A division bench comprising Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice K.S. Gupta asked the intervener in the case to provide full facts, within a week, regarding allegations that the son of petitioner, advocate B.L. Wadhera, himself had applied for a shop in the shopping complex.

Navin Mehra, intervener in the case of alleged financial irregularities in Santushti complex, filed an affidavit in the court saying that Wadhera's Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was not in genuine public interest, but was motivated after his son's application for allotment of a shop in the complex was rejected by the Air Force Wives Welfare Association (AFFWA) which manages Santushti.

The division bench observed: ``If so, the matter was serious, as a petitioner of a PIL was supposed to reveal all facts related to the case and its history.'' The court directed Wadehra to reply to the allegations through an affidavit and fixed the matter for further hearing on September 10.

Justice Sabharwal and Justice Gupta also asked the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to file an affidavit within four weeks detailing the action being taken for management of the complex, which has been taken over by the Defence Estate Department during the duration of the case.

Wadhera, in a PIL filed in May last year, had alleged that AFWWA was misusing the defence land by raising a commercial complex at Santushti. The land was allocated to it by the MoD for welfare of war widows and the needy kin of Air Force personnel. He sought an inquiry into the running of the complex and its management.

The MoD had later set up an audit committee to look into the allegations. The committee report has been submitted. The court asked the MoD to state what follow-up action was being taken by them on the report of the special audit team. Standing counsel for MoD Rakesh Tiku informed the court that modalities were likely to be formulated soon and a joint secretary in the MoD was working on them.

Petitioner Wadehra admitted before the court that his son Rajnish Wadehra had indeed applied for a shop about two years prior to filing of the PIL, but contended that his intention (in filing the PIL) was nowhere related to the rejection of the application. The bench observed that he should have stated this in the petition as every fact is relevant in a PIL.