Dmk case against velumani affidavit / THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [Special Original Jurisdiction] W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026 Thiru. R. Girirajan, M/61,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[Special Original Jurisdiction] W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026
Thiru. R. Girirajan, M/61,
Saw/o. Late C. Radhakrishnan,
Number 367, Anna Arivalayam,
369, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600018. … Petitioner
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai — 600009.
2. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC),
No.293, Road,
Ramapuram, Collectors Nagar,
Alandur,
Chennai – 600016.
3. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai – 600004.
4. Director of Enforcement,
Rep, by its Assistant Director, Shastri Bhavan, 3 rd floor, 3Block, B-Wing, No.26, Haddows road, Chennai 600006.
5. Thiru. S.P. Velumani
Hon’ble Former Minister for Municipal Administration,
Rural Development, and Implementation of Special Programme, No. 7/1 -C, Sugunapuram East, Kuniamuthur Post, Coimbatore — 641008.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. R. GIRIRAJAN
I, R. Girirajan, S/o. Late C. Rädhakrishnan, Hindu, aged about 61 years, offcial address at No. 367, Anna Arivalayam, 369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 6000018, do hereby solemnly affrm and sincerely state follows:
1. I am the Petitioner herein, and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Secretary of the Bylaw Amendment Committee of the Dravida Munneü•a Kazhagam (DMK), and a practising Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
2. I submit that the 5th Respondent, Thiru S.P. Velumani, served as Minister for Municipal Administration, Rural Development and Implementation of Special Programme in the Government of Tamil Nadu during the period from 2014 onwards and was a public servant within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. I submit that during his tenure as Minister, serious allegations surfaced regarding abuse of official position and large-scale corruption in municipal administration contracts. It has also been alleged that the 5th Respondent accumulated assets dispropofiionate to his known sources of income and was involved in the acceptance of illegal gratification. Various complaints and materials have been placed before the competent authorities indicating large scale financial irregularities and generation of illicit wealth.
4. It is submitted that the acts alleged against the 5th Respondent constitute scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other offences under the Indian Penal Code such as criminal misconduct by a public servant, criminal conspiracy and cheating.
5. It is submitted that the illegal gains generated through the aforesaid offences clearly constitute “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
6. It is submitted that wherever proceeds of crime are generated from scheduled offences, the Directorate of Enforcement is empowered to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), investigate the offence of money laundering and trace, attach and confiscate tainted assets.
7. It is submitted that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) maintains an official website where all FIRS are uploaded and made available in the public domain in the interest of transparency. The official portal contains details of multiple FIRS registered against the 5th Respondent for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act which are as follows;
GIST OF THE CHARGES:
1. FIR No: 16 of 2021 filed by DVAC HQRS – Committed irregularities in strengthening and relaying of roads with Dense Bitumen Macadam (DBM) and Compacted Bituminous Concrete (CBC), along with Traffic Improvement works at Bus
Route Roads (BRR) and construction (preparation and execution) and supply of goods And services, tender works iri greater Chennai, besides other’ corporations. Further, Committed irregularities in the supfrl)i of driVers; Cleaners and •tiÉber lorries for garbage clearance in Coimbatote City Municipal Corporation:
2. FIR No: 05/2022/AC/CB filed by V & AC Coimbatore —Allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the Imown sources of income.
3. FIR No: 5 of 2022 filed by DVAC HQRS – Fixed a very high rate for the LED lights than the original market rate in replacing the existing street lights with LED lights and caused loss to the Govt. to the tune ofRs.500 crores.
4. FIR No: 3 of 2024 filed by DVAC HQRS – Tr.S.P.Ve1umani, formerly Minister and officials of Greater Chennai Corporation had abused their official position to benefit few contractors in the tenders floated by Greater Chennai Corporation during the year
2018.
PENDING TRIAL CASES
Sl
No
Case Identity Number, date of registration
Name of accused and gist of charge for which charge sheet has been laid.
Name of the Court and c.c./S.c. No.
Date of next hearing / Stage
1.
FIR No: 16 of 2021 filed by
DVAC HQRS
Tr.S.P.Velumani, formerly Minister for Municipal
Administration,
Rural Development and Special
Programme
Implementation,
Government of
Tamil Nadu, now
MLA.,
Thondamuthur
(1) Committed
irregularities in strengthening and relaying of roads, construction, supply of goods & services, tender works in greater Chennai, besides other corporations.
(11). Further,
Committed
In respect of Allegation-I & 11, on 01.03.2024, two separate charge sheets have been filed against
Tr.S.P.Velumani, fomerly
Minister and others before the
Hon’ble Special
Assembly
Constituency and others.
irregularities in the supply of drivers, cleaners and tipper lorries for garbage
clearance in
Coimbatore City
Municipal
Corporation.
Court for the cases under PC
Act, Chennai
UNDER INVESTIGATION CASES
Regular Cases Nos.
and Date of
Registration.
Name of the
Accused
Officer
Gist of the Allegation
Stage
1.
05/2022/AC/CB
filed by V & AC
Coimbatore
Tr.S.P.Velumani
MLA, former
Minister and
others
Allegation of
possession of assets disproportionate to
the known sources of
income.
Under
Investigation
2.
FIR No: 5 of 2022 filed by DVAC
HQRS
Tr.S.P.Ve[umani former
Minister for
Municipal
Administration
Rural
Develop’ment
Fixed a very high rate for the LED lights than the original
market rate in
replacing the street lights with LED lights and caused loss
Under
investigation
and
Implementatio• n of Special
Programme
andothers
. the Govt. to the tune ofRs.500 crores.
