The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teekaa Raman further held that prosecution in another case involving disproportionate assets would continue. It is alleged that the minister along with 11 others amassed wealth to the tune of over ₹58.23 crore that was disproportionate to their known sources of income during 2016-21. As per the FIR, it is also alleged that the Minister had channelized his ill-gotten wealth into other firms/companies owned by his relatives or associates.

With respect to the illegal allocation of tenders, the former minister was accused of indulging in corrupt practices in the award of corporation contracts. It was alleged that he had deliberately reduced the number of tenderers for public works and awarded contracts to his close aides, in violation of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and the rules as well as the Competition Act. 

During the arguments seeking to quash the two FIRs, Senior Advocate SV Raju, appearing for Velumani had submitted that he was being targeted by the present government and that a preliminary enquiry had already given him a clean chit.

Advocate General R Shunmughasundaram, however, had denied the allegations of malafide and argued that the accused cannot rely on the preliminary inquiry report to state that he was innocent. The AG had also argued that the court cannot make a decision in the quashing petitions only on the basis of a preliminary report, adding the same would set a bad precedent.

The State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohammad Jinnah had submitted that there was no malafide in the prosecution by DVAC. He had also argued that after lawful inquiries, the DVAC had gathered enough materials against Velumani to show that he had conspired with officials to ensure tenders were allotted to his associates.

Advocate Suresh appearing for Arappor Iyakkam, the NGO that sought action against the former Minister, had contended that all the companies that participated in the tender process were connected to the minister and thus he cannot claim innocence. Further it was also brought to the court's notice that IP addresses and mobile numbers of the companies that participated in the tender process were the same.

Case No: WP No. 34845 of 2018