The document appears to be a memorandum submitted to the High Court of Judicature at Madras regarding a criminal original petition. It summarizes objections to a counter filed by the 8th respondent (Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Cuddalore). It denies statements made in the counter and argues the case involves corruption and loss of government funds that were not properly recovered or investigated against multiple officials and contractors across three districts. It requests the court to direct a full investigation and recovery of lost funds. The memorandum is submitted along with additional documents in support of the petitioners arguments against the 8th respondent's counter.

1. 1
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
In
Crl.O.P. /15.
P.Chandira, M.E,(M.B.A)(BGL).,
Assistant Engineer,Highways, Nabard and Rural Roads,
Panruti, Cuddalore District. ----- Petitioner.
-Vs-
1) The Director, Vigilance &Anti-Corruption Department,
Aryapuram, Chennai &Fifteen others ------Respondents.
TYPED SET
S.No Date Description of Documents P.No
1 04.03.02 The Hon’ble High Court Division bench
order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003
1-2
2 14.03.02 The Hon’ble High Court Division bench
order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003.
3-4
3 23.04.03 The Hon’ble High Court Division bench
order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003
5-6
4 24.06.03 The Hon’ble High Court Division bench
order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003
7-8
5 28.06.08 The eighth respondent letter to District
Collector,Cuddalore in RC255/2003/HD/CL
9
6 02.07.09 Telegram by Traffic Ramasamy to 1) Hon’ble
Deputy Chief Minister Thiru.Stalin,2) The
Secretary,Highways &Minor Ports
Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9 3)The C.E
redesignated as Director, Highways,
Chepauk,Chennai-5 4)I.G.P, V&AC,Chennai
10-11
7 03.11.09 GO(D)No:203 Dated:03.11.09 passed by the
fourth respondent.
12
8 17.02.14 Director,V&AC,Aryapuram Chennai Lr
to second respondent based upon my
compliant dated:15.01.14.
13
9 03.09.14 The compliant submitted to the first
respondent to investigate the corruption in
Awarding Kalpana Chawla Awards
14
10 24.02.15 Public Information officer of
DGP,Chennai, the second respondent in
RCNo:023503/869/RTI-1(2)/2015-2
15
Dated at Chennai on 07.04.2015 Petitioner-Party-in-Person

2. 2
MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION
(Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
In
Crl.O.P. /15.
( The objections submitted by the petitioner to the counter filed first
respondent,the Director,Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department,
Aryapuram,Chennai in Crl.O.P.No:6002/15 and by the eight
respondent,the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department, Cuddalore and humbly prayed to direct the fourth
respondent,State Represented by the Secretary,Highways and Minor
Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 to recover the loss to
Government money from the Partners of Sridevi Enterprises,
Contractor,Chennai and from Thiru.Haribabu,the Junior
Engineer,Highways,Nabard Section, KattumannarKovil and the first
respondent has to verify the departmental action taken by the
Director(General)of Police,Chennai based upon the
Director,V&AC,Chennai Lr No:936/2014/POL/ ER Dt:17.02.2014
based upon the compliant of the petitioner dated:15.01.2014 and to
verify departmental proceedings of the Highways Department as
directed on 11.02.2015 based upon the compliant of the petitioner
dated:01.02.2015 and the Vigilance Department has to investigate
the case in F.I.R.No:969/12 Dated:09.06.12 u/s 420,409,465,468,469
IPC r/w 13(1)©Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Dated:07.06.2012
and the Director,V&AC has to investigate the case the Corruption in
Awarding Kalpana Chawla Awards in Tamilnadu based upon the
representation of the petitioner dated:03.09.2014 and the
CSRNo:261/14 filed by the Inspector of Police,Kadampuliyur and
the necessary action taken by S.P.Cuddalore and Erode based upon
my representations dated:20.05.2014 and by the representation

