Febuary 27, 2009

Honorable President of India
President Office
New Delhi, India



SUB:-     The Honorable Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul, Madras High Court Virudhunagar district, Srivilliputur judicial magistrate court no.1 Favoring
          Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian who forged my fathers signature Complaint against The Honorable Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul who was bribed (Rs.50,000/-) by
          Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian in case number Tamil Nadu , Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputur Number CC63/2006 I request you to take my complaint and 
          have an enquiry done and request you to order Srivilliputtur judicial magistrate no.1 to open the case once again. 

My father Mr. Bal Raja purchased a land in survey number 319 which had 1.84 acre of land in Watrap, Puthupatti village dated 10.06.1973. The said land 
includes a well and a power connection number 53. The said connection was in the name of Mr. Renganathan. 

Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian also purchased one half of the land from Mr. Renganathan. The well is a property of both of us. Even the connection is for both 
of us. The connection was in the name of Mr. Renganathan till my father Mr. Bal Raja expired on 30.06.2002. After my father’s death we had our part of
the land in our possession. 

My opponent who with very bad intention of using the well and the E.B connection changed to his name from the original owner Mr. Renganathan. To change 
the connection they showed fake documents of Mr. Bal raja as alive and showed no objection in transferring the E.B connection to his name that is Mr. K.S.
Ramasubramanian. The signature of Mr. Bal Raja was forged and in the year 2004 January they submitted the application with Assistant Engineer, watrap
division electricity department. With the fake documents submitted by the opponent Srivilliputtur Assistant Accounts Officer transferred the connection
to them on 31.01.2004. 

As the power connection was in my opponent name he said we had no rights on the well and he never allowed us to enjoy the connection. He thus created 
problems. When we came to that the connection was in his name my mother Mrs. Bharathi lodged a complaint and the electricity department told us on 
31.01.2004 the connection was transferred and also said that Mr. Bal Raja the joint owner has given a no objection for the name transfer. In fact my 
father expired on 30.06.2002 and there is no way that my father has accepted for the transfer on 31.01.2004. After such incident my mother lodged a 
complaint saying that my father signature was forged by the opponents with the superintend engineer, Virudhunagar district on 20.04.2004 on the grievance
day. With the complaint given the E.B.Department had an enquiry and came to know that the signature was forged and they cancelled the transfer on 
03.06.2004. The forged documents are with the AAO, Revenue Department, and Srivilliputtur. The opponent malpractice and forged the sign and tired to take 
away my property. We lodged a complaint with the watrap police station on 17.10.2004 and received acknowledgment for the same. On our complaint they did 
not take any action till 20.11. 2004. 

Since no action was taken by the police officer I lodged a private complaint against Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian in Srivilliputtur judicial magistrate court
no.1 on 27.11.2004. The magistrate after looking into my petition asked the police officer to take the case if Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian has done any 
malpractice and file a case if he had done. Even after intervention of the magistrate the police officer did not take any action and submitted a report
saying Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian had not done anything. With the help of the E.B. Department and his money power he changed the signature as expired.
 

The magistrate informed the police officer to lodge a FIR and them investigate the case. On 16.07.2005 FIR was lodged. The police officer joined hands 
with the opponent and did not take any action and was postponing the investigation. Police officer informed in his report saying that a civil case is 
pending and once the civil case is closed them proceed for a criminal case. But the justice informed the police officer that both the cases are different.
The magistrate directed for a court investigation. As I am the petitioner I had given my statement in the court before the respected judge. As per the 
private petition the witness mentioned AAO and the AE of TNEB, Srivilliputur has given their statement before the judge. After that on 24.08.06 Mr. K.S.
Ramasubramanian was accused under IPC section 464,468,465,420 and criminal case number CC63/2006 was registered.
 

As the case was registered on Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian under IPC sections 464,465,468,420 he was asked to appear before the Srivilliputtur judicial
magistrate no 1 on 26.09.2006. As my opponent Appeared in the case and the proceedings were on and by the same time he appealed for a quash case in
Madurai bench Madras high court. My opponent in his petition copy submitted two copies of 1) certificate of land and well owner, 2) joint owner no 
objection certificate of Mr. Bal Raja as dead. From my side I had appeared with my advocate and in my petition had submitted all the documents. Enquiry
was done Madurai bench madras high court and Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul in his final statement said the signature is not forged and it is only the name 
and for documentation purpose of the E.B department it was return as expired. But the E.B department has never said it as name in any of their document.
 

