Contractor's brother files PIL over corruption in TWAD work, fined Rs 50,000 for interference
The petitioner claimed the board failed to ensure that the tender process for drinking water supply across Tamil Nadu was transparent as per the Central National Jal Jeevan Mission guidelines.
Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage (TWAD) Board
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court imposed Rs 50,000 cost on a litigant who interfered with the court proceedings and disregarded the decorum in spite of several warnings.
The first division bench of acting Chief Justice D Krishnakumar and Justice PB Balaji was hearing a public interest litigation moved by a civil engineer Kannan Swaminathan seeking a court-monitored investigation into the alleged corruption in Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage (TWAD) Board.
The petitioner claimed the board failed to ensure that the tender process for drinking water supply across Tamil Nadu was transparent as per the Central National Jal Jeevan Mission guidelines. Also, he added, the testing of the pipeline to ensure leak tightness of pipes and fittings, and joints, and soundness of any construction work was not done.
If there is leakage of water and mixing of sewage, it would endanger the people, the petitioner submitted. The State Municipal Administration and Water Supply has not taken action on his representation, said the petitioner, and sought for an investigation.
Additional public prosecutor R Muniyapparaj submitted that it was a ‘private interest litigation’ and pointed out that the petitioner's brother, Ganapathy Swamy, is a registered contractor who is involved in the operation and maintenance of Combined Water Supply Schemes (CWSS) of the TWAD Board.
As his brother was deemed ineligible to participate in the tender for failure to fulfill the criteria, the plea was filed under the guise of PIL, said the public prosecutor.
The bench also recorded that the petitioner failed to file a reply to the State’s objection.
Despite engaging a counsel, the petitioner interfered with the court proceedings by appearing in the video conference and conducted parallel arguments along with his counsel despite repeated warnings.
After noting that there was no public interest involved in the PIL and the disruptive attitude of the petitioner during court proceedings, the bench imposed Rs 50,000 cost on the petitioner.
The bench directed him to deposit the amount to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and dismissed the PIL.
