Uncategorized

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO.____________OF 2026 G.S. Mani …Petitioner -Vs- The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu & 25 Others. …Respondents

by Sekar Reporter · March 20, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO.____________OF 2026
G.S. Mani …Petitioner
-Vs-
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu & 25 Others. …Respondents

INDEX TO TYPED SET OF PAPERS FILED BY THE PETITIONER
SI.
No. DATE PARTICULARS PAGE No
1. 18.03.2026 Dates and Events
2. 18.03.2026 Synopsis
3. 18.03.2026 Coding sheet
4. 18.03.2026 Court Fee
5. 18.03.2026 Writ petition
6. 18.03.2026 Common Affidavit of the Petitioner
7. 18.03.2026 Dispense with Petition
INDEX
8. 15.06.2024 Election Affidavit of Vikravandi MLA Siva
9. 31.12.2023 ITR Hari Construction – 2023-2024
10. 04.05.2025 Annual Turnover 5 years Hari Construction
11. 24.11.2022 Work Experience Certificate of Hari Construction-2022-2024
12. 09.06.2023 Contractor registration renewal certificate
13. 13.09.2024 Certificate Issued by the Highway Department Regarding granting permission to continue operating with both partners.
14. 15.06.2024 Reconstitution Deed of Partnership of M/s. Hari Constructions
15. 15.09.2025 G.O Rural & Panchayat Raj Department MLA CDS Fund allocation.
16. 25.08.2025 Work Order to Hari Construction-MLA CDS Fund-Kanai BDO 25.08.2025 to 24.12.2025
17. 03.05.2025 MLA Request Letter for new Projects under MGSMT Scheme
18. 09.07.2025 Commissioner Fund Rs. 25 Crores allocation to MGSMT scheme-
19. 17.09.2025 Bid Acceptance Letter by authority to Hari Construction-MGSMT scheme work-2025-26
20. 03.03.2026 Representation submitted to the Respondents requesting necessary action
21. 03.03.2026 Postal Tracking Record evidencing dispatch and service of the representation
22. 18.03.2026 ID Proof of Petitioner in Person i.e. Aadhar, Voter ID & Bar Council ID
23. 18.03.2026 Batta

I certify that the documents mentioned above are true copies of the originals. Verified at Chennai on this the 18th day of March, 2026.

Petitioner in Person

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITION NO.____________OF 2026
G.S. Mani …Petitioner
-Vs-
The Chief Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu & 25 Others. …Respondents
SYNOPSIS
The present PIL Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus directing registration of FIR and constitution of an independent investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation or a Court-monitored Special Investigation Team into large-scale corruption, abuse of official position, diversion of public funds and money laundering involving 25th Respondent, a sitting MLA of Vikravandi Constituency Thiru. A. Sivashanmugam @ Anniyur Siva after his election as an MLA in bye election June, 2024.
The case concerns misuse of MLA Constituency Development Scheme (MLA-CDS) funds and Mudalvarin Grama Membattu Thittam (MGSMT) funds to the tune of several crores worth approx. ₹9.36 Crores under MLA-CDS and allocation of ₹25 Crores under MGSMT Scheme, diverted to a private firm “M/s. Hari Construction”, which is controlled by close family members of the sitting MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam (Anniyur Siva) since 2024 to till date. Change in partnership structure immediately to post-election to conceal beneficial ownership and concentration of government contracts to a single family-linked entity.
These acts constitute offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, BNS, Benami Transactions Act and PMLA, apart from violating Article 14 (fairness in State action) and Public Trust Doctrine. Despite a detailed representation dated 03.03.2026 to all competent authorities, no action has been taken. Hence, this WP.
Petitioner in Person

