WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 05.11.2025

DELIVERED ON : 11.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

W.P.Crl.No.852 of 2025

H.Manikandan

S/o.Haridoss, 107, Krishna Nagar 5th

Cross, Near National Pharma Agency,

Viruthachalam, Cuddlaore - 606 001.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director,

CBI, 6th Floor, Lodhi Road,

Plot No.5-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium

Marg, CGO Complex,

New Delhi-110 003.

2.The Joint Director,

CBI, No.26, 3rd Floor,

Opposite Relaince and Food

Corporation,

Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,

Chennai-600 006.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950

praying to issue a Wit of Mandamus, directing the 3

rd

respondent to register the

1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

First Information Report / Regular Case and file a final report under Section 193

of BNSS, 2023, based upon the petitioner’s complaint dated 23.07.2025 which

was forwarded by the respondents 1 and 2 to the 3

rd

respondent for

investigation.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ravikumar

For Respondents : Mr.K.Srinivasan

Special Public Prosecutor For CBI Cases

O R D E R

The petitioner, a resident of Cuddalore District, on coming to know about

the various illegal acts of the Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) India Limited

officials in mass corruption in various projects of NLC India Ltd. from the year

2022 to 2025, gathered various information about the illegal acts and sent a

complaint dated 23.07.2025 to the first and second respondents against the

officials of NLC India Ltd. and private individuals, contractors and legal entities

complaining against several private individuals/legal entities and public

servants, benefited to the tune of Rs.422 Crores approximately. After receipt of

the complaint, the second respondent forwarded the complaint to the third

respondent for appropriate action, third respondent sent a communication dated

13.08.2025 to the petitioner calling him to give his contact and other details to

take appropriate action. The petitioner gave all details. The third respondent

thereafter taken no tangible action, hence filed this writ petition seeking for

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

issuance of mandamus, directing the third respondent to register an

F.I.R./Regular Case and file final report on the complaint of the petitioner dated

23.07.2025.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his complaint

disclosed cognizable offence committed by officials of NLC India Ltd. in

collusion with private individuals, contractors and others. The complaint was

specifically made against the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NLC India

Ltd., Director/Power, Director/Finance and other officials, viz., CVO/NLCIL,

Director/P&P (Retd.), ED/CSR, ED/Finance, ED/REPP & CTO, ED/NTTPP,

ED/Talabira Mines, CGM/PSE, GM/CEC (Retd.), ED/Legal, Company

Secretary, ED/Thermal, CGM/TPS and against private individuals, contractors

and legal entities, who all conspired to do an illegal act and committed criminal

misconduct, breach of trust, cheating, fabrication of documents and falsification

of accounts and thereby committed wrongful loss to NLC India Ltd. to the tune

of Rs.422 Crores approximately, by giving 5 specific instances.

(i) Instant No.1: NLC awarded a project of Neyveli Talabira Thermal

Power Project at Odisha for construction of houses for PDF (Project Disabled

Families) and the contract was awarded to M/s.RSB Projects Private Limited on

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

21.12.2022 for a value of Rs.137.97 Crores in violation of all Rules and

procedures, and by suppressing the earlier material documents of this project.

During the execution of the work, M/s.RSB Projects Private Limited asked for

supplementary item works of six numbers along with quantity enhancement

during February, 2024. To help the contractor and without following the regular

procedures, a committee was constituted by NLC India Ltd. and with the

recommendation of the committee and a subsequent approval of NLC India

Ltd., Subcommittee of Directors, amendment the contract issued approving only

three supplementary item works against six supplementary item works

requested. This was done to enrich the contractors illegally. Again, during

September, 2024, the contractor requested supplemental item works for six

numbers including the item works, which were not approved earlier. This time a

new committee constituted by NLC India Ltd. to review the supplementary item

works requested by the contractor with an understanding to give clear cut bribe

amount to the above officials of NLC India Ltd. To help the contractor,

Members and Chairman of the Committee from the same division gave

favourable order to the contractor by abusing their official position. The said

committee members gave divided opinion but with advantage of Chairman’s

vote, recommendation of supplemental item works passed with 3:2 votes. Again

during July, 2024, the contractor sought rate revision for the contract. This

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

request was rejected by the Central Technical Office (hereinafter referred as

‘CTO’). However, with the influence of contractor, the NLC India Ltd. officials

constituted one lower level committee, then again one high level committee but

in both the committees, CTO officials not included to review the contractor

request. The high level committee recommended rate revision of contract

against the agreement conditions executed by the contractor. The agreement

conditions clearly stipulates that no rate revision is applicable during the entire

contract period. This is a clear abuse of power by the NLC India Ltd. officials

who derived pecuniary advantage from the contract which is nothing but an

illegal gratification which is punishable under the provisions of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

