HC rejects application to join CBI, ED as party-respondents in irrigation scam
| Date :14-Feb-2020 |
Staff Reporter :
Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, on Thursday, rejected an application to join Union of India, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax as party-respondents in the ongoing public interest litigations (PILs) in irrigation scam. The application moved by activist Atul Jagtap was vehemently opposed by counsel for Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar dubbing it as politically motivated with an oblique motive to transfer the probe to central agencies with sole aim to implicate Pawar.
Wondering over the tone and tenor of application, Senior Counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar pointed out that from last four years, various orders have been passed, SITs constituted, FIRs registered and chargesheets filed. Suddenly, the petitioners seem to have lost faith in the investigating agency and without rhyme or reason the demand to change the investigating agency or even appointment of commission of enquiry is being made, he stated while opposing all such demands.
During course of hearing, the High Court sought to know the reasons for impleading Central agencies as party-respondent and found no legally sustainable answers to its probing queries. The hearing witnessed sharp exchange of words between counsel for the petitioner and those representing respondents over the fairness of ongoing probe particularly after change of guard in Maharashtra. Thereafter, a division bench consisting of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Shriram Modak after a prolonged and patient hearing, turned down the application to join Central agencies as party-respondents at this juncture. The High Court made it clear that it had powers to issue directions to agencies and they need not be joined as respondents right now. The High Court refrained from making any comment in its written order about the ongoing investigation being conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and posted the matter for further hearing on March 13.
The PIL petitioners including Jan Manch and Jagtap had slammed the ACB for granting clean chit to Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar and demanded handing over the probe of this mind-boggling scam either to ED or CBI or to appoint judicial commission. The ACB had so far filed chargesheets against Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (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 Superintendents of Police of ACB and endorsed by ACB Director General Param Bir Singh found no evidence about his role in cost updation or grant of 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 that VIDC Chairman (WRD Minister) cannot be held responsible for these discrepancies. In its application, Jan Manch had expressed complete lack of confidence over impartiality and ability of ACB to conduct irrigation scam cases and sought appointment of a commission of enquiry headed by sitting or retired Supreme Court or High Court judge.
Only such enquiry commission would be able to unearth the truth without getting influenced by any other factor, Jan Manch stated in its application. The other petitioner Jagtap had demanded transfer of irrigation scam probe to ED and CBI following the shocking U-turn made by the ACB in irrigation scam granting clean chit to Pawar. This is a desperate attempt to exonerate the real culprit while passing the blame in subordinate officers and field level engineers, Jagtap had claimed while stating that ACB’s affidavit had clearly revealed that probe was not conducted in right direction and apparently influenced by extraneous factors. Opposing the demand of petitioners, Senior Counsel Dhakephalkar claimed that investigations were monitored by the High Court, FIRs were registered, chargesheets were filed and special courts were directed 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 counsel also stated that such a demand can’t be granted and opposed amendment of the petition on this count. In his personal affidavit filed during last hearing, Ajit Pawar had maintained that he was innocent and was falsely dragged into this case by the petitioner with malafide intentions and slammed the petitioner Atul Jagtap with personal vendetta and trying to malign his image.
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. Adv Shridhar Purohit appeared for the petitioner. Senior Counsel Anand Jaiswal (ACB), Senior Counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar (Pawar), Senior Counsel Anil Sakhre (Bajoria) represented the respondents.