MUMBAI: In a year, the ACB has gone from saying NCP politician Ajit Pawar remained under a

in the irrigation scam to giving him a clean chit in a clutch of

tenders, and a perusal of the latest affidavits filed in the Nagpur bench of the high court shows the hand of the previous

government in the change in stand.

Two ACB affidavits on November 27 show that when the ACB took up the issue of alleged irregular increase in project costs with the water resources department led by Girish Mahajan, by letters of September 10, 2018, and June 11, 2019, it was informed that if the tender cost is up to 5% higher than original then a decision on the increase is taken by the executive director, if it is between 5% and 15% then an executive committee headed by the principal secretary takes the decision, and if it is over 15% then a tender committee comprising secretaries of the planning and finance departments takes the decision.

“As the excess amount of tender is accepted by these persons, VIDC (Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation) chairman has no role to play in it, hence he cannot be held responsible for that,” the department submitted. Further, it was clarified that there was no loss to the government due to grant of mobilisation advance and that there was no irregularity in the grant of revised administrative approval.

It appears that the letters sent by the water resources department to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) were the basis for granting the clean chit to Pawar, who was the ex officio chairman of the VIDC by virtue of being the water resources minister at the time of the “Rs 70,000 crore scam”.

The two affidavits of November 27 were filed before the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court by the Nagpur and the

branches of the ACB, and these are not only near-identical in giving a clean chit to Pawar but also contradict an affidavit filed just a year before by the ACB director general at the time, Sanjay Barve.

Barve, on November 26, 2018, submitted that the ACB was closely examining the role of Pawar in the irrigation scam, but the second affidavit by Nagpur ACB superintendent Rashmi Nandedkar on November 27 this year and the third by her Amravati counterpart Shrikant Dhivre, also on November 27, said there was no criminal liability on the part of Pawar in respect of the process of granting sanction for the liability of the tender cost.

ACB director general Parambir Singh said the affidavits filed by the Nagpur and Amravati SPs were based on the evidence on record and the letters received by the ACB from the water resources department, besides the response from Pawar and government officials to a questionnaire and the opinion of the investigating and inquiring officials.

The PIL in the matter makes two main allegations: the first concerns grant of sanction to the liability of the tender cost, including that of revised administrative approval, and the second concerns grant of mobilisation advance to contractor when there was no mention of it in the tender booklet.

In his affidavit, Barve said the ACB had studied a large number of irrigation projects under the VIDC and several projects under the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) that suffered from delays, cost escalation and non-realisation of projected goals of irrigation during the tenure of Respondent No. 7’s stewardship as minister for water resources. Pawar is Respondent No. 7 in the PIL.

“ACB has observed that various irregularities have been committed in several of these tenders with uncanny similarity,” Barve said.

Pawar claims that he took decisions based on the recommendations of the secretary-level officer and that most of the decisions were taken at the field level. Barve observed that the minister in-charge “shoves the responsibility” on to the officers “taking over the rules of business”.

Barve said that it had become necessary to examine the role of the minister, that his statements were a part of the investigations and ACB claims privilege on these documents at this stage. “ACB has come across a clear cyclic pattern or modus operandi in most of the works undertaken by VIDC for Gosikhurd and Jigaon projects,” Barve said.

Barve found that grant of mobilisation advance in VIDC tenders was in gross contravention of the rules and tender costs were scaled up.

Former CM Devendra Fadnavis said the court would reject the affidavit submitted by the Nagpur superintendent. “I am 100%, high court will reject the Nagpur SP’s affidavit. Cost was escalated beyond rules and mobilisation advance was given illegally,” Fadnavis said.

On the five-year delay in completing the inquiry, Fadnavis said that as CM he had granted permission for open inquiry but following a PIL filed before the high court, it took over the conduct of the investigation. “ACB was working as per the directions of the high court and at no stage was ACB required to come back to the government for directions,” he said.