(ii)Instant No.II: Contract given to M/s.HITES, who in turn given to

M/s.KPC Projects Ltd., Hyderabad for construction of Integrated Township in

Talabira site. The original Integrated Township construction was planned by

CTO with proper estimation for a value of Rs.191 Crores for 642 numbers of

various types of houses for its employees and for approach road to Township,

Hospital facility, Recreational clubs, Schools and closed Auditorium etc. During

tendering one of the bidder M/s.BHEL asked NLC India Ltd to delink some of

the non EPC works from the tender including Township construction work to

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

avoid time delay in execution of the main Thermal Power Project at Talabira,

Odisha. It is learnt that the CMD changed all conventional procedure followed

earlier by NLC India Ltd., for almost all contract works including Township

construction work by CTO, NLC India Ltd. all of a sudden, without following

customary contractual procedure, the entire Talabira Township construction

work was taken away from CTO Thermal domain scope and handed over to

Mines domain. From Mines domain, this work was offloaded to M/s.HITES on

PMC basis and M/s.HITES awarded this work on nomination basis urgently

without following the open tender method. Even though the work was awarded

on nomination basis urgently during June, 2024, for the construction of houses,

tender was floated by M/s.HITES during April, 2025 only. The EPC contract for

construction of Integrated Township work was awarded to M/s.KPC Projects

Ltd., Hyderabad for an exorbitant value of Rs.524.50 Crores. The NLC India

Ltd. officials committed criminal misconduct along with officials of M/s.HITES

and both the parties received considerable bribe money to the tune of Rs.361.24

Crores.

(iii) Instant No.III: Granting Extension of Time twice to contract agencies

in transporting of Pond Ash. On 30.05.2023, Pond Ash sale order agreement

issued to agencies for the quantity of 10 lakhs ton and for a value of Rs.1 per

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

ton for a time period of 12 months up to 29.05.2024. The contractor claimed it

could not transport the pond ash from the abandoned pond within the original

contract period and sought extension of time citing reasons that no proper

approach road available for transportation of pond ash and NHAI also utilising

the ash pond at that time parallelly and transporting ash, hence, there was

disruptions in the transport. Further, there is no alternate road available to

transport the ash. The contractor demanded for extension of time for a period

from 30.05.2024 to 30.12.2024, which was granted at the same rate of Rs.1 per

ton of pond ash and further the first extension was closed on 22.12.2024.

However, the contract agencies removed pond ash and red sand from the ash

pond even after this period, which was found by NLC India Ltd. Vigilance team

on 02.01.2025, and there was a removal of 73000 tons of red sand from the ash

pond causing damage to the embankment. The second extension of time was

granted to the contractors against the vigilance report. At that time though the

pond ash per ton was valued at a minimum of Rs.150 per ton, it was given at

meagre value of Rs.1 per ton of ash and there was reverse flow of funds to the

public servants.

(iv)Instant No.IV: ‘Voice of World’ with regard to CSR programs. NLC

India Ltd. Management misused the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

funds. At the last minute the CSR funds allotted to Kolkata based NGO ‘Voice

of World’ was stopped. Earlier, Voice of World sought release of Rs.4 Crores for

CSR fund for door-to-door campaign providing nutritious food for the affected

blind girls and purchase of house for running medical check-up. This CSR fund

was released at the instance of an internal Director of NLC India Ltd.

(v) Instant No.V: Exim Bank. NLC India Ltd. is operating its projects all

over India. Some of the Joint ventures companies like NTPL at Tuticorin, Tamil

Nadu, NUPPL at Ghatampu, Uttar Pradesh also operated by NLC India Ltd.

