P.Ganesan vs The Secretary
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD010366682026}
and
CMP(MD)No.12307 of 2026
P.Ganesan
Government Registered Contractor (Class II),
S/o Ponnusamy,
9/109, Seemanoor,
Thirumayam Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
4. The Project Director,
D.R.D.A. (District Rural Development Agency),
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
5. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Pudukottai-1 Assessment Circle,
No-5893, Kaatupudukkulam, Opp RTO Office,
Pudukkottai.
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
6. The Executive Engineer (Rural Development)
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai.
7. M/s.Sree Amman Logistics,
st
No.65 1 Floor Poonga Nagar,
Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai-622 003.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against
the order dated 17.02.2026 passed in W.P(MD)No.2061 of 2026.
For Appellant(s) :Mr.G.Perumal
For Respondent(s) :Mr.J.Bharathan, Additional
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.M.P.Senthil, Government Pleader
for R1 to R6
Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for
Mr.K.Jeyamohan for R7
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. VELMURUGAN J.)
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 17.02.2026 passed
in W.P(MD)No.2061 of 2026.
2. Earlier, the appellant filed W.P.Crl(MD)No.1509 of 2026 for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider his
representation dated 25.02.2026 and to take appropriate legal action
against the erring officials and others. This Court by order dated
08.06.2026, had closed the writ petition with directions. It is relevant to
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
extract below paragraphs 4 and 11 to 13 of the said order:
“ 4. In response to this writ petition, a status
report has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2,
wherein, it has been stated as follows:
(i) On verification, it was found that M/s.Sri
Amman Logistics 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 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.
(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 applicant who has submitted
the lowest bid in the Financial Bid.
(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.
(iv) In order to investigate Tr.Perumal, the
proprietor of M/s.Amman Logistics Agency, for
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
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.
(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. (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 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.
……
…….
11.During the course of hearing, it is reported
before this court that 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,
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
the same has to be hailed and appreciated.
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.
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. ”
th
3. Subsequently, the work order was issued in favour of the 7
respondent herein vide proceedings in Se.Mu.No.E2/5722/2025 dated
25.11.2025. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P(MD)No.2061
of 2026 seeking the following relief:
“ To issue a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus calling for the records relating to the
impugned work order made by the third respondent
Vide Se.Mu.No.E2/5722/2025 dated 25.11.2025 and
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and obtained
through fraud and consequently direct the
respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh tender process
for the said work in a fair and transparent manner,
strictly adhering to the mandatory qualification
criteria and statutory requirements. “
4. The learned Single Judge by impugned order, dismissed the writ
petition holding as follows:
“ 19.As far as the allegations raised by the
writ petitioner are concerned, they relate to the
evaluation of the tender. The evaluation has to be
done only by the competent officials especially with
regard to the financial credentials of the successful
firm. Even assuming that there are some errors or
irregularities in accepting the technical bid of the
seventh respondent, unless the petitioner is able to
establish that the decision is totally arbitrary,
unreasonable, the Court cannot sit on appeal over
the appropriate authority. As far as the R.C.Book
relating to the vehicle is concerned, for the same
vehicle instead of ownership, lease deed has been
produced by the seventh respondent which have been
accepted by the authorities. Though this would
amount to procedural aberration, unless the
petitioner is able to establish that public interest
would get affected in view of acceptance of these
documents, this Court cannot interfere in the same. ”
Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. When the matter came up on 18.09.2026, this Court passed the
following order:
“The Executive Engineer (Buildings and
Constructions), Public Works Department,
Pudhukkottai District, is directed to make an
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
inspection of the work being conducted towards the
completion of Mini Stadium at Sengeerai in
Arimalam Union, Thirumayam in Pudukkottai
District and give a report as to the percentage of
construction completed towards the Mini Stadium
work including the administration block, first floor
roof level, track-WBM, bore well, compound wall
and earthwork, and all other civil constructions.
Before making an inspection, the Executive Engineer
may give notice to the appellant, namely,
P.Ganeshan, Government Registered Contractor of
Pudukkottai District and also to the 7th respondent,
M/s.Sree Amman Logistics at Rajagopalapuram,
Pudukkottai and examine the nature of construction
already done in their presence. Photographs may
also be taken.
2.A report may be filed before this Court on
25.09.2026.
3.List the matter once again on 25.09.2026. ”
th
6. Pursuant to the said order, the 4 respondent has filed a status
report stating that around 40.90% of the work is completed.
7. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 25.09.2026, this Court
has directed to produce a report relating to the status of sanction under
Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, for
prosecuting the officers. However, today, the learned Government
Pleader produced the Government Letter (D) No.426, Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj (E2(1)) Department, dated 25.09.2026, whereby, the
Government holding that further action is not necessary, has declined to
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
grant permission under Section 17-A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act 2018, for conducting a preliminary enquiry against the
erring officials.
8. A reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Crl(MD)No.1509 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026 clearly shows that the
Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Pudukkottai, respondents 1 and 2 therein have filed a status report with a
th
specific allegation that the contract was awarded to the 7 respondent
herein based on fake documents and therefore, they sought prior approval
under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act,
2018, to proceed against the erring officials involved in the commission
of crime. However, perusal of the Government Letter (D) No.426, Rural
Development and Panchayat Raj (E2(1)) Department, dated 25.09.2026,
shows that the Government, without conducting any enquiry and
ascertaining the facts, has simply accepted the report of the
Commissioner of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, who had stated
that based on all the factual reports, no irregularity occurred during the
tender scrutiny process and requested that vigilance preliminary enquiry
may be exempted in this case. Ultimately, the Government has declined
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
to grant prior permission sought under Section 17-A(1) of the Prevention
of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 for conducting a preliminary
enquiry against the erring officers. Though the Directorate of Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption during its preliminary enquiry, prima facie found the
th
allegation of awarding of contract to the 7 respondent based on fake
documents as proved, the Government only in order to safeguard the
erring officials from the clutches of law, passed the order dated
25.09.2026 declining to grant permission under Section 17-A(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018.