3. 3
submitted to Deputy Superintendent,V&AC,Cuddalore for
Departmental Execution of Special Repairs to Keelirruppu
Kattuppalayam Road submitted to the Secretary,Highways and
Minor Ports Department,Chennai dated:16.07.2014 to call for the
records on the file of the respondents).
P.Chandira, M.E,(M.B.A)(BGL).,
Assistant Engineer,Highways,Nabard and Rural Roads,
Panruti, Cuddalore District. ----- Petitioner.
-Vs-
1) The Director, Vigilance &Anti-Corruption Department,
Aryapuram,Chennai.
2) The Director General of Police,Chennai.
3) The State Represented by the Chief Secretary
to Chief Minister, Secretariat,Chennai-9.
4) The State Represented by the Secretary
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat,Chennai-9.
5) The Director (General),Highways,
Chepauk,Chennai-5.
6) The State represented by the Secretary (General)
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
7) The District Collector,Cuddalore.
8) The Inspector of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore.
9) The Inspector of Police, District Crime, Nagercoil.
10) Thiru.Vijaya Kumar,the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Bhavani.
11) The Superintendent of Police, Erode District.

4. 4
12) The Inspector of Police,
Danvantri Nager,Pondicherry.
13)The Chief Vigilance officer,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,Neyveli.
14) The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Neyveli Lignite Corporation,
Neyveli --------Respondents
PETITION UNDER 482 CRPC.
The objections submitted by the petitioner to the counter
filed first respondent,the Director,Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department, Aryapuram,Chennai in Crl.O.P.No:6002/15 and by the
eight respondent,the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department, Cuddalore and humbly prayed to direct the
fourth respondent,State Represented by the Secretary,Highways and
Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 to recover the loss to
Government money from the Partners of Sridevi Enterprises,
Contractor,Chennai and from Thiru.Haribabu,the Junior Engineer,
Highways,Nabard Section, KattumannarKovil and the first
respondent has to verify the departmental action taken by the
Director(General)of Police,Chennai based upon the Director, V&AC,
Chennai Lr No:936/2014/POL/ ER Dt:17.02.2014 based upon the
compliant of the petitioner dated:15.01.2014 and to verify
departmental proceedings of the Highways Department as directed
on 11.02.2015 based upon the compliant of the petitioner
dated:01.02.2015 and the Vigilance Department has to investigate
the case in F.I.R.No:969/12 Dated:09.06.12 u/s 420,409,465,468,469
IPC r/w 13(1)©Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Dated:07.06.2012

5. 5
and the Director,V&AC has to investigate the case the Corruption in
Awarding Kalpana Chawla Awards in Tamilnadu based upon the
representation of the petitioner dated:03.09.2014 and the
CSRNo:261/14 filed by the Inspector of Police,Kadampuliyur and
the necessary action taken by S.P.Cuddalore and Erode based upon
my representations dated:20.05.2014 and by the representation
submitted to Deputy Superintendent,V&AC,Cuddalore for
Departmental Execution of Special Repairs to Keelirruppu
Kattuppalayam Road submitted to the Secretary, Highways and
Minor Ports Department, Chennai dated:16.07.2014 and the
compliant submitted by the petitioner to the Inspector of Police,
Pondicherry on 15.01.2014,CSRNo:55/14 filed by the Inspector of
Police, First Thermal, Neyveli Township to call for the records on
the file of the respondents and thereby render justice.
I perused the counter filed by the eighth respondent on behalf
of first and eight respondent. The eighth respondent may please to
provide the copy of the order of the first respondent to file counter on
behalf of the first respondent. The first respondent is in a top most
position to avoid corruption all over Tamilnadu. The petitioner
submitted complaints in three district namely Cuddalore,
Kanniyakumari, Erode District. In this situation the first respondent
may please to submit separate counter considering the above cases
forthwith and should be role model to eradicate corruption and to
recover loss to the Government money from the contractors.
The petitioner submits the reply with additional documents
before this Hon’ble High Court to the counter filed by the eighth
respondent on 30.03.2015 liable to be missed in the limine. The first
respondent wants to escape from his official duty and failed to permit

