IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
R.S. BHARATHI — Appellant
Vs.
DIRECTOR VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION — Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 20711 of 2018
Decided on : 12-10-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B – Section 409 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) – Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - section 154 (3) and 156 (3) - Section 154 – Constitution Of India - Article 142 – Article 20 - Article 21 - Article 226 - Articles 32 - Lane Road Project – Public Servant - Petitioner is a Member of Parliament and Organising Secretary of DMK Party seeking directions to first respondent to register case and investigate complaint - State Highways Department, is implementing four lane road and that project is implemented under Design, Build, Finance, Operate, Maintain and Transfer method and that total stretch of project is 70.20 Kms and that original estimated project cost was Rs. 713.34 Crores - Whereas subsequently, cost of project has been has been increased to Rs. 1515 Crores - It is averred that project was implemented with financial assistance of World Bank and annuity payment for contractor is fixed at Rs. 75 Crores for every six months for 8 years and this amount is apart from cash grant of Rs. 315 Crores - Further averment is that actual cost for laying one kilometer of road, according to market norms comes around Rs. 2.2 Crores per kilometer, including contractors profit and that if this rate is taken into calculation cost of the project would not exceed Rs. 200 Crores, including cost increase/inflation, whereas, a sum of Rs. 1515 Crores is sanctioned towards this project - Held, Interest of polity is to see that its public servants are above board - Probing into probity of persons in high power is not an anathema - Allegations or an accusations against persons in power can be purged only through an independent investigation process which is fair, just, reasonable and transparent which a public servant should find as a stage to vindicate his stand - When allegations of such serious nature has been made an honest endeavor should have been taken by persons in power to voluntarily transfer case to an independent agency to clear cloud, so that, it would instill confidence in minds of citizens - At risk of repetition, it is not province of this Court at this stage to embark upon and sift evidence to come to conclusion whether or not and offence has been made out - Whereas there is a duty to oversee whether investigation is done in a fair reasonable manner - However, without expressing any opinion regarding claim of petitioner, this Court is of firm opinion that Enquiry/Investigation had not been done in a fair manner and is nothing but a perfunctory exercise thereby, case has to be necessarily transfered to any other independent agency not under control of persons in power - Court directs respondent to handover entire case papers and files relating to complaint filed by petitioner to Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation within a week and Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation shall depute an officer under him in rank of a Superintendent of Police who shall independently conduct a Preliminary Enquiry afresh examining petitioner/informant, officials of World Bank and other persons connected with projects mentioned in complaint and conclude Preliminary Enquiry preferably within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order - If Preliminary Enquiry discloses offences of cognisable nature, he shall register a case and proceed in accordance with law – Appeal Allowed.
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
The petitioner is a Member of Parliament and the Organising Secretary of the DMK Party seeking directions to the first respondent to register the case and investigate the complaint dated 13.06.2018.
2. The averments in the petition is that Thiru.Edappadi K.Palanisamy is presently the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and that he holds the portfolios of Public, Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Forest Service, General Administration, District Revenue Officers, Police and Home, Public Works, Irrigation including Minor Irrigation, Programme Works and Highways and Minor Ports. The further averment is that the State Highways Department, is implementing four lane road in Oddanchatram-Dharapuram-Avinashipalayam of State Highway-37 from 37-400 to 108-400 and that the project is implemented under Design, Build, Finance, Operate, Maintain and Transfer (DBFOMT) method and that the total stretch of the project is 70.20 Kms and that the original estimated project cost was Rs. 713.34 Crores. Whereas subsequently, the cost of the project has been has been increased to Rs. 1515 Crores (including cash grant of Rs. 315 Crores). It is averred that the project was implemented with the financial assistance of World Bank and the annuity payment for the contractor is fixed at Rs. 75 Crores for every six months for 8 years and this amount is apart from the cash grant of Rs. 315 Crores. The further averment is that the actual cost for laying one kilometer of road, according to market norms comes around Rs. 2.2 Crores per kilometer, including the contractor's profit and that if this rate is taken into calculation the cost of the project would not exceed Rs. 200 Crores, including cost increase/inflation, whereas, a sum of Rs. 1515 Crores is sanctioned towards this project. The further allegation is that this project had been allotted to M/s. Ramalingam and Company, Erode and that one Mr.Chandrakanth Ramalingam, son of Mr.Ramalingam is one of the directors in this firm apart from his father and sisters. Further averment is that, one Mr.Mithun Kumar S/o the Hon'ble Chief Minister is married to one Divya and that she has a sister by name Saranya who is the wife of Mr.Chandrakanth Ramalingam, which is in other words that Mr.Edappadi K.Palanisamy, being the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Minister for Highways had awarded a contract worth Rs. 1515 Crores to a firm owned by his son Mithun's brother in law. The next averment is in respect of the second project of four laning of Tirunelveli-Sengottai-Kollam-SH 39 from 5.000 km to 50.600 km which is a World Bank assisted project and the total stretch of the project is 45.64 km. The original estimated cost of the project was 407.6 Crores, in addition to cash grant of Rs. 179.94 Crores. The further allegation is that the project cost was subsequently revised and order was issued to implement this project at Rs. 720 Crores. The annuity payment for the contractor is fixed at Rs. 45 Crores for every six months for 8 years and this apart a cash grant of Rs. 180 Crores was granted. It is further averred that the actual cost for laying one kilometre of road, according to market norms comes around Rs. 2.2 Crores per kilometre, which includes contractor's profit. This rate would make the project implementable at an expense of not more than Rs. 130 Crores, including contractor's profit, whereas, the project is implemented at the rate of Rs. 900 Crores (including 8 years bi-annual payment of Rs. 45 Crores and cash grant of Rs. 180 Crores) and this contract had been awarded to a firm named M/s.Venkatachalapathy Constructions and notably this firm was the single bidder for this project and that this firm is owned by one P.Subramaniam and that the son of Thiru.Edappadi K.Palanisamy named Mr.Mithun Kumar had married the daughter of the said P.Subramaniam. Further, apart fr
Aleque Padamsee Vs. Union of India
Common Causes Vs. Union of India
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki V. State of Gujarat and Others
Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana
E.Sivakumar Vs. Union of India and Others
J.Anbazhagan, MLA Vs. The Union of India & others
K.VRajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID
K.Veerasami Vs. Union of India
Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Manohar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Mithilesh Kumar Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan
Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India
Nilabati Behera V. State of Orrisa
Orissa Olympic Association Vs. State of Orissa
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Vs. State of Gujarat
R.Sai Bharathi Vs. J.Jayalalitha and Others
Ramesh Kumari Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh
State of Punjab Vs.Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others
Shahid Balwa Vs. Union of India and Others
Sunil Gangadhar Karve Vs. State of Maharashtra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.