DATES AND EVENTS
24.11.2022 Work Experience Certificate issued to M/s. Hari Constructions for the period 2022–2024
09.06.2023 Contractor Registration Renewal Certificate obtained
31.12.2023 Income Tax Return filed for Hari Construction for the Assessment Year 2023–2024
15.06.2024 Election Affidavit submitted by Vikravandi MLA Siva
15.06.2024 Reconstitution Deed of Partnership executed for M/s. Hari Constructions
13.09.2024 Certificate issued by the Highways Department permitting continuation of operations with both partners
03.05.2025 MLA submitted request letter for new projects under the MGSMT Scheme
04.05.2025 Submission of Annual Turnover Statement (last 5 years) of Hari Construction
09.07.2025 Commissioner sanctioned ₹25 Crores towards MGSMT Scheme
25.08.2025 Work Order issued to Hari Construction under MLA CDS Fund by Kanai BDO for the period 25.08.2025 to 24.12.2025
15.09.2025 Government Order issued by Rural & Panchayat Raj Department allocating MLA CDS Funds
17.09.2025 Bid Acceptance Letter issued in favour of Hari Construction for MGSMT Scheme work (2025–2026)
03.03.2026 Representation submitted to the Respondents requesting necessary action
03.03.2026 Postal Tracking Record evidencing dispatch and service of the representation

Dated at Chennai on the 18th day of March, 2026.
Petitioner in Person
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. Of 2026

Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate, S/o. Late Sh. K. Ganeshan Pillai,
Aged about 44 Years, R/o Plot No. 1 & 2, Flat No. F1, 1st Floor,
Nandhi Block, MGR Salai, Nehru Nagar, Chennai – 600 093. …Petitioner

-VS-

1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The Office of Governor of Tamil Nadu, Governor Secretariat,
Rep by Secretary, Raj Bhavan, Guindy, Chennai- 600 022.

3. The Office of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary,
Chief Minister’s Office, Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.

4. The Hon’ble Speaker/Secretary, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly,
Secretariate, Chennai – 600 009.

5. The Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110 001.
6. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

7. The Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (SGS.1)
Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

8. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

9. The Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
No. 293, MKN Road, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District,
SP Office, Collector Office Road, Viluppuram,
Tamil Nadu – 605 602

11. The Commissioner, Directorate of Rural Development
and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, 4th Floor, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.

12. The District Collector, District Collector Office, Villupuram,
Tamil Nadu – 605 602.

13. The Additional Director/PD, DRDA, Collectorate Campus,
Moovendar Nagar, Villupuram, Tamil Nadu – 605 602.

14. The Chairperson/Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office,
Vikravandi, By-Pass Main Road, Vikravandi TK,
Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu– 605 652.

15. The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office,
Vikravandi Panchayat Union, Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu-605 652.

16. The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office,
Kanai Panchayat, Kanai Block, Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu-605 301.

17. The Block Development Officer, Block Development Office,
Koliyanur Post, Block, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu-605 103.

18. The Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India,
Room No.: 113, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.

19. The Director-General, Central Bureau of Investigation
Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi – 110 003.

20. The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
Shastri Bhavan, Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.
21. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Pravartan Bhawan,
APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi – 110011.

22. Regional/Special Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED),
Southern Region, Regional/Special Director Office,
Shastri Bhawan, 3rd Floor, 3rd Block, B Wing No. 26,
Haddows Road, Chennai – 600 006.

23. The Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Chennai Zonal Office I, No. 2, 5th & 6th Floor,
BSNL Administrative Building, Kushkumar Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

24. The Additional Director, Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Chennai Zonal Office II, 3rd Floor, Tower-II, BSNL Admin Building,
No. 16, Greams Road, Thousand Lights West, Thousand Lights,
Chennai – 600 006. Email:

25. A. Sivashanmugam, MLA Vikravani (AC), S/o, Ariyaputhiran,
R/o, No. 26, Bharathiyar Street, Vikrvandi Taluk, Villupuram
District, Tamil Nadu – 605 202.

