TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

High Court grants bail to ex-minister Ashu

Bharat Bhushan Ashu

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday granted regular bail to former state minister Bharat Bhushan Ashu in a case registered by Directorate of Enforcement. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu of the high court also quashed two FIRs registered by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau. The matters pertained to food and transportation policy and the alleged tender scam.

Advertisement

The two FIRs in the matters were registered at Ludhiana and Nawanshahr. Ashu’s stand in the matter has all along been that a new policy for procuring of foodgrains through various agencies and the Food Corporation of India, on the Government of India’s behalf from various purchase centres or mandis in Punjab was made when he took over as Cabinet minister in 2018.

Advertisement

It was approved by the then Punjab Cabinet. In pursuance of the new policy, e-tenders were floated by the District Tender Committee and work was allotted on merits to various contractors. The process of e-tendering was online and transparent and he had no role in the allotment of tender to any person or any particular firm.

Senior advocate Bipan Ghai with counsel Nikhil Ghai alleged among other things the violation of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended to date, following which the state was asked to file a specific reply regarding how the petitioner was entitled to protection under the provision dealing with sanction. Detailed order is awaited.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement