Reject Senthil Balaji’s nomination: Petition

Baskar of Triplicane has contended that during his tenure as non-ITI staff from 1997 in the MTC, he had handed over Rs.4.25 Crore collected from around 220 candidates seeking employment, to the personal assistants of Senthil Balaji, who was the transport minister then. Pointing out that barring threats of elimination neither the employment had come through nor the money returned, the petitioner claimed that he along with six others were arrested on the instigation of Senthil Balaji by the Central Crime Branch police and released. Noting that he was willing to depose before the magistrate, he submitted that a plea moved in this regard had resulted in a direction to the Assistant Commissioner, CCB, to probe the issue.

He claimed that Senthil Balaji after having misused his official position as a minister and having indulged in acts of unjust enrichment by illegally getting money are acts of grave nature.  Also, citing a recent judgement of the high court which insisted that persons with criminal background should not be allowed to enter public life, the petitioner claimed that despite a direction of the High Court already pending against him to unearth the truth about the transport scam, the police are unable to reach him.

DRO summoned over Sivakasi cracker depot accident

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has taken suo moto action on the Sivakasi cracker depot explosion that happened. 

Health activist Anandraj had earlier filed a petition on the series of cracker unit accidents at Sivakasi and the lack of proper facilities at Sivakasi GH. He also demanded strict implementation of rules that govern cracker industry. When the case came up for hearing on Friday, the counsel of Anandraj claimed that even on Thursday there was an accident at Sivakasi and claimed that rules continued to be flouted. Following the arguments, the court ordered Virudhunagar DRO to appear in the court immediately and posted the case in the evening. When the DRO appeared in the court, the judges asked whether license was given to the depot and how the depot was permitted when several shops were located in the vicinity. To this, the DRO replied that license was given in 1996 and the building nearby were constructed only after that period. The DRO also cited the lack of safety measures at the scan centre for the death of patients inside the scan centre.