To the President of India the Prime Minister of India, the Rail Minister of India and to ASG Sanjay Jain,
I am writing further to my representations against the recent appointment of Mr Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister. This appointment has been influenced by General Electric Company using Mr Sharad Pawar as an intermediary with intent to cover up the corruption complaints and evidence against General Electric Company set out in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 pending before the Delhi High Court since February 2012.
I also point out that despite my status as witness-whistleblower-petitioner and despite the threat to my life, I have no protection and I am being poisoned.
I reproduce below an application and an affidavit filed by me on the issue of Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Railway Minister in WP Civil 1280/ 2012, which were sent to you earlier as well.
I draw your attention to some further facts in connection with Suresh Prabhu's role in facilitating and benefiting from the Adarsh scam.
Suresh Prabhu was involved in permitting the Adarsh building society to proceed with construction in violation of applicable environmental rules including the CRZ regulations.
Suresh Prabhu's modus operandi in facilitating this was very similar to Montek Singh Ahluwalia's facilitation of the Dabhol Project where the latter wrote letters which were interpreted as approval of the financial structure of the Dabhol Project including power pricing. Montek Singh Ahluwalia's modus operandi was to later retract and suggest that his letter was not an approval as he was not authorised to grant the approval.
Correspondence with the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) in 2003 has been used by the Adarsh society promoters and even by the Maharastra State government to argue that environmental clearances including CRZ clearances were obtained from the MoEF in 2003. The MoEF has since denied that it issued any clearance. However, the letters issued by the MoEF which were relied upon as granting clearance which facilitated various Central and State regulatory authorities to assume that someone had granted clearance appear to have involved the hand of Suresh Prabhu.
I reproduce at the end some news reports on the issue of the environmental clearances for Adarsh. Of course, as is usual course in India, a mammoth cover-up of the Adarsh scam has been undertaken shielding many politicians involved. I do point out that such cover-ups are not without cost to the national interest as failure to apply the rule of law even when corruption is exposed contributes to and perpetuates the "sab chalta hai" culture that engenders, breeds and encourages corruption.
But the questions to ask about Suresh Prabhu and the Adarsh scam are:
There was some involvement of the MoEF in the Vajpayee Cabinet in facilitating the Adarsh society. Was Suresh Prabhu involved? Suresh Prabhu has stated that he was not Environment Minister in 2003 when the MoEF cleared the Adarsh structure. But there are several citations on the internet recording that Suresh Prabhu was environment minister in 2003. Plus Suresh Prabhu was environment minister in 1998- 1999 when the Adarsh proposal first came to the attention of the MoEF. Did Suresh Prabhu deal with the Adarsh file as environment minister in 1998-1999?
http://earthjournalism.net/stories/india2019s-river-linking-scheme-a-case-of-troubled-waters
India's River-Linking Scheme: A case of troubled waters By Keya Acharya, 5 May 2014 Forum of Environmental Journalists of India, India Dams Himalayas India Rivers Water With the exception of some select fields, few other issues in India have raised as much passion as the inter-state sharing of river waters. And, stemming partly from this socio-political acrimony together with environmental and economic concerns, India's grandiose National River Linking Project (NRLP), has been on the potboiler ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in 2003 set up a Task Force on inter-linking of rivers, headed by then Environment Minister Suresh Prabhu.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/109931/content/217654/even-giant-can-learn-run.html
The Congress tried to put the blame on the Shiv Sena, as the proposal had first come to the state government when Narayan Rane, who was then with the Sena, was the chief minister in 1999. The party also accused Prabhu of giving the green clearance. Incidentally, Prabhu is a member of the Society and has been allotted a flat in the building. |
Suresh Prabhu was no longer a government employee in 2004 when the Adarsh flat was allotted to him. He claims to have purchased the flat with a bank loan. First it has been established that the allotment to Suresh Prabhu was illegal. He could only have been allotted a flat as a private citizen if his income was less than Rs 20,000. Is it Suresh Prabhu's case that he fell within this category? Further, even if Suresh Prabhu fell within this category, he would have been entitled to a flat only half the size of what he was actually allotted. Why was he allotted a larger flat?
More importantly, Suresh Prabhu claims that he did not examine the society documents and its legal compliances himself but merely accepted the position of the promoters and blindly obtained a bank loan and paid money to purchase the flat. Are we expected to believe this?
Suresh Prabhu is a chartered accountant, a former banker and a former Cabinet minister who boasts about his administrative skills and achievements on his bio and website. Are we to believe that with these qualifications, Suresh Prabhu decided to take out a loan and buy a flat without examining the sale papers and the legal status of the property he was buying? Did the bank not insist on a due diligence and on Suresh Prabhu representing that the proposed purchase had been vetted and was legitimate and genuine? Was the bank loan issued against a mortgage of the Adarsh flat? Did the bank not vet the property documents?
Even a common man will not purchase property without assuring himself that the building was authorised? And is Suresh Prabhu saying that being a chartered accountant he decided to purchase property without assuring himself that the construction was authorised and the proposed building had necessary approvals.
Suresh Prabhu was at some time the environment minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet in 2003. He was environment minister in 1998-1999. He was aware of the CRZ notification. He must have at some time as a minister dealt with a file on the Adarsh building, whether or not he himself approved a clearance. He is a Mumbai resident and would have known that the location of the Adarsh building raised issues of CRZ clearances.
And we are expected to believe that despite his specialist knowledge, Suresh Prabhu decided to purchase the Adarsh flat with eyes and ears closed and with no due diligence?
Suresh Prabhu is one of the 32 illegal allottees in the Adarsh building and we are expected to assume that he is innocent and a victim?
Suresh Prabhu obtained a prized Colaba flat at a nominal undervalued price to which he was not legally entitled along with 31 other illegal allottees and he would have gotten away with it if the scam had not been exposed. And we are expected to believe that he was a victim. Why is it that no ordinary citizens were victimised by the Adarsh Society and allotted flats at nominal prices in Colaba? Why are all the illegal beneficiaries of the Adarsh scam powerful politicians and bureaucrats who were all connected in some manner to those public officials or ministries who/ which facilitated the usurpation of land and the illegal construction?
How did Suresh Prabhu end up becoming a part of the Adarsh building society in 2004 if he had no connection to the scam or if he was not being rewarded for corrupt services rendered at some point (like in the Dabhol Project corruption cover-up)? Surely there were many potential buyers for such undervalued Colaba flats. Let Suresh Prabhu explain exactly how he got involved with Adarsh?
I am again requesting that Suresh Prabhu be removed from his position as Rail Minister as his background establishes his unsuitability for this or indeed any other government post.
Also please ensure that the corruption complaints and evidence against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura are not covered up as was being done by the UPA government. General Electric Company must be blacklisted and cannot be permitted to participate in the 2013 tenders for these Projects which themselves deserve to be scrapped in public interest.
Please ensure that ASG Sanjay Jain is present for the court hearings for WP Civil 1280/ 2012. ASG Sanjay Jain also needs to ensure that this matter is taken away from the UPA (A S Chandhiok) appointed counsels Sapna Chauhan (for Respondent 5, the PMO) and (Om Prakash) for the Railways (respondent 4) who were both colluding in attempts to cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric Company and their co-conspirators including Montek Singh Ahluwalia and former PM Dr Manmohan Singh. This matter needs to be remarked by ASG Sanjay Jain to the new standing counsels appointed by the new NDA government.
Also since May 2014, no lawyer is appearing in this matter for the CBI. Since 2012, no authorised lawyer is appearing in this matter for the CVC. Both the CBI and CVC are parties and have been issued court notice.
Seema Sapra
Adarsh Had No Environment Clearance: Maharashta Govt MUMBAI | JAN 16, 2013 The two-year marathon inquiry conducted by a judicial commission into the Adarsh scam has ended with the Maharashtra government said to have admitted for the first time that the controversial housing society did not have necessary environmental clearances.
The commission set up in January 2011 wrapped up its inquiry into the scam yesterday and is likely to submit its final report to the state government next month, sources in the panel told PTI.
The government may accept or reject the findings of the commission.
Concluding his arguments, state government counsel A Y Sakhare is understood to have told the commission that the 31-storey plush Adarsh building in south Mumbai was constructed without Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance or nod from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF).
The sources said it is for the first time that the government, which had consistently maintained that no rules were violated in granting permissions to the building, has admitted that the society did not have the required environmental clearance.
The state is said to have supported the MoEF's claim that the March 2003 letter by the Urban Development Department to the society was misrepresented as environmental clearance by one of the accused P V Deshmukh, a former deputy secretary in the department.
The MoEF, in response to UDD's letter forwarding the society's proposal for construction, had said that state has a body- Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)-to look into CRZ clearances. The MoEF's response was allegedly misconstrued by Deshmukh as a clearance.
The state government in its final arguments is said to have noted that the society should not have constructed 31 floors as the Development Control Regulations (DCR), 1967, applicable to it, did not permit that. According to the state, the building situated in south Mumbai's upscale Colaba, could have been built only up to 46.5 m and not the present 100.7 m.
According to the government, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) wrongly applied DCR 1991 which did not have height restrictions.
The commission, headed by Justice (retired) J A Patil, has started dictating its findings in chamber and will submit its final report to the government by the end of next month.
The commission had in its interim report last year negated the Ministry of Defence's claim on the land where the building stands and held that its ownership rested with the state government. The panel had also noted that the land was not reserved for Kargil war veterans, widows and their relatives.
The commission's final report will throw light on whether requisite permissions had been obtained by the society and if any rules violated by bureaucrats while granting various clearances.
A total of 214 witnesses were examined by the commission including Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, former Maharashtra chief ministers Vilasrao Deshmukh and Ashok Chavan, former army chiefs N C Vij and Deepak Kapoor, several IAS officers and bureaucrats from the state and central government.
Ashok Chavan is an accused in the case but was never arrested. Click here to see the article in its standard web format
http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/Adarsh-Had-No-Environment-Clearance-Maharashta-Govt/787124
logoimg iconimg Friday, November 28, 2014
Sayli Udas Mankikar, Hindustan Times Mumbai, November 03, 2010 First Published: 00:24 IST(3/11/2010) Last Updated: 02:04 IST(3/11/2010) Print Housing scam: Ex-minister wants Adarsh money back
Shiv Sena leader and former Union environment minister Suresh Prabhu said he would send a notice to Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society asking it to return the money he paid for a flat in the 31-storey tower. He also denied granting it any environmental clearance. The tower at Colaba was allegedly built in violation of environmental norms and on the promise that houses would be given to Kargil war veterans and widows. However, most of the flats were allotted to bureaucrats, politicians and army and navy commanders. The Congress had accused Prabhu of clearing the project while he was environment minister in the National Democratic Alliance government.
"I was not a minister when the clearance was given. I held the post in 1998-1999," said Prabhu on the phone from Singapore on Tuesday. He pointed out that it was the DMK's TR Baalu who was environment minister in 2003.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is a partner in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
The plot on which the society stands is part of the Coastal Regulation Zone 1, the most eco-sensitive coastal area because it has mangroves and mudflats. In such zones projects costing more than R5 crore require clearance by the Union environment ministry.
Ministry officials, however, have said no sanction was given to the Adarsh project.
Prabhu said he is not a promoter or office-bearer of the society. "I got a flat that was part of a quota for MPs and because it was going at a concession. I took a home loan for it and the flat is still on mortgage," he said.
Prabhu said he got all the clearances required for the loan, including an approval from the collector. "Now I find out the project is in trouble. I will send a notice to the society asking it to return my money," he said.
He insisted that he was not aware of any violations by the society.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/621469.aspx?s=p © Copyright © 2013 HT Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.
No MoEF clearance was issued to Adarsh Housing Society The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has denied that it has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on March 11, 2003, to Adarsh Housing Cooperative Society, Mumbai, for construction of a residential building. The Navy has taken strong objection to grant of clearances to the building, citing violation of norms.
The society, with its high profile members, is in the eye of a storm for violating environmental and other norms and misusing the land granted to it. The MoEF issued a statement on Thursday giving the exact text of the letter dated March 11, 2003, which it had issued to P.V. Deshmukh, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, government of Maharashtra.
The letter notes that "the proposed residential complex falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) - II area. This Ministry has already delegated the powers to the State government for undertaking development in Coastal Regulation Zone -II. Accordingly, the proposed construction may be taken up as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (as amended from time to time) and the approved revised Coastal Zone Management Plan of Greater Mumbai."
The MoEF clarified that any reference from the State government about the coastal matters was examined under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, and the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai.
Height no problem
Citing that the housing society received all necessary clearances and permissions, Adarsh society, in letter, stated that the building plan was approved by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in stages as per rules. "CRZ [Coastal Regulatory Zone] clearance was obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi vide letter NoF.No.J-17011/46/2002-IA III dated March 11, 2003." It also said that CRZ clearance had nothing to do with the height of the building.
It claimed that the height of the building (103.4 meters) was approved by the High Rise Committee headed by Retired Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu. "The final Commencement Certificate was issued by the MMRDA on August 04, 2010 and, lastly, Occupation Certificate was also given on September 16, 2010."
The MoEF denied that this letter gave any permission, pointing out that in March 2003, all construction in the CRZ area, which was permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification and were in consonance with the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai, had to be considered by the Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). At that time, the approval authority was meant to be the State government; in the case of Maharashtra, it was the environment department. The society did not make any application to the environment department, it is learnt.
The Ministry had approved the revised Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai on January 19, 2000. To obtain clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, the project proponent needs to submit the proposal enclosing the details of construction, classification of Coastal Regulation Zone area in the requisite format to the concerned Coastal Zone Management Authority; in this case this proposal should have been submitted to the MCZMA.
The MCZMA was constituted in January, 2002, in compliance with a Supreme Court order. The statement said clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991 by the MOEF was in a prescribed format. The clearance letter issued by the Ministry was always addressed to the Member Secretary, MCZMA, and copied to all concerned. The power to issue of Coastal Regulation Zone clearance was withdrawn on April 22, 2003, in respect of projects costing more than Rs. 5 crore.