26. M/s. Hari Construction, Managing Partner, Office at No. 348,
Sudar Illam, VAO Nagar, Valudareddy, Collectorate Back,
Tamil Nadu – 605 401. …Respondents
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
I, Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate, S/o. Late Sh. K. Ganeshan Pillai, aged about 44 Years, R/o Plot No. 1 & 2, Flat No. F1, 1st Floor, Nandhi Block, MGR Salai, Nehru Nagar, Chennai – 600 093, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: –
1. I am the Petitioner herein and am well acquainted with the facts of the present case as derived from the news & reporting of the social, print and electronic media as well as from the GOs, communications and records of the respondents/State authorities and other sources.
2. I humbly submit that my personal details are that I G.S. Mani, Advocate, My Enrolment No. D/2575/2009; Email-ID: gsmlawyers@gmail.com, Mobile No: 09968023734, Income Tax Assesse & PAN No: AITPM2232K, Annual Income from Profession: Gross Receipts of Rs.15,01,414/- & ID is BCD ID No.1688/G/25.
3. I humbly submit that I am filing the present PIL Writ Petition as a PROBONO Public/Public Interest Litigation. Though I am member of BJP political party, I have no personal interest or political motive from filing this PIL Writ Petition. This PIL writ petition is filed concerning a grave misuse of MLA Constituency Development Scheme (MLA-CDS) funds and Mudalvarin Grama Membattu Thittam (MGSMT) funds to the tune of several crores worth approx. ₹9.36 Crores under MLA-CDS and allocation of ₹25 Crores under MGSMT Scheme, diverted to 26th Respondent, a private firm “M/s. Hari Construction”, which is controlled by close family members of the 25th Respondent, sitting MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam (Anniyur Siva). If this Hon’ble Court is come to the conclusion that the present case is vexatious one and intend for personal gain or oblique motive, I, undertake to pay the costs, if any, imposed by this Hon’ble Court. I have not filed any similar Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court or in any other court. To my knowledge, no similar public interest litigation is filed before this Hon’ble Court or in any other Court. I have spent my personal money for the present case.
4. I humbly submit that I am a regular practicing Advocate of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras. I have been representing as a lawyer and also filing PIL writ Petition as a party in person before this Hon’ble Court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as an aggrieved Citizen of India and as a Pro-Bono public, where purely a Public Cause, Public Interest and Larger Public’s Rights, corruption against and Justice is involved.
5. I humbly submit that the present PIL writ petition is filed seeking Registration of FIR, CBI/SIT Investigation headed by a Retired Judge of the Madras High Court & action under PMLA Act against ruling DMK Party Vikravandi MLA – 25th Respondent, Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam (Anniyur Siva) – for his large-scale misuse and diversion of MLA Constituency Development (MLA-CDS) as well as Mudalvarin Grama Membattu Thittam (MGSMT) Phase-III scheme funds to his benami family construction firm namely the 26th Respondent, “M/s. Hari Construction Co.”.
6. I humbly submit that as per the report of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Member of Legislative Assembly Constituency Development Scheme (MLACDS) is a ‘plan scheme’ fully funded by the Government of Tamil Nadu, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department. The fund allocation under the scheme is Rs.3.00 crore per constituency per annum to the 234 constituencies of the State.
7. I humbly submit that the Objective of the Member of Legislative Assembly Constituency Development scheme (MLACDS) is to enable the Members of Legislative Assembly to identify the infrastructure gaps in their constituencies and proposed works to create durable assets for better amenities. This scheme is being implemented in both rural and urban areas in the state. Also, it is reiterated that 22 % of the overall allocation must be utilised for areas predominantly inhabited by SC/ST persons in rural areas and slums in urban areas.
8. I humbly submit that as per the report in 2021-22, a sum of Rs.702 crore has been released and 10,123 works have been taken up at an estimated cost of Rs.694.09 crore, out of which, 9,446 works have been completed and remaining 677 works are in progress.
9. I humbly submit that as per the report in 2022-23, a sum of Rs.702 crore has been released and 9,536 works have been taken up at an estimated cost of Rs.683.55 crore out of which, 6,703 works have been completed and remaining 2,833 works are in progress.
10. I humbly submit that as per the report in 2023-24, a sum of Rs.702 crore has been sanctioned and 9,012 works have been taken up at an estimated cost of Rs.604.86 crore out of which, 1,384 works have been completed and remaining 7,628 works are in progress.
11. I humbly submit that for the year 2024-25, the Government have accorded administrative sanction for Rs.702 Crore and issued detailed guidelines for implementation of this scheme.
