Final Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Jay Thareja, DHJS
CLOR No.9/2023
State v Closure Report
FIR No.37/2003
PS AntiCorruption Branch
02.03.2024 (At 04:00 pm)
Present : None for the State.
IO, Inspector Anand Prakash is present.
1. The point of origin of this case is a complaint dated 24.07.2003
made by Sh. S. P. Singh, the then Additional Secretary (PWD), Government of
NCT of Delhi, PWD Secretariat, 5th Level, “B” Wing, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, AntiCorruption Branch, Directorate of
Vigilance, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. For the sake of clarity, the said complaint is
reproduced below:
“GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
PWD SECRETARIAT 5TH LEVEL “B” WING
DELHI SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
No. F.8(55)/200001/PWDIII/Pt.File/2795 Dt. 24/7/03
To
The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
AntiCorruption Branch,
Directorate of Vigilance,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
Room No.178184, Old. Sectt.,
-- 1 of 6 --
Delhi110054.
Sub.: Complaint No. 18/03.
Sir,
With reference to your letter No. 86/DCP/BSG/ACB dt. 17.06.2003, it is to
inform you that the relevant records in the form of CAG report, comments of
Finance Department etc. have already been sent to you vide our letter No.
F.8(55)/200001/PWDIII/ Pt. File/2269 dt. 9.5.2003. However, as desired, the
same are being again enclosed for registration of an FIR as indicated vide your
letter No. 9509 dt. 7.4.2003 alongwith brief history of the case as under:
i) Rs. 2.77 cr. was sanctioned for land acquisition and removal of
encroachment in 1986.
ii) Rs. 2.38 cr. was sanctioned for construction of 4 lane road for length of
2.486 kms in 1986.
iii) Rs. 29.92 lakh was sanctioned for acquisition of Defence land in 1991.
iv) Rs. 1.26 cr was sanctioned in 1995 and Rs. 0.56 cr. in 2002 again for
acquisition of land.
v) C.A.G. has observed that the expenditure of Rs. 5.74 cr. spent till the
year 2001 was infractuous and unfruitful due to “failure of the Chief
Engineer to secure the availability of clear site before the award of the
work”.
vi) The CAG also found discrepancies in the total length and constructed
part of the road and the C.E. could not reconcile the same leading to
making a CAG para.
viii) It appears that initial amount of Rs.2.77 cr. sanctioned in 1986 was
both for encroachment removal and acquisition and whereas Rs. 2.38 cr.
was for construction of the total length of road of 2.486 kms./2.570 kms.
viii) CAG has pointed out that the money has not been spent in keeping
with provisions of CPWD Manual Vol.II which was in force at that point
of time.
ix) The Administration has since taken a serious view of the matter and
decided to fix responsibility by identifying the concerned officials for
-- 2 of 6 --
causing delay and such infractuous and unfruitful expenditure.
2. Moreover, CAG has pointed out in their report in Para4.5 that only 1.85
kms. of road had been constructed against total length of 2.335 km. whereas
Chief EngineerIII in their reply dated 19.11.2001 had claimed that 2.085 kms. of
road was constructed out of total length of 2.570 kms. C.E. had also stated that
the remaining 0.485 km. would be completed after the land was made available.
3. However, all through in their correspondence to PWD Sectt. they have
been mentioning that the total length was 2.486 kms. and out of that 2 kms. had
been constructed. Such discrepancies came to the notice of PWD Sectt. when
estimates amounting of Rs. 68,71,500/ subsequently modified to Rs. 75,40,115/
were received for constructing 0.486 km. of missing link road out of 2.486 kms. in
June, 2002.
4. Moreover, when the matter was sent to Finance Deptt., the latter observed
that the PWD should come up with comprehensive proposal/project from the year
1986 so that EFC approval could be taken and expenditure regularized. Besides,
the matter was discussed in various meetings and finally in the meeting chaired
by the Hon'ble PWD Minister and it was reiterated that C.E.III should send a
comprehensive proposal and not delink the present estimates/proposal from the
previous sanctions as it pertained to the same road started in the year 1986.
5. However, inspite of considerable delay of couple of months no such
proposal was received. Neither were the files made available “admits reports that
the same had started missing”. Taking a serious view of the matters it was then
decided to refer the matter to Vigilance Department as it appeared that money
had been spent twice over for the same purpose and the C.E. was in no mood of
comply with the decisions taken by the Govt. Later due to change of guard [CE
concerned repatriated to the Director General, CPWD, GOI] comprehensive
proposal for a total amount of Rs. 7,27,79,000/ was received and approved by
SFC/EFC on 16.6.2003.
-- 3 of 6 --
In view of the foregoing it appears that money has been spent twice over
for the same purpose apart from incurring of infractuous expenditure of Rs. 5.74
cr., as pointed out by CAG. You are, therefore, requested to take further action at
your end by filing an FIR and take the matter to its logical conclusion.
Yours Faithfully,
Encl.: a/a.
(S.P. Singh)
Additional Secretary (PWD)”
2. Upon investigating the possible corruption highlighted/flagged by
the aforesaid complaint for about 20 years, the State (through the 13th IO,
Inspector Anand Prakash) has filed this closure report.