6. 6
the other officials in the Vigilance Department to do their duty in
accordance with law.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:1
is false that the eighth respondent aware of the facts and
circumstances of the case from the records against sixteen
respondents case. The eighth respondent can know the status of the
case in F.I.R.No:10/03 filed by the former Inspector of Police,
V&AC,Cuddalore. The eighth respondent may please to produce the
related documents in F.I.R.No:10/03 on the file of the Vigilance
Department, Cuddalore and Chennai ,the departmental enquiry
proceedings on the file of the fifth respondent,the Director(General)
Highways, Chepauk,Chennai-5 and the fourth respondent,the state
represented by the Secretary,Highways and Minor Ports Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9. The petitioner submitted fifty eight pages of
documents before this Hon’ble High Court at the time of filing the
Crl.O.P.No:6002/15. The petitioner further submits the additional
documents 1) the Hon’ble High Court Division bench order in
W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003 2) The Hon’ble High Court
Division bench order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003 3) The
Hon’ble High Court Division bench order in W.P.No:26463/01
Dated:23.04.2003 4) The Hon’ble High Court Division bench order
in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:23.04.2003 5) The eighth respondent
letter to District Collector,Cuddalore in RC255/2003/HD/CL
Dated:28.06.08 6) Telegram by Traffic Ramasamy to 1) Hon’ble
Deputy Chief Minister Thiru.Stalin,2) The Secretary,Highways
&Minor Ports Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9 3)The C.E
redesignated as Director, Highways, Chepauk,Chennai-5 4)I.G.P,
V&AC,Chennai 7) GO(D)No:203 Dated:03.11.09 passed by the
fourth respondent. 8) The compliant submitted to the first respondent

7. 7
to investigate the corruption in Awarding Kalpana Chawla Awards
9) The letter submitted received from the second respondent’s office.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:2
is false that the eighth respondent statement of vexatious, devoid of
merits and deserves to be dismissed in the limine. The petitioner
humbly submits that the eighth respondent failed to arrest the
accused in F.I.R.No:10/03 and to produce the accused before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore from 10.11.2003 which
is submitted in typed set page No: one to seven and caused extreme
torture to the petitioner and her family members. The Govt.
Secretary, Highways, the fourth respondent herein passed a
Proceeding No: 11477/HL-1/2004-22 Dated: 13.10.2008 which is
submitted in Typed set P.No: Nineteen to Twenty one. The
department has permitted sanction in No:7058/Con.II/2003
Dated:26.02.2007 for prosecution against the accused
T.M.D.Haribabu,the formerly Junior Engineer(H) and M.Mohammed
John,the formerly Divisional Accountant-Cum-Manager. The
Secretary to the Government passed a G.O.No:192.Highways&
Minor Ports Department Dated: 13.10.08 and permitted the accused
Thiru.Tamilselvan to permit to escape from the departmental
Proceedings and the Criminal Proceedings. The respondent failed to
take action against the Partner of Sridevi Enterprises, Chennai to
recover the loss to the Govt.Money in several Lakhs. The eight
respondent cannot deny the statements in my petition as the petition
is against sixteen respondent. The remaining respondents has to file
counter and the cases has to be investigated by the Vigilance
Department against the remaining cases in Erode, Cuddalore and
Kanniyakumari against Police department officials and staff
,Highways Department officials, Staff and contractors,the District
Collectors,Secretaries to the Government and others.

8. 8
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:3
is false that the eighth respondent only permitted the accused to
escape from clutches of law linked with fourth and fifth respondent
without recovering the loss to the Government. The eight
respondents failed to peruse the orders of Hon’ble High Court
Division bench in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated: 04.03.02, 14.03.02,
23.04.03 and 24.06.03.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:4
is false that the eighth respondent failed to note that the
GO(d)No:203 dated:03.11.2009 is the departmental action taken by
the fourth respondent against 1) Thiru.R.Shanmugham,the Formerly
Divisional Engineer(H)Cuddalore (Now Superintending
Engineer(U/S) 2) Thiru.A.Theerthagiri,the Formerly Assistant
Divisional Engineer(H) Chidambaram 3) Thiru.M.Mohammed
John,the Formerly Divisional Accountant-Cum-Manager,O/O the
Divisional Engineer (H) Cuddalore 4) Thiru.M.Kamaraj,the
Formerly Assistant Engineer(H) Chidambaram
5)Thiru.D.Haribabu,the Formerly Junior Engineer (H) Nabard
Section,KattumannarKovil. The eighth respondent failed to note that
there is several lakes of loss to the Government and has to be
recovered from the Partners of Sridevi Enterprises, Chennai and from
Thiru.Haribabu, the Formerly Junior Engineer (H) Nabard
Section,KattumannarKovil.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:5
is false that the eighth respondent failed to note GO(d)No:203
dated:03.11.2009 does not contains the accused the partners of
Sridevi Enterprises,Chennai. The Hon’ble High Court Division
bench in W.P.No:26463/01 issued the Vigilance Department to