Keywords: Adarsh Housing Society, Mumbai land scam
Demolish Adarsh, says MoEF official Reporters Name | PTI | Tuesday, 7 August 2012 AT 11:25 AM IST Send by email Printer-friendly version MoEF, Adarsh society, housing scam, demolish, CRZ, CBI, Mumbai MUMBAI: Reiterating its stand on the Adarsh housing society, a former Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) official told a judicial panel that the building has to be demolished as it does not have environmental clearance. Former MoEF director Bharat Bhushan told a two-member inquiry commission set up by the state government to probe into the scam, that the Adarsh building stands in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and hence environmental clearance is mandatory. "The building has not obtained any clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). The MCZMA has not sent any recommnedation to the MoEF regarding clearance to be given to Adarsh," he said. He said that when the Adarsh scam broke in October 2010, the MoEF had asked for a report from the secretary of the department of environment who is also the chairperson of the MCZMA. The report stated that no clearance was obtained or given to the plush 31-storey Adarsh building in South Mumbai. "The final order of Janury 14, 2011, passed by the MoEF for the building's demolition was based on details sent by the MCZMA chairperson, Maharashtra government, hearing of Adarsh representatives, as well as other documents," he said. 'CLEARANCE A MUST' Ex-MoEF director Bharat Bhushan told a probe panel set up by the state on the scam, that the Adarsh building stands in the CRZ and hence environmental clearance is mandatory.
Nextgen Cities Jaipur
Home > News > Adopt 'adarsh' policies, Mr Ramesh, ad hoc ones will not do Adopt 'adarsh' policies, Mr Ramesh, ad hoc ones will not do ShareThis Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Pinterest Email Why didn't your ministry stop the controversial building project in 2003 itself? PRASANNA MOHANTY | JANUARY 17, 2011
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh loves publicity, more so if it comes free. It would, therefore, have been naïve not to expect him to issue a demolition notice to the Adarsh housing society which he has done now.
Do bask in glory, Mr Ramesh, but please answer a few questions. The first question is: Why this notice to the Adarsh society now? The 31-storey building that you think deserves to be completely demolished for "egregious violation" of environment laws, got the occupation certificate on September 16, 2010. Which means, the construction activities have already been completed for people to move in.
Presumably, construction began after the Adarsh society applied for environment clearance from your ministry in 2003. Your ministry wrote back on March 11, 2003 saying the appropriate clearing authority under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991 was the state government – rather the Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). So, your ministry and MCZMA knew about the case way back in March 2003. Why did both of them go to sleep for the next seven years?
MCZMA has, in its deposition before your ministry, said it had issued notice to the Adarsh society on lack of environment clearance on November 3, 2009. Why did it take six years for it to do so?
The second question, therefore, is: What action do you propose to take against your ministry officials and those of the MCZMA?
The third question pertains to the violation of the CRZ notification of 1991 vis-à-vis section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 itself. As your communiqué mentions, this section "provides for 'restriction of areas' in which any industries, operations or process of class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. Construction of buildings falls with the category of 'process' ".
Find us one more individual, Mr Ramesh, who agrees with this interpretation of "process". Why is the language so vague and prone to misinterpretation? Is this deliberate or do you expect us to believe that the literacy level of your officials is so poor? No wonder the Adarsh society is protesting, arguing that it didn't violate any the law as this section deals with industries, not housing societies.
The Adarsh society is also right in questioning the locus standi of MoEF, citing the ministry's March 11, 2003 letter, which said the state government was the clearing authority. To which, your communiqué mentions that your ministry has clarified that the CRZ notification was amended on April 22, 2003 (a month later) withdrawing that power from the state government because of "misutilisation" of power. But you are silent on whether this amendment was communicated to the Adarsh society at that time and what action was taken to ensure that the amendment was followed by other applicants.
The Adarsh society is a fait accompli, Mr Ramesh, just as many other big-ticket projects that your ministry first cleared and then issued notices about violations of law when public outcry reached unmanageable levels - Lavasa project in Pune, Vedanta's smelting and refinery plants in Orissa, Jindals' thermal plants in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, Lafarge's mining in Meghalaya and so on. It would be naive again to expect that the Adarsh society would actually be demolished.
Get your act together, Mr Ramesh, and get right the vaguely worded laws, notifications and regulations and ask your men to act proactive, not reactive to public outcry.
- See more at: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/adopt-adarsh-policies-mr-ramesh-ad-hoc-ones-will-not-do#sthash.k3CdUkan.dpuf
Publication: The Times Of India Bangalore; Date: Oct 27, 2010; Section: Times Nation; Page: 9
No record of environmental clearance: MoEF MMRDA Allowed Housing Society In Violation Of Coastal Regulation Rules Prafulla Marpakwar & Josy Joseph | TNN
New Delhi: Adding a new twist to the controversy surrounding Adarsh Housing Cooperative Society, the Colaba highrise in which a clutch of powerful politicians, bureaucrats and former Army chiefs have cornered flats, the Union ministry of environment & forests (MoEF) on Tuesday indicated that it has no records of the building obtaining the necessary environmental clearances. TOI had reported on October 26 how Adarsh Society had appropriated defence land in the name of building houses for war veterans and war widows, and indulged in a host of other violations along the way.
Based on TOI reports, the MoEF on Tuesday issued a notice to the Maharashtra environment secretary, asking her to examine the project, clearances obtained and the action taken against the violations. The notice says there is a violation of the CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) rules and the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) rules as well. When contacted, Union minister for environment & forests Jairam Ramesh confirmed that his ministry had written to the state government to find out if the building had obtained necessary clearances. The ministry has sought a reply by Monday.
A day after the TOI report, when the state environment department conducted its own preliminary probe, it found that the urban development department and MMRDA had approved the proposal in blatant violation of CRZ rules in collaboration with the BMC. Although environment secretary Valsa Nair Singh refused to comment, a senior official on Tuesday confirmed that all the rules, particularly under CRZ, were completely ignored. (According to CRZ rules, any project of Rs 5 crore and above has to be approved by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and later by the ministry of environment & forests.) "We examined all the applications submitted to MCZMA. We were stunned to find that while the project was within the CRZ area, the society never submitted an application for approval,'' the official said.
MCZMA and MoEF were both in the dark on the first phase of Adarsh. However, the state environment department stepped in in 2007 when local residents lodged a complaint, saying there were blatant violations in Phase Two of the project. "We had issued a show cause notice to the promoters of the society and asked them to submit the approvals granted to them by MCZMA and MoEF. They failed to produce the documents — instead, they showed us the correspondence between MoEF and the urban development department,'' the official said.
Vice-Admiral Sanjeev Bhasin, the flag officer commanding-In-chief of the Mumbai-based Western Naval Command, in his letter to the headquarters in July, had pointed out that under CRZ rules, the height of the building had to be restricted to 30 metres. The current height of the building is evidently 100 metres or more, with 31 floors and 124 flats.
Admiral Bhasin also quoted from a letter that the principal secretary, urban development department of Maharashtra, had written on August 19, 1999, seeking an NOC for the complex since it falls under the CRZ-1 plan. The letter, which was forwarded to naval headquarters, said the members of the society were officers who had "dedicated their lives to service of the Motherland and deserved all special consideration''. It added that several members were even today fighting at Kargil and in surrounding areas. Records show that none of the senior defence officers who own flats there fought in the Kargil conflict.
Land belongs to revenue dept, say officials
Mumbai: Chief minister Ashokrao Chavan on Tuesday said that he has sought information on the row over the allotment of a prime piece of land to the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in south Mumbai. "I have carefully read the report in the Times of India and I am seized of the matter. I have asked the concerned departments to submit a comprehensive report on the allegations. Once the information is received, we will decide on the course of action. So far, no decision has been taken,'' Chavan told TOI.
Meanwhile, Mumbai collector Chandrashekhar Oke has submitted a preliminary report to the revenue department on the controversy over the allotment of the land to the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in 2004. The report also deals with ownership of the land.
Though Oke refused to comment on his report, a senior Mantralaya official confirmed that the land allotted to the cooperative housing society belonged to the revenue department. TNN AMONG THE ALLOTTEES
I A KUNDAN | Former collector of Mumbai, current joint secretary (planning) P V DESHMUKH | Ex-deputy secretary
KANISHKA J PHATAK | Son of former BMC commissioner Jairaj Phatak KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI | Former Congress MLC and sons Kailash and Amit SEEMA VYAS | FDA commissioner JITENDRA S AWHAD | NCP MLA RAJESH KUMAR DAS | VP, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
RANJIT SANGITRAO | Son of transport secretary C S Sangitrao
DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE | Daughter of former BEST GM Uttam Khobragade
J M ABHYANKAR | Ex-director, education
ONKAR TIWARI | Son of state info commissioner and ex-UD secy Ramanand Tiwari In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Company and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
1. I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 43 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under.
2. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
3. This affidavit is being filed to supplement the Petitioner's application (filing diary no. 234826/ 2014) on the issue of Mr Suresh Prabhu's dubious appointment as Rail Minister under influence from General Electric Company in this writ petition which is coming up for hearing before Court for the first time on 1 December 2014.
4. In this application the Petitioner has stated that on 9 November 2014, Mr Sadanand Gowda who was opposed to the Madhepura and Marhowra proposed locomotive factory Projects and tenders because these Projects and tenders were tainted with corrupt dealings was unceremoniously replaced as Railway Minister with Mr Suresh Prabhu by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under pressure from General Electric Company, respondent 1 in this whistleblower corruption case.
5. The relief sought by the Petitioner in her application on the Suresh Prabhu issue is reproduced below.
6. Mr Suresh Prabhu has a history of covering up General Electric corruption and protecting General Electric interests while foregoing legitimate interests and rights of the Government of India which he exhibited while he was Power Minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet and dealing with the Enron-GE-Bechtel consortium's Dabhol Project.
7. Mr Suresh Prabhu was rewarded for protecting General Electric Company's interests and for covering up the corruption in the Dabhol Project and subsequently became an entrepreneur cum self-professed policy-czar in the power, renewable energy, water, and infrastructure space. General Electric Company is one of the largest companies in these spaces especially in the area of renewable energy and it helped Suresh Prabhu set up as an entrepreneur and self-professed policy expert.
8. Mr Sharad Pawar also has a long history of dealings with General Electric Company involving corrupt deals at the expense of the Indian exchequer. Some examples are again the Dabhol Project and the Air-India aircraft purchase orders from Boeing fitted with General Electric engines. The corruption inherent in what is now known as the Air India scam which has ended up bankrupting and destroying the national air carrier (a matter that of national shame that calls for introspection) has been the subject of a CAG report and involved then Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel, appointed to the Manmohan Singh Cabinet as a nominee of Mr Sharad Pawar's party (NCP) and close to Mr Sharad Pawar.
9. The recent legislative assembly elections in Maharashtra and the failure of the BJP to secure a complete majority and its resultant dependence on either the NCP (Mr Sharad Pawar's party) or the Shiv Sena afforded an opportunity for General Electric Company to again pressurise the BJP led Government of India.
10. As part of the machinations involving government formation in Maharashtra, General Electric Company used Mr Sharad Pawar to pressurise Prime Minister Modi to induct Suresh Prabhu into his Cabinet as Rail Minister.
11. The Petitioner has already raised serious concerns based upon facts and evidence about Mr Suresh Prabhu's suitability for appointment as Rail Minister in her application which will be listed on 1 December 2014.
12. The Petitioner's concerns that General Electric Company is behind Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister and that Suresh Prabhu has been brought in to cover up corruption by General Electric Company in the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders is further buttressed by an interview given by Mr John Rice, Vice Chairman of General Electric Company to an Indian media outlet on 19 November 2014 which is reproduced below. Through this interview cleverly moulded using pre-set questions with the help of the interviewing journalist, Mr John Rice acknowledges that Suresh Prabhu is amenable to General Electric's position, and Mr John Rice further lobbies for award of the Marhowra Project by stating: "I have been in talks with the government on rail modernization probably for the last 17-18 years. Some of my earliest trips to India involved rail modernization. We are ready, willing and able to go and we are quite hopeful that the new minister will move the tendering process forward."
13. Contrast Mr John Rice's (General Electric Company) interview with that of Mr William P Ainsworth, President and CEO of Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD) and Progress Rail Services (the Caterpillar-owned subsidiary that acquired EMD in 2010) to a different Indian media outlet published on 27 November 2013, also reproduced below. EMD is the other interested bidder in the Marhowra Project and tenders and is the only rival to General Electric Company for this Project due to tailored eligibility criteria intended to keep all other potential bidders out. When Mr William P Ainsworth is asked to comment on the live Marhowra tender, he replies "when the request for qualification is in process, we don't comment."
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of November 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
INDEX
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 27 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless 9582716748
Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this affidavit by email dated 27 November 2014
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C.M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner Versus General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
An Application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions that the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; and directions to Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; and for issuance of notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections
The Petitioner above named Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. This is an application placing on record the concerns of the Petitioner-whistle-blower regarding developments in the Railway Ministry, Respondent 4 herein, which have an impact on how the Government of India deals with the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying that are before this Court in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura.
2. The new NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office after the General Elections in May 2014.
3. Prime Minister Narendra Modi appointed Mr Sadanand Gowda as the Railway Minister in May 2014.
4. On 9 November 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suddenly replaced Mr Sadanand Gowda with Mr Suresh Prabhu as the Railway Minister.
5. Since this petition was filed in February 2012 drawing attention to the biggest corruption scandal in the Railway Ministry to date involving public revenue to the tune of almost 20 Billion USD, the Railway Ministry has seen several rail ministers including Ms Mamata Bannerjee, Mr Dinesh Trivedi, Mr Pawan Bansal, Mr Kharge, Mr Sadanand Gowda, and now Mr Suresh Prabhu. Even former PM Mamohan Singh held charge of this Ministry for a short time. Out of this list, at least 2 rail ministers (Pavan Bansal and Sadanand Gowda) overseeing these projects have been subjected to phone taps. Both Pavan Bansal and Sadanand Gowda have faced criminal investigations involving close family members during their tenure as Rail Ministers. The Rail Minister is required to approve the award of the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects.
6. It must be reiterated that General Electric Company is capable of influencing political leaders and of targeting Rail Ministers and Railway Board members in order to prevent them from discharging their official duties in connection with the complaints of corruption against General Electric.
7. PM Narendra Modi met the CEO of General Electric Company (Jeffrey Immelt) during his September 2014 visit to the United States.
8. In September 2014, the Financial Commissioner of the Railway Board had written to then Rail Minister Sadanand Gowda complaining about the corruption in the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and recommending that the 2013 tenders for these Projects should also be scrapped as these constitute debt traps for the Indian Railways. According to the Railway Board Financial Commissioner there was no necessity for the Railways to enter into such long term binding purchase orders with assured offtake for electric and diesel locomotives in such large numbers.
9. News reports were subsequently published that Mr Sadanand Gowda was not inclined to proceed with the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects.
10. Therefore when Mr Sadanand Gowda was suddenly replaced on ( November 2014 by Mr Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister, the Petitioner decided to look into Mr Suresh Prabhu's background.
11. Based upon her research into Mr Suresh Prabhu's background, the Petitioner emailed her concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister to the President of India and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 17 November 2014.
