No.293, M.K.N. Road Alandur, Chennai 600 016

¶26

2.The Superintendent of Police Chennai City Range DVAC, Chennai - 16 3.The Public Prosecutor C.B.I. Cases High Court of Madras

¶27

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

kas

W.P.No.31534 of 2024

22.10.2024

4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Manickam v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Manickam v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ezhil Rani Vs the State Rep.by

G. Deva Anand @ Devakumar, Vs State by the Deputy

Mr.R.Tamilselvan Vs Mr.E.Thanigachalam

Agalya, Aged 44 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

R.Thirumalaisamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

S.R.Ravichandran Vs State by