9. 9
conduct an enquiry not less than Deputy Superintendent of Police on
04.03.2002. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,V&AC,Cuddalore
filed the preliminary prima facie report against three officials
initially on 14.03.2002. The Hon’ble High Court directed the
Vigilance Department to submit detailed report within four weeks
from 14.03.2002 in W.P.No:26463/01. Even though the Vigilance
Department, eighth respondent completed enquiry on 17.06.2002 and
found that there is loss to the Government, they have delayed and
submitted the report before the Hon’ble High Court on 23.04.2003 in
W.P.No:26463/01.Instead of producing the accused before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, the eighth respondent submitted final draft report
to the Govt.on 19.10.2006 only. When there is loss to the
Government money it is the case to recover the loss from the
Contractor by revenue recovery process and from the Junior
Engineer who return back the 10.50M.T of Emulsion bitumen
fictitiously. The road has been executed without utilising proper
emulsion bitumen and loss occurred to the Government. During the
detailed investigation of the Vigilance Department there is also loss
to the Government due to sub-Standard bitumen which is stated in
W.P.No:26463/01 Dated: 23.04.2003. Being the investigating officer
arrived the value of the loss to the Government and submitted report
to the Highways department. It is the duty of the fourth respondent to
recover the loss to the Government from the contractor and the
Junior Engineer. The investigating officer must have submitted final
report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore with the
value of the loss to government with the statement of the accused has
been arrested or not. While at the time filing his final report before
the eighth respondent found mistake that the accused has not
arrested. In the situation he must have seeked the help from the
accused in F.I.R.No:10/03. The final draft report was sent to the
fourth respondent by the eighth respondent on 19.10.2006. The

10. 10
Telegram by Traffic Ramasamy to 1) Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister
Thiru.Stalin,2) The Secretary,Highways &Minor Ports
Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9 3)The Chief Engineer
redesignated as Director, Highways, Chepauk,Chennai-5 4)I.G.P,
V&AC,Chennai on 02.07.09 is submitted before this Hon’ble High
Court. The eighth respondent influenced the fourth respondent to
pass Govt.Lr.No:11477/HL-1/04-22 Dated: 13.10.08 for desanction
of Prosecution against Highways Department Engineers and the
Divisional Accountant and not against the Partners of M/S Sri Devi
Enterprises, Contractors, Chennai, contractor.The departmental
enquiry has been conducted by the departmental enquiry officer with
the final report of the eigth respondent not against the contractor. The
G.O (d) No: 203 Dated: 03.11.2009 against disciplinary proceedings
against departmental employees. It is the case to recover the loss to
the Government from the Contractor in several lakhs. The eighth
respondent misdirected the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Cuddalore and others linked with the contractors.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:6
that the eighth respondent is false and failed to note that I have not
disowned my statement I have submitted statements with my
signature. That documents and the statement has to be annexed in
173 final draft reports. Being the investigating officer inordinately
delayed the case from 2002 and permitted the partners of Sridevi
Enterprises to escape from clutches of law without submitting bail
application before the Hon’ble High Court. The eighth respondent
has to produce the departmental enquiry proceedings before this
Hon’ble High Court to find out the veracity of the departmental
enquiry proceedings. The eighth respondent in order to permit the
accused to escape from clutches of law transferred my husbnd

11. 11
Shri.R.Thangavel,the Chief Mnager,Neyveli Lignite Corporation to
Barshingsar Project, Rajasthan inconnivance with Thiu.A.R.Ansari,
the former CMD, NLC,Neyveli,Thiru.Alaudin,the former Secretary,
Highways and Minor Ports Department and Thiru.Rajendra
Ratnoo,the former District Collector,Cuddalore. The eighth
respondent has not provided the copy of the 161 statement of the
petitioner and failed to permit the related documents and other details
and the petitioner represented the cases in W.P.No:26463/01 and
everything is my recorded statement and the petitioner cannot
disown my own statement. When the eighth respondent the
compliant failed to provide the details and suppressed the vital facts
and permitted the accused to escape from clutches of law. When
there is the necessity of recovering the loss to the Government
money from the contractors, without the contractor in the enquiry
will not provide a solution for recovery of loss to Government
money.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:7
that the eighth respondent is false and misdirecting the Hon’ble High
Court in Crl.O.P.No:22241/11 when the contractor has not faced
departmental enquiry where is the “Double Jeopardy Condition”?
and the case is to submit final report. In order to permit the accused
the partners of Sridevi Enterprises, the eighth respondent has not
produced the copy of the final draft report before the Hon’ble High
Court. In this situation the eighth respondent has to serve the copy of
my 161 statement of the petitioner and permit to peruse the
documents of first, fourth, fifth and eighth respondents.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:8
is misleading and clearly proves that the eighth respondent wants to
permit the accused to escape from clutches of law and the eighth