12. These two emails of the Petitioner dated 17 November 2014 and titled "Suresh Prabhu's benami companies - further representation to PM Narendra Modi about unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu as Rail Minister from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower in WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistleblower case (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Ors.)" totalling 23 pages have been filed by her in this matter on 19 November 2014 and are on the court record.
13. These emails raise the following concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister.
14. More information and evidence in connection with the Petitioner's valid concerns regarding Mr Suresh Prabhu's unsuitability for appointment as Rail Minister were also emailed by the Petitioner to the President of India and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These are reproduced below:
15. The petitioner would like to present some further evidence on the issue of the unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu for the post of Rail Minister. The relevant news reports are reproduced below. To use an analogy, given his background and involvement in the Adarsh scam, Suresh Prabhu would never have passed the litmus test for consideration to a judicial post. How then could Prime Minister Narendra Modi consider Suresh Prabhu as a fit candidate for a position in his cabinet and that too in the Rail Ministry with the biggest corruption scandal time-bomb (this petition) ticking away?
16. It was both the petitioner's duty and right as a citizen of this country to bring the above facts and concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu to the attention of the President of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And the petitioner takes immense pride in her stand as whistle-blower in this case where she has risked her life for her moral and ethical values and where she refused to participate in or cover up corruption and forgery by General Electric executives. It cannot be emphasized enough that the petitioner, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, also complied with the professional rules of ethics prescribed by the Bar Council of India in refusing to allow her legal services to be used by a client (General Electric) to facilitate the commission of criminal offences, and illegal and unethical acts.
17. Accordingly the petitioner was stunned when during the hearing of this matter on 20 November 2014, when this matter was specifically listed for the Petitioner to make her submissions on the issue of the grave and imminent threat to her life as she is being poisoned, the counsel purporting to represent the Railway Ministry in this matter one Mr Om Prakash launched into an aggressive tirade against the Petitioner. Om Prakash refused to permit the petitioner to address the court, and he shouted down the petitioner whenever she opened her mouth to address the court or to respond to his tirade. Om Prakash's grievance against the petitioner was that she had dared to raise questions and concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's suitability for a Ministerial post and his appointment as Railway Minister and according to him the court ought to prevent the petitioner from making such complaints.
18. Unfortunately on 20 November 2014, Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak did not restrain Om Prakash from attacking the petitioner and from preventing the petitioner to speak. The petitioner had been compelled to make complaints of judicial corruption against Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak and had on 20 November 2014 filed an application seeking recusal by these Judges. Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak permitted Om Prakash to shout at the Petitioner for about one hour.
19. As a result the following order was passed in this matter on 20 November 2014. The petitioner submits that not only was she not permitted to address the court, but she was not allowed to make her submissions on the threat to her life. Neither was she permitted to make her submissions on her request for recusal by Judges Sistani and Pathak. Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak permitted Om Prakash to make false statements that the petitioner was at fault or responsible for recusal by 26 judges in this matter and then proceeded to record this in the order. The petitioner was only able to request that the Judges record that she was denying the submissions of Om Prakash.
20. The order dated 20 November 2014 is reproduced below:
O R D E R
20.11.2014
We may note that Mr.Om Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ministry of Railways, has raised a strong objection with regard to circulation of emails by the petitioner concerning the Railway Minister. Mr.Prakash submits that the platform of the High Court is being used by the petitioner, which is evident upon reading of the first page of the email, which refers to the present petition (W.P.(C)1280/2012), wherein she refers herself to be a whistleblower. Mr.Prakash next submits that the petitioner should be restrained from making such scandalous emails against the persons by referring to the writ petition, which is pending and has become infructuous (which is disputed by Ms.Sapra). Mr.Prakash also submits that as many as twenty six Judges have recused from hearing this matter for one reason or the other or on account of the emails being addressed by the petitioner with respect to them. Ms.Sapra submits that the Judges have recused not because of her but for valid reasons.
Ms.Sapra submits that as a citizen she has the right to make a complaint against the Railway Minister or any other person in case there is evidence of corruption.
The submissions made by Mr.Om Prakash, counsel for the respondent/Ministry of Railways, shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
Ms.Sapra also informs the Court that she has filed an application in the Registry, which is likely to be listed on 24.11.2014, in which she has again requested this Bench to recuse from hearing this matter, besides the prayers of Z+ security and for safe housing, as she is a witness and a whistleblower.
It may be noted that like all the previous orders this order has also been read out to Ms.Sapra in Court in the presence of other counsel.
List on 24.11.2014.
G.S.SISTANI, J
A.K. PATHAK, J
21. As a result of the order dated 20 November 2014, the Petitioner is being compelled to file the present application.
22. As the petitioner informed the court on 20 November 2014, she has simply as a concerned citizen and as a whistle-blower in this matter made a representation to the President and Prime Minister of India that Mr Suresh Prabhu (with his background of un-investigated allegations and evidence of corruption in the Cobbler scam the Dabhol scam and the Adarsh scam; with his benami companies in the renewable energy, finance and infrastructure space; with the real likelihood that he or his son's companies have had financial or other dealings with General Electric Company and/ or its affiliates; with his role favouring General Electric Company in the Dabhol Power Plant corruption (which incidentally led to his removal from the Vajpayee cabinet's power ministry in 2002); and with existing conflict of interest issues because of his benami companies) is not the appropriate choice for Railway Minister at this juncture when General Electric Company's corrupt dealings in the Madhepura and Marhowra Rail tenders are subjudice, un-investigated and unresolved.
23. The Petitioner is a whistle-blower and witness in the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations, illegal lobbying and tender tampering against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura. The petitioner has been viciously targeted because of this since 2010. She has been and continues to be poisoned. Her left ankle/ foot has been deliberately destroyed as part of the conspiracy to eliminate her. The petitioner's life continues to be in danger as long as attempts to cover up this corruption continue.
24. The petitioner's applications and rejoinders before the Court in this matter describe how the Railway Ministry has colluded with General Electric and has filed false and perjurious affidavits in attempts to sabotage this matter and to cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric. These false and evasive affidavits filed on behalf of the Railway Ministry have placed the petitioner's life in greater danger. The Railway Ministry should have stepped forward and acknowledged the Petitioner as a whistle-blower and ensured her protection as a witness-whistleblower. Instead the affidavits filed on behalf of the Rail Ministry have targeted the Petitioner. The Railway Ministry has attempted to mislead the Court. It has attempted to cover up the complaints made by the Petitioner. As such the petitioner has every right to voice her concerns publicly that Suresh Prabhu might have been appointed as Railway Minister under pressure from General Electric Company to further facilitate the cover-up of the petitioner's corruption complaints.
25. It is revealing and unfortunate that alleged Railway Counsel Om Prakash has not objected to the fact that K R Radhakrishnan is impersonating as the authorised signatory of General Electric in this matter and that he has filed false affidavits and that a massive fraud on the court is being committed. Om Prakash has never objected to the fact that I a witness and a whistleblower am being targeted, am homeless for 2 and a half years and that I have been and am being poisoned. During all hearings, Om Prakash is seen whispering and taking instructions from AZB lawyers (Nanju Ganpathy and Manpreet Lamba) who are purporting to represent General Electric Company.
26. Om Prakash is not Suresh Prabhu's lawyer and he has no right to object to my complaints of personal corruption against Suresh Prabhu and to my representations to the President and Prime Minister that Suresh Prabhu should not have been appointed Rail Minister and that given his background it is reasonable to be concerned that he might facilitate the cover-up of General Electric corruption.
27. I am extremely offended by how Om Prakash shouted at me in Court on 20 November 2014 because of my emails about Suresh Prabhu and how the Judges failed to rein him in or to restrain him but permitted him to shout so that I could not speak. Advocate Om Prakash must apologise to me.
28. I do not subscribe to the mai-baap culture that Om Prakash's tirade exhibited. He stated that he had met the Director from the Railway Ministry that morning and he had received instructions to object to my emails about Suresh Prabhu. Om Prakash repeatedly stated that my emails were against the "boss" as if I had committed blasphemy. So what? Can a citizen not question a dubious ministerial appointment?
29. Or is it that according to Om Prakash and the Director in the Railway Ministry instructing him, only elderly men like Ram Jethmalani and Subramaniam Swamy have the right and the privilege of making representations against corruption and corrupt acts of politicians and government officers in power? Why does Om Prakash have an objection when a woman whistle-blower like me speaks up to power? Do younger women have no right to engage in political discourse and political activity? Exposing corruption is a political act. In fact, the viciousness of the retaliation against me in India is a direct consequence of my gender. It is as if a woman daring to take on powerful persons must be crushed to set an example.
30. What does the order dated 20 November 2014 mean when it states that Om Prakash submitted that I am using the platform of the High Court? My representation against Suresh Prabhu is linked to my writ petition and to the threat to my life if the ongoing attempts to cover up my corruption complaints continue. I am fully entitled to refer to my pending writ petition in my correspondence addressed to the President and Prime Minister. I am fully entitled to identify myself as a whistleblower in such correspondence. I am fully entitled to link my concerns about Suresh Prabhu to my corruption complaints given that Suresh Prabhu is now Rail Minister and given that his appointment appears to have been influenced by General Electric Company (apparently through Mr Sharad Pawar) and was intended to oust Sadanand Gowda who was considering scrapping the impugned Madhepura and Marhowra Projects. I am fully entitled to link my representation to the writ petition that I have filed. Who is Advocate Om Prakash to object to this? How can the Railway Ministry or some Director in the Railway Ministry who is briefing Om Prakash object to my representation to the President/ Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment?
31. Why is Om Prakash trying to cover up my complaints against Suresh Prabhu in his personal capacity and silence me on this subject? Who is Om Prakash to describe my complaints against Suresh Prabhu as "scandalous"? Does Om Prakash hold a brief for Suresh Prabhu in the latter's personal capacity? He does not.
32. Om Prakash should be asked to declare who in the Railway Board is giving him instructions. He mentioned a Director level officer. How is a Director level officer instructing Om Prakash in a matter of such importance?
33. During the Court hearing on 20 November 2014, I told the court that I was not asking the court to pass orders on my complaints against Suresh Prabhu and that I had made these representations to the President and Prime Minister and that I had merely filed a copy of the representation in this matter so that the Court was kept aware of developments in the Railway Ministry regarding this matter. However given Om Prakash's attack on me which appears to be instigated by Suresh Prabhu, I am constrained to file this application and seek relief on this issue.
34. Om Prakash is also misleading the court that this matter is infructuous. This writ petition has not become infructuous merely because the 2010 Madhepura and Marhowra tenders have been cancelled. Such statements are being made without any hearing and also without reading pending court applications and court pleadings. Arguments on merits in this matter have still to commence before J Sistani and J Pathak. I also point out that complaints of corruption in a tender by a bidder do not get washed away simply by that tender being cancelled. Especially when the corruption pointed out, continues to plague and infect the subsequent retendering process as well. The writ petition includes a prayer for blacklisting GE for corruption. Legal consequences of corruption, fraud and forgery in a tender cannot be avoided by mere cancellation of the tender and by initiation of a fresh tender where the bidder who indulged in the corrupt dealings continues to enjoy the benefits of that corruption. Yet Om Prakash would like the Court to disregard corruption complaints and evidence before it, and ignore prayers for the reliefs of blacklisting, investigation and prosecution. Neither the PMO nor the Rail Ministry have contended on affidavit that the writ petition has become infructuous. This writ petition survives and must be decided on merits even though the 2010 tenders have been cancelled. The cancellation of the 2010 tenders was a direct result of this writ petition and provides further evidence of the corruption complaints in the writ petition. Evidence and averments on the court record establish that the cancellation of the tenders was at the instance of the very persons involved in the corruption, and was nothing but a malafide device to over-reach the court and an attempt to cover up the corruption complaints before the court and an attempt to avoid the due process of law and to avoid the adjudication of the writ petition on merits and the investigation of the corruption complaints and a malafide attempt to permit General Electric to continue to bid for the same Project despite evidence of General Electric's corruption. Om Prakash is fully aware that this matter is not infructuous and he should stop misleading the court and colluding with the lawyers who are claiming to represent General Electric without vakalatnamas. No railway affidavit has stated that this matter is infructuous.
35. The petitioner once again reproduces the prayers in this writ petition:
"PRAYER
In light of the facts stated above the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the whistle-blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/ Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1)).
2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower complaints in accordance with law.
3. Direct that Respondent No. 2 inquire into the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) arising out of the Petitioner's whistle-blower complaints and direct prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public servants found involved and complicit.
4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be immediately relocated to a safe house."
36. Om Prakash's shocking attack on me during the court hearing of 20 November 2014 only serves to lend credence to my complaints and apprehensions regarding Suresh Prabhu and his appointment as Rail Minister.
37. It is a matter of public interest that the Government of India (through the PMO, respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare if there is any conflict of interest regarding Suresh Prabhu and the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders? Have Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies had any dealings (financial or otherwise) with General Electric Company and/or its affiliates? Have Suresh Prabhu's extra-curricular activities at the global level and in the renewable energy policy sphere ever been directly or indirectly funded by General Electric Company and/ or its affiliates? Have Suresh Prabhu's extra-curricular activities at the global level and in the renewable energy policy sphere ever been directly or indirectly funded by the United States government which has also lobbied for the Marhowra and Madheoura Projects on behalf of General Electric Company?
38. Has Mr Suresh Prabhu been made aware of this writ petition and of the evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects that is on record?
39. The petitioner points out that one Nihar Ranjan Dash might be the Director in the Railway Ministry instructing Om Prakash. Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash is too junior an officer to deal with this matter. Plus he appears to be part of the electric engineering directorate and not a part of the Railway Board.
40. It is shocking that Suresh Prabhu misused a junior officer in the rail ministry (Nihar Ranjan Dash) to ask Om Prakash to protest against my representation against Suresh Prabhu. Who is Nihar Ranjan Dash to object to this representation? What legal authority does he have to do this? Such mai-baap culture of corruption and cover-up must end.
41. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must give serious consideration to my representations about the unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu for a government position. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must also ensure that no one including Suresh Prabhu helps cover up my complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations and illegal lobbying against General Electric and Montek Singh Ahluwalia in connection with the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders and that these complaints are investigated and prosecuted in accordance with law.
42. This application is being made in the interest of justice.
43. This application relies upon the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 and also on the petitioner's complaints being emailed to authorities including to the Registrar General of the High Court.
