Suhas Palshikar

A crisis of political courage


Suhas Palshikar

Maya yet to get relief in Taj Corridor case

Ads by Google

Former chief minister Mayawati may have got relief in the disproportionate assets case, but the case arising from the Taj Corridor controversy of 2003, which actually led to the DA case, is pending in the Allahabad High Court since 2009.

The next hearing is scheduled to be held before a bench of Justices Imtiyaz Murtaza and S C Chaurasia on July 10.

The CBI, which investigated the case, had filed a chargesheet against Mayawati, former environment minister Naseemuddin Siddiqui, former principal secretary, environment, R K Sharma and former environment secretary Rajendra Prasad under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 before a special CBI court here in 2007.

The chargesheet said that the accused had siphoned off Rs 175 crore under the pretext of constructing a corridor around the Taj Mahal and other monuments in Agra, causing loss to the government exchequer.

But the judge did not admit the chargesheet and discharged the accused on the ground that the then governor T V Rajeswar had withheld the sanction to prosecute Mayawati and Siddiqui in June 2007.

In 2009, three separate PILs were filed before the Lucknow bench of the High Court against the special CBI court's order by Kamlesh Verma, Anupama Singh and Qateel Ahmed. While the matter was pending before the court, three more PILs seeking similar order were filed in 2011 by Kashi Prasad Yadav, Mamta Singh and Sachindra Pratap Singh.

Rohit Tripathi, the lawyer for Kamlesh Verma, Kashi Prasad Yadav and Mamta Singh, told The Indian Express that while arguing on behalf of his clients, he had prayed before the court that the sanction for prosecution was not required when the charges are under IPC.

Further, he referred to the case of Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal versus State of Punjab in 2007 in which the Supreme Court had stated that in cases of forgery and cheating, "no sanction is needed, irrespective of whether it is against a public servant, because it does not come under the discharge of official duty".

... contd.

Ads by Google
Please read our terms of use before posting comments
TERMS OF USE: The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
comments powered by Disqus