TASMAC corruption case: Senthil Balaji's pre-arrest bail plea in SC

• Former minister V Senthil Balaji seeks protection from arrest in a corruption case concerning alleged irregularities in TASMAC.
• The case involves a loss of over ₹17 crore to the public exchequer, as per the Madras high court's order denying his anticipatory bail.
• Several individuals, including former TASMAC Managing Director S Visakan and private individuals Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel and S Karthik, are named in the FIR.
• The DVAC has alleged irregularities in bar tenders across several districts, claiming that officials colluded with bar operators instead of raising fresh tenders wherever required.

The DVAC has stated that material collected by it disclosed a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating and abuse of official position under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A corruption case concerning alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) has reached the Supreme Court, with former minister V Senthil Balaji seeking protection from arrest. The case involves a loss of over ₹17 crore to the public exchequer, as per the Madras high court's order denying his anticipatory bail. The FIR registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) names several individuals, including former TASMAC Managing Director S Visakan and private individuals Rathesh Raj Shanmugavel and S Karthik, besides Balaji. Allegations include manipulation of tenders for bars and transport contracts, favouring selected bidders, enabling cartelisation among applicants, and allowing bars to operate despite expired licences. The DVAC has alleged irregularities in bar tenders across several districts, claiming that officials colluded with bar operators instead of raising fresh tenders wherever required.

The FIR also alleges that transport contracts for 45 TASMAC depots were manipulated by misusing earnest money deposit demand drafts submitted by one applicant. Investigators claimed that unused demand drafts were diverted to help other transport contractors secure contracts. On the operation of TASMAC bars, it has been alleged that licences were often controlled by third parties rather than successful bidders through organised syndicates.

The case is being investigated under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which deals with criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, cheating, and abuse of official position. The DVAC has stated that material collected by it disclosed a prima facie case of these offenses. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohatgi had mentioned Balaji's Special Leave Petition before a bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant seeking an urgent hearing, which was accordingly agreed to list the case today. The Supreme Court judge, Justice V Mohana, has recused from hearing the plea, citing urgency, and CJI Kant will hear it along with his brother.

The Madras high court had rejected Balaji's anticipatory bail application, holding that allegations against him involved a loss of over ₹17 crore to the public exchequer and required custodial interrogation. The state government argued that the alleged ₹17-crore loss was only 'the tip of the iceberg' and that the actual loss to the exchequer could exceed ₹100 crore.

The TASMAC corruption case highlights the importance of compliance with anti-corruption laws in government contracts, particularly in tender manipulation and cartelisation. The case involves a complex web of irregularities, including collusion between officials and private individuals, favouring selected bidders, and enabling cartelisation among applicants. The Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code provisions invoked in this case underscore the need for strict adherence to anti-corruption laws in government contracts.

Lawyers should take note of the implications of this case on compliance with anti-corruption laws, particularly in tender manipulation and cartelisation. The case serves as a reminder that corruption can have far-reaching consequences, including significant losses to the public exchequer.

Lawyers should watch for the implications of this case on compliance with anti-corruption laws in government contracts, particularly in tender manipulation and cartelisation.

Source: Original reporting via [Source]