E-Paper
IRCTC case: Delhi HC refuses to stay trial of Lalu
“Why have you (Lalu) come so late? You (Lalu) should’ve come earlier. Let them (CBI) file their reply. I’m giving you a date. Issue notice,” justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said to Lalu’s lawyers Kapil Sibal and Maninder Singh
NEW DELHI
The Delhi high court on Monday refused to immediately stay trial court proceedings against Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad Yadav in connection with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) hotels case.
This came after Lalu’s lawyer urged a bench led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma to stay the proceedings, arguing that although the next hearing before the trial court was scheduled for January 12, the court had ordered day-to-day hearings and had already examined two witnesses within a month.
However, Justice Sharma remarked that the order framing charges against the RJD chief in the IRCTC hotel case had been passed on October 13, while the petition was filed only in January. She however issued notice on his plea seeking to quash the October 13 order and scheduled the next hearing for January 14.
“Why have you (Lalu) come so late? You (Lalu) should’ve come earlier. Let them (CBI) file their reply. I’m giving you a date. Issue notice,” justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said to Lalu’s lawyers Kapil Sibal and Maninder Singh.
On October 13, the trial court had framed charges of corruption, conspiracy and cheating against Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife and former chief minister Rabri Devi, and their son and leader of Opposition in the state, Tejashwi Yadav. The court described Lalu Prasad as the “fountainhead of a criminal conspiracy” who manipulated a railway tender in exchange for land and other favours. Framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy and cheating, special judge Vishal Gogne noted that there was prima facie material to show that Lalu Prasad “abused his position” as railway minister to influence the tender process.
The case, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), centres on alleged irregularities in the leasing of two IRCTC hotels — the BNR Hotels in Ranchi and Puri – to a private company, Sujata Hotels Pvt Ltd, owned by Vijay and Vinay Kochhar, during Lalu Prasad’s tenure as Union railway minister. The agency alleges that the tender process was rigged to favour the Kochhars’ firm in exchange for land and company shares transferred to Lalu Prasad’s family at throwaway prices.
According to the CBI chargesheet, between 2004 and 2014, the BNR hotels were first transferred from the Railways to IRCTC and later leased out to Sujata Hotels for operations and maintenance. The agency alleges that the tender was manipulated to ensure Sujata Hotels’ selection, causing a loss to the public exchequer.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also filed a money laundering case against Lalu Prasad, Rabri Devi, Tejashwi Yadav, and their daughter, based on the CBI’s findings.
Lalu’s petition before the high court painted a picture that the order framing charges was erroneous since he was never involved either at the time of the alleged manipulation of the tender process or at the time of the sale of land parcels by the successful bidder at the alleged undervalued consideration. The land parcels, the petition stated, were sold by the Kochhar brothers 2 years before the award of the tender process of BNR hotels and Ranchi and Puri.
“The learned special court has overlooked the facts and circumstances of the case and framed the charges merely on the presumption that he was high ranking minister and his acts or omissions are required to be tested in conjunction with the roles ascribed to other alleged co-conspirators viz a viz the successful bidders, proximate associates, railway officials and his family members,” the petition stated.
It went on to add that CBI neither adduced any iota of evidence either documentary or oral nor were they recorded any statement of witness nor able to establish from circumstantial evidence that there was an agreement between the two or more persons to commit an offence. “All the transactions including the sale of land parcels and award of tender were independent and distinct transactions and these transactions were done by the concerned persons by following a due process,” the petition added.
It further stated that the allegations in the chargesheet had already been examined by multiple agencies, including the CBI, the Vigilance Department, and the Railway Board, all of which found no cognisable offence either in the award of the BNR hotel tenders at Ranchi and Puri or in the subsequent land sales. However, the special court allegedly ignored these closure reports, observing that the earlier CBI exercise could not be treated as an investigation since no FIR had been registered.