12. I humbly submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu’s Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department orders for the fiscal year 2025-26, administrative sanction has been accorded for the implementation of the Member of Legislative Assembly Constituency Development Scheme (MLACDS). The government has approved an allocation of ₹702 crore for the implementation of the MLACDS for 2025-26.
13. I humbly submit that the funds are used to create essential infrastructure such as roads, street lights, drinking water facilities, and school infrastructure in rural and urban.
14. I humbly submit that he MLA Constituency Development Scheme (MLA-CDS) provides approximately ₹3 Crores per annum to each MLA for public development works within the constituency. The scheme mandates transparency, fair opportunity, and adherence to government procurement rules.
15. I humbly submit that the present writ petition concerns grave misuse of MLA-CDS funds by the 25th Respondent, a ruling DMK Party Vikravandi MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam, who elected as an MLA in the 2024 bye election.
16. I humbly submit that a partnership firm in the name of 26th Respondent, M/s. Hari Construction has been awarded multiple major works under MLA-CDS within Vikravandi Constituency. Originally, the said firm had the following partners: (1) Tmt. Vanitha Sivashanmugam (wife of the MLA) and (2) Thiru Manikandan Jayaraman (brother-in-law of the MLA).
17. I submit that after the MLA’s bye-election victory in 2024, the partnership structure was altered on 15.06.2024, whereby: The MLA’s wife resigned. His mother, (1) Tmt. Jayalakshmi Ariyaputhiran (aged about 74 years), was inducted as partner along with his brother-in-law.
18. I submit that the change of partners appears to be a deliberate device to conceal direct involvement and avoid scrutiny, while retaining control over the firm through close blood relatives.
19. I humbly submit that since 2024, works worth approximately ₹9,36,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand) under MLA-CDS funds have been allotted to said Hari Construction. The Major work orders were issued by Block Development Officer, Kanai Block on 25.08.2025, 24.10.2025 & 24.12.2025. The Similar work orders were also reportedly issued by Vikravandi Town Panchayat as well as Vikravandi & Koliyanur Block Development Offices.
20. I humbly submit that it is pertinent to note that prior to the bye-election of 2024, the annual turnover of Hari Construction was negligible. The Assessment Year 2022–2023 the annual turnover was ₹2,66,765/-, the assessment Year 2023–2024 was ₹3,62,26,588/- However, immediately after the MLA assumed office, the Assessment Year 2024–2025 was ₹5,84,97,519/- and the Assessment Year 2025–2026 was ₹7,03,90,393/-.
21. I humbly submit that the drastic increase from a modest turnover of ₹2.66 lakhs to over ₹7 crores per annum within a short span directly correlates with the assumption of office by the MLA. This abnormal rise is not attributable to organic business growth but is prima facie indicative of an abuse of official position, diversion of public funds and undue pecuniary advantage.
22. I humbly submit that the temporal proximity between the MLA’s electoral victory in 2024 and the exponential increase in company turnover establishes a strong prima facie nexus between public office and private enrichment of his family firm. Such enrichment squarely attracts Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (undue advantage through abuse of position), Criminal misconduct under BNS and grounds under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act upon conviction.
23. I humbly submit that the change of partnership on 15.06.2024 — replacing the MLA’s wife with his 74-year-old mother — appears to be a colourable device intended to conceal his direct involvement, to avoid conflict of interest scrutiny and to continue effective control through close relatives. Such conduct shall attract provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act if beneficial ownership is established.
24. I humbly submit that a firm with minimal prior turnover and limited financial capacity suddenly securing contracts worth crores under MLA-CDS funds raises serious doubt about competitive bidding, suggests undue influence on Block Development Officers and indicates possible manipulation of tender process. This undermines Article 14 principles of fairness and equality in public contracts.
25. I humbly submit that apart from the misuse of MLA CDS funds, the said Vikravandi MLA, on 03.05.2025, had addressed a representation on his ruling DMK party letterhead to the Additional Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department seeking sanction of more than 37 new construction projects under Mudalvarin Grama Salaigal Membattu Thittam (MGSMT) 2025–2026 Phase-III.
26. I humbly submit that in compliance to above said request, subsequently, the Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, by proceedings dated 09.07.2025, allocated ₹25 Crores to various Blocks in Villupuram District including Kanai, Vikravandi, Koliyanur and Marakkanam.
27. I humbly submit that the temporal and administrative proximity between the MLA’s demand, and large-scale allocation of ₹25 Crores raises serious suspicion of undue political influence and colourable exercise of power.