During May, 2024 an E-mail received by the Corporate Environment Cell from

EXIM Bank seeking verification of authenticity of the documents issued by

NLC India Ltd. containing authorisation by GM as CEO of the Joint Venture

entity of NLC India Ltd. with Malaysia/Singapore based firm. This

authorisation document is said to have been issued by Company Secretary of

NLC India Ltd. On enquiry, it was found authorisation to be a forged, fake

document, forging NLC India Ltd. Company Secretary signature and by using

the forged letter, they attempted to get Bank Guarantee from EXIM Bank to

avail loan from US based financial institution, projecting loan required for

manufacture of Graphite from the Neyveli Township Municipal waste.

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

3.For the above forgeries, Chief Vigilance Officer, NLC India Ltd. lodged

a complaint to the local police, though police complaint lodged and CSR

No.525 dated 30.11.2024 issued by the local police, thereafter no action taken

either by the local police or by the NLC India Ltd. to further pursue the matter,

unearth the forgery committed and to find out involvement of the top officials of

NLC India Ltd. The petitioner along with his complaint dated 23.07.2025,

annexed nine supporting documents to prove the misdeeds committed by NLC

India Ltd. officials and others, but no action taken.

4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner relied

upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.R.Antulay vs. Ramdas

Sriniwas Nayak and another reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500, wherein it is held

that in criminal jurisprudence anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion

except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicated to the contrary

and locus standi of the complainant is a concept foreign to criminal law save

and except that where the statue creating an offence provides for the eligibility

of the complainant by necessary implication the general principle gets excluded

by such statutory provision.

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

5.He further relied upon the judgment in the case of Lalita Kumari vs.

Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein

the Hon’ble Apex Court issued guideline with regard to the registration of F.I.R.

when cognizable offence is made out and carved out certain type of cases where

preliminary enquiry is to be conducted will depend upon the facts and

circumstances of each case and to Prevention of Corruption Act cases but that

complaint cannot be kept endlessly in the guise of preliminary enquiry and time

line has been prescribed.

6.The learned counsel further filed an additional typed set of papers and

affidavit. In the additional affidavit it is submitted that it is the duty of the third

respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with Chapter XII of

Cr.P.C./Chapter XIII of BNSS, 2023 based upon the complaint and nine

documents provided by the petitioner, but not considering the same, the third

respondent filed an untenable written submission before this Court. The entire

written submissions filed by the third respondent is not touching the offence

committed by the officials of NLC India Ltd. and the written submission totally

silent about the status of petitioner’s complaint.

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

7.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath

Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2025) 4 SCC 818, wherein

the principles of Lalita Kumari case reiterated. He further relied upon the

decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri

Channakeshava.H.D. and another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 412, wherein

it is held that an accused public servant does not have any right to explain the

alleged disproportionate assets before filing of an F.I.R. Lastly, he relied upon

the decision in the case of Vinod Kumar Pandey and another vs. Seesh Ram

Saini and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1951, which reiterates the

principle laid down in Lalita Kumari case for the point that genuineness or

credibility of the information is not condition precedent for the registration of

F.I.R.

8.The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed his written submissions and

relied upon the decisions in the case of Bhajan Lal, P.Sirajuddin vs. State of

Madras, which reads as follows:

“Preliminary Submission

1. The present writ petition is misconceived, untenable in law, and

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

deserves dismissal at the threshold. The petitioner has sought to

assail the action of the answering respondent without producing

even a shred of evidence in support of the allegations contained in

his complaint.

2. It is settled law that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not

meant to be invoked for mere bald allegations. Unless there is some

material which discloses a prima facie commission of an offence,

no direction can be issued to register a case.

Facts

3. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the respondent

containing allegations of misconduct/corruption.

4. In accordance with procedure, the complaint was scrutinized and

the petitioner was contacted for production of relevant documents

or supporting evidence.

5. The petitioner expressly admitted that he does not possess any

such documents or supporting material. In absence of any prima

facie evidence, no further action could be taken at that stage.

6. Contrary to facts, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent

"insisted him to approach the High Court" for registration of a case.

This allegation is baseless and denied. The petitioner was only

informed of the correct legal position that without supporting

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

evidence, no case can be registered, and that directions for

registration of a case fall within the domain of the competent

authority or the Hon'ble Court.

