Interim Order 3

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 Over by:- Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
CT No.14/2024
Ratinder Pal Singh v State & Ors.
29.08.2024
Present : Sh. Jujhar Singh, Ld. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Ratinder Pal Singh, complainant appearing through VC.
IO Inspector R. N. Pathak is present.
1. This is a criminal complaint accompanied by an application under
Section 156(3) of Cr.PC.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that Ms. Garima Gupta was at the
relevant time, posted as Managing Director of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).
At that time, a tender for procuring one thousand buses was floated by the
Government of NCT of Delhi. Sensing that the tender could possibly be awarded
to M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd., Ms. Garima Gupta and her husband Veenu Bansal
asked the complainant to arrange a meeting with Mr. Nishant Arya, Director of the
said company. It is alleged that Ms. Garima Gupta and Mr. Veenu Bansal
eventually met Mr. Nishant Arya multiple times and at different venues including
the residence of mother of Ms. Garima Gupta, the address of which was written
by Ms. Garima Gupta in her own hand. Ms. Garima Gupta had allegedly informed
Mr. Nishant Arya that she was in a position to play an important role in the award
of tender and could influence the decision either way. She claimed to have
absolute power to deny the tender. She demanded payment of a sum of Rs.50
crores by Sh. Nishant Arya. This demand was eventually negotiated to Rs.15
crores. Other meetings also ensued between Nishant Arya and Ms. Garima
Gupta and Veenu Bansal. Part of the bribe was offered to the complainant who
declined it. Threats were advanced to the complainant by the accused persons at
a club and on phone.
3. The Investigating Officer present in the Court has submitted that he
has not sought approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
-- 1 of 3 --
He has stated that he has already recorded the statements of Sh. Nishant Arya
and Sh. Naveen Arya and it is clear from the statements that there had been
meeting between Sh. Nishant Arya and Ms. Garima Gupta at the relevant time.
The Investigating Officer submits that while meeting a prospective tenderer may
constitute misconduct under the Conduct Rules, no evidence has surfaced about
exchange of money from Sh. Nishant Arya to Ms. Garima Gupta.
4. It is strange that even while the IO has already come to the
conclusion that there were private meetings between the public servant and the
contender for the tender, he has already come to the conclusion that no money
had been exchanged. The basis of the conclusion is the denial of the person who
allegedly may have made the payment. No independent effort has been made by
the investigating officer to ascertain whether any money exchanged hands.
Without making any effort in that direction, the investigating officer has pre-
empted any inquiry by deciding not to even investigate the matter. He has thus
chosen not to seek approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
5. I have asked the investigating officer as to whether the tender was
awarded in favour of M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd.. The IO states that the tender
was not awarded to the said company and it was scrapped by DTC.
6. This is contested by Ld. Counsel for complainant. Ld. Counsel for
complainant submits that the tender had been scrapped much after it was
awarded and this was only pursuant to the complaint of the applicant/complainant
that it was cancelled. He submits that the tender had in fact been awarded to the
company – Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd., owing to the bribe paid.
7. Let notice be issued to the present Managing Director of Delhi
Transport Corporation (DTC) with directions to disclose, before this Court,
whether the said tender which is stated to have been floated in the year 2020 of
procuring of about one thousand buses, had been cancelled before award of the
tender to any entity. In case it was awarded to any entity, the name of the entity in
-- 2 of 3 --
whose favour it was awarded, must be disclosed.
8. Ld. Counsel for complainant submits that after M/s. Jai Bharat
Maruti Ltd. was found to be the lowest bidder (L1), Ms. Garima Gupta started to
hold meetings with the said company and made the demand in lieu of not
cancelling the tender process and for its smooth execution. He submits that the
list of successors of bidders may also be called from DTC. Let the list of the said
bidders be also submitted by the Managing Director of DTC.
9. Renotify on 18.10.2024.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
29.08.2024
-- 3 of 3 --