44. Copies of Suresh Prabhu's cv and his wife Uma Prabhu's CV are annexed hereto as Annexure P-1.
45. It is pointed out that the previous scam-afflicted UPA Government under former PM Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide Montek Singh Ahluwalia were not only complicit in the corruption that is the subject matter of this petition, but were master-minding the coverup of these complaints and the sabotage of this writ petition and the elimination of the petitioner-whistleblower-witness. Now that the NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in power, and given that the election mandate to this government was to act against corruption, it is necessary that Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervene in this matter and personally ensure that the attempted cover-up of these corruption complaints by the Railway Ministry be stopped and that fresh affidavits be filed by the Railway Ministry which are truthful, and responsive and where the Railway Ministry faithfully discharges its obligation o this Court to ascertain the true and complete facts regarding the Petitioner's corruption complaints against General Electric and Montek Singh Ahluwalia.
46. Advocate Om Prakash was brought into this matter by the previous UPA regime to cover up its own and General Electric's corruption. He has failed to assist the court properly. The new NDA government must remove Om Prakash as counsel for Railway Ministry (respondent 4) in this matter and must appoint a proper counsel who properly assists the court, who is respectful to the petitioner-whstleblower and who gives correct advice to his client and whose agenda is not to facilitate the cover-up of the corruption complaints and the sabotage of this petition. Mr Sanjay Jain ASG is supposed to represent the PMO (respondent 5) and respondent 4 (Railway Ministry) in this matter but for some reason he has failed to appear in this matter on a single date since his appointment. Earlier his predecessor Mr Rajiv Mehra appeared for respondents 4 and 5.
47. It is important for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to recognise the influence of General Electric Company and the illegal nexus of Indian politicians it harbours. Please see the petitioner's email dated 15 October 2014 below titled
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; to ascertain and declare any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and to ascertain and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; (b) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ensure that Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister does not act unlawfully in connection with the Marhowra and Madhepura locomotive factory Projects and that no attempt is made to cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations, tender manipulation, and illegal lobbying that are pending against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura; (c) Direct Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; (d) Issue notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections; (e) Direct the Railway Ministry to replace advocate Om Prakash with a lawyer who will not facilitate the cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric and who will not collude withGgeneral Electric Company's alleged lawyers to sabotage this writ petition; (f) Direct that ASG Sanjay Jain who has been instructed to appear in this matter for respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the PMO) start assisting the Hon'ble Court and not skip court hearings; (g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 26 November 2014 Seema Sapra Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C. M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 43 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
2. I state that the accompanying application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions that the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; and directions to Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; and for issuance of notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections; (along with affidavit) has been drafted by me and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there-from and that all annexures to the application are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 26th day of November 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C.M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
INDEX
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 26 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless 9582716748
Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this application by email dated 26 November 2014 All the prayers are inter-connected and flow from each other. Please list the application before court as it is. |
From: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 3:11 PM
Subject: Suresh Prabhu appointed Rail Minister under influence of General Electric Company to cover up corruption in Marhowra and Madhepura loco Projects & tenders - Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower - WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistle-blower petition in the Delhi High Court (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Others)
To: pmosb <pmosb@gov.in>, Amit Shah <amitshah.bjp@gmail.com>, sanjayjain.chamber@gmail.com, "director@aiims.ac.in" <director@aiims.ac.in>, lggc.delhi@nic.in, "rg.dhc@nic.in" <rg.dhc@nic.in>, Bhim Sain Bassi <cp.bsbassi@nic.in>, joe.kaeser@siemens.com, dch@nic.in, "splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in" <splcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in>, "splcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <splcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-cr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-nr-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ser-dl@nic.in, jtcp-swr-dl@nic.in, "jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-phq-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-ga-dl@nic.in, "jtcpt_dtp@nic.in" <jtcpt_dtp@nic.in>, "jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <jtcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sec-dl@nic.in, "jcpsec@rb.nic.in" <jcpsec@rb.nic.in>, "addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-eow-dl@nic.in>, jtcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, jtcp-sb-dl@nic.in, addlcp-crime-dl@nic.in, "addlcpt-dtp@nic.in" <addlcpt-dtp@nic.in>, "addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in" <addlcp-caw-dl@nic.in>, dcp-west-dl@nic.in, addlcp-se-dl@nic.in, "dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southwest-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-crime-dl@nic.in" <dcp-crime-dl@nic.in>, dcp-eow-dl@nic.in, dcp-splcell-dl@nic.in, dcp-east-dl@nic.in, dcp-northeast-dl@nic.in, "dcp-central-dl@nic.in" <dcp-central-dl@nic.in>, dcp-north-dl@nic.in, dcp-northwest-dl@nic.in, "dcp-south-dl@nic.in" <dcp-south-dl@nic.in>, dcp-outer-dl@nic.in, "dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in" <dcp-newdelhi-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in" <dcp-pcr-dl@nic.in>, "dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in" <dcp-southeast-dl@nic.in>, dcp-vigilance-dl@nic.in, "sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in" <sho-tilakmarg-dl@nic.in>, "sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in" <sho-tuglakrd-dl@nic.in>, "addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in" <addl-dcp2-nd-dl@nic.in>, "acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <acp-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in" <sho-vivekvhr-dl@nic.in>, "sho-hndin-dl@nic.in" <sho-hndin-dl@nic.in>, "Madder, Emily" <emily.madder@siemens.com>, "banmali.agrawala@ge.com" <banmali.agrawala@ge.com>, "cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com" <cmukund@mukundcherukuri.com>, rajshekhar rao <rao.rajshekhar@gmail.com>, "vikram@duaassociates.com" <vikram@duaassociates.com>, "sec-jus@gov.in" <sec-jus@gov.in>, "pk.malhotra@nic.in" <pk.malhotra@nic.in>, "ramakrishnan.r@nic.in" <ramakrishnan.r@nic.in>, "jmg.vc@nic.in" <jmg.vc@nic.in>, "cvc@nic.in" <cvc@nic.in>, "hm@nic.in" <hm@nic.in>, "hshso@nic.in" <hshso@nic.in>, "complaintcell-ncw@nic.in" <complaintcell-ncw@nic.in>, "sgnhrc@nic.in" <sgnhrc@nic.in>, "dg-nhrc@nic.in" <dg-nhrc@nic.in>, "newhaven@ic.fbi.gov" <newhaven@ic.fbi.gov>, "ny1@ic.fbi.gov" <ny1@ic.fbi.gov>, "usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov" <usanys.wpcomp@usdoj.gov>, "nalin.jain@ge.com" <nalin.jain@ge.com>, "helpline@eda.admin.ch" <helpline@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Vertretung-New-Delhi <ndh.vertretung@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-VISA New-Delhi <ndh.visa@eda.admin.ch>, _EDA-Etat Civil New Delhi <ndh.etatcivil@eda.admin.ch>, "vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <vertretung@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "emb@rusembassy.in" <emb@rusembassy.in>, indconru indconru <indconru@gmail.com>, "web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <web.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk" <conqry.newdelhi@fco.gov.uk>, "LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk" <LegalisationEnquiries@fco.gov.uk>, "delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu" <delegation-india@eeas.europa.eu>, "re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca" <re-india.commerce@international.gc.ca>, "info@new-delhi.diplo.de" <info@new-delhi.diplo.de>, Ambassaden New Delhi <ambassaden.new-delhi@foreign.ministry.se>, "delamb@um.dk" <delamb@um.dk>, "emb.newdelhi@mfa.no" <emb.newdelhi@mfa.no>, "chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaemb_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "InfoDesk@ohchr.org" <InfoDesk@ohchr.org>, "Press-Info@ohchr.org" <Press-Info@ohchr.org>, "civilsociety@ohchr.org" <civilsociety@ohchr.org>, "nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org" <nationalinstitutions@ohchr.org>, "webmaster@ambafrance-in.org" <webmaster@ambafrance-in.org>, "info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org" <info_visa_delhi@ambafrance-in.org>, "VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch" <VA@ndh.rep.admin.ch>, "indne@unhcr.org" <indne@unhcr.org>, "ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it" <ambasciata.newdelhi@esteri.it>, "chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_kkt@mfa.gov.cn>, "chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn" <chinaconsul_mum_in@mfa.gov.cn>, "webmaster@mfa.gov.cn" <webmaster@mfa.gov.cn>, "in@mofcom.gov.cn" <in@mofcom.gov.cn>, "sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com" <sapnachauhan.chauhan192@gmail.com>, "dcbi@cbi.gov.in" <dcbi@cbi.gov.in>, "mr@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mr@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "crb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <crb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "me@rb.railnet.gov.in" <me@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "mm@rb.railnet.gov.in" <mm@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "ms@rb.railnet.gov.in" <ms@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in" <secyrb@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in" <legaladv@rb.railnet.gov.in>, "r_s_chidambaram@cat.com" <r_s_chidambaram@cat.com>, "rathin.basu@alstom.com" <rathin.basu@alstom.com>, "Dimitrief, Alexander (GE, Corporate)" <alexander.dimitrief@ge.com>, "Eglash, Jeffrey C (GE, Corporate)" <jeffrey.eglash@ge.com>, Nanju Ganpathy <nanju.ganpathy@azbpartners.com>, "bradford.berenson@ge.com" <bradford.berenson@ge.com>, "brackett.denniston@ge.com" <brackett.denniston@ge.com>, "jeffrey.immelt@ge.com" <jeffrey.immelt@ge.com>, "john.flannery@ge.com" <john.flannery@ge.com>, "delhihighcourt@nic.in" <delhihighcourt@nic.in>, "pmosb@nic.in" <pmosb@nic.in>, "askdoj@usdoj.gov" <askdoj@usdoj.gov>, "CHAIRMANOFFICE@SEC.GOV" <CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov>, "help@sec.gov" <help@sec.gov>, "fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov" <fcpa.fraud@usdoj.gov>, "radhakrishnan.k@ge.com" <radhakrishnan.k@ge.com>, "preet.bharara@usdoj.gov" <preet.bharara@usdoj.gov>, "NDwebmail@state.gov" <NDwebmail@state.gov>, "ffetf@usdoj.gov" <ffetf@usdoj.gov>, "fja@federaljudgesassoc.org" <fja@federaljudgesassoc.org>, "supremecourt@nic.in" <supremecourt@nic.in>, "Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov" <Loretta_A._Preska@nysd.uscourts.gov>, "ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com" <ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com>, Directors@corporate.ge.com, Siemens Ombudsman COM <mail@siemens-ombudsman.com>, compliance.office@bombardier.com, pierre.beaudoin@bombardier.com, william.ainsworth@caterpillar.com, CATshareservices@cat.com, BusinessPractices@cat.com, patrick.kron@alstom.com, keith.carr@alstom.com, Jean-David.barnea@usdoj.gov, reed.brodsky@usdoj.gov, andrew.michaelson@usdoj.gov, ellen.davis@usdoj.gov, eric.glover@usdoj.gov, paul.murphy@usdoj.gov, sandra.glover@usdoj.gov, robert.spector@usdoj.gov, christopher.connolly@usdoj.gov, joseph.cordaro@usdoj.gov, christopher.harwood@usdoj.gov, michael.byars@usdoj.gov, joseph.hogsett@usdoj.gov, stephanie.rose@usdoj.gov, kerry.harvey@usdoj.gov, david.hale@usdoj.gov, stephanie.finley@usdoj.gov, rod.rosenstein@usdoj.gov, carmen.ortiz@usdoj.gov, barbara.mcquade@usdoj.gov, b.todd.jones@usdoj.gov, william.martin@usdoj.gov, richard.callahan@usdoj.gov, beth.phillips@usdoj.gov, michael.cotter@usdoj.gov, deborah.gilg@usdoj.gov, daniel.bogden@usdoj.gov, john.kacavas@usdoj.gov, paul.fishman@usdoj.gov, kenneth.gonzales@usdoj.gov, loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov, richard.hartunian@usdoj.gov, william.hochul@usdoj.gov, john.stone@usdoj.gov, anne.tompkins@usdoj.gov, tim.purdon@usdoj.gov, steve.dettelbach@usdoj.gov, carter.stewart@usdoj.gov, sandy.coats@usdoj.gov, zane.memeger@usdoj.gov, peter.smith@usdoj.gov, david.hickton@usdoj.gov, peter.neronha@usdoj.gov, bill.nettles@usdoj.gov, william.killian@usdoj.gov, jerry.martin@usdoj.gov, edward.stanton@usdoj.gov, jose.moreno@usdoj.gov, carlie.christensen@usdoj.gov, tristram.coffin@usdoj.gov, ronald.sharpe@usdoj.gov, neil.macbride@usdoj.gov, timothy.heaphy@usdoj.gov, bill.ihlenfeld@usdoj.gov, booth.goodwin@usdoj.gov, james.santelle@usdoj.gov, john.vaudreuil@usdoj.gov, christopher.crofts@usdoj.gov, bprao@bhel.in, ajay.sinha@emdiesels.com, armin.bruck@siemens.com, sunil.mathur@siemens.com, benoit.martel@bombardier.com, roland.busch@siemens.com, michael.suess@siemens.com, klaus.helmrich@siemens.com, daniel.desjardins@bombardier.com, james.buda@caterpillar.com, glen.lehman@progressrail.com, alert.procedure@alstom.com, "Warin, F. Joseph" <fwarin@gibsondunn.com>, "Chesley, John" <JChesley@gibsondunn.com>, confidential@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, public.enquiries@sfo.gsi.gov.uk, luis.quesada@ic.fbi.gov, steven.kessler@ic.fbi.gov, henry.gittleman@ic.fbi.gov, renn.cannon@ic.fbi.gov, eric.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, jeff.bedford@ic.fbi.gov, david.brooks@ic.fbi.gov, robert.clifford@ic.fbi.gov, mary.warren@ic.fbi.gov, frank.teixeira@ic.fbi.gov, timothy.langan@ic.fbi.gov, sharon.kuo@ic.fbi.gov, kingman.wong@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.bodony@ic.fbi.gov, christopher.mcmurray@ic.fbi.gov, ralph.hope@ic.fbi.gov, eric.metz@ic.fbi.gov, alejandro.barbeito@ic.fbi.gov, cary.gleicher@ic.fbi.gov, paul.haertel@ic.fbi.gov, greg.cox@ic.fbi.gov, lazaro.andino@ic.fbi.gov, gabriel.ramirez@ic.fbi.gov, tom.sobocinski@ic.fbi.gov, benjamin.walker@ic.fbi.gov, kirk.striebich@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.cox@ic.fbi.gov, katherine.andrews@ic.fbi.gov, carolyn.willson@ic.fbi.gov, mark.nowak@ic.fbi.gov, stuart.wirtz@ic.fbi.gov, lesley.buckler@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.dudzinski@ic.fbi.gov, william.peterson@ic.fbi.gov, connally.brown@ic.fbi.gov, leo.navarette@ic.fbi.gov, lawrence.futa@ic.fbi.gov, gregory.shaffer@ic.fbi.gov, daniel.clegg@ic.fbi.gov, adishaggarwala@yahoo.com, adishaggarwala@hotmail.com, vsondhi@luthra.com, muraritiwari.adv@gmail.com, Priyanka Tyagi <adv.priyankatyagi@gmail.com>, sarlakaushik@yahoo.com, goswamiandassociates@yahoo.co.in, vedbaldev@rediffmail.com, rakeshtikuadvocate@yahoo.com, kkmanan <kkmanan@rediffmail.com>, ars.chauhan.co@gmail.com, Rajiv Khosla <advrajivkhosla@gmail.com>, rakeshkochar@hotmail.com, khatri.surya@hotmail.com, puneet mittal <puneetmittal9@gmail.com>, "advamit.sharma@gmail.com" <advamit.sharma@gmail.com>, Attorneynitin@yahoo.com, Rajesh Mishra <attorney.rmishra@gmail.com>, jaibirnagar@gmail.com, csrhw@csrhw.com.cn, cnriec@chinacnr.com, deepak verma <justicedverma@gmail.com>, dridzu@nic.in, Om Prakash <oplawassociates@gmail.com>, Jatan Singh <jatan_singh@yahoo.com>, Abhijat Bal <abhijat.bal@gmail.com>, asutosh lohia <lasutosh@gmail.com>, Vikram Singh Panwar <vikrampanwar2010@gmail.com>, ashok.bhasin@yahoo.co.in, Aruna Tiku <arunatikuadvocate@yahoo.com>, Sunil Mittal <sunilmittaladvocate@gmail.com>, Meghna Sankhla <meghna@sankhla.in>, Amit Sharma with khosla <advocateas@gmail.com>, Pankaj Kapoor <lawyerpankaj@gmail.com>, "P.H. Parekh" <pravin.parekh@pravinparekh.com>, rakesh.sherawat@yahoo.com, jagdev_advocate@yahoo.com, abhay kumar verma <akvadvocates@gmail.com>, Manan Mishra <manankumarmishra@gmail.com>, ZAFAR AHMED Khan <zakhan52@gmail.com>, anirveda_04@sifymail.com, prabakaran.president.tnaa@gmail.com, vbhatt.adv@gmail.com, faisalrizvi@hotmail.com, advajithts@gmail.com, n_ramchanderrao@yahoo.com, Nilesh Kumar <agrnilesh73@gmail.com>, kunals777@yahoo.com, chairman@ses-surat.org, bhojcthakur@yahoo.com, raj mohan singh tanwar <rmsinghadvocate@gmail.com>, Rohinton Nariman <rohintonnariman@gmail.com>, Satish Abarao Deshmukh <satish.adeshmukh@gmail.com>, info@group30.org, poststelle@sta.berlin.de, public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk, webmaster.greco@coe.int, info@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@generalbundesanwalt.de, jthuy@eurojust.europa.eu, ejn@eurojust.europa.eu, collegesecretariat@eurojust.europa.eu, poststelle@bgh.bund.de, secretariat@cepol.europa.eu, CP@ohchr.org, siemens-ombudsmann@rae13.de, mariassy@rae13.de, usgrievance@rb.nic.in, cenvigil@nic.in, sdas@cbi.gov.in, adrkd@cbi.gov.in, jdp@cbi.gov.in, hozeo@cbi.gov.in, hozmdma@cbi.gov.in, hozbpl@cbi.gov.in, hozmum1@cbi.gov.in, hozkol@cbi.gov.in, hozac@cbi.gov.in, hozstf@cbi.gov.in, hozsc@cbi.gov.in, hozbsf@cbi.gov.in, hozpat@cbi.gov.in, hozeo2@cbi.gov.in, jda@cbi.gov.in, jdtfc@cbi.gov.in, hozdel@cbi.gov.in, hozchn@cbi.gov.in, hozhyd@cbi.gov.in, hozne@cbi.gov.in, dop@cbi.gov.in, hobac1del@cbi.gov.in, hobac2del@cbi.gov.in, hobac3del@cbi.gov.in, rajiv.vc@nic.in, rajeev.verma@nic.in, "cp.ggn@hry.nic.in" <cp.ggn@hry.nic.in>, mukul17855@yahoo.com, Ranjit Kumar <sgofficerk@gmail.com>, lnageshwararao@hotmail.com, tusharmehta64@yahoo.com, neerajkishankaul@gmail.com, Narasimha Pamidighantam <psnarasimha@gmail.com>, naqvimukhtar@yahoo.com, cpthakur1@rediffmail.com, Jual Oram <oram.jual@gmail.com>, jualoram@rediffmail.com, SS Ahluwalia <tengrg@gmail.com>, ssa@10grg.com, Balbir Punj <punjbalbir@gmail.com>, bkpunj@gmail.com, maliksatyapal@hotmail.com, prabhatjhabjp@gmail.com, vijaya_999@ymail.com, laxmi_chawla@yahoo.com, Kiran Maheshwari <saikiran.udr@gmail.com>, ananth@ananth.org, "T. C. Gehlot" <mptcgehlot@gmail.com>, mp.tcgehlot@bjp.org, jpnadda@gmail.com, Dharmendra Pradhan <dpdharmendrapradhan@gmail.com>, d.pradhan@sansad.nic.in, Tapir Gao <gaotapir@yahoo.com>, fvg001@gmail.com, Anand Chaudhary <anandchaudhary2009@gmail.com>, rudypr@rediffmail.com, p.muralidharrao@rediffmail.com, ramji.bjp@gmail.com, Satish Velankar <shrivsatish@gmail.com>, saudan.singh@bjp.org, piyush@bjp.org, jshyam48@rediffmail.com, bhupender_advocate@rediffmail.com, Bhupender Yadav <bhupenderyadav69@gmail.com>, "P.K Krishnadas" <krishnadasbjp@gmail.com>, "Dr. Anil Jain" <aniljain.dr@gmail.com>, vinod.pandey@bjp.org, TRIVENDRA SINGH RAWAT <tsrawatbjp@gmail.com>, Rameshwar Chaurasia <rpcnokha@gmail.com>, arti_9@yahoo.co.in, vani_tripathi@yahoo.com, dr.sudhayadav@yahoo.co.in, Sudha Malaiya <malaiyasudha@gmail.com>, Poonam Mahajan R <pmahajanr@gmail.com>, drtamilisai@yahoo.co.in, lois.bjp@gmail.com, Arun Jain <bjparun.jain@gmail.com>, Arun Jain <arun.jain@bjp.org>, bjpinparliament@yahoo.com, "V. Shanmuganathan" <vsnathan7666@gmail.com>, PRAKASH JAVADEKAR <pjavadekar@gmail.com>, shahnawaz@sansad.nic.in, shahnawaz.hussain@bjp.org, Nirmala Sitharaman <nsitharaman@gmail.com>, "Dr. B S Shastri" <dr.bsshastri@gmail.com>, trivedi.sudhanshu@gmail.com, Meenakshi Lekhi <mrs.mlekhi@gmail.com>, Captain Abhimanyu <abhimanyu.bjp@gmail.com>, mjakbar@hotmail.com, president@bjp.org, ajaitley@sansad.nic.in, sushmaswaraj@hotmail.com, fmo@nic.in, cabinet@nic.in, cabinetsy@nic.in, kk manan <kkmananadvocate@gmail.com>, kkmanan@gmail.com, Usama Siddiqui <musiddiqui@gmail.com>, ranarajinder@ymail.com, jawahar@pralaw.in, secy-mci@nic.in, delhimedicalcouncil@gmail.com, sho-civilline-dl@nic.in, sho-kamlamkt-dl@nic.in, sho-gk-dl@nic.in, sho-chandnimahal-dl@nic.in, sho-ptstreet-dl@nic.in, sho-paharganj-dl@nic.in, sho-rkpuram-dl@nic.in, sho-bkroad-dl@nic.in, sho-chanakyapuri-dl@nic.in, sho-vasantvhr-dl@nic.in, sho-vksouth-dl@nic.in, sho-amarclny-dl@nic.in, sho-kmkpur-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzkhas-dl@nic.in, sho-safdarjung-dl@nic.in, sho-malviyangr-dl@nic.in, sho-saket-dl@nic.in, sho-lodhiclny-dl@nic.in, sho-dkuan-dl@nic.in, sho-kalkaji-dl@nic.in, sho-crpark-dl@nic.in, sho-govpuri-dl@nic.in, sho-ipestate-dl@nic.in, sho-mandirmarg-dl@nic.in, sho-kashmirigate-dl@nic.in, sho-rajinderngr-dl@nic.in, sho-karolbagh-dl@nic.in, sho-parsadngr-dl@nic.in, sho-bhrao-dl@nic.in, sho-sadarbazar-dl@nic.in, sho-jamamasjid-dl@nic.in, sho-daryaganj-dl@nic.in, sho-hauzqazi-dl@nic.in, sho-lahorigate-dl@nic.in, sho-anandparvat-dl@nic.in, sho-patelngr-dl@nic.in, sho-ranjitngr-dl@nic.in, sho-dbgrd-dl@nic.in, sho-sarairohilla-dl@nic.in, sho-punjabibagh-dl@nic.in, gurmeharsistani@gmail.com, Rich Verma <rverma@steptoe.com>, jtcp.ggn@hry.nic.in, "dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in" <dcphq.ggn@hry.nic.in>, "dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in" <dcp.southggn@hry.nic.in>, Mukul Rohatgi <mukul17855@gmail.com>, seclg@nic.in, Senator@mccain.senate.gov, suresh prabhu <spprabhu1@gmail.com>, rv.dhc@nic.in, drwrit.dhc@nic.in, rga.dhc@nic.in, arwrit.dhc@nic.in
Cc: Seema Sapra <seema.sapra@gmail.com>, Seema Sapra <seemasapra@hotmail.com>
To the President of India the Prime Minister of India, the Rail Minister of India and to ASG Sanjay Jain,
I am writing further to my representations against the recent appointment of Mr Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister. This appointment has been influenced by General Electric Company using Mr Sharad Pawar as an intermediary with intent to cover up the corruption complaints and evidence against General Electric Company set out in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 pending before the Delhi High Court since February 2012.
I also point out that despite my status as witness-whistleblower-petitioner and despite the threat to my life, I have no protection and I am being poisoned.
I reproduce below an application and an affidavit filed by me on the issue of Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Railway Minister in WP Civil 1280/ 2012, which were sent to you earlier as well.
I draw your attention to some further facts in connection with Suresh Prabhu's role in facilitating and benefiting from the Adarsh scam.
Suresh Prabhu was involved in permitting the Adarsh building society to proceed with construction in violation of applicable environmental rules including the CRZ regulations.
Suresh Prabhu's modus operandi in facilitating this was very similar to Montek Singh Ahluwalia's facilitation of the Dabhol Project where the latter wrote letters which were interpreted as approval of the financial structure of the Dabhol Project including power pricing. Montek Singh Ahluwalia's modus operandi was to later retract and suggest that his letter was not an approval as he was not authorised to grant the approval.
Correspondence with the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) in 2003 has been used by the Adarsh society promoters and even by the Maharastra State government to argue that environmental clearances including CRZ clearances were obtained from the MoEF in 2003. The MoEF has since denied that it issued any clearance. However, the letters issued by the MoEF which were relied upon as granting clearance which facilitated various Central and State regulatory authorities to assume that someone had granted clearance appear to have involved the hand of Suresh Prabhu.
I reproduce at the end some news reports on the issue of the environmental clearances for Adarsh. Of course, as is usual course in India, a mammoth cover-up of the Adarsh scam has been undertaken shielding many politicians involved. I do point out that such cover-ups are not without cost to the national interest as failure to apply the rule of law even when corruption is exposed contributes to and perpetuates the "sab chalta hai" culture that engenders, breeds and encourages corruption.
But the questions to ask about Suresh Prabhu and the Adarsh scam are:
There was some involvement of the MoEF in the Vajpayee Cabinet in facilitating the Adarsh society. Was Suresh Prabhu involved? Suresh Prabhu has stated that he was not Environment Minister in 2003 when the MoEF cleared the Adarsh structure. But there are several citations on the internet recording that Suresh Prabhu was environment minister in 2003. Plus Suresh Prabhu was environment minister in 1998- 1999 when the Adarsh proposal first came to the attention of the MoEF. Did Suresh Prabhu deal with the Adarsh file as environment minister in 1998-1999?
http://earthjournalism.net/stories/india2019s-river-linking-scheme-a-case-of-troubled-waters
India's River-Linking Scheme: A case of troubled waters By Keya Acharya, 5 May 2014 Forum of Environmental Journalists of India, India Dams Himalayas India Rivers Water With the exception of some select fields, few other issues in India have raised as much passion as the inter-state sharing of river waters. And, stemming partly from this socio-political acrimony together with environmental and economic concerns, India's grandiose National River Linking Project (NRLP), has been on the potboiler ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in 2003 set up a Task Force on inter-linking of rivers, headed by then Environment Minister Suresh Prabhu.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/109931/content/217654/even-giant-can-learn-run.html
The Congress tried to put the blame on the Shiv Sena, as the proposal had first come to the state government when Narayan Rane, who was then with the Sena, was the chief minister in 1999. The party also accused Prabhu of giving the green clearance. Incidentally, Prabhu is a member of the Society and has been allotted a flat in the building. |
Suresh Prabhu was no longer a government employee in 2004 when the Adarsh flat was allotted to him. He claims to have purchased the flat with a bank loan. First it has been established that the allotment to Suresh Prabhu was illegal. He could only have been allotted a flat as a private citizen if his income was less than Rs 20,000. Is it Suresh Prabhu's case that he fell within this category? Further, even if Suresh Prabhu fell within this category, he would have been entitled to a flat only half the size of what he was actually allotted. Why was he allotted a larger flat?
More importantly, Suresh Prabhu claims that he did not examine the society documents and its legal compliances himself but merely accepted the position of the promoters and blindly obtained a bank loan and paid money to purchase the flat. Are we expected to believe this?
Suresh Prabhu is a chartered accountant, a former banker and a former Cabinet minister who boasts about his administrative skills and achievements on his bio and website. Are we to believe that with these qualifications, Suresh Prabhu decided to take out a loan and buy a flat without examining the sale papers and the legal status of the property he was buying? Did the bank not insist on a due diligence and on Suresh Prabhu representing that the proposed purchase had been vetted and was legitimate and genuine? Was the bank loan issued against a mortgage of the Adarsh flat? Did the bank not vet the property documents?
