Case against Minister Dr PTR PALANIVEL THIAGARAJAN judge pt asha j adj for ptr minister advt Ragavachery argued for petner adv Ramasiva sanker

by Sekar Reporter · February 4, 2026

[04/02, 13:08] Sekarreporter: [04/02, 13:08] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/Wgf8_hZaAm0?si=pDlGTRwSgPKNOtfJ
[04/02, 13:08] Sekarreporter: The petitioner and his wife had approached the Minister Dr PTR PALANIVEL THIAGARAJAN for developing their land at Kodukum near Melur Madurai District. Under the instructions of the Minister they had executed a Power of Attorney document appointing Mr Rajeswaran the Chartered Accountant of PTR. The power agent entered into a registered sale Agreement with a Private Limited company in which PTR Palanivel Thiagarajan is a shareholder. Under the sale Agreement a sum of Rs 2.17 crores was received by the power agent and not accounted to the petitioner and his wife. No money has been given to him. When the petitioner and his wife protested they were threatened by Rajeswaran, Ramakrishnan Chartered Accountants and close associates of the minister. When they filed a police complaint FIR was not registered by Melur Police. After obtaining a direction from Judicial Magistrate Melur, the police inspector insisted on the removal of the Minister’s name. On the other hand A false FIR has also been registered against them by CCB Madurai. In December 2025 the petitioner filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta at Chennai for the misuse and abuse of power by the minister and his associates. Since no action was taken A Writ of Mandamus was filed for enquiry of the complaint by the petitioner on 23rd January 2026 and came up for admission before Justice PT Asha on 04/02/2026. In the meantime proceedings dated 29/01/2026 passed by the Lok Ayukta Bench proposing to reject the complaint mainly on the ground that there is no allegations of corruption against the minister. The proceedings were passed under Rule 24(5) of the TN Lok Ayukta Rules 2018. The counsel for petitioner sought permission to amend the prayer challenging the said order of the Lok Ayukta Bench .

The : Lok Ayukta Bench order states that the sale deed (2-05-25) is before the revocation deed (5-5-25)

In the complaint it’s clearly said – sale deed is the fraudulent one with forged life certificates and anti dated – with cheques .

It was brought to registration only on 6-05-25 and even the cheques were presented only after 08-05-25 (interim stay)

That’s the crux of the forgery orchestrated by the minister. Which the Lokayukta should inquire about . However Lokayukta is expressing the views of the minister . There is legal malice and hence the prayer will be amended accordingly Shouldn’t the Lok Ayukta Bench be rather safeguarding the interest of the Complainant.
[04/02, 13:13] Sekarreporter: