Clean chit to Pawar highlights contrasts in ACB affidavits

MUMBAI: Over the past year, the Anti-corruption Bureau’s (ACB) stance over former deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar’s role in the multi-crore irrigation scam in Maharashtra has taken a 180-degree turn. From blaming – although not indicting – Pawar for being part of a modus operandi that defrauded the state exchequer to stating that the former minister acted as per prevailing policy and hence cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing, the ACB’S two affidavits, filed in November 2018 and November 2019, are in stark contrast to one another.

While both affidavits were filed at different stages of the inquiry process, they fundamentally seek to address central accusations against Pawar. Both the affidavits scrutinised Pawar’s role basis two main allegations – granting cost escalations to irrigation tenders in violation of norms and handing out mobilisation advances to contractors.

HT reported on Thursday that the ACB gave a clean chit to Pawar through its recent affidavit filed before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court, which is hearing a clutch of petitions in the irrigation scam.

When the scam in Vidarbha was exposed, the main accusation against Pawar was that he granted cost escalations to 32 irrigation projects worth ₹17,700 crore within three months. All these projects have not been investigated, but ACB’S recent affidavit states that the minister cannot be held responsible as per Rule 14 of the Maharashtra government Rules of Business, which says that the responsibility of following norms lies with the secretary of the department. This is in line with Pawar’s own defense, which he had mounted during ACB questioning.

The affidavit, however, skips Rule 10 – mentioned in the 2018 affidavit – which says a minister is overall in charge of a department and responsible for disposal of all its business.

“It is clear that the latest affidavit has been filed in great haste, without much application of mind and c ontradicts t he agency’s clear stance last year,” said Sharad Patil, one of the petitioners representing the NGO Jan Manch.

Some of the specific charges made against Pawar in the last affidavit have also been ignored. For instance, Pawar had issued written directives that to speed up projects in Vidarbha, proposals should be directly mooted through the executive director and hence they were not scrutinised by the secretary of the department.

“All note sheets of the projects have signatures of Pawar [Ajit]. Majority don’t have the secretary’s signature, as he had been conveniently kept out. It’s a very blatant cover-up. What’s the status on the investigation of money trails; nothing has been done on that front,” said activist Anjali Damania.

For the ACB, however, the blame stands with the executive director of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC), who the agency claims was an official on par with the secretary, and hence responsible for adhering to norms. Similarly, on the issue of mobilisation advances, the two affidavits have taken diametrically opposite stances. The 2019 affidavit states that mobilisation advances did not lead to loss to the government as the contractors returned the advances. However, last year, the then ACB chief Sanjay Barve had pointed out that the mobilisation advances were given in contravention of norms to give a pecuniary benefit to a contractor, who had been selected through a rigged tendering process. Barve had said although the advances had returned, the advantage was given to a favoured contractor.

The latest affidavit also doesn’t mention that Pawar had annulled a circular of the department in 2008 that said provision of granting mobilisation advance should not be made in any tender.

The irrigation scam was exposed in 2012, when it was revealed that even after spending ₹42,000 crore over a decade, the state had brought only 0.1 per cent of land under irrigation. The then Opposition had touted the scam to be worth ₹70,000 crore

Affidavit filed by former ACB chief Sanjay Barve on November 26, 2018, was largely based on investigations in two big projects, Gosikhurd and Jigaon

The affidavit had indicated that Pawar is culpable and was part of the criminal conspiracy to defraud the government exchequer, but ACB had sought time to complete the investigation and unearth the money trails On Pawar’s role in handing out MA, the affidavit said grant of mobilisation advances in VIDC tenders was in contravention of the rules, and afforded an undue advantage to contractors irrespective of the advance being repaid. The proposals for MA were not routed through secretary of the department

On Pawar’s role in granting cost escalations, the affidavit pointed to rule 10 of Maharashtra government Rules of Business, which says the minister in charge of the department is responsible for disposal of business of that department

The affidavit filed on November 27, 2019, by Rashmi Nandedkar, ACB superintendent, Nagpur, is based on investigations done in 105-odd tenders across 17 projects, including Gosikhurd, while probe in another 202 tenders are pending

It was alleged that a nexus of officials-contractors-politicians had milked thousands of crores meant for irrigation projects

Former water resources ministers Ajit Pawar and Sunil Tatkare, both from Nationalist Congress Party

The affidavit states that there is no criminal liability on part of the minister in respect to granting cost escalations

On Pawar’s role, the affidavit says he cannot be held responsible for acts of executing agencies as there is no legal duty on his part. While he has signed note sheets, there are no negative remarks on them, so there is no evidence to show that he was briefed by the secretary to not accept liability of the tender cost Rule 14 of the Maharashtra government Rules

(NCP), came under the scanner

Former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis instituted an open inquiry in the scam against Pawar and Tatkare in December 2014, after coming to power in Maharashtra. of Business says careful adherence of rules is responsibility of the secretary On mobilisation advances, the affidavit says letters of the government dated September 10, 2018, and June 11, 2019, say there was no loss to the government because of granting of mobilisation advance. The minister acted in the line with prevailing policy of the corporation and in accordance with proposals put up before him.

This [the ACB affidavit] is very surprising. How can one affidavit already filed by ACB be contradicted by another affidavit. I totally oppose this and I am sure the court will not accept this.

DEVENDRA FADNAVIS, BJP leader and former CM