Legal Position

7. As per well-settled law, preliminary verification of a complaint is

permissible and, in fact, necessary before registration of a criminal

case.

◦In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that no case should be

registered on the basis of vague or indefinite allegations, and

that preliminary enquiry is permissible to ascertain whether

cognizable offence is disclosed.

◦In P Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that allegations of

corruption against public servants must be carefully screened

at the threshold before any investigation is initiated.

8. As per Vigilance guidelines and departmental procedure:

◦ The complainant is obliged to furnish prima facie

materials or evidence.

◦ The concerned vigilance department conducts an

initial enquiry to ascertain veracity.

◦ If allegations involve the Chief Vigilance Officer or

higher authority, the matter is referred to the competent

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

Ministry/Department.

◦ Only if prima facie evidence emerges, or if directed

by this Hon'ble Court, can register a Regular Case (RC).

9. It is therefore submitted that the stand taken by the respondent is

strictly in accordance with law and procedure.

Denial of Imputations

10. The allegation that the respondent directed the petitioner to

approach the Hon'ble High Court is wholly false. The petitioner

appears to have misinterpreted the clarification given to him

regarding the legal process. At no point was the petitioner coerced

or compelled in any manner”

9.The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that it is

admitted by the petitioner that the third respondent called him for enquiry to

submit the relevant materials. The petitioner was making allegations claiming

himself to be running private Man Power Agency. Further the petitioner makes

sweeping allegations against the top officials of NLC India Ltd. and others. In

view of the above, the petitioner was called to produce all documents referred to

in his complaint and also to give explanation. The petitioner gives his own

interpretation, making serious allegations against the officials and others. The

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

petitioner was called more than once to appear before the third respondent,

submit the documents in support of his complaint and to give explanation, but

petitioner not turned up, co-operated for enquiry and now filed this writ petition

making wild allegations.

10.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is

seen that petitioner sent a complaint dated 23.07.2025 and in his complaint gave

five instances of misdeeds and referred to nine documents, but copies of the

nine documents not produced before this Court. This Court is not aware, what

these documents contain. The third respondent filed his written submissions and

submitted that the complaint was sent to the second respondent and the same

forwarded to the third respondent. Thereafter, the officials of third respondent

contacted the petitioner and called for further information, since the information

provided was not complete. The petitioner was asked to produce supporting

documents and to give explanation. It is the specific stand of the third

respondent that the petitioner not appeared and produced documents, hence

enquiry could not proceed on unverified allegations. This is not seriously

refuted by the petitioner.

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

11.The petitioner is making serious allegations against the top officials of

NLC India Ltd., contractors and others. Merely because a complaint is filed, an

F.I.R. cannot be registered straightaway, unless it is verified and found there is

prima-facie material to proceed further. It is also to be seen that NLC India Ltd.

has got a Vigilance Department, which had enquired some of the allegations

made by the petitioner. Further NLC India Ltd. is a structural organisation

following procedures. It is also audited by internal, external auditors, statutory

auditors and Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Hence, on the materials

submitted by the petitioner and on enquiry with the petitioner the third

respondent can further proceed. Hence, petitioner’s participation with the

enquiry is required.

12.In view of the above, the third respondent is directed to summon the

petitioner for enquiry on 23.02.2026 and thereafter for subsequent dates, if

required. The petitioner is directed to appear before the third respondent,

provide all details with supporting documents, available with him and also to

co-operate with the enquiry. The third respondent to conduct enquiry and

thereafter take appropriate action in the manner known to law.

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

13.With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

11.02.2026

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes/No

Speaking order/Non-speaking order

rsi

To

1. The Director,

CBI, 6th Floor, Lodhi Road,

Plot No.5-B, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium

Marg, CGO Complex,

New Delhi-110 003.

2.The Joint Director,

CBI, No.26, 3rd Floor,

Opposite Relaince and Food Corporation,

Haddows Road, Shastri Bhavan,

Chennai-600 006.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Central Bureau of Investigation,

Anti-Corruption Branch, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

WP Crl. No. 852 of 2025

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi

Pre-delivery order in

W.P.Crl.No.852 of 2025

11.02.2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis