Gidderbaha Congress MLA Amarinder Singh Raja Warring could not meet Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal on Friday.
Reportedly, the CM's security advisors thought it fit to advance his schedule for the sangat darshan in the constituency to avoid meeting him, the MLA later alleged.
He claimed that he wanted to meet the CM to apprise of what he alleged were large-scale irregularities in distribution of flood compensation relief in Muktsar.
A large police force was employed to keep the MLA away from the CM, who was stopped at some distance from the house of an Akali Jathedar, while the CM was having lunch at village Chack Gilje Wala on Friday.
Hindustan Times was the first to expose the embezzlement in compensation distribution in its report Rs. 1,250 as compensation for those given canopies during floods, published on November 8.
The report had prompted the Muktsar administration to take corrective steps and Akali sarpanch of Karni Wala was told to return the two cheques of Rs. 70,000 issued for damaged houses on the names of his brothers, who owned concrete houses.
Wearing black strips and the garland of the Cheques of the some flood victims carrying negligible amount, Warring said: "I am MLA of the constituency. I want to make the CM aware about how his authorities have been discriminating genuine victims only to benefit Akali workers and leaders. If sangat darshan programs are made to meet people then I should had been be allowed to meet the CM."
"Five SPs, five DSPs, 100 ASIs and 900 other police constables were used to thwart me. Even the Akali Jathedar Lela Singh, who met the CM, has got undue compensation of Rs. 41,000 in flood relief."
He added that many poor families in Chack Gileje Wala village did not get the compensation as they were not Akali supporters.
When asked to comment on Raja's allegations, the CM said that the incident was meaningless and was pitiable attempt by the Congress to gain attention.
"I am not sure if it is a case of political vendeta. How can anybody say so when he is not part of the investigation process? It could go either way. But it's a case where Bajwa must clarify himself