'Deshmukh might be owning flats in Adarsh through proxies'
In fresh trouble for Union minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, an affidavit filed in the Bombay high court today alleges that he might be owning two flats through proxies in the Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai.mumbai Updated: Apr 26, 2012 21:23 IST
In fresh trouble for Union minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, an affidavit filed in the Bombay high court alleges that he might be owning two flats through proxies in the scam-tainted Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai.
The affidavit was filed on Thursday by social activist Pravin Wategaonkar, one of the petitioners who have sought action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against politicians and bureaucrats in the Adarsh case through a PIL.
"It was noticed in the CAG audit that in most cases decisions that were taken resulted in undue favour to the Society. Many of the officials who were involved in such decisions were direct beneficiaries. Either they or their relatives already were, or later became, members of the Society," it says, quoting the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report.
According to the affidavit, Deshmukh, during his tenure as Maharashtra chief minister, recommended three persons --Uttam Ghakare, Amol Karbhari and Kiran Bhadange -- for membership in the Adarsh Society, and they were allotted flats in the high-rise.
It alleges that Karbhari and Bhadange, who hold adjacent flats 1503 and 1504, appear to be proxies for Deshmukh.
"Both these people have received finances totalling Rs. 104.5 lakh from former Congress MLC and chief promoter of the Society Kanhaiyalal Gidwani (an accused in Adarsh case) and the company Apeksha Impex, reportedly owned by the Gidwanis themselves," the affidavit claims.
Further, it alleges, allotment of flats to the persons recommended by Deshmukh appears to be a quid-pro-quo for the clearances given to the Society in his capacity as chief minister and minister-in-charge of the Urban Development.
Next hearing of the PIL is on April 30.
Deshmukh recently was rebuked by the high court and later by the Supreme Court in the Whistling Woods land allotment case.