NAGPUR:: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court on Thursday reserved the order on whether to appoint a two-judge panel to monitor the ongoing probe by State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in the Rs70,000 crore irrigation scam in Maharashtra.
While declaring that the order would be pronounced next week, a division bench comprising Justice Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Justice Zaka Haq also sought to know on whom to fix the responsibility for massive losses caused to the exchequer due to the scam.
During marathon hearing on five PILs that lasted for nearly three hours, the court heard arguments from both sides before closing the matter for the order. The first one was filed by Janmanch (PIL No 12/2016) through counsel Firdos Mirza, while other four were by social worker Atul Jagtap (PIL No 141, 142, 172 & 173/2016) through lawyer Shridhar Purohit.
Citing Maharashtra Civil Services Rules, where government officers couldn’t be prosecuted four years after their retirement, the court asked whether the delay into investigations was deliberately caused to save the officers.
Earlier, the petitioners’ counsels pressed for appointing two HC judges to monitor the ACB’s probe contending that there was inordinate delay of over six years since the first PIL was filed in 2012. They pointed out that almost half of
VIDC officers’ team of the scam period has now retired and it would be difficult to prosecute them, in case of any further delay.
The respondents’ counsels, including that of former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar, opposed the HC’s suggestion arguing that the move would bring down the morale of officers and may affect the ongoing investigations. They said, such a panel can’t be appointed.
Petitioners’ counsels clarified that both judges would only monitor the probe and they wouldn’t have any powers to issue directives to the ACB. Citing a Supreme Court case by senior counsel Ram Jethmalani regarding stashing of black money in foreign banks, they said the SC had appointed retired judges’ panel to probe the issue and even HC could follow it.
The judges then asked on why the entire VIDC team couldn’t be held accountable for the lapses if individual officers couldn’t be prosecuted.
Earlier, the VIDC, through its executive director Avinash Surve, filed an affidavit as per HC’s directives stating that it had taken many unprecedented decisions in the aftermath of the scam and cancelled about 94 tenders worth Rs7,335 crore. The decision was taken even after every possibility that there would be litigations and compensation to be paid to contractors. The water resources department (WRD) also instituted departmental enquiries against VIDC’s 77 officers regarding the irregularities. Even multiple screenings were started for revised administrative approvals. A state-level technical advisory committee (SLTAC), headed by the secretary rank officer, was formed for scrutinizing the revised proposals. It stated that final decision to grant sanction for prosecution in five cases would be taken within a month.
Hearing on five PILs lasted for nearly three hours