28. I humbly submit that the major work orders were allegedly secured by Hari Construction (MLA’s family firm). Bid acceptance letters issued in September 2025 and February 2026 by District authorities allegedly show concentration of contracts in favour of the said firm. This establishes a prima facie nexus between political recommendation, administrative allocation and award of tenders to related private entity. Such pattern reflects abuse of dominant position and conflict of interest.
29. I humbly submit that the misuse is not confined to MLA-CDS funds alone but extends to MGSMT Scheme projects, multi-block allocations and crores of rupees worth infrastructure contracts. This indicates systematic diversion of public development schemes for private enrichment rather than isolated irregularity.
30. I humbly submit that the tender procedures were manipulated, financial eligibility norms were diluted, bids were structured to favour Hari Construction, then offences relating to criminal conspiracy, abuse of public office, falsification of records, corruption by public servants, would be attracted under BNS and Prevention of Corruption Act.
31. I humbly submit that the said 25th Respondent, MLA having high influence with senior IAS/IPS officers and ministers. Illegal gratification flowed to public officials, funds were layered or routed through accounts, contracts were awarded in exchange for monetary consideration, then such proceeds would fall within the definition of “proceeds of crime” under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In such case Enforcement Directorate investigation may be warranted and attachment of properties may be initiated.
32. I humbly submit that the concentration of MLA-CDS works (₹9.36 Crores approx.). The MGSMT Scheme works (₹25 Crores allocation). Family firm turnover rising beyond ₹7 Crores per annum together create a strong prima facie case of systemic misuse of public office for pecuniary advantage. This constitutes violation of Article 14 (fairness in public contracts), breach of public trust doctrine, abuse of constitutional position.
33. I humbly submit that the cumulative pattern — MLA recommendation → Fund allocation → Tender award → Financial enrichment of family firm — establishes a strong prima facie case of abuse of official influence, criminal conspiracy, corruption and money laundering.
34. I humbly submit that if investigation ordered ad establishes that the MLA is the beneficial owner or controlling authority of the firm, and the firm has subsisting Government contracts, then Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is directly attracted, warranting his disqualification.
35. I humbly submit that an elected representative acts as a trustee of public funds. The dramatic increase in turnover post-election creates a strong presumption of breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, betrayal of public trust.
36. I humbly submit that the financial trajectory of Hari Construction before and after the MLA’s electoral victory establishes a prima facie case of abuse of office, unlawful pecuniary gain, diversion of MLA-CDS funds. So, it is important, just and necessity for CBI / Court-Monitored SIT investigation.
37. I humbly submit that the scale and pattern of allotment demonstrate undue favouritism, conflict of interest, abuse of official position and denial of fair opportunity to other eligible contractors.
38. I humbly submit that the aforesaid acts and commissions of said ruling DMK party Vikravandi MLA complained of prima facie attract the following offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 namely Criminal breach of trust by public servant, Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, Criminal conspiracy, Falsification of records (if documents manipulated) and under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 namely Section 7 & 13, Public servant obtaining undue advantage for himself or through relatives and abuse of official position for pecuniary gain as well as under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.
39. I humbly submit that the Hari Construction firm is effectively owned and controlled by the MLA while held in relatives’ names. That all the work orders allotted to MLA’s own or family owned construction company namely Hari Construction under the MLA CDS Funds allotted by the Block Development Officers in violation of MLA-CDS Guidelines & Government Procurement Rules, conflict of interest, lack of transparency and misuse of public funds.
40. I humbly submit that the accused is a sitting ruling DMK party MLA wielding political influence, local investigation agencies may face pressure as the amount involved exceeds ₹9 Crores. The systematic change of partners post-election indicates mens rea. Public confidence in governance demands independent inquiry.
41. I humbly submit that the alleged acts represent a grave betrayal of public trust and misuse of taxpayer money. The diversion of crores of public funds to a construction firm owned and controlled by close blood relatives of a sitting MLA strikes at the root of constitutional morality and democratic governance. Unless immediate independent investigation is ordered, public confidence in the MLA-CDS scheme will be irreparably damaged.
42. I humbly submit that the Constitution of India, under Article 191 lays down grounds for disqualification of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA). The relevant provision under Article 191 is extracted herein below: –

