P.Ganesan Vs The Director

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai, S.S.No.6089/8, Alangulam Housing Unit, Opp. to Collectorate, Pudukkottai District – 622 005.

¶12

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai, S.S.No.6089/8, Alangulam Housing Unit, Opp. to Collectorate, Pudukkottai District – 622 005.

¶13

1/15

¶14

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

¶15

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶16

Sri Amman Logistics, Rep. by its Managing Partner, S.V.Perumal, S/o.Vellaisamy, Having registered office at No.65, First Floor, Poonga Nagar, Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai District – 622 003.

¶17

(R4 is impleaded vide order dated 28.04.2026 in WMP.Crl.(MD)No. 543 of 2026)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.02.2026 and to take appropriate legal action against the erring officials and others.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj, for M/s.P.Muthukumar For R1 to R3 : Mr.A.Robinson, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side) For R4 : Mr.K.Jeyamohan

¶21

2/15

¶22

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

¶23

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents-Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department to consider his complaint dated 25.02.2026 and to take appropriate action.

¶26

The sum and substance of the complaint filed by the petitioner is that the officials of the District Rural Development Agency [in short 'DRDA'], Pudukkottai, have committed irregularities in awarding the tender for the construction of Chief Minister mini stadium at Thirumayam Assembly Constituency at Sengeerai Panchayat, Arimalam Panchayat Union in Pudukkottai District, to one M/s.Sri Amman Logistics without properly scrutinizing the documents.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said M/s.Sri Amman Logistics has been awarded the contract on the basis of false and fabricated documents and invoices. According to him, the petitioner raised his objections during the scrutiny of documents that the

¶28

3/15

¶29

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

¶30

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶31

documents placed by the fourth respondent are fabricated one. However, the officers involved, in order to favour M/s. Sri Amman Logistics, did not consider his objections and awarded the contract based on the fabricated documents. The learned counsel, to substantiate the complaint, submits that M/s.Sri Amman Logistics, the fourth respondent herein, has obtained GST identification number only in the year 2022. According to him, one of the conditions under the tender is that the tenderer must have a minimum of 5 years experience. Therefore, in order to comply with the above condition, they have created fabricated invoices as if they are having business transactions from the year 2020 onwards. However, the invoices produced by the fourth respondent discloses that the GST identification number of the year 2022 has been used in the invoices for the year 2020. This exposes the manner in which the fabricated documents were placed before the authorities. Even though the petitioner raised objections at the time of scrutiny, the same was not considered and contract was awarded to the fourth respondent based on the fabricated documents and invoices.

¶32

4/15

¶33

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

¶34

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶35

In response to this writ petition, a status report has been filed by

¶36

the respondents 1 and 2, wherein, it has been stated as follows:

¶37

(i) On verification, it was found that M/s.Sri Amman Logistics

¶38

Agency had uploaded receipts for the purchase of (i) Static Road Roller from M/s.Jay Khodiyar Metal Industries, (ii) Concrete Mixer Machine – 4 Nos., Trolley – 4 Nos., Needle Vibrator – 6 Nos. from M/s.Golden

¶39

Machinery Power tools, (iii) Vehicle Mounted Mechanical Sprayer – 2 Nos. from M/s.Kesar Road Equipment Agencies, (iv) Water Tanker – 3 Nos. from M/s.JDI Industries, (v) Concrete Mixer Machine – 3 Nos. from M/s.ARC Engineering Industries, (vi) Wall Form Sheet 1285 Nos. from M/s.Sri Indhu Scaffolding Agencies. The GST/TIN Numbers were not mentioned in the above said receipts. It is disclosed that the said receipts were fake and had been submitted by the said agencies.

¶40

(ii) As per G.O.Ms.No.106, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (PR-1), dated 22.06.2024, the Project Director, Executive Engineer, Accounts Officer, Assistant Project Officer and Assistant Executive Engineer shall scrutinize the Technical Bid uploaded in the bidding process and select the eligible applicant who participated in the bidding process for the Financial Bid. Thereafter, the bid shall be awarded to the

¶41

5/15

¶42

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

¶43

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶44

applicant who has submitted the lowest bid in the Financial Bid.

¶45

(iii) The officers failed to scrutinize the documents/receipts uploaded for the auction process for the construction of Chief Minister Mini Stadium at Thirumayam Assembly Constituency, Sengeerai, Sengeerai Panchayat, Arimalam Panchayat Union, Pudukkottai District and awarded the tender to M/s.Sri Amman Logistics Agency without examining the authenticity of the receipts submitted for the auction process.

¶46

(iv) In order to investigate Tr.Perumal, the proprietor of M/s.Amman Logistics Agency, for uploading fake receipts and documents on the website in order to secure the tender and to ascertain whether any irregularities have occurred in the ongoing construction of the Chief Minister's Mini Stadium and to find out if any pecuniary advantage has been obtained by the below mentioned suspected officers from the said agency, it is necessary to initiate a preliminary enquiry against the suspected officers: (i) Tr.Parthiban, Executive Engineer, (ii) Tr.Ramalingam, Accounts Officer, (iii) Tr.Sadayappan, Assistant Project Officer, (iv) Tmt. Suseela, Assistant Executive Engineer, (v) Tmt.Jayasudha, Project Director, D.R.D.A. Pudukkottai District.

¶47

6/15

¶48

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

¶49

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶50

(v) Accordingly, a letter has been addressed to the Vigilance Commission to seek prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, against the above mentioned suspected officers, vide reference in DVAC dated 26.03.2026 to register a preliminary enquiry on the allegations mentioned in the petition.

¶51

(vi) Subsequently, a letter has also been addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 09, by the Vigilance Commission to seek prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, against the above mentioned

¶52

suspected officers, vide reference in DVAC Petn.No. 3217/2026/RDP/PK, dated 26.03.2026 to register a preliminary enquiry on the allegations mentioned in the petition.

