Irrigation scam: ACB, Ajit Pawar oppose judicial probe
| Date :16-Jan-2020 |
Staff Reporter :
Final hearing on February 13
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar on Wednesday strongly opposed demand of a judicial probe into irrigation scam under the commission of enquiry by Jan Manch. Pawar’s counsel claimed that ACB’s investigation was on right track and refuted any contradiction pursuant to change of guards in the State and grant of clean chit to Pawar.
There is continuity and not contradiction, claimed Senior Counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar appearing for Pawar while defending the ACB’s clean chit affidavits. A division bench consisting of Justice Sunil Shukre and Justice Madhav Jamdar while hearing the PILs filed by Jan Manch and Atul Jagtap also sought the response of respondents about the bearings in change in stance of ACB pursuant to political events to which all responded in negative in one voice. Opposing the demand of petitioners Jan Manch and Atul Jagtap to hand over the probe of this mind-boggling scam either to Enforcement Directorate or CBI to appoint judicial commission due to clean chit granted to Ajit Pawar, Senior Counsel Dhakephalkar claimed that investigations were monitored by the High Court, FIRs were registered, chargesheets were filed and special courts were direted to conduct trial in time-bound manner.
Demanding enquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act, is going a step backwards and petitioners want to prolong the matter, he charged while terming the demand as untenable. ACB also joined the chorus and claimed that such a demand can’t be granted and opposed amendment of the petition on this count. Jan Manch counsel Firdos Mirza stated that ACB’s change of stance was highly questionable and he would point out the need to hand over the probe to judicial commission to unearth the truth. The ACB had so far filed chargesheets against VIDC officers, contractors but absolved Pawar, who was then Water Resources Minister, of any wrong-doing.
The ACB had earlier accused Pawar of presiding over a regime in which “procedures were bypassed, pecuniary benefits were passed on, sub-standard work allowed leading to drain upon public exchequer.” But the latest affidavits filed by Nagpur and Amravati SPs of ACB and endorsed by ACB D-G Param Bir Singh found no evidence about his role in cost updation or mobilisation advance. The ACB also did not find any evidence of money trail and dismissed all allegations against Ajit Pawar as mere procedural irregularities, departmental lapses and deviations from some process and claimed for these discrepancies the Chairman (WRD Minister) cannot be held responsible.
Petitioners claimed that ACB’s probe is now under cloud and hence it should be granted to CID, ED or to judicial commission headed by ex-HC or ex-SC judge. Pawar pointed out that there was no need to disbelieve the ACB and it had conducted the probe without favour and fear and indeed interrogated him extensively.
The High Court after a prolonged hearing decided to hear the matter finally on February 13 and indicated that it would complete the hearing on all issues and did not pass any speaking order on either the clean chit affidavits or Ajit Pawar’s assertion about his innocence or demand to hand over probe to central agencies. Adv Firdos Mirza and Adv Shridhar Purohit appeared for the petitioners. Senior Counsel Anand Jaiswal (ACB), Senior Counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar (Pawar), Senior Counsel Anil Sakhre (Bajoria) represented the respondents.
I am innocent, claims Pawar Maintaining that he was innocent and was falsely dragged into this case by the petitioner with malafide intentions, Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar once again slammed the petitioner Atul Jagtap with personal vendetta and trying to malign his image. Jan Manch had not even joined him as a party and still made slew of allegations against him, his counsel claimed. Jan Manch countered the allegation stating that both petitions were tagged and heard together and hence there was no need to do so. But Pawar’s lawyer expressed his reservations about this justification. The aggressively worded affidavit by Pawar claimed that he had not indulged in any corrupt, malafide or motivated act while discharging duties as Minister. He denied all charges of wrongdoings or tweaking of rules to favour any contractor. “Every decision has been taken as per law and in line with procedures and I have not favoured any one and all contracts were awarded by the department in accordance with rules and did not warrant my interference,” Pawar claimed while denying repeated violation of rules of business.