“191. Disqualifications for Membership. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State: –
(a) If he holds any office of profit under the Government (Not relevant to this case).
(b) Unsound Mind declared by a competent court (Not relevant to this case).
(c) Undischarged Insolvent (Not relevant to this case).
(d) Not a Citizen of India (Not relevant to this case).
(e) Disqualified under any law made by Parliament (Very relevant to this case)

The relevant clause here is Article 191(1)(e) – disqualification under statutory law (Representation of the People Act, 1951).

43. I humbly submit that the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 8 – prescribe immediate disqualification on Conviction, If the MLA is convicted for corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Criminal breach of trust, Cheating, Criminal conspiracy and any offence involving moral turpitude with sentence more than 2 years.

44. I humbly submit that the Section 8A, 9A & 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prescribes disqualification on ground of corrupt practices, disqualification if he involves in Government Contracts and disqualification for office under Government company. These are very important provisions to the present case as an MLA shall be disqualified if (a) involves in corrupt practice, if he has a subsisting contract with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods or execution of works and for his office under Government company. The relevant provisions under section 8A, 9A & 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is extracted herein below: –

“8A. Disqualification on ground of corrupt practices.—(1) The case of every person found guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under section 99 shall be submitted, 4[as soon as may be within a period of three months from the date such order takes effect], by such authority as the Central Government may specify in this behalf, to the President for determination of the question as to whether such person shall be disqualified and if so, for what period: Provided that the period for which any person may be disqualified under this sub-section shall in no case exceed six years from the date on which the order made in relation to him under section 99 takes effect.
(2) Any person who stands disqualified under section 8A of this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (40 of 1975), may, if the period of such disqualification has not expired, submit a petition to the President for the removal of such disqualification for the unexpired portion of the said period. (3) Before giving his decision on any question mentioned in sub-section (1) or on any petition submitted under sub-section (2), the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission on such question or petition and shall act according to such opinion.”

“9A. Disqualification for Government contracts, etc.—A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists a contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or business with the appropriate Government for the supply of goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by that Government. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, where a contract has been fully performed by the person by whom it has been entered into with the appropriate Government, the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only of the fact that the Government has not performed its part of the contract either wholly or in part”.

“10. Disqualification for office under Government company. A person shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, he is a managing agent, manager or secretary of any company or corporation (other than a co-operative society) in the capital of which the appropriate Government has not less than twenty-five per cent. Share”.

45. I humbly submit that the ruling DMK Vikravandi MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam, MLA of Vikravandi was elected as an MLA in the 2024 bye election. Immediately, after his election as an MLA, a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Hari Construction has been awarded multiple major works under MLA-CDS within Vikravandi Constituency. Originally, the said firm had his wifie (1) Tmt. Vanitha Sivashanmugam and his brother in law (2) Thiru Manikandan Jayaraman were partners.

46. I humbly submit that after the MLA’s bye-election victory in 2024, the partnership structure was altered on 15.06.2024, whereby: The MLA’s wife resigned. His mother, (1) Tmt. Jayalakshmi Ariyaputhiran (aged about 74 years), was inducted as partner along with his brother-in-law. The change of partners is a crystal clear to conceal the direct involvement and avoid scrutiny, while retaining control over the firm through close blood relatives.

47. I humbly submit that the ruling DMK party Vikravandi MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam is the real/beneficial owner (benami controller) of Hari Construction, and the firm has subsisting contracts under MLA-CDS with Government authorities, then Section 9A can be invoked. Even indirect ownership may attract scrutiny if control and beneficial interest are established. Section 10 – Managing Agent or Manager of Government Company. If MLA is managing or controlling a company having government contracts. The said MLA is de facto controller, the family members are only name-lenders. He exercises financial control so the aforesaid section very well can be invoked.

48. I humbly submit that Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 prescribes that a public servant commits offence if he obtains undue advantage for himself or another person, abuses official position to obtain pecuniary advantage.

49. I humbly submit that the aforesaid firm is actually owned/controlled by MLA. Relatives are mere name-lenders. Profits flow back to MLA. Then proceedings under Benami Act may be initiated. Conviction under this Act also leads to disqualification.

50. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgments and jurisprudence emphasizes, constitutional morality, Public trust doctrine, fiduciary responsibility of elected representatives, awarding public works to family-owned entities Violates fairness in public procurement, may amount to “undue influence” and attracts corruption scrutiny.

51. I humbly submit that therefore, disqualification as MLA, registration of FIR, investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation, or A Special Investigation Team headed by a Retired Judge of the Madras High Court or an eminent and efficient top IAS or IPS officers is absolutely just and necessary.

52. I humbly submit that it is a paramount duty of every citizen and the State is to protect and ensure the fundamental rights of life, liberty, equality. The right of free and fair criminal investigation is a fundamental and constitution rights guaranteed by our constitution. If anyone infringe & violate their fundamental rights, a necessary stringent criminal and legal actions should be taken.
53. I humbly submit that as stated above the fundamental right of free and fair criminal investigation guaranteed under our Constitution of India under Part-III. The State defined under Article 12 of the Constitution is obliged and duty bound to protect and provide the same. If the state machinery failed to do so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court under Article 32 & 226 has got Judicial Power to direct the State Machinery to enforce and protect the said rights. The respondent state authorities herein have totally failed to protect the aforesaid fundamental rights guaranteed under our constitution by not and thereby render justice.
54. I humbly submit that therefore, an order for further free and fair investigation into the matter by an independent, impartial agency like CBI or SIT alone is appropriate and proper to meet the justice.
55. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “V.K. Sasikala” reported in (2012) 9 SCC 771, in para 18, has held that Free and fair trial is citizen’s right under article 19 and 21 of constitution.
56. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “K. Anbazhagan” case reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767, in para 30, has held that Free and fair trial is a fundamental right under article 21”.
57. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Rubabbudin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat case, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200, para 60 & 61, has held that “in an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when the charge sheet has been submitted”.
58. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat and Others” case (direct) in WP (Crl.) No. 115 of 2007, reported in (2011) 5 SCC 79 in para 27, 59 and 71 has held that “in an appropriate case, particularly, when the court feels that the investigation by the state police authorities is not in the proper direction as the high level politicians and higher police officials involved in the crime, in order to do complete justice, it is always open to the court to hand over the investigation to an independent and specialized agency like CBI.” In the present case the state authorities are evidently protecting the ruling DMK MLA.
59. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Sunita Devi and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 664, in para 5, 9, 10 & 11 has held that “It is clear that the investigating agency showed lackadaisical approach in carrying/proceeding with the investigation. We are of the view that it is necessary to have a fair, honest and complete investigation”.
60. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Bharat Tamang vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 578, in para 1, 2, 23, 33, 34 & 35, has held that “..it is the responsibility of the police to come up to the expectation of the public at large and display that no stone will remain unturned to book the culprits and bring them for trial for being dealt with under the provisions of the criminal law of prosecution. Any slackness displayed in that process will not be in the interest of public at large and therefore as has been pointed out by this Court in the various decisions, which we have referred to in the earlier paragraphs, we find that it is our responsibility to ensure that the prosecution agency is reminded of its responsibility and duties in the discharge of its functions effectively and efficiently and ensure that the criminal prosecution is carried on effectively and the perpetrators of crime are duly punished by the appropriate court of law”.
61. I humbly submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in [(2015) 9 SCC 795], in para 22 has held that “22. It is true that the prayer for transfer of investigation from the State Police to CBI can be allowed only in rare and exceptional circumstances when fair investigation by the State Police does not inspire confidence on account of any external influence or otherwise as held in State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571: (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 401]. There can be no cast-iron parameters and whether an exceptional situation has arisen may be determined by the Court by taking an overview of the fact situation of a particular case. In the present case, we do not consider it necessary to blame the college authorities or the local police but we are also unable to reject the apprehension of the petitioner and his prayer for transfer of investigation. The death of a young girl student has taken place in mysterious circumstances. According to the petitioner, the statement of the girl was not recorded even though it could have been done and thus, truth has not come out. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, it will be appropriate that the matter is investigated by CBI.”
62. I humbly submit that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a fair and impartial investigation (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597).
