Corruption case against Punjab ex-minister: HC raps Vigilance Bureau for ‘misusing powers’

Two years after a case was registered for corruption and other offences against former minister Sham Sunder Arora and other accused for extending “unfair advantage” to Gulmohar Township Company, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Vigilance Bureau for misusing its powers before quashing the FIR.

Advertisement

Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu asserted there was sufficient material to indicate it was “a simple case” of industrial plot’s transfer/sale initially from the PSIDC finally to the Gulmohar Township. “The Vigilance Bureau, while misusing its powers, registered the impugned FIR without there being any basis, just to harass and humiliate the petitioners,” the court asserted.

Justice Sindhu observed that the FIR stemmed from a complaint dated June 21, 2021, filed by an individual identified as “Navjot Singh-congressman”. The complaint, forwarded to the Punjab State Chief Vigilance Commissioner, contained allegations related to the transfer and bifurcation of industrial plot. “A bare perusal of the complaint reveals that it is a pseudo communication made to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and till date the identity/credentials of complainant ‘Navjot Singh-congressman’ are not known. Neither ‘Navjot Singh-congressman’ joined preliminary inquiry nor he was associated during investigation by the vigilance bureau for the reasons best known to it,” the court observed.

Justice Sindhu asserted it was inconceivable how the State Chief Vigilance Commissioner set the bureau into motion “without ascertaining the sanctity of complaint as well as credentials of the complainant”.

Referring to the underlying political motives behind the complaint, the court observed: “In penultimate paragraph of the complaint, it is claimed that ‘being a Congressmen, I would request you to kindly look into this scam and do the needful at the earliest as the election is going to be held shortly and I don't want that this scam would be shameful for Captain sir’.”

The court asserted that the complaint was filed with ulterior motives. “There remains no doubt that alleged complaint is actuated with ulterior motive and petitioners have been made scapegoat by some disgruntled elements while misusing the office of Punjab State Chief Vigilance Commissioner.”

The dispute revolves around the transfer of the industrial plot originally allotted a freehold basis to Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd. (PALI Ltd.) on July 30, 1984. Meticulously tracing the plot’s ownership history, Justice Sindhu observed it was transferred through lawful means over the years. The company’s assets, including the plot, were amalgamated with Phillips India Ltd. under a scheme duly accepted by the PSIDC. No dues certificate was issued upon recovering all the dues. The plot was then transferred under court orders to Phillips Lighting India Ltd., whose name was subsequently changed to Signify Innovations Ltd. It eventually sold the plot to Gulmohar Township for Rs 110 crore.

Justice Sindhu asserted the allegations in the FIR were based on mere conjectures. The bifurcation/fragmentation of plot into 125 plots was allowed by the PSIEC in accordance with policy dated February 8, 2005, “which is continuously being followed in the entire State of Punjab and more than 100 plots have been bifurcated/fragmented in the State under this policy”.

Justice Sindhu further asserted there were numerous instances in the State of Punjab, “where bigger plots were bifurcated/fragmented into smaller plots and no criminal proceedings were initiated by the vigilance bureau in any other case. Thus, the petitioners have been selectively targeted and victimised while misusing the powers by the vigilance bureau for the reasons best known to them”.

Justice Sindhu added the allegations regarding loss of Rs 500/700 crore levelled by the vigilance bureau “were completely imaginary having no legs to stand”. Allegations were not levelled by the PSIDC, PSIEC, or the industries department regarding any violation of terms and conditions associated with the plot’s sale, transfer, or bifurcation. Addressing the allegations against former minister Sunder Sham Arora, the court observed the FIR was primarily based on a letter he wrote in his official capacity to the PSIEC managing director seeking information about bifurcation of plots.

“Criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioner merely on account of the fact that he had written a letter to the MD, PSIEC, seeking information regarding bifurcation/fragmentation of industrial plots in his official capacity,” Justice Sindhu asserted.

The court added Gulmohar Township had complied with all legal formalities while obtaining approval for bifurcation/fragmentation of plot and had paid the requisite fees as per the rules. “Thus, no criminal intent can be attributed on their part in purchasing; or bifurcating/fragmenting plot in Phase IX, SAS Nagar, Mohali.”