Even a common man will not purchase property without assuring himself that the building was authorised? And is Suresh Prabhu saying that being a chartered accountant he decided to purchase property without assuring himself that the construction was authorised and the proposed building had necessary approvals.
Suresh Prabhu was at some time the environment minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet in 2003. He was environment minister in 1998-1999. He was aware of the CRZ notification. He must have at some time as a minister dealt with a file on the Adarsh building, whether or not he himself approved a clearance. He is a Mumbai resident and would have known that the location of the Adarsh building raised issues of CRZ clearances.
And we are expected to believe that despite his specialist knowledge, Suresh Prabhu decided to purchase the Adarsh flat with eyes and ears closed and with no due diligence?
Suresh Prabhu is one of the 32 illegal allottees in the Adarsh building and we are expected to assume that he is innocent and a victim?
Suresh Prabhu obtained a prized Colaba flat at a nominal undervalued price to which he was not legally entitled along with 31 other illegal allottees and he would have gotten away with it if the scam had not been exposed. And we are expected to believe that he was a victim. Why is it that no ordinary citizens were victimised by the Adarsh Society and allotted flats at nominal prices in Colaba? Why are all the illegal beneficiaries of the Adarsh scam powerful politicians and bureaucrats who were all connected in some manner to those public officials or ministries who/ which facilitated the usurpation of land and the illegal construction?
How did Suresh Prabhu end up becoming a part of the Adarsh building society in 2004 if he had no connection to the scam or if he was not being rewarded for corrupt services rendered at some point (like in the Dabhol Project corruption cover-up)? Surely there were many potential buyers for such undervalued Colaba flats. Let Suresh Prabhu explain exactly how he got involved with Adarsh?
I am again requesting that Suresh Prabhu be removed from his position as Rail Minister as his background establishes his unsuitability for this or indeed any other government post.
Also please ensure that the corruption complaints and evidence against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura are not covered up as was being done by the UPA government. General Electric Company must be blacklisted and cannot be permitted to participate in the 2013 tenders for these Projects which themselves deserve to be scrapped in public interest.
Please ensure that ASG Sanjay Jain is present for the court hearings for WP Civil 1280/ 2012. ASG Sanjay Jain also needs to ensure that this matter is taken away from the UPA (A S Chandhiok) appointed counsels Sapna Chauhan (for Respondent 5, the PMO) and (Om Prakash) for the Railways (respondent 4) who were both colluding in attempts to cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric Company and their co-conspirators including Montek Singh Ahluwalia and former PM Dr Manmohan Singh. This matter needs to be remarked by ASG Sanjay Jain to the new standing counsels appointed by the new NDA government.
Also since May 2014, no lawyer is appearing in this matter for the CBI. Since 2012, no authorised lawyer is appearing in this matter for the CVC. Both the CBI and CVC are parties and have been issued court notice.
Seema Sapra
Adarsh Had No Environment Clearance: Maharashta Govt MUMBAI | JAN 16, 2013 The two-year marathon inquiry conducted by a judicial commission into the Adarsh scam has ended with the Maharashtra government said to have admitted for the first time that the controversial housing society did not have necessary environmental clearances.
The commission set up in January 2011 wrapped up its inquiry into the scam yesterday and is likely to submit its final report to the state government next month, sources in the panel told PTI.
The government may accept or reject the findings of the commission.
Concluding his arguments, state government counsel A Y Sakhare is understood to have told the commission that the 31-storey plush Adarsh building in south Mumbai was constructed without Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance or nod from the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF).
The sources said it is for the first time that the government, which had consistently maintained that no rules were violated in granting permissions to the building, has admitted that the society did not have the required environmental clearance.
The state is said to have supported the MoEF's claim that the March 2003 letter by the Urban Development Department to the society was misrepresented as environmental clearance by one of the accused P V Deshmukh, a former deputy secretary in the department.
The MoEF, in response to UDD's letter forwarding the society's proposal for construction, had said that state has a body- Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA)-to look into CRZ clearances. The MoEF's response was allegedly misconstrued by Deshmukh as a clearance.
The state government in its final arguments is said to have noted that the society should not have constructed 31 floors as the Development Control Regulations (DCR), 1967, applicable to it, did not permit that. According to the state, the building situated in south Mumbai's upscale Colaba, could have been built only up to 46.5 m and not the present 100.7 m.
According to the government, the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) wrongly applied DCR 1991 which did not have height restrictions.
The commission, headed by Justice (retired) J A Patil, has started dictating its findings in chamber and will submit its final report to the government by the end of next month.
The commission had in its interim report last year negated the Ministry of Defence's claim on the land where the building stands and held that its ownership rested with the state government. The panel had also noted that the land was not reserved for Kargil war veterans, widows and their relatives.
The commission's final report will throw light on whether requisite permissions had been obtained by the society and if any rules violated by bureaucrats while granting various clearances.
A total of 214 witnesses were examined by the commission including Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, former Maharashtra chief ministers Vilasrao Deshmukh and Ashok Chavan, former army chiefs N C Vij and Deepak Kapoor, several IAS officers and bureaucrats from the state and central government.
Ashok Chavan is an accused in the case but was never arrested. Click here to see the article in its standard web format
http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/Adarsh-Had-No-Environment-Clearance-Maharashta-Govt/787124
logoimg iconimg Friday, November 28, 2014
Sayli Udas Mankikar, Hindustan Times Mumbai, November 03, 2010 First Published: 00:24 IST(3/11/2010) Last Updated: 02:04 IST(3/11/2010) Print Housing scam: Ex-minister wants Adarsh money back
Shiv Sena leader and former Union environment minister Suresh Prabhu said he would send a notice to Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society asking it to return the money he paid for a flat in the 31-storey tower. He also denied granting it any environmental clearance. The tower at Colaba was allegedly built in violation of environmental norms and on the promise that houses would be given to Kargil war veterans and widows. However, most of the flats were allotted to bureaucrats, politicians and army and navy commanders. The Congress had accused Prabhu of clearing the project while he was environment minister in the National Democratic Alliance government.
"I was not a minister when the clearance was given. I held the post in 1998-1999," said Prabhu on the phone from Singapore on Tuesday. He pointed out that it was the DMK's TR Baalu who was environment minister in 2003.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is a partner in the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government.
The plot on which the society stands is part of the Coastal Regulation Zone 1, the most eco-sensitive coastal area because it has mangroves and mudflats. In such zones projects costing more than R5 crore require clearance by the Union environment ministry.
Ministry officials, however, have said no sanction was given to the Adarsh project.
Prabhu said he is not a promoter or office-bearer of the society. "I got a flat that was part of a quota for MPs and because it was going at a concession. I took a home loan for it and the flat is still on mortgage," he said.
Prabhu said he got all the clearances required for the loan, including an approval from the collector. "Now I find out the project is in trouble. I will send a notice to the society asking it to return my money," he said.
He insisted that he was not aware of any violations by the society.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/621469.aspx?s=p © Copyright © 2013 HT Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.
No MoEF clearance was issued to Adarsh Housing Society The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has denied that it has issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on March 11, 2003, to Adarsh Housing Cooperative Society, Mumbai, for construction of a residential building. The Navy has taken strong objection to grant of clearances to the building, citing violation of norms.
The society, with its high profile members, is in the eye of a storm for violating environmental and other norms and misusing the land granted to it. The MoEF issued a statement on Thursday giving the exact text of the letter dated March 11, 2003, which it had issued to P.V. Deshmukh, Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, government of Maharashtra.
The letter notes that "the proposed residential complex falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) - II area. This Ministry has already delegated the powers to the State government for undertaking development in Coastal Regulation Zone -II. Accordingly, the proposed construction may be taken up as per the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (as amended from time to time) and the approved revised Coastal Zone Management Plan of Greater Mumbai."
The MoEF clarified that any reference from the State government about the coastal matters was examined under the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, and the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai.
Height no problem
Citing that the housing society received all necessary clearances and permissions, Adarsh society, in letter, stated that the building plan was approved by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in stages as per rules. "CRZ [Coastal Regulatory Zone] clearance was obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi vide letter NoF.No.J-17011/46/2002-IA III dated March 11, 2003." It also said that CRZ clearance had nothing to do with the height of the building.
It claimed that the height of the building (103.4 meters) was approved by the High Rise Committee headed by Retired Chief Justice of Tamil Nadu. "The final Commencement Certificate was issued by the MMRDA on August 04, 2010 and, lastly, Occupation Certificate was also given on September 16, 2010."
The MoEF denied that this letter gave any permission, pointing out that in March 2003, all construction in the CRZ area, which was permissible under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification and were in consonance with the approved Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai, had to be considered by the Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). At that time, the approval authority was meant to be the State government; in the case of Maharashtra, it was the environment department. The society did not make any application to the environment department, it is learnt.
The Ministry had approved the revised Coastal Zone Management Plan of Mumbai on January 19, 2000. To obtain clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991, the project proponent needs to submit the proposal enclosing the details of construction, classification of Coastal Regulation Zone area in the requisite format to the concerned Coastal Zone Management Authority; in this case this proposal should have been submitted to the MCZMA.
The MCZMA was constituted in January, 2002, in compliance with a Supreme Court order. The statement said clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification 1991 by the MOEF was in a prescribed format. The clearance letter issued by the Ministry was always addressed to the Member Secretary, MCZMA, and copied to all concerned. The power to issue of Coastal Regulation Zone clearance was withdrawn on April 22, 2003, in respect of projects costing more than Rs. 5 crore.
Keywords: Adarsh Housing Society, Mumbai land scam
Demolish Adarsh, says MoEF official Reporters Name | PTI | Tuesday, 7 August 2012 AT 11:25 AM IST Send by email Printer-friendly version MoEF, Adarsh society, housing scam, demolish, CRZ, CBI, Mumbai MUMBAI: Reiterating its stand on the Adarsh housing society, a former Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) official told a judicial panel that the building has to be demolished as it does not have environmental clearance. Former MoEF director Bharat Bhushan told a two-member inquiry commission set up by the state government to probe into the scam, that the Adarsh building stands in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and hence environmental clearance is mandatory. "The building has not obtained any clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). The MCZMA has not sent any recommnedation to the MoEF regarding clearance to be given to Adarsh," he said. He said that when the Adarsh scam broke in October 2010, the MoEF had asked for a report from the secretary of the department of environment who is also the chairperson of the MCZMA. The report stated that no clearance was obtained or given to the plush 31-storey Adarsh building in South Mumbai. "The final order of Janury 14, 2011, passed by the MoEF for the building's demolition was based on details sent by the MCZMA chairperson, Maharashtra government, hearing of Adarsh representatives, as well as other documents," he said. 'CLEARANCE A MUST' Ex-MoEF director Bharat Bhushan told a probe panel set up by the state on the scam, that the Adarsh building stands in the CRZ and hence environmental clearance is mandatory.
Nextgen Cities Jaipur
Home > News > Adopt 'adarsh' policies, Mr Ramesh, ad hoc ones will not do Adopt 'adarsh' policies, Mr Ramesh, ad hoc ones will not do ShareThis Facebook Tweet LinkedIn Pinterest Email Why didn't your ministry stop the controversial building project in 2003 itself? PRASANNA MOHANTY | JANUARY 17, 2011
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh loves publicity, more so if it comes free. It would, therefore, have been naïve not to expect him to issue a demolition notice to the Adarsh housing society which he has done now.
Do bask in glory, Mr Ramesh, but please answer a few questions. The first question is: Why this notice to the Adarsh society now? The 31-storey building that you think deserves to be completely demolished for "egregious violation" of environment laws, got the occupation certificate on September 16, 2010. Which means, the construction activities have already been completed for people to move in.
Presumably, construction began after the Adarsh society applied for environment clearance from your ministry in 2003. Your ministry wrote back on March 11, 2003 saying the appropriate clearing authority under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification of 1991 was the state government – rather the Maharashtra State Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). So, your ministry and MCZMA knew about the case way back in March 2003. Why did both of them go to sleep for the next seven years?
MCZMA has, in its deposition before your ministry, said it had issued notice to the Adarsh society on lack of environment clearance on November 3, 2009. Why did it take six years for it to do so?
The second question, therefore, is: What action do you propose to take against your ministry officials and those of the MCZMA?
The third question pertains to the violation of the CRZ notification of 1991 vis-à-vis section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 itself. As your communiqué mentions, this section "provides for 'restriction of areas' in which any industries, operations or process of class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards. Construction of buildings falls with the category of 'process' ".
Find us one more individual, Mr Ramesh, who agrees with this interpretation of "process". Why is the language so vague and prone to misinterpretation? Is this deliberate or do you expect us to believe that the literacy level of your officials is so poor? No wonder the Adarsh society is protesting, arguing that it didn't violate any the law as this section deals with industries, not housing societies.
The Adarsh society is also right in questioning the locus standi of MoEF, citing the ministry's March 11, 2003 letter, which said the state government was the clearing authority. To which, your communiqué mentions that your ministry has clarified that the CRZ notification was amended on April 22, 2003 (a month later) withdrawing that power from the state government because of "misutilisation" of power. But you are silent on whether this amendment was communicated to the Adarsh society at that time and what action was taken to ensure that the amendment was followed by other applicants.
The Adarsh society is a fait accompli, Mr Ramesh, just as many other big-ticket projects that your ministry first cleared and then issued notices about violations of law when public outcry reached unmanageable levels - Lavasa project in Pune, Vedanta's smelting and refinery plants in Orissa, Jindals' thermal plants in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, Lafarge's mining in Meghalaya and so on. It would be naive again to expect that the Adarsh society would actually be demolished.
Get your act together, Mr Ramesh, and get right the vaguely worded laws, notifications and regulations and ask your men to act proactive, not reactive to public outcry.
- See more at: http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/adopt-adarsh-policies-mr-ramesh-ad-hoc-ones-will-not-do#sthash.k3CdUkan.dpuf
Publication: The Times Of India Bangalore; Date: Oct 27, 2010; Section: Times Nation; Page: 9
No record of environmental clearance: MoEF MMRDA Allowed Housing Society In Violation Of Coastal Regulation Rules Prafulla Marpakwar & Josy Joseph | TNN
New Delhi: Adding a new twist to the controversy surrounding Adarsh Housing Cooperative Society, the Colaba highrise in which a clutch of powerful politicians, bureaucrats and former Army chiefs have cornered flats, the Union ministry of environment & forests (MoEF) on Tuesday indicated that it has no records of the building obtaining the necessary environmental clearances. TOI had reported on October 26 how Adarsh Society had appropriated defence land in the name of building houses for war veterans and war widows, and indulged in a host of other violations along the way.