3.
FIR No: 3 of 2024 filed by DVAC
HQRS
Tr.S.P.Velumani
formerly
Minister and
others
Tr.S.P.Velumani, formerly Minister and officials of Greater Chennai Corporation had abused their official position to
benefit few
contractors in tenders floated by Greater Chennai Corporation during the year 2018.
Under investigation.
8.1t is submitted that once the investigating agency finds the corruption involved after the due preliminary enquiry registers the FIR or after the investigation files a final report disclosing the bribe money, it would automatically constitute “proceeds of crime” within the meaning of Sec 2 (l) (U) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002.
In such circumstances, no further probe is required to establish that the public servant who received the illegal gratification, or possess wealth disproportionate to his known source of income, is in possession of proceeds of crime. It has been held in the case of
Y. Balaji V. Karthik Desai and Others, (2024) 19 SCC 625, the relevant portion is extracted herein below;
“145. Once an information relating to the acquisition of huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter ofpublic employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report. This is because “acquisition ” is an activity amounting to money laundering and the illegal gratification acquired by a public servant represents “proceeds of crime”, generated through a criminal activity in respect ofa scheduled offence. Therefore, it does not require any expedition, much less a fishing expedition for someone to say that the receipt of bribe money is an act of money laundering “.
9. Tt is submitted that in the view of the binding decision of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Enforcement Directorate to register the information report. In the case on hand, registration of case, progress of investigation and filing of final report are not secret documents but available in the public domain. Hence, Enforcement Directorate ought to have registered the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) as per the PMLA Act,2002. Failure on the part of the Enforcement Directorate on political consideration will certainly confirm the jurisdiction of this Constitution Court
to pass or issue appropriate (Enforcement Case Information
Report) and proceed
10. It is submitted that the existence of such FIRS itself establishes the registration of predicate offences which will fall within the schedule of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
ll. It is submitted that once such predicate offences are registered, the Enforcement Directorate is statutorily empowered and obligated to investigate the offence of money laundering arising out of the said scheduled offences.
12. It is subrnitted that, despite the existence of such predicate offences and the availability of substantial materials indicating generation of proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to register an ECIR and initiate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
13. It is submitted that the petitioner and several public spirited persons have submitted complaints before the competent authorities detailing the corrupt practices and illegal enrichment of the 5th Respondent. However, no emwtive steps have been taken by the Enforcement Directorate to initiate proceedings under the PMLA.
14. It is submitted that the offences disclosed in the tabulated FIRS involve grave abuse of public offce, diversion of public funds and generation of illegal wealth through corrupt practices. Such illegal gains clearly fall within the ambit of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(l)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
15. It is submitted that despite the existence of these serious allegations and tabulated FIRS, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to discharge its statutory duty of investigating the offence of money laundering.
16. It is submitted that the failure of Respondents 1 and 2 to register an ECIR and initiate investigation into the laundering of proceeds of crime is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the very object of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which aims to prevent laundering of illicit money and to attach and confiscate properties derived from criminal activities.
17. It is submitted that the allegations mentioned in the tabulated cases pertain to persons who held high public office and involve offences of substantial magnitude. The gravity of the allegations warrants immediate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
18. It is submitted that the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to act despite the availability of tabulated FIRS undermines and frustiates the object of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act. In such circumstances, intervention of this Hon’ble Court is necessary to ensure that the statutory authorities discharge their duties in accordance with law.
19. It is submitted that the cause of action for filing the present writ petition arises due to the inaction of the Enforcement Directorate in exercising its statutory powers to investigate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
20. It is submitted that unless this Hon’ble Court intervenes and directs the authorities to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the illegal proceeds generated through corruption may remain uninvestigated, thereby seriously affecting public interest.
21. It is submitted. that since Ahe above-mentioned tabulated -.FIRs -relate, to former Ministers th•ék AIAbMK-•• Eovemment•, -;the•. continued -inaction of the
22. It is submittéd that this Hon?ble Court, in W.P. ‘No.74•of 2026, recently passed an order directing registration of FIR against a sitting Minister based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate with the State authorities. However, it is surprising that the Enforcement Directorate hag not taken similar action in respect of former Ministers of the AIADMK who are already facing FIRS for offences •under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
23. It is submitted that the 5th respondent belongs to a AIADMK political party which is presently in alliance with the ruling party at the Union Government, and the continued inaction of the Enforcement Directorate gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that political considerations have influenced the failure to initiate action.
independently and in accordance with statutory duties. Failure to register an ECIR despite the existence of prima facie materials amounts to dereliction of a statutory duty and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
25. It is further submitted that this is a fit case for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register an ECIR and proceed with an investigation into the proceeds of crime.
26. It is submitted that the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not applicable to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002, the same being a self contained special enactment. It is further submitted that I have no other efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the exfraordinary jurisdiction of this
Hon ‘ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
27. It is further submitted that I have not filed any other writ petition or proceedings before this Hon ‘ble Court or before any other High Court or the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court seeking the same relief on the same cause of action.
28. It is further submitted that the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information and that no material facts have been suppressed.
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th Respondent to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the 5th Respondent and conduct a thorough investigation into the proceeds of crime generated through acts of corruption, bribery and accumulation of disproportionate assets, and to take appropriate action in accordance with law and pass such further or other orders as this Hon ‘ble Court may deem fit proper and thus render
Justice.
Solemnly affrmed at Chennai on Before Me
this 18th day March 2026 and signed his name in my presence.
Advocate, Chennai
