PIL alleging corruption charges against TN minister dismissed

Madras High Court today dismissed a PIL, which sought a direction to DVAC to conduct a detail inquiry on a complaint against Tamil Nadu minister for Information K T Rajendra Balaji.
The First Bench, comprising, Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Kumar Agrawal and Justice M Sathyanarayanan, said the petition was premature and they cannot pass any orders at this stage.
M Raja of Madurai, in his petition alleged that the minister purchased huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by abusing his official position.
He also alleged that the minister, who was also the Virudhunagar AIADMK District Secretary, filed his nomination from Sivakasi constituency in 2011 Assembly elections, in which he declared his immovable properties were to the tune of Rs 29,83,163 and his liabilities were Rs 1,39,200.

The petitioner alleged that after assuming office as minister, Balaji purchased a 34 acre land in the foothills of Western Ghats for Rs 74 lakhs and the registration of this sale was made in his own house on a Saturday, which was a holiday.
He further submitted that he made a complaint to Directorate of Vigilance Anti Corruption on June 4, and sought a direction for a detail inquiry on the matter.

The bench, which dismissed the petition concurring with the submissions of the Advocate General A L Somayaji, observed that the perusal of DVAC manual would disclose that elaborate procedure was prescribed for disposal of the complaints.

While sailing with the submissions of AG, the bench said the complaint against the minister was looked into and preliminary inquiry as to the truth and genuineness of the complaint required elaborate exercise.
The bench further observed that it can take a judicial note of the fact that the corruption was spreading like virus and it was affecting the country as a whole and there was always a presumption that the governmental action was reasonable in public interest.
The bench said after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it was of the view that writ petition at this stage was premature and deserved to be dismissed.