![](https://www.indiaherald.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=750/imagestore/images/politics/politics_tvnews/an-enthusiastic-crowd-tamil-nadus-political-field-where-the-spark-is-flying-stalin-vs-edappadi-game-begins0d417d06-ed1e-46e6-aef0-a78f9b306955-415x250.jpg)
Lawyer kapil sibal, who appeared on behalf of the DMK party in the tender malpractice case, has now protested in the supreme court that he will appear on behalf of the tamil Nadu Anti-Corruption Department after the change of government, and this cannot be accepted. A complaint was made on behalf of the DMK that during the AIADMK rule, the project estimate for the Othanchatram-Tarapuram-Avinasipalayam four-lane road was Rs.713.34 crores, but the funds for that project were increased to Rs.1,515 crores and similarly, Edappadi Palaniswami awarded the contract to his relative Ramalingam. Following this, a tender fraud case of 4800 crore rupees was filed on behalf of DMK in 2018. The chennai High Court, which heard the case as per the order of the supreme court, said that no fault can be found in the preliminary investigation report filed in the year 2018 in this matter. Judge N. anand venkatesh said that there is no need to conduct a fresh investigation due to the change of government. Similarly, on July 18, the judge also ordered that RS Bharti's plea requesting a special investigation be dismissed. Against this, a case was filed in the supreme court by the Anti-Corruption police of tamil Nadu. The case came up for hearing today in a session of Justices, Aniruddha Bose and PM Trivedi. At that time, senior advocate Ariama Sundaram appeared on behalf of Edappadi Palanichami. At that time, advocate kapil sibal appeared on behalf of the tamil Nadu anti-graft police, and Edappadi Palanichamy's side protested strongly. They protested that the person who had already appeared as a lawyer on behalf of the DMK party in the same case is now appearing as a lawyer on behalf of the tamil Nadu Anti-Corruption Department after the change of government. We don't know the full details of the judge then. So they adjourned the hearing saying that the case will be listed for next week.