Above all in the name transfer application form, the place for signature of the transferor, expired was written but Mr. Renganathan from whom we purchased 
the land and well is alive and is working in Madras IIT as professor. For this Madurai bench Madras high court magistrate Mr. M. Jeiapaul under quashment 
order gave false answers. They even say the power connection has been revised in the name of Mr. Renganathan. They never answered as why my opponents name 
was cancelled in the quashment order. At the same time proceedings was going on in Srivilliputtur judicial magistrate no 1, but Madurai bench madras high 
court judge ordered to close the case in Srivilliputtur judicial magistrate no.1. 

It is settled law of this Hon’ble Court as held in Zandu Pharmaceutical works Ltd., V. Mohad Sharaful Haque reported in 2005 (1) SCC 122 that while 
exercising power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court should not assume the role of a trial court and embark upon an enquiry 
as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation on a reasonable appreciation of such evidence and if on consideration of the allegations 
in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant, it appears that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, the proceedings cannot be
quashed. (Proof File Attached)   

Mean while AAO of the T.N.E.B Department in the court said that it was the signature of the joint owner Mr. Bal Raja in the land and well owner
certificate. I had mentioned in my statement that Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian with help of some officials has corrected as expired where he forged 
the signature. AAO also in his statement said that why he had cancelled the name of Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian and he had also sent him a letter.

Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian before the Madurai bench Madras high court has never told as why his name was cancelled. He did not show any documents before 
the court and he also gave false statements before the Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul. 

We had given a complaint on Mr.Rajaiah VAO, Watrap, Puthupatti village to the Virudhunagar collector on the grievance day 27/01/06. Based on the enquiry 
they took the my statement and as witness they took AAO, Revenue Department, T.N.E.B Srivilliputtur, for investigation and once the investigation was
finished they put an enquiry on VAO, Watrap, puthupatti under rule 17(B) of Tamil Nadu Civilian and disciplinary act for 1) VAO issued a wrong document
on land and well owner certificate and joint owner certificate for survey number 319 when he was working.2) where the survey number 319 was owned by 
two owners he was responsible  for transferring the E.B. Connection to one owner and over ruling the government rules 3) for showing fake documents of 
dead person as alive . 

Mr. S. Krishnamoorthy Thasildhar submitted a report on Mr. Rajaiah with the sub collector for the above 3 points. Mr.Rajaiah VAO was convicted under
Tamil Nadu Civilian and disciplinary act 17(B) and the sub collector issued an order to stop his one year increment with cumulative and also to transfer
him. 

I had given a complaint on Mr. Patchamalai and Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian for forging my father sign as expired to T.N.E.B and Add DG of police / vigilance
officer and they had an enquiry. Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian who forged my father signature told the vigilance officer that a criminal case is going on and
cannot give any statement. Mr. Patchamalai in his statement said that the signature was forged Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian. Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul said in
his order copy that it is only the name and not the signature and the name was written for the remembrance of the E.B. Department. Mr. K.S. 
Ramasubramanian did not submit the cancelled documents and cheated the court. Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul in his quashment order did not mention as why the 
name transfer was cancelled. As the case was in the lower court, Madurai bench Madras high court has not got the power to close it and once the judgment
is given then only we can go for high court as per the rules. But Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul gave a favorable judgment order to the culprit. Mr. K.S. 
Ramasubramanian but I have a doubt on Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul. 

THE PERSON WHO FAVOURED . Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian 

The fake documents shown by Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian as Mr. Renganathan as dead when he was alive and working in IIT Chennai till now. 

VAO Mr.Rajaiah where he gave a fake documents to Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian who had already forged my fathers signature before the VAO for transferring
the ownership of the E.B Connection.
No action was taken on Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian by the watrap, puthupatti police officer even after lodging a complaint and they have been favorable to 
the accused Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian.
Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian did not give any statement as why his transfer ship certificate was cancelled in the court and Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul gave
a favorable judgment saying Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian is not accused.
  
In order to escape Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian from the IPC section 420,464,465,468 Justice Mr. M. Jeiapaul had favored him. All my statements are material
evidence. When my father expired Mr. K.S. Ramasubramanian forged his signature and the name transfer of the E.B Connection was done which is well clear
in the documents I have. When middle class people like us lodge any complaint against the accused, with the money power and cooperation of the police
official they escape. 

I have submitted a complaint as VAO and the punishment was given to him for I am submitting those documents also. I am also submitted Tamilnadu 
Electricity Board of Additional Director General of Police Vigilance cell finial report documents. In the right to information report it is mentioned
that Mr.K.S. Ramasubramaniam forged my father signature Mr. S.A. Balaraj and it is clearly mentioned. But Madras High court honourable justice Mr. M.
Jeiapaul overlooked the Right to information and gave a judgment in favour of Mr. K.S. Ramasubramaniam. So I request you to have a re-enquiry on the 
same. 

The respondent knowing very well that the said S.A.Bal Raja had died, ought to have obtained the consent of the legal heirs of the deceased Bal Raja 
and cannot give false information to the Public Authorities for the purpose of obtaining electricity connection. In any event, offences under section
177 and 182 of IPC are made out. (furnishing false information to public authorities.) 

Because a perusal of the application form, consent letter and other documents would clearly show that the signature of S.A.Bal Raja been forged by 
the respondent. 

Already I have sent compliant petition copy dated on 14.03.2007 to president of India and I have submitted to Madras High Court Vigilance and 
Supreme Court of India Vigilance on 07.04.2007 and Madras High Court Chief Justice on 14.03.2007, but there is  enquiry from officers  dated as per 
below given references.   

If you find this enquiry in favour of me. I request you to reopen my case with the Tamilnadu State, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputtur Judicial
magistrate court No 1. C.C No.63/2006. 
  

SUB : Against no action taken to Madras High Court Justice Mr.  M. Jayabal for last 21months even after order received by The President’s Office.
 

  
REF :  

1.     The President's Secretariat, New Delhi Letter no: 491345 Dated 29.05.2007 
2.     President's Secretariat public section no : P2/255274 dated 20.11.2007 
3.     President Office letter no : P2/E/208 dated 17..03.2008 
4.     President Office letter no : 257069 dated 14.03.2008 
5.     President's Secretariat , public 2 section letter no : P2 8257069 dated 14.03.2008 
6.     Central Vigilance Commission, New delhi letter no : 36490/07/9-696 dated 04.01.2008 
7.     Tamilnadu home(CTS.IV) Department, Secretariat Chennai letter no : 20836/CTS.IV/2008-2 dated 30.04.20088.DERPARTMENT OF ADMIN.REFORMS AND PUBLIC                                    	 GRIEVANCES DARPG/  E/2007/06693 dated on 28.09.2007. 

On the above dated I have given a complaints to take legal action against Chennai High Court judge Mr.M. Jayabal. In case my complaint petition is correct, I requested to re-open my case in the lower court and for which from your office you had send a letter to the chief Secretary Govt of Tamilnadu. 

The Chief    Secretary Govt of Tamilnadu had forwarded a letter to the Registrar  general madras high court to take action against judge Mr. M, jayabal, till date no action has been taken against him.I thing may be they are taking bribes, for example I have given a complaint Cr.S.482 not quash proceedings high court and supreme court and to the Tamilnadu civilian and  disciplinary act 17(B) and the public grievance day as right to information act. Even after submitting all the documents against the judge of the Chennai high court register general has not taken any action against him. 

The register general is trying to save the judge Mr.M. jayabal . Even after receiving a order from the office of the president’s,  they didn’t rather taken any action against your order . It shows they are not respecting the president office it self. 

My complant is lying ideal for the past 21 months , So I humbly requested you to once again issue a strong order to the all concern departments. 


This land is the only source of income to our family,with this income we are leading our basic life. 
They forcible enter in our land and cultivation is going on with their control and we cannot get the land back to meet out our family needs and expenses . 
Please consider this reqestion as urgent one to make our family meet out the family needs. 
Do the needfull and take steps as soon as possible. 

Thanking You, 

Yours truly, 
S.B. Sooriyanarayanan