P.Ganesan vs. The Director

Facts

The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department (DVAC) to consider his complaint dated 25.02.2026. The complaint alleged irregularities in awarding a tender for the construction of a Chief Minister mini stadium to M/s. Sri Amman Logistics. The petitioner contended that the fourth respondent was awarded the contract based on fabricated documents, including invoices from 2020 using a GST identification number obtained only in 2022, violating a condition requiring five years of experience. The DVAC filed a status report indicating that the receipts submitted by the fourth respondent were fake and that officials failed to scrutinize the documents properly. The DVAC sought prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, to initiate a preliminary enquiry against five suspected officials.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's complaint regarding fabricated documents and irregularities in the tender award process has been addressed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department (DVAC). The DVAC has sought prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, to proceed against the officials involved and to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The Court observed that the request for prior approval was made on 26.03.2026, but as of the date of the judgment (08.06.2026), approval had not been granted. The Court highlighted that Section 17-A stipulates a timeline of three months for granting prior approval, and delays in processing such applications could enable accused individuals to destroy evidence. The Court expressed hope that the request for prior approval would be processed within the statutory period. The Court also acknowledged the previous dismissal of a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner against the fourth respondent. Given that the DVAC has initiated action and the matter is pending approval, the Court closed the writ petition with a hope for timely processing of the approval.

Key Issues

1. Whether the DVAC has taken appropriate steps to investigate the allegations of fabrication of documents and irregularities in the tender award process, as required by Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the DVAC has initiated a preliminary enquiry and sought prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, indicating that the allegations of fabricated documents and irregularities are being investigated. The petitioner relies on the DVAC's status report which confirms the fake nature of the submitted receipts and the failure of officials to scrutinize them. Respondents' arguments (DVAC): The DVAC's status report details the steps taken, including identifying fake receipts and proposing a preliminary enquiry against specific officials. They have addressed the complaint by seeking prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The DVAC's counsel has presented this status report to the court. Respondents' arguments (Fourth Respondent): The fourth respondent argues that the petitioner has raised the same allegations in a previous writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.2061 of 2026), which was dismissed by this Court on 17.02.2026 due to delay and based on Supreme Court judgments concerning tender processes. They contend that the petitioner is harassing them by filing this subsequent writ petition.