Anand Vs The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Anand vs The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1450698

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1450698
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: WP Crl./1040/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anand

Respondent

The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Excerpt

.....to 4 to take further action on petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 to hold a preliminary enquiry into the allegations against the 5th respondent. for petitioner(s): mr.n.ranjith kumar for respondent(s): mr.udaya kumar government advocate (criminal side)page1 of 4orderthis petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to take further action on petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 and to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations against the 5th respondent. 2.the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a document writer, filed a complaint against the sub registrar, navalur / 5 th respondent for failing to properly fix property values and collect the correct registration fees and stamp duties, thereby causing a great loss to the exchequer. the complaint further alleges that the sro, navalur, / 5 th respondent registered agricultural lands as residential plots without following due procedure and thereby collecting bribe amount for the same. despite the formal complaint, no action has been taken. 3.the learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted the petitioner’s complaint was received on 16.04.2026. he further submitted that the enquiry is under progress and appropriate steps will be taken within a period of two months. 4.considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. page2 of 45. in view of the submissions made by the learned government advocate,this court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 and conduct a preliminary enquiry in accordance with the law. such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.with the above directions, this petition is disposed of. no costs. ep to6. the public prosecutor high court of madras. page3 of 4m.nirmal kumar, j.ep page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR Anand ..Petitioner(s) Vs
..Respondent(s) Prayer:- This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take further action on petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 to hold a preliminary enquiry into the allegations against the 5th respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Ranjith Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.Udaya Kumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
Page1 of 4

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to take further action on petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 and to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations against the 5th respondent. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a Document Writer, filed a complaint against the Sub Registrar, Navalur / 5 th respondent for failing to properly fix property values and collect the correct registration fees and stamp duties, thereby causing a great loss to the exchequer. The complaint further alleges that the SRO, Navalur, / 5 th respondent registered agricultural lands as residential plots without following due procedure and thereby collecting bribe amount for the same. Despite the formal complaint, no action has been taken. 3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted the petitioner’s complaint was received on 16.04.2026. He further submitted that the enquiry is under progress and appropriate steps will be taken within a period of two months. 4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Page2 of 4

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate,

this Court directs the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 15.04.2026 and conduct a preliminary enquiry in accordance with the law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6.With the above directions, this Petition is disposed of. No costs. ep To

6. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. Page3 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ep Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Anand vs The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice M. Nirmal Kumar