3. In this closure report it has been concluded that this case deserves
to be closed (a) because during investigation, nothing wrong has been found in
the justification given by the officials of PWD viz. that initially, the road no.51 was
constructed in part only because if the said construction had not been done, the
land would have been encroached upon; (b) because the record collected in this
case, clearly reflects that out of the initial amount of Rs.2,77,29,000/ (sanctioned
qua acquisition of land for the purpose of road no.51 in 1986), a sum of
Rs.2,55,31,000/ had been duly paid to MCD (WSSDU) by 31.03.1993; 1 (c)
because the record collected in this case, clearly reflects that out of the amount of
Rs.29,92,000/ (sanctioned qua acquisition of land for the purpose of road no.51
in 1991), a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ had been duly paid to the DEO/Delhi
Cantt./Defence, by 31.03.1993;2 (d) because the record collected in this case,
1 Although not expressly spelled out in this closure report, the underlying point of this reasoning
is that if in the first instance, the entire land had been acquired, the entire sum of
Rs.2,77,29,000/ would have been utilized for the said purpose.
2 Although not expressly spelled out in this closure report, the underlying point of this reasoning
is that if in the said instance, the entire land had been acquired from the defence
organization(s), the entire sum of Rs.29,92,000/ would have been utilized for the said
-- 4 of 6 --
clearly reflects that the total amount of Rs.1,26,47,945/ (sanctioned qua
acquisition of remaining land for the purpose of road no.51, in 1995) had been
duly deposited for the purpose of Land Acquisition Court in 1995 itself; (e)
because the record collected in this case, clearly reflects that in view of the
order(s) passed by Sh. Brijesh Sethi, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, an additional sum
of Rs.56,44,076/ was sought in 2002 and ultimately deposited in the Court of Sh.
Brijesh Sethi, the then Ld. ADJ, Delhi, on 19.08.2003; (f) because the record
collected in this case, clearly reflects that out of the initial amount of
Rs.2,38,00,000/ (sanctioned qua construction of road no.51 in 1986), only
Rs.1,82,51,497/ was paid to the contractor, M/s. Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. as an
account of nonremovable of encroachment from Kewal Park to Azadpur T point
by the authorities, the construction of the entire road no.51 was not possible and
therefore, the contractor, M/s. Manohar Lal Gupta & Co. was able to do work
worth Rs.1,82,51,497/ only; (g) because the record collected in this case, clearly
reflects that the remaining part of the road no.51 (486 mtrs.) was constructed by
06.05.2004 by M/s. Y. D. Builders & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. at a cost of Rs.61,65,740/
against the sanctioned amount of Rs.75,40,115/; (h) because with all the money
being accounted for, no evidence has been found regarding double payment or
misappropriation of funds by any official of PWD and (i) because as late as on
10.02.2020, the Engineer in Chief of PWD has communicated to the Principal
Secretary/PWD/GNCT of Delhi that “The Expenditure incurred for acquiring the
land is fully justified and fruitful. The road is operational since its construction and
subsequently the remaining portion of 485 meter have also been completed long
back and opened to traffic since May 2004.”
4. In G. J. Mhatre v State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, it has
been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that before accepting a closure report, a
Criminal Court should issue notice to the complainant. In view thereof, notice qua
this closure report was issued to the complainant, Sh. S. P. Singh, Additional
Secretary (PWD), Government of NCT of Delhi, PWD Secretariat, 5th Level, “B”
Wing, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. In response thereof, Sh. J. P. Bhatt, Deputy
purpose.
-- 5 of 6 --
Director, Vigilance, PWD had appeared in this Court, on 03.11.2023 and informed
that Sh. S. P. Singh has expired, on 29.04.2021. As a result, the copy of this
closure report alongwith CD containing the entire file was supplied to Sh. J. P.
Bhatt. After consideration of the closure report and CD at the appropriate levels of
PWD, a letter no. F.10 (50)/PWDI/ Court Case/2021/dispatched/1502 dated
15.02.2024 has been sent to this Court by Smt. Lalita Sharma, Assistant Housing
Commissioner, PWD through Sh. C. S. Rawat, Executive Engineer (North West),
Electrical Division, PWD, M353, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, indicating that PWD has
no objection if this closure report is accepted and that the said no objection has
the approval of Principal Secretary (PWD). The copy of the said letter marked to
the PS to the Principal Secretary (PWD) and to the PA to the Special Secretary,
PWD.
5. In view of (a) the fact that the successor of the original complaint,
Sh. S. P. Singh as well as his department, as no objection qua this closure report;
(b) that on the face of it, nothing incongruous has been found in this closure
report, which the IO, Inspector Anand Prakash/ACB has drawn up, only on the
basis of the material provided by the officials of PWD and (c) that the acceptance
of this closure report by this Court, will not preclude the reopening of the
investigation of this case, in the event that the Office of CAG does not remove the
audit objection quoted in the letter no. Einc/PWD/Works/AOP/2020/943 dated
10.02.2020 written by Deputy Director (Works) of PWD to the Principal Secretary,
PWD, GNCTD, 5th Level, BWing, Delhi Secretariat, I. P. Estate, New Delhi
110002, this closure report is accepted, without prejudice to the right of the
State/ACB to reopen the investigation, if required.
6. After completion of necessary formalities by the Ahlmad, the file
shall be consigned to the record room.
(JAY THAREJA)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
02.03.2024
-- 6 of 6 --