Litigant withdraws PIL seeking revival of 2001 flyover construction scam case against T.N. CM Stalin

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (November 12, 2024) permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed in April this year challenging the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker’s November 7, 2006, order withdrawing the sanction, granted in 2005, to prosecute incumbent Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in the flyover construction scam case.

The Madras High Court on Tuesday (November 12, 2024) permitted the withdrawal of a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed in April this year challenging the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker’s November 7, 2006, order withdrawing the sanction, granted in 2005, to prosecute incumbent Chief Minister M.K. Stalin in the flyover construction scam case.

First Division Bench of Chief Justice K.R. Shriram and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy also permitted the litigant Manickam Athappa Gounder of Coimbatore to withdraw ₹1 lakh that he had deposited, as directed by the previous Division Bench, in order to prove his bona fide intention behind filing the case after 18 years.

In his affidavit, the litigant had said the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) had registered a case against former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi, the incumbent Chief Minister, and a few others on June 19, 2001, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the then Chennai Corporation Commissioner J.C.T. Acharyalu.

Touted as the flyover scam case, it was related to an alleged corruption in the construction of various flyovers in Chennai city at an outlay of ₹115.50 crore. The CB-CID completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet against Karunanidhi, Mr. Stalin, incumbent Minister K. Ponmudi, and former Minister Ko.Si. Mani in 2004.

On April 15, 2005, the then Speaker had accorded sanction for prosecution. However, after the DMK returned to power in the State in 2006, the person who succeeded to the post of Speaker withdrew the sanction since the CB-CID had a volte-face and decided to close the case by terming it a “mistake of fact.”

Terming the withdrawal of sanction “arbitrary,” the petitioner urged the court to quash the Speaker’s 2006 order and issue a consequential direction to the competent court to prosecute Mr. Stalin and Mr. Ponmudi for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as the Indian Penal Code.