‘Allegations serious’: HC seeks response from Punjab govt on ED letter

The bench sought replies by September 3 from the Punjab government, the director general of police (DGP), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the chief director of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday sought responses from the Punjab government and central investigating agencies on a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that senior state government officials were involved in an alleged corruption network involving cash-for-transfer postings, favourable policy decisions, government tenders and other official approvals.

The PIL has sought an independent investigation into the allegations and requested that the matter be transferred to the CBI.

A division bench comprising acting chief justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the allegations raised in the petition were serious and required a careful response from the respondents.

The bench sought replies by September 3 from the Punjab government, the director general of police (DGP), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the chief director of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

The PIL has been filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf, who referred to media reports published on August 17 regarding an ED communication dated August 12 to the Punjab DGP seeking registration of an FIR over alleged corruption and other offences.

According to the petition, the ED had alleged that Nitin Gohal, a private individual, acted as an intermediary between persons seeking government favours and Rajbir Ghuman, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to Punjab chief minister Bhagwant Mann.

The allegations cited in the petition include influencing transfers and postings of government officials, leaking confidential government documents, facilitating arms licences and securing government approvals in return for alleged monetary and other benefits.

The petition further alleged that Gohal, allegedly in coordination with Rajbir Ghuman and other associates, including Bir Devinder and Jitin Gohal alias Raja, collected alleged proceeds of crime running into crores in the form of cash, land and other assets.

The petitioner alleged that the persons involved had access to the chief minister’s office and were allegedly operating a deeply rooted bribery network. It was further alleged that the network influenced the transfers and postings of IAS and police officials and facilitated tenders, permissions and licences for builders, land developers and other entrepreneurs.

Saraf told the court that, after examining the material available in the public domain and reports concerning the allegations, he submitted a detailed complaint to the Chief Director of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau on August 17. According to the petition, no action had been taken on the complaint so far.

The petitioner also alleged that despite several complaints and representations, the Punjab DGP and the Vigilance Bureau had failed to follow Supreme Court directions regarding the registration of FIRs in cases involving cognisable offences.

The PIL has sought an independent investigation into the allegations and requested that the matter be transferred to the CBI.

During Thursday’s hearing, counsel for the ED informed the court that the agency had sent three communications to the Punjab DGP on July 24, July 31 and August 7. The ED submitted that these communications were on similar lines to the allegations raised by the petitioner.

Taking note of the submission, the bench directed the ED to produce the three communications before the court on the next date of hearing.

The court also said that if the communications had indeed been sent by the ED, it would seek to know from the Punjab advocate general what stand the state government and the Punjab Police proposed to take and what action was contemplated on the communications.

During the proceedings, Punjab advocate general MS Bedi raised objections regarding the maintainability of the PIL and questioned the credentials of the petitioner.

The high court, however, did not make any observation on those objections at this stage.