CHELLIAH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein is an Engineering Graduate and also qualified Class-I Contractor at State Level in the Highways Department. In response to the tender notification dated 24.08.2011, issued by the Highways Department, calling for tender pertaining to 86 works in Tirunelveli District, the writ petitioner has applied with necessary Pay Order for issuance of tender schedule. The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Tirunelveli, has refused to give him the tender schedule. On representation to the Higher Officials, the Divisional Engineer gave the tender schedule to the writ petitioner and on his application, the work in Serial No.10 in the said Notification was sanctioned to him. To receive the work order, the writ petitioner went to the Office of the Divisional Engineer, National Highways on 25.11.2011. Mr.Soundarrajan, Divisional Engineer of National Highways, alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of work order. The writ petitioner not inclined to give illegal gratification, has preferred a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli, on 29.11.2011 and the same was registered as Crime No.3 of 2011.

(2.) While so, the Contractor by name, R.S.Murugan and other Contractors developed grudge over the writ petitioner for giving complaint against the Divisional Engineer, who was very much favourable to them. Hence, they have hatched conspiracy and gave a complaint before the City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli, as if on 15.10.2009, one E.Murugan borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from the writ petitioner to meet out his daughter's marriage expenses, for which, the writ petitioner charged exorbitant interest at the rate of 10% per month and also obtained four blank promissory notes and original title deed of the said E.Murugan. In the complaint, it was stated that the borrower E.Murugan was regularly paying the interest of Rs. 35,000/- per month from the date of borrowing till October 2011. On 15.10.2011, the writ petitioner came to his house and received the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. When the complainant demanded back the signed promissory notes and original title deed, the writ petitioner has promised to return the same within two days. But, after two days, when the complainant went to the house of the writ petitioner, again, he gave some excuse that the documents are with his Uncle. His family members became suspicious about the conduct of the writ petitioner. The complainant on 15.10.2011 went to the house of the writ petitioner and insisted upon return of documents. At that time, the writ petitioner alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant. When the complainant insisted upon return of documents, the writ petitioner attacked him on chest and stomach and tried to assault him with Aruval.

(3.) Upon receiving the complaint, Mr.S.Syed Ibrahim, Assistant Commissioner of Police, City Crime Branch, fifth respondent herein, has registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2011, against the writ petitioner for the offences under Sections 294(b) , 506(ii) , 420 and 384 IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.