12. 12
respondent submitted false report before the Hon’ble High Court.The
Crl.O.P.No:22241/11 is to submit the final report before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore. Being the investigating officer
must act to recover the loss to the Government money from the
contractors. In this situation it is necessary to produce the related
documents of first, fourth, fifth and eighth respondents with
Crl.O.P.No:22241/11. The above Criminal Original Petition is filed
against the First Information Report No: 10/03 filed by the first
respondent Department on 10.11.2003 on the file of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore and the consequential
proceedings of the respondents to permit the accused to escape from
clutches of law without taking any action to recover the loss to the
Government and causing undue harassment to the petitioner and
thereby this Criminal Original Petitioner filed to call for the records
on the file of the respondents and thereby render justice to the
petitioner with damaged relief and justice.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No: 9
is false that the eighth respondent permitted the accused to escape
from clutches of law. The eighth respondent only submitted wrong
report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Cuddalore, the
Hon’ble High Court in Crl.O.P.No:22241/11. When the Division
bench has clearly passed an order in W.P.No:26463/01 Dated:
23.04.03. The eight respondent failed to note that this
Crl.O.P.No:6002/15 is against sixteen respondents who permitted the
accused to escape from clutches of law and failed to act based upon
my compliant in accordance with law and the Crl.O.P.No:22241/11
is against the eight respondent. The statement of the eighth
respondent is that because of the fourth respondent’s proceeding
dated: 13.10.08 he was unable to procede further.

13. 13
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No: 10
that the Para no one and two are essential to prove that first and
eighth respondent inordinately delayed to take action against the
accused in accordance with law and caused undue harassment to the
petitioner and her family members. The Govt Letter Dated: 13.10.08
clearly proves that even though the fifth respondent given sanction
for prosecution against the accused the eight respondent failed to
take action against them and caused undue harassment to the
petitioner.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:
11 that the eighth respondent misleaded the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court,Cuddalore and the Hon’ble High Court and permitted the
accused the Partners of Sridevi Enterprises and Thiru.Haribabu to
escape from the clutches of law.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No: 12
is false that the fifth respondent already granted sanction for
prosecution against the accused, instead of taking action against them
the eighth respondent submitted the false report before this Hon’ble
High Court. The respondent must have submitted final report before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore and must have
permitted the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,Cuddalore to pass an
order based upon the final draft report. The eighth respondent failed
to submit the report and failed to serve the copy to the compliant and
closed the case without the knowledge of the Petitioner. In
Government service it is necessary to take action against the accused
to recover the loss to the Government. The statement of the eighth
respondent that if there is loss to the Government money if any
proves that the eighth respondent unaware of the facts and

14. 14
circumstances of the case. In this situation the fourth respondent has
to permit the eight respondent to act in accordance with law to
recover the loss to the Government money.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:13
is denied as false as the eighth respondent is filing counter for him as
well as to the first respondent and the action of the first respondent is
very much essential. The statement in Para No 5 is related to the
Inspector of Police,Vadasery has registered a case F.I.R.No:969/12
u/s 420,409,465,468,469IPC r/w 13(1)(c)Prevention of Corruption
Act1988 Dated:07.06.2012 which is transferred to District Crime
branch by the S.P.Nagercoil in his proceeding C1/29669/2012
Dated:29.06.2012.The Inspector of Police, District Crime,Nagercoil
has not conducted forensic investigation for comparation and has not
transferred the case to the Vigilance Department for further
investigation.The Inspector of Police,District Crime,Nagercoil failed
to call for the records from 1)The Divisional
Engineer(NH)Tirunelveli 2)The Divisional Engineer,C&M,
Nagercoil 3) The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (NH), Nagercoil 4)
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&AC,Tirunelveli 5) The
Deputy Superintendent of Police, V&AC,Nagercoil 6)The Project
Director,NHAI,Tirunelveli and 7)the Superintending Engineer,
National Highways,Tirunelveli.The petitioner requested the
Superintendent of Police,Kanniyakumari District to change the
investigation to CBCID. But the Inspector of Police,District
Crime,Nagercoil without conducting a proper enquiry and the
DSP,V&AC,Nagercoil has not conducted investigation and closed
the case a mistake of fact without the knowledge of the petitioner.
When the case registered under section Prevention of Anti-
Corruption Act,the case has to be investigated by the Vigilance