¶53

5.One of the proposed accused / the successful contractor has filed an application to implead themselves as a necessary party to this writ petition that certain factual aspects regarding this case have not been placed before this court. Since the complaint is made as against them, this court permitted the proposed accused, M/s.Sri Amman Logistics,

¶54

7/15

¶55

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

¶56

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶57

represented by its Managing Partner to be added as a party to this writ petition by its order dated 28.04.2026 and accordingly, they have been added as the fourth respondent to this petition.

¶58

The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submits that the petitioner has raised the very same allegations before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2061 of 2026, challenging the tender awarded to the fourth respondent and this Court, by its order dated 17.02.2026, dismissed the writ petition, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in dealing with the tender process and also on the delay of the petitioner in approaching the Court. By referring to the same, he submits that all the allegations made by the petitioner have already been negatived by this Court and even thereafter, the petitioner is harassing the fourth respondent by filing this writ petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

¶59

This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials placed on records.

¶60

8/15

¶61

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

¶62

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶63

The writ petitioner and the fourth respondent have participated in the tender called for by DRDA, Pudukottai for construction of a mini stadium at Sengeerai Panchayat, Pudukkottai District. The allegation of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent, in order to secure the bid, has created fake receipts and produced fake documents to satisfy the conditions of the tender. The claim of the petitioner is that he has raised objections before the authorities, however, they have ignored the same in order to favour the fourth respondent. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has conducted factual verification of the complaint and decided to initiate a preliminary enquiry against the suspected officers. They have also made a request seeking prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

¶64

9.The allegations levelled by the petitioner relate to the awarding of a contract and there is a private interest involved between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The courts are normally expected not to interfere in private disputes. However, in the present case, the allegation is regarding favoritism of authorities to the fourth respondent

¶65

in awarding contract for constructing a mini stadium in Arimalam,

¶66

9/15

¶67

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

¶68

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶69

Pudukkottai District. This mini stadium is constructed using public funds by the Rural Development authority. The tender awarding authority is a government servant working in the Rural Development Department and is expected to award the contract in accordance with the law and in a transparent manner. However, several malpractices and favoritism were experienced in the awarding of contracts by public authorities in the past. In order to eliminate such corrupt practices, the state has introduced a separate legislation viz., Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act 1998. This Act was introduced with an object of eliminating irregularities and corrupt practices in matters relating to tenders, ensuring transparency in

¶70

the tender process and encouraging healthy competition among the tenderers. However, the Act has not achieved the desired results. The officials in connivance with the contractors have invented new conditions, which are tailor made to favour a few, select contractors. One such condition is that the contractor must possess vehicles and machineries to execute the works. These vehicles and machineries can very well be hired and the work can be executed using the same. However, this condition has been introduced in order to favour certain contractors. An additional condition was introduced that an official of the

¶71

10/15

¶72

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

¶73

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶74

department has to verify the availability of the machinery and its working condition and certify that those machineries and vehicles are in good condition before the scrutiny stage. These certificates would be issued only to particular contractors and the bids placed by the other contractors would be rejected summarily on this ground alone.

¶75

10.The contractors who at the mercy of the officials are also not agitating regarding the same and whenever such irregularities have been bought before this court, this court has come down heavily against the same that such onerous conditions should be removed. In fact, I had an occasion to deal with cases involving the rejection of bids on such onerous conditions and condemned such conduct in K.Raja Mohamed vs. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P.(MD)Nos.22102 and 22116 of 2023 dated 22.09.2023] and PL.R & Co vs. Superintending Engineer (Highways) [W.P.(MD)No.21258 of 2023 dated 31.08.2023]. It was observed by this court that imposing such onerous conditions would lead to favoritism and also eliminate the competition. However, those observations were not considered by the officials and such onerous conditions continued to be imposed and one such condition has

¶76

11/15

¶77

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

¶78

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶79

boomeranged as against the officials in the present case.

¶80

11.During the course of hearing, it is reported before this court that

¶81

the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department and the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department have issued government orders to eliminate these onerous conditions in the tenders issued by them. However, the same have not been placed before this court. If the government has taken such an initiative, the same has to be hailed and appreciated.

¶82

12.Coming to the present case, the complaint of the petitioner has already been addressed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department that the contract was awarded on the basis of fake documents and therefore, they have sought for prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, to proceed against the officials involved in the commission of the crime and conduct a preliminary enquiry.

¶83

12/15

¶84

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

¶85

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶86

13.The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department claims that the request under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made to the concerned officials in DVAC Petn.No.3217/2026/RDP/PK, dated 26.03.2026. It appears that the official concerned has not granted prior approval as on date. Section 17-A stipulates a timeline of three months for granting prior approval. However, the officials are not granting prior approval within the timeline stipulated under Section 17-A. This is yet another area which has to be addressed by the government. The delay in processing applications under Section 17-A would enable the accused to destroy evidence and escape from the clutches of law. With a hope that the request for prior approval would be processed within the period provided under the statute, this writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶87

08.06.2026

¶88

ogy/dsk Index : Yes / No. Internet: Yes / No. NCC : Yes / No.

¶89

13/15

¶90

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

¶91

WP CRL.(MD). No.1509 of 2026

¶92

To

¶93

The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 09.

¶94

The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, DVAC Head Quarters, No.293, M.K.N.Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 001.

¶95

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai, S.S.No.6089/8, Alangulam Housing Unit, Opp. to Collectorate, Pudukkottai District – 622 005.

¶96

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai, S.S.No.6089/8, Alangulam Housing Unit, Opp. to Collectorate, Pudukkottai District – 622 005.

¶97