The Goa Lokayukta has faulted late former Goa chief minister Manohar Parrikar of “shirking his responsibility” in failing to sanction the registration of an FIR against his then cabinet minister and current BJP MLA Pandurang Madkaikar who was facing charges of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Lokayukta has ordered the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) of the Goa Police to register an FIR against him.
Passing an order based on a complaint that the Anti-Corruption Branch had failed to register the FIR, the Lokayukta has also called for action against the then Superintendent of Police for “dereliction of duty”.
“The file was sent to the then chief minister for the purpose of getting permission to register FIR and to investigate thereafter. However, the note sheets indicate that the then chief minister has merely endorsed that ‘since the matter was pending before the Lokayukta there was no necessity of parallel investigation’,” the Lokayukta noted in the order.
“It is crystal clear that the then CM avoided the responsibility obviously because the present respondent was serving a minister and an MLA belonging to the ruling party,” Goa Lokayukta Justice PK Misra said in his order.
Justice Misra pointed out that the chief minister, being the home minister, was well aware that “the Lokayukta with its royal force of two constables and two head constables (two have since been repatriated to the police department by now) was not in a position to make any investigation relating to disproportionate assets.”
{{/usCountry}}Justice Misra pointed out that the chief minister, being the home minister, was well aware that “the Lokayukta with its royal force of two constables and two head constables (two have since been repatriated to the police department by now) was not in a position to make any investigation relating to disproportionate assets.”
{{/usCountry}}Also read: ‘Desist from regulating electronic media’ - Centre urges Supreme Court
“It is evident that the ACB and the then chief minister have shirked and shied away from their responsibility by not registering FIR and conducting any investigation whatsoever on the pretext that the matter was pending before the Lokayukta,” the Lokayukta noted.
“As a matter of fact, all the postings of investigative staff in the Lokayukta had been done through the vigilance department and therefore it has to be presumed that the ACB, including the then chief minister, were aware that only two constables and two head constables had been appointed in the Institution of the Lokayukta as part of investigating staff (two have been repatriate in the meantime),” he said.
“In other words, the then chief minister of Goa expected that the Lokayukta was to undertake investigation relating to a disproportionate assets case with the assistance of two constables and two head constables and on that basis the then chief minister evaded and avoided the responsibility of the registration of FIR and investigation into the alleged response,” he noted.
“Prima facie there has dereliction in duty by the then SP... the office is directed to initiate a suo motu proceeding against the then SP for gross dereliction of duty so that appropriate recommendation can be made,” the order read.
A complaint was filed before the Anti Corruption Branch that a Nikitasha Realtors Pvt Ltd, which is owned by BJP MLA and former minister Pandurang Madkaikar, has constructed a ‘lavishly built’ home that was valued at around ₹200 crore, despite declaring a family of only ₹1.68 lakh for the year 2015-16, when the construction was realised.
Complainant advocate Aires Rodrigues then approached the Anti Corruption Branch with but later claimed that no action was being taken by the ACB, which he said was dragging its feet. He later approached the Lokayukta.
Madkaikar in his reply has denied the allegations made relating to having disproportionate assets and explained that the building was constructed by Nikitasha Realtors which is a separate private company in the real estate business and he being the Managing Director of the company was only allowed to stay in such a building.
He also claimed that the construction of the building was within the means of the private company based on its valuation and assets, and that he could not be indicted unless it was demonstrated that he holds assets beyond his known source of income.