Based on TOI reports, the MoEF on Tuesday issued a notice to the Maharashtra environment secretary, asking her to examine the project, clearances obtained and the action taken against the violations. The notice says there is a violation of the CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone) rules and the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) rules as well. When contacted, Union minister for environment & forests Jairam Ramesh confirmed that his ministry had written to the state government to find out if the building had obtained necessary clearances. The ministry has sought a reply by Monday.
A day after the TOI report, when the state environment department conducted its own preliminary probe, it found that the urban development department and MMRDA had approved the proposal in blatant violation of CRZ rules in collaboration with the BMC. Although environment secretary Valsa Nair Singh refused to comment, a senior official on Tuesday confirmed that all the rules, particularly under CRZ, were completely ignored. (According to CRZ rules, any project of Rs 5 crore and above has to be approved by the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority and later by the ministry of environment & forests.) "We examined all the applications submitted to MCZMA. We were stunned to find that while the project was within the CRZ area, the society never submitted an application for approval,'' the official said.
MCZMA and MoEF were both in the dark on the first phase of Adarsh. However, the state environment department stepped in in 2007 when local residents lodged a complaint, saying there were blatant violations in Phase Two of the project. "We had issued a show cause notice to the promoters of the society and asked them to submit the approvals granted to them by MCZMA and MoEF. They failed to produce the documents — instead, they showed us the correspondence between MoEF and the urban development department,'' the official said.
Vice-Admiral Sanjeev Bhasin, the flag officer commanding-In-chief of the Mumbai-based Western Naval Command, in his letter to the headquarters in July, had pointed out that under CRZ rules, the height of the building had to be restricted to 30 metres. The current height of the building is evidently 100 metres or more, with 31 floors and 124 flats.
Admiral Bhasin also quoted from a letter that the principal secretary, urban development department of Maharashtra, had written on August 19, 1999, seeking an NOC for the complex since it falls under the CRZ-1 plan. The letter, which was forwarded to naval headquarters, said the members of the society were officers who had "dedicated their lives to service of the Motherland and deserved all special consideration''. It added that several members were even today fighting at Kargil and in surrounding areas. Records show that none of the senior defence officers who own flats there fought in the Kargil conflict.
Land belongs to revenue dept, say officials
Mumbai: Chief minister Ashokrao Chavan on Tuesday said that he has sought information on the row over the allotment of a prime piece of land to the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in south Mumbai. "I have carefully read the report in the Times of India and I am seized of the matter. I have asked the concerned departments to submit a comprehensive report on the allegations. Once the information is received, we will decide on the course of action. So far, no decision has been taken,'' Chavan told TOI.
Meanwhile, Mumbai collector Chandrashekhar Oke has submitted a preliminary report to the revenue department on the controversy over the allotment of the land to the Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in 2004. The report also deals with ownership of the land.
Though Oke refused to comment on his report, a senior Mantralaya official confirmed that the land allotted to the cooperative housing society belonged to the revenue department. TNN AMONG THE ALLOTTEES
I A KUNDAN | Former collector of Mumbai, current joint secretary (planning) P V DESHMUKH | Ex-deputy secretary
KANISHKA J PHATAK | Son of former BMC commissioner Jairaj Phatak KANHAIYALAL GIDWANI | Former Congress MLC and sons Kailash and Amit SEEMA VYAS | FDA commissioner JITENDRA S AWHAD | NCP MLA RAJESH KUMAR DAS | VP, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
RANJIT SANGITRAO | Son of transport secretary C S Sangitrao
DEVYANI KHOBRAGADE | Daughter of former BEST GM Uttam Khobragade
J M ABHYANKAR | Ex-director, education
ONKAR TIWARI | Son of state info commissioner and ex-UD secy Ramanand Tiwari In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Company and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
1. I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 43 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under.
2. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
3. This affidavit is being filed to supplement the Petitioner's application (filing diary no. 234826/ 2014) on the issue of Mr Suresh Prabhu's dubious appointment as Rail Minister under influence from General Electric Company in this writ petition which is coming up for hearing before Court for the first time on 1 December 2014.
4. In this application the Petitioner has stated that on 9 November 2014, Mr Sadanand Gowda who was opposed to the Madhepura and Marhowra proposed locomotive factory Projects and tenders because these Projects and tenders were tainted with corrupt dealings was unceremoniously replaced as Railway Minister with Mr Suresh Prabhu by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under pressure from General Electric Company, respondent 1 in this whistleblower corruption case.
5. The relief sought by the Petitioner in her application on the Suresh Prabhu issue is reproduced below.
6. Mr Suresh Prabhu has a history of covering up General Electric corruption and protecting General Electric interests while foregoing legitimate interests and rights of the Government of India which he exhibited while he was Power Minister in the Vajpayee Cabinet and dealing with the Enron-GE-Bechtel consortium's Dabhol Project.
7. Mr Suresh Prabhu was rewarded for protecting General Electric Company's interests and for covering up the corruption in the Dabhol Project and subsequently became an entrepreneur cum self-professed policy-czar in the power, renewable energy, water, and infrastructure space. General Electric Company is one of the largest companies in these spaces especially in the area of renewable energy and it helped Suresh Prabhu set up as an entrepreneur and self-professed policy expert.
8. Mr Sharad Pawar also has a long history of dealings with General Electric Company involving corrupt deals at the expense of the Indian exchequer. Some examples are again the Dabhol Project and the Air-India aircraft purchase orders from Boeing fitted with General Electric engines. The corruption inherent in what is now known as the Air India scam which has ended up bankrupting and destroying the national air carrier (a matter that of national shame that calls for introspection) has been the subject of a CAG report and involved then Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel, appointed to the Manmohan Singh Cabinet as a nominee of Mr Sharad Pawar's party (NCP) and close to Mr Sharad Pawar.
9. The recent legislative assembly elections in Maharashtra and the failure of the BJP to secure a complete majority and its resultant dependence on either the NCP (Mr Sharad Pawar's party) or the Shiv Sena afforded an opportunity for General Electric Company to again pressurise the BJP led Government of India.
10. As part of the machinations involving government formation in Maharashtra, General Electric Company used Mr Sharad Pawar to pressurise Prime Minister Modi to induct Suresh Prabhu into his Cabinet as Rail Minister.
11. The Petitioner has already raised serious concerns based upon facts and evidence about Mr Suresh Prabhu's suitability for appointment as Rail Minister in her application which will be listed on 1 December 2014.
12. The Petitioner's concerns that General Electric Company is behind Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister and that Suresh Prabhu has been brought in to cover up corruption by General Electric Company in the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders is further buttressed by an interview given by Mr John Rice, Vice Chairman of General Electric Company to an Indian media outlet on 19 November 2014 which is reproduced below. Through this interview cleverly moulded using pre-set questions with the help of the interviewing journalist, Mr John Rice acknowledges that Suresh Prabhu is amenable to General Electric's position, and Mr John Rice further lobbies for award of the Marhowra Project by stating: "I have been in talks with the government on rail modernization probably for the last 17-18 years. Some of my earliest trips to India involved rail modernization. We are ready, willing and able to go and we are quite hopeful that the new minister will move the tendering process forward."
13. Contrast Mr John Rice's (General Electric Company) interview with that of Mr William P Ainsworth, President and CEO of Electro-Motive Diesel (EMD) and Progress Rail Services (the Caterpillar-owned subsidiary that acquired EMD in 2010) to a different Indian media outlet published on 27 November 2013, also reproduced below. EMD is the other interested bidder in the Marhowra Project and tenders and is the only rival to General Electric Company for this Project due to tailored eligibility criteria intended to keep all other potential bidders out. When Mr William P Ainsworth is asked to comment on the live Marhowra tender, he replies "when the request for qualification is in process, we don't comment."
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 27th day of November 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
INDEX
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 27 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless 9582716748
Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this affidavit by email dated 27 November 2014
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C.M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner Versus General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
An Application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions that the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; and directions to Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; and for issuance of notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections
The Petitioner above named Most Respectfully Showeth: 1. This is an application placing on record the concerns of the Petitioner-whistle-blower regarding developments in the Railway Ministry, Respondent 4 herein, which have an impact on how the Government of India deals with the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying that are before this Court in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory in Madhepura.
2. The new NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed office after the General Elections in May 2014.
3. Prime Minister Narendra Modi appointed Mr Sadanand Gowda as the Railway Minister in May 2014.
4. On 9 November 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi suddenly replaced Mr Sadanand Gowda with Mr Suresh Prabhu as the Railway Minister.
5. Since this petition was filed in February 2012 drawing attention to the biggest corruption scandal in the Railway Ministry to date involving public revenue to the tune of almost 20 Billion USD, the Railway Ministry has seen several rail ministers including Ms Mamata Bannerjee, Mr Dinesh Trivedi, Mr Pawan Bansal, Mr Kharge, Mr Sadanand Gowda, and now Mr Suresh Prabhu. Even former PM Mamohan Singh held charge of this Ministry for a short time. Out of this list, at least 2 rail ministers (Pavan Bansal and Sadanand Gowda) overseeing these projects have been subjected to phone taps. Both Pavan Bansal and Sadanand Gowda have faced criminal investigations involving close family members during their tenure as Rail Ministers. The Rail Minister is required to approve the award of the Marhowra and Madhepura Projects.
6. It must be reiterated that General Electric Company is capable of influencing political leaders and of targeting Rail Ministers and Railway Board members in order to prevent them from discharging their official duties in connection with the complaints of corruption against General Electric.
7. PM Narendra Modi met the CEO of General Electric Company (Jeffrey Immelt) during his September 2014 visit to the United States.
8. In September 2014, the Financial Commissioner of the Railway Board had written to then Rail Minister Sadanand Gowda complaining about the corruption in the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and recommending that the 2013 tenders for these Projects should also be scrapped as these constitute debt traps for the Indian Railways. According to the Railway Board Financial Commissioner there was no necessity for the Railways to enter into such long term binding purchase orders with assured offtake for electric and diesel locomotives in such large numbers.
9. News reports were subsequently published that Mr Sadanand Gowda was not inclined to proceed with the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects.
10. Therefore when Mr Sadanand Gowda was suddenly replaced on ( November 2014 by Mr Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister, the Petitioner decided to look into Mr Suresh Prabhu's background.
11. Based upon her research into Mr Suresh Prabhu's background, the Petitioner emailed her concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister to the President of India and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 17 November 2014.
12. These two emails of the Petitioner dated 17 November 2014 and titled "Suresh Prabhu's benami companies - further representation to PM Narendra Modi about unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu as Rail Minister from Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower in WP Civil 1280 of 2012, a corruption whistleblower case (Seema Sapra v General Electric Company and Ors.)" totalling 23 pages have been filed by her in this matter on 19 November 2014 and are on the court record.
13. These emails raise the following concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister.
14. More information and evidence in connection with the Petitioner's valid concerns regarding Mr Suresh Prabhu's unsuitability for appointment as Rail Minister were also emailed by the Petitioner to the President of India and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. These are reproduced below:
15. The petitioner would like to present some further evidence on the issue of the unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu for the post of Rail Minister. The relevant news reports are reproduced below. To use an analogy, given his background and involvement in the Adarsh scam, Suresh Prabhu would never have passed the litmus test for consideration to a judicial post. How then could Prime Minister Narendra Modi consider Suresh Prabhu as a fit candidate for a position in his cabinet and that too in the Rail Ministry with the biggest corruption scandal time-bomb (this petition) ticking away?
16. It was both the petitioner's duty and right as a citizen of this country to bring the above facts and concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu to the attention of the President of India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And the petitioner takes immense pride in her stand as whistle-blower in this case where she has risked her life for her moral and ethical values and where she refused to participate in or cover up corruption and forgery by General Electric executives. It cannot be emphasized enough that the petitioner, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, also complied with the professional rules of ethics prescribed by the Bar Council of India in refusing to allow her legal services to be used by a client (General Electric) to facilitate the commission of criminal offences, and illegal and unethical acts.
17. Accordingly the petitioner was stunned when during the hearing of this matter on 20 November 2014, when this matter was specifically listed for the Petitioner to make her submissions on the issue of the grave and imminent threat to her life as she is being poisoned, the counsel purporting to represent the Railway Ministry in this matter one Mr Om Prakash launched into an aggressive tirade against the Petitioner. Om Prakash refused to permit the petitioner to address the court, and he shouted down the petitioner whenever she opened her mouth to address the court or to respond to his tirade. Om Prakash's grievance against the petitioner was that she had dared to raise questions and concerns about Mr Suresh Prabhu's suitability for a Ministerial post and his appointment as Railway Minister and according to him the court ought to prevent the petitioner from making such complaints.
18. Unfortunately on 20 November 2014, Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak did not restrain Om Prakash from attacking the petitioner and from preventing the petitioner to speak. The petitioner had been compelled to make complaints of judicial corruption against Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak and had on 20 November 2014 filed an application seeking recusal by these Judges. Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak permitted Om Prakash to shout at the Petitioner for about one hour.
19. As a result the following order was passed in this matter on 20 November 2014. The petitioner submits that not only was she not permitted to address the court, but she was not allowed to make her submissions on the threat to her life. Neither was she permitted to make her submissions on her request for recusal by Judges Sistani and Pathak. Judge Sistani and Judge Pathak permitted Om Prakash to make false statements that the petitioner was at fault or responsible for recusal by 26 judges in this matter and then proceeded to record this in the order. The petitioner was only able to request that the Judges record that she was denying the submissions of Om Prakash.
20. The order dated 20 November 2014 is reproduced below:
O R D E R
20.11.2014
We may note that Mr.Om Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ministry of Railways, has raised a strong objection with regard to circulation of emails by the petitioner concerning the Railway Minister. Mr.Prakash submits that the platform of the High Court is being used by the petitioner, which is evident upon reading of the first page of the email, which refers to the present petition (W.P.(C)1280/2012), wherein she refers herself to be a whistleblower. Mr.Prakash next submits that the petitioner should be restrained from making such scandalous emails against the persons by referring to the writ petition, which is pending and has become infructuous (which is disputed by Ms.Sapra). Mr.Prakash also submits that as many as twenty six Judges have recused from hearing this matter for one reason or the other or on account of the emails being addressed by the petitioner with respect to them. Ms.Sapra submits that the Judges have recused not because of her but for valid reasons.
Ms.Sapra submits that as a citizen she has the right to make a complaint against the Railway Minister or any other person in case there is evidence of corruption.
The submissions made by Mr.Om Prakash, counsel for the respondent/Ministry of Railways, shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
Ms.Sapra also informs the Court that she has filed an application in the Registry, which is likely to be listed on 24.11.2014, in which she has again requested this Bench to recuse from hearing this matter, besides the prayers of Z+ security and for safe housing, as she is a witness and a whistleblower.