63. I humbly submit that the non registration of FIR and utter failure to take criminal and other departmental action again the ruling DMK party MLA by the respondents state authority is a clear case of shielding influential persons. The Supreme Court in Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 2 SCC 200 held that shielding influential persons justifies transfer to CBI.
64. I humbly submit that in the case of State of West Bengal v. CPDR (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that High Courts can direct transfer the criminal investigation to CBI whenever necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations.
65. I humbly submit that in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat (2011) 5 SCC 79 and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, the Supreme Court ordered transfer to SIT/CBI when state police investigations were neither fair nor impartial.
66. I humbly submit that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate and PIL activist. In SP Gupta v. Union of India (1981 Supp SCC 87), the Supreme Court recognized PILs in matters affecting large sections of society.
67. I humbly submit that this petition is maintainable as it concerns serious corruption and scam of MLA CDS funds diversion to MLA family company. The petitioner has locus standi under the well-established principles of public interest litigation.
68. I humbly submit that the I have sent a representation to all the official respondents and sought FIR registration, investigation, transfer of investigation to CBI or SIT investigation and along with other relief and action on 03.03.2026 by email as well as by Speed Post, the email was served on them on very same day of 03.03.2026 and the Speed Post was served on them on 04.3.2026 to 06.03.2026, however, no action or response or reply has given by them till today. Only the CM Cell have sent a text message stating that the petitioner complainant forwarded to appropriate authority for further action. But no other respondent has neither sent any reply nor have taken any action on the complaint or representation sent by the petitioner.
69. I submit that I have not filed any other similar writ petition before this Hon’ble Court and or any other competent Court earlier for the same relief sought in the present PIL Writ Petition.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed by the petitioner that this Honorable Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file present writ petition and pass further suitable orders and thus render justice.
It is therefore, this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious, may be pleased to dispense with the original/fair/clean/typed/legible copy of Government Order/GOs/Circulars/Letters/Communication/ ITR/Audit/Financial Documents/other documents/annexures annexed with the type set of writ petition and render justice.
It is therefore, this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious, may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the official respondents 1st , 2nd and 6th to 13th Respondents to consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner dated 03.03.2026 and order to register an FIR under relevant provisions of BNS, Prevention of Corruption Act, and other applicable laws and an independent and impartial investigation, preferably by CBI or a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by retired Judges of Hon’ble Madras High Court or eminent and efficient top IAS or IPS officers against the ruling DMK party’s Vkravani MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam (Anniyur Siva) and any other accused persons or officials concerned for his and their large-scale misuse and diversion of Vkravandi MLA Constituency Development Scheme (MLA-CDS) funds worth about ₹9,36,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand) to his benami family construction firm “M/s. Hari Construction Co.” and ensure transparency by publishing investigation findings and call for the records and direct them to file their status report in this regard ; and
It is therefore, this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious, may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 2nd, 4th & 5th Respondents to consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner dated 03.03.2026 and initiate proceedings for disqualification of the MLA under Representation of People Act and after due process of law disqualify Vikravandi MLA Thiru. Ariyaputhiran Sivashanmugam; and
It is therefore, this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious, may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 1st , 2nd and 6th to 17th Respondents to consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner dated 03.03.2026 and to freeze payments and further work orders issued to Hari Construction pending inquiry and conduct forensic audit of all MLA-CDS funds utilized in Vikravandi Constituency from 2024 onwards; and
It is therefore, this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscious, may be pleased to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the 21st to 24th Respondents to consider the representation/complaint of the petitioner dated 03.03.2026 and to register an ECIR and take action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the concerned MLA, his family members, Hari Construction and other connected persons, conduct a thorough investigation into the generation, layering and projection of proceeds of crime arising out of alleged misuse of MLA-CDS and MGSMT Scheme funds and identify and quantify the “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA and pass such any other and further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and render justice.
Solemnly affirmed and signed DEPONENT
Before me at Chennai on 18th
March, 2026
BEFORE ME

ADVOCATE, CHENNAI

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 226 of Constitution of India)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

W.M.P. No. of 2026
In
W.P. No. Of 2026

Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate, S/o. Late Sh. K. Ganeshan Pillai,
Aged about 44 Years, R/o Plot No. 1 & 2, Flat No. F1, 1st Floor,
Nandhi Block, MGR Salai, Nehru Nagar, Chennai – 600 093. …Petitioner
-VS-
1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.