15. 15
Department. Hence the first respondent has to file counter and to
produce related records in F.I.R.No:969/12.
The statement of Para No 6 is relates to the corruption of
Erode District Police officials and the statement and the action of
first respondent is very much essential. The first respondent stated in
his Lr.Dated:17.02.2014 that the first respondent forwarded my
compliant dated: 15.01.14 against corruption of Erode District Police
officials to the second respondent for the departmental action.The
Public Information officer of DGP, Chennai, the second respondent
in RCNo: 023503/869/RTI-1(2)/2015-2 is denied that the second
respondent has not received the letter from the first respondent.The
first respondent failed to order the Vigilance Department to conduct
an enquiry to find out the petition comes under Vigilance Angle.
Even though he has forwarded my compliant for departmental action
of DGP,Chennai and has to verified by the Director,V&AC,
Chennai. The sub-Inspector of Police,Thiru.Vijayakumar enquiry
Thiru.Purushothamman in my presence and with my father
P.P.Pattappan on 25.11.13.Thiru.Purushothamman accepted his
offence and the copy is permitted for perusal to note down. The copy
of the letter is removed and Thiru.Shanmugham,the Inspector of
Police,Bhavani forced Thiru.Purushothamman to submit false
statement to permit the accused to escape from clutches of law. The
CSRNo: 477/13 has to registered and the accused has to be arrested
.The Erode District Police officials up to SP,Erode by getting money
permitting the accused to escape from clutches of law. The first
respondent has to investigate the case.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:14
is false that the eighth respondent permitted the accused the Partners
of Sridevi Enterprises to escape from clutches of law and caused

16. 16
undue harassment from 17.06.2002,the day on which loss to
Government money is Proved in W.P.No:26463/01.The copy of the
Divisional bench order is submitted before this Hon’ble High Court.
The petitioner ready to prove the loss to the Government money and
malafide act of the eighth respondent. The eighth respondent has not
produced all the records before this Hon’ble High Court in
Crl.O.P.No:22241/11. The eighth failed to arrest the accused and
failed to recover the loss to the Government from the contractors and
the officials. Any case should not be delayed on delay in getting
sanction as per Supreme Court Judgements. The first respondent
should not get confused with remaining respondents. So many
records are necessary from the remaining respondents and they have
failed to file counter.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No: 15
is false the statement are sustainable in F.I.R.No:10/03 .In addition to
that so many accused are not arrested by the Erode District Police,
Cuddalore District Police and Kanniyakumari District.
I denied the statement of the eighth respondent in Para No:16
is false that the eighth respondent may please to note that the Public
Information officer of DGP,Chennai, the second respondent in
RCNo:023503/869/RTI-1(2)/2015-2 is refused that he has not
received letter dated:17.02.2014 based upon my compliant
dated:15.01.14 carrying the corruption charges against Erode District
Police officials. The second respondent failed to take action against
Erode,Cuddalore and Kanniyakumari District Police officials who
failed to take action against the accused in accordance with law and
direct them to arrest the accused.

17. 17
The eight respondent failed to not that my compliant dated:
01.02.15 is against Highways Department officials and Police
Department officials in three District Cuddalore,Kanniyakumari and
Nagercoil and granting Kalpana Chawla award. The corruption
charges have to be investigated by the first respondent and eighth
respondent. Hence the first respondent has to file separate counter.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court directed all the
respondents to file counter on or before 07.04.2015. The petitioner
humbly prayed that this court may please to direct the first
respondent to file separate counter. The Hon’ble High Court may
please to take action against the eighth respondent who permitted the
Partners of Sridevi Constructions, Chennai and Thiru.Haribabu,the
Junior Engineer(H) Nabard Section,Kattumannarkovil to escape
from clutches of law without recovering the loss to the Government
money.