9. While dealing with the applicability of Section 17-A(1) of the
Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018 seeking prior approval,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Tejaram Vs. State of
Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 4988 of 2026 (Arising out of Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025) decided on 16.10.2026, has held as
follows:
“ 6. An unequivocal position of law emanates
from the above decisions about the scope and extent of
applicability of Section 17A of the PC Act which
contemplates taking a prior approval before investigation
or inquiry against a public servant. The language of the
provision itself outlines and circumscribes the ambit of
operation of the provision. The decisive phrase in the
section is “discharge his official functions or duties”.
Though the legislature has intended to protect the public
servant from being prosecuted by engrafting Section 17A
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
in the statute book, the protection envisaged could be
extended only if the conditions contemplated in the Section
are satisfied. The Section cannot be viewed to have an
omnibus application. 6.1 In order that the
provisions of Section 17A of the PC Act applies, there has
to be a “decision” or “recommendation” by a public
servant against whom an enquiry or investigation is to be
initiated. Such “decision” or “recommendation” shall be
a “decision” taken or “recommendation” made by such
public servant in discharge of his official functions or
duties. In other words, the alleged offence against the
public servant must be relatable to any recommendation
made or decision taken by such public servant in
discharge of his official duties. These primary and
essential aspects are absent in the present case to attract
Section 17A of the PC Act. The allegation is of demanding
illegal gratification by the appellant, which is a pure
criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official
functions or duties.
6.2 Thus, from the plain language of the
provision of Section 17A , it is evident that the provision is
confined to be applied in the situations where there is a
recommendation or a decision taken by a public servant in
discharge of his official duties. The allegation against the
appellant in the present case is that of a criminal act,
namely that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of
Rs.1.5 lakh. The conduct on the part of the appellant, by
no stretch of imagination, can be treated as part of the
discharge of his official functions. It was not in any way
relatable to recommendation or a decision taken by the
appellant in discharge of his official duties but was an act
unrelated to his official duty.
6.3 In the aforesaid view, Section 17A of the PC
Act is not applicable in the case of appellant herein. None
of the ingredients provided for in the Section is satisfied to
attract its operation. The act of demanding a bribe is a
pure criminal act, not connected with official functions
and not relatable to or having any linkage with
recommendation or decision of the appellant in his
capacity, as public servant. In the facts and circumstances
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
of the case, therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall
within the protective umbrella of Section 17A of the Act. It
could not be said that the proceedings were vitiated for
want of sanction. ”
10. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovesaid case,
despite the objections of the appellant regarding the fabricated documents
th
produced by the 7 respondent, the act of accepting the fake documents
on the part of the officials is a pure criminal act, not connected with
official functions and not relatable to or having any linkage with the
recommendation or decision of those officials in their capacity as public
servants. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of
th
the officials who scrutinized the documents produced by the 7
respondent, does not fall within the protective umbrella of Section 17A of
the Act.
11. That being the legal position and when this Court has also in
W.P.Crl(MD)No.1509 of 2026 dated 08.06.2026 has categorically made
an observation that the contract was awarded based on the fake
documents, it is necessarily to be examined as to whether the said
allegation is true or not. The illegality alleged to have been committed by
the officials can always be probed into by the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department even without the prior approval under Section 17-
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, as per the
judgment in Tejaram’s case (supra).
12. For the foregoing discussion, the Government Letter (D)
No.426, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E2(1)) Department,
dated 25.09.2026, declining to grant permission under Section 17-A(1) to
proceed against the erring officials, hereby stands quashed. The Director
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai, is directed to
proceed further with the investigation even without the prior approval
under Section 17-A. Since the following officials of Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Department who are arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in
W.P.Crl(MD)No.1509 of 2026, are not parties in this writ appeal, we suo
motu implead them as the respondents 8 to 10, as they are necessary
parties for complying with our directions.
1. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
DVAC Head Quarters, No.293, M.K.N.Road,
Alandur, Chennai – 600 001.
2. 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.
3. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Pudukkottai,
S.S.No.6089/8, Alangulam Housing Unit, Opp. to Collectorate,
Pudukkottai District – 622 005.
The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments.
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
13. The newly impleaded respondents 8 to 10 are directed to
proceed with the investigation and file a report. Apart from that, the
respondents 2 and 3 are also directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry
and file a report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. The interim injunction granted on 30.10.2026 is
extended until further orders.
14. List the matter on 03.12.2026.
(P.V.,J.) (K.K.R.K.,J.)
04-11-2026
bala
To
1. The Secretary,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Director,
Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
3. The District Collector,
Pudukkottai District,
Pudukkottai.
4. The Project Director,
D.R.D.A. (District Rural Development Agency),
Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District.
__________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
5. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Pudukottai-1 Assessment Circle,
No-5893, Kaatupudukkulam, Opp RTO Office,
Pudukkottai.
6. The Executive Engineer (Rural Development)
District Rural Development Agency,
Pudukkottai.
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )
WA(MD) No. 1416 of 2026
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
AND
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
bala
WA(MD)No.1416 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 06:32:58 pm )