It may be noted that like all the previous orders this order has also been read out to Ms.Sapra in Court in the presence of other counsel.
List on 24.11.2014.
G.S.SISTANI, J
A.K. PATHAK, J
21. As a result of the order dated 20 November 2014, the Petitioner is being compelled to file the present application.
22. As the petitioner informed the court on 20 November 2014, she has simply as a concerned citizen and as a whistle-blower in this matter made a representation to the President and Prime Minister of India that Mr Suresh Prabhu (with his background of un-investigated allegations and evidence of corruption in the Cobbler scam the Dabhol scam and the Adarsh scam; with his benami companies in the renewable energy, finance and infrastructure space; with the real likelihood that he or his son's companies have had financial or other dealings with General Electric Company and/ or its affiliates; with his role favouring General Electric Company in the Dabhol Power Plant corruption (which incidentally led to his removal from the Vajpayee cabinet's power ministry in 2002); and with existing conflict of interest issues because of his benami companies) is not the appropriate choice for Railway Minister at this juncture when General Electric Company's corrupt dealings in the Madhepura and Marhowra Rail tenders are subjudice, un-investigated and unresolved.
23. The Petitioner is a whistle-blower and witness in the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations, illegal lobbying and tender tampering against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel locomotive factory at Marhowra and the proposed electric locomotive factory at Madhepura. The petitioner has been viciously targeted because of this since 2010. She has been and continues to be poisoned. Her left ankle/ foot has been deliberately destroyed as part of the conspiracy to eliminate her. The petitioner's life continues to be in danger as long as attempts to cover up this corruption continue.
24. The petitioner's applications and rejoinders before the Court in this matter describe how the Railway Ministry has colluded with General Electric and has filed false and perjurious affidavits in attempts to sabotage this matter and to cover up the corruption complaints against General Electric. These false and evasive affidavits filed on behalf of the Railway Ministry have placed the petitioner's life in greater danger. The Railway Ministry should have stepped forward and acknowledged the Petitioner as a whistle-blower and ensured her protection as a witness-whistleblower. Instead the affidavits filed on behalf of the Rail Ministry have targeted the Petitioner. The Railway Ministry has attempted to mislead the Court. It has attempted to cover up the complaints made by the Petitioner. As such the petitioner has every right to voice her concerns publicly that Suresh Prabhu might have been appointed as Railway Minister under pressure from General Electric Company to further facilitate the cover-up of the petitioner's corruption complaints.
25. It is revealing and unfortunate that alleged Railway Counsel Om Prakash has not objected to the fact that K R Radhakrishnan is impersonating as the authorised signatory of General Electric in this matter and that he has filed false affidavits and that a massive fraud on the court is being committed. Om Prakash has never objected to the fact that I a witness and a whistleblower am being targeted, am homeless for 2 and a half years and that I have been and am being poisoned. During all hearings, Om Prakash is seen whispering and taking instructions from AZB lawyers (Nanju Ganpathy and Manpreet Lamba) who are purporting to represent General Electric Company.
26. Om Prakash is not Suresh Prabhu's lawyer and he has no right to object to my complaints of personal corruption against Suresh Prabhu and to my representations to the President and Prime Minister that Suresh Prabhu should not have been appointed Rail Minister and that given his background it is reasonable to be concerned that he might facilitate the cover-up of General Electric corruption.
27. I am extremely offended by how Om Prakash shouted at me in Court on 20 November 2014 because of my emails about Suresh Prabhu and how the Judges failed to rein him in or to restrain him but permitted him to shout so that I could not speak. Advocate Om Prakash must apologise to me.
28. I do not subscribe to the mai-baap culture that Om Prakash's tirade exhibited. He stated that he had met the Director from the Railway Ministry that morning and he had received instructions to object to my emails about Suresh Prabhu. Om Prakash repeatedly stated that my emails were against the "boss" as if I had committed blasphemy. So what? Can a citizen not question a dubious ministerial appointment?
29. Or is it that according to Om Prakash and the Director in the Railway Ministry instructing him, only elderly men like Ram Jethmalani and Subramaniam Swamy have the right and the privilege of making representations against corruption and corrupt acts of politicians and government officers in power? Why does Om Prakash have an objection when a woman whistle-blower like me speaks up to power? Do younger women have no right to engage in political discourse and political activity? Exposing corruption is a political act. In fact, the viciousness of the retaliation against me in India is a direct consequence of my gender. It is as if a woman daring to take on powerful persons must be crushed to set an example.
30. What does the order dated 20 November 2014 mean when it states that Om Prakash submitted that I am using the platform of the High Court? My representation against Suresh Prabhu is linked to my writ petition and to the threat to my life if the ongoing attempts to cover up my corruption complaints continue. I am fully entitled to refer to my pending writ petition in my correspondence addressed to the President and Prime Minister. I am fully entitled to identify myself as a whistleblower in such correspondence. I am fully entitled to link my concerns about Suresh Prabhu to my corruption complaints given that Suresh Prabhu is now Rail Minister and given that his appointment appears to have been influenced by General Electric Company (apparently through Mr Sharad Pawar) and was intended to oust Sadanand Gowda who was considering scrapping the impugned Madhepura and Marhowra Projects. I am fully entitled to link my representation to the writ petition that I have filed. Who is Advocate Om Prakash to object to this? How can the Railway Ministry or some Director in the Railway Ministry who is briefing Om Prakash object to my representation to the President/ Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment?
31. Why is Om Prakash trying to cover up my complaints against Suresh Prabhu in his personal capacity and silence me on this subject? Who is Om Prakash to describe my complaints against Suresh Prabhu as "scandalous"? Does Om Prakash hold a brief for Suresh Prabhu in the latter's personal capacity? He does not.
32. Om Prakash should be asked to declare who in the Railway Board is giving him instructions. He mentioned a Director level officer. How is a Director level officer instructing Om Prakash in a matter of such importance?
33. During the Court hearing on 20 November 2014, I told the court that I was not asking the court to pass orders on my complaints against Suresh Prabhu and that I had made these representations to the President and Prime Minister and that I had merely filed a copy of the representation in this matter so that the Court was kept aware of developments in the Railway Ministry regarding this matter. However given Om Prakash's attack on me which appears to be instigated by Suresh Prabhu, I am constrained to file this application and seek relief on this issue.
34. Om Prakash is also misleading the court that this matter is infructuous. This writ petition has not become infructuous merely because the 2010 Madhepura and Marhowra tenders have been cancelled. Such statements are being made without any hearing and also without reading pending court applications and court pleadings. Arguments on merits in this matter have still to commence before J Sistani and J Pathak. I also point out that complaints of corruption in a tender by a bidder do not get washed away simply by that tender being cancelled. Especially when the corruption pointed out, continues to plague and infect the subsequent retendering process as well. The writ petition includes a prayer for blacklisting GE for corruption. Legal consequences of corruption, fraud and forgery in a tender cannot be avoided by mere cancellation of the tender and by initiation of a fresh tender where the bidder who indulged in the corrupt dealings continues to enjoy the benefits of that corruption. Yet Om Prakash would like the Court to disregard corruption complaints and evidence before it, and ignore prayers for the reliefs of blacklisting, investigation and prosecution. Neither the PMO nor the Rail Ministry have contended on affidavit that the writ petition has become infructuous. This writ petition survives and must be decided on merits even though the 2010 tenders have been cancelled. The cancellation of the 2010 tenders was a direct result of this writ petition and provides further evidence of the corruption complaints in the writ petition. Evidence and averments on the court record establish that the cancellation of the tenders was at the instance of the very persons involved in the corruption, and was nothing but a malafide device to over-reach the court and an attempt to cover up the corruption complaints before the court and an attempt to avoid the due process of law and to avoid the adjudication of the writ petition on merits and the investigation of the corruption complaints and a malafide attempt to permit General Electric to continue to bid for the same Project despite evidence of General Electric's corruption. Om Prakash is fully aware that this matter is not infructuous and he should stop misleading the court and colluding with the lawyers who are claiming to represent General Electric without vakalatnamas. No railway affidavit has stated that this matter is infructuous.
35. The petitioner once again reproduces the prayers in this writ petition:
"PRAYER
In light of the facts stated above the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Summon the records of Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 on the whistle-blower complaints made by the Petitioner and after examining the records and hearing the Respondents, issue a writ of mandamus to Respondent 4 directing that Respondent 7 be disqualified and Respondent Nos. 1, 6 and 7 be black-listed from the Diesel and Electric Locomotive Tenders (Global RFQ No. 2010/ ME (Proj)/ 4/ Marhoura/RFQ and RFQ No. 2010/ Elect. (Dev0 440/1(1)).
2. Issue writs of mandamus to Respondent Nos. 2, 4 and 5 directing them to respond to and act upon the said whistle-blower complaints in accordance with law.
3. Direct that Respondent No. 2 inquire into the commission of criminal offences (including forgery, bribery and public corruption) arising out of the Petitioner's whistle-blower complaints and direct prosecution of GE employees and government officials and public servants found involved and complicit.
4. Enforce and protect the right to life of the Petitioner and direct that the Petitioner be provided full protection and safety and be immediately relocated to a safe house."
36. Om Prakash's shocking attack on me during the court hearing of 20 November 2014 only serves to lend credence to my complaints and apprehensions regarding Suresh Prabhu and his appointment as Rail Minister.
37. It is a matter of public interest that the Government of India (through the PMO, respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare if there is any conflict of interest regarding Suresh Prabhu and the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders? Have Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies had any dealings (financial or otherwise) with General Electric Company and/or its affiliates? Have Suresh Prabhu's extra-curricular activities at the global level and in the renewable energy policy sphere ever been directly or indirectly funded by General Electric Company and/ or its affiliates? Have Suresh Prabhu's extra-curricular activities at the global level and in the renewable energy policy sphere ever been directly or indirectly funded by the United States government which has also lobbied for the Marhowra and Madheoura Projects on behalf of General Electric Company?
38. Has Mr Suresh Prabhu been made aware of this writ petition and of the evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects that is on record?
39. The petitioner points out that one Nihar Ranjan Dash might be the Director in the Railway Ministry instructing Om Prakash. Mr Nihar Ranjan Dash is too junior an officer to deal with this matter. Plus he appears to be part of the electric engineering directorate and not a part of the Railway Board.
40. It is shocking that Suresh Prabhu misused a junior officer in the rail ministry (Nihar Ranjan Dash) to ask Om Prakash to protest against my representation against Suresh Prabhu. Who is Nihar Ranjan Dash to object to this representation? What legal authority does he have to do this? Such mai-baap culture of corruption and cover-up must end.
41. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must give serious consideration to my representations about the unsuitability of Suresh Prabhu for a government position. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must also ensure that no one including Suresh Prabhu helps cover up my complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations and illegal lobbying against General Electric and Montek Singh Ahluwalia in connection with the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders and that these complaints are investigated and prosecuted in accordance with law.
42. This application is being made in the interest of justice.
43. This application relies upon the entire court record of Writ Petition Civil 1280/2012 and also on the petitioner's complaints being emailed to authorities including to the Registrar General of the High Court.
44. Copies of Suresh Prabhu's cv and his wife Uma Prabhu's CV are annexed hereto as Annexure P-1.
45. It is pointed out that the previous scam-afflicted UPA Government under former PM Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide Montek Singh Ahluwalia were not only complicit in the corruption that is the subject matter of this petition, but were master-minding the coverup of these complaints and the sabotage of this writ petition and the elimination of the petitioner-whistleblower-witness. Now that the NDA government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in power, and given that the election mandate to this government was to act against corruption, it is necessary that Prime Minister Narendra Modi intervene in this matter and personally ensure that the attempted cover-up of these corruption complaints by the Railway Ministry be stopped and that fresh affidavits be filed by the Railway Ministry which are truthful, and responsive and where the Railway Ministry faithfully discharges its obligation o this Court to ascertain the true and complete facts regarding the Petitioner's corruption complaints against General Electric and Montek Singh Ahluwalia.
46. Advocate Om Prakash was brought into this matter by the previous UPA regime to cover up its own and General Electric's corruption. He has failed to assist the court properly. The new NDA government must remove Om Prakash as counsel for Railway Ministry (respondent 4) in this matter and must appoint a proper counsel who properly assists the court, who is respectful to the petitioner-whstleblower and who gives correct advice to his client and whose agenda is not to facilitate the cover-up of the corruption complaints and the sabotage of this petition. Mr Sanjay Jain ASG is supposed to represent the PMO (respondent 5) and respondent 4 (Railway Ministry) in this matter but for some reason he has failed to appear in this matter on a single date since his appointment. Earlier his predecessor Mr Rajiv Mehra appeared for respondents 4 and 5.
47. It is important for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to recognise the influence of General Electric Company and the illegal nexus of Indian politicians it harbours. Please see the petitioner's email dated 15 October 2014 below titled
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (a) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; to ascertain and declare any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and to ascertain and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; (b) Direct the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) to ensure that Suresh Prabhu as Railway Minister does not act unlawfully in connection with the Marhowra and Madhepura locomotive factory Projects and that no attempt is made to cover up the complaints of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery, FCPA violations, tender manipulation, and illegal lobbying that are pending against General Electric Company in connection with the Projects and tenders for the proposed diesel and electric locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura; (c) Direct Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; (d) Issue notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections; (e) Direct the Railway Ministry to replace advocate Om Prakash with a lawyer who will not facilitate the cover-up of the corruption complaints against General Electric and who will not collude withGgeneral Electric Company's alleged lawyers to sabotage this writ petition; (f) Direct that ASG Sanjay Jain who has been instructed to appear in this matter for respondents 4 and 5 (Railway Ministry and the PMO) start assisting the Hon'ble Court and not skip court hearings; (g) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 26 November 2014 Seema Sapra Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C. M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF: Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Seema Sapra, daughter of Late Shri A. R. Sapra, aged 43 years, previously resident of G 4, first floor, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi 110014 and rendered homeless on 30 May 2012 (because of and as a result of the whistleblower complaints of corruption, forgery, bribery, fraud and illegal activities made against General Electric, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Planning Commission, Railway Ministry and Ministry of Finance and as a result of the whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C ) 1280/ 2012) and because of my complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Soli J Sorabjee and Mr Raian Karanjawala) in contempt of this Hon'ble Court's order dated May 25, 2012 and presently homeless do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I am the Petitioner in the present Petition and am well aware of the facts of the case and am competent to file the present affidavit.
2. I state that the accompanying application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking directions that the Government of India through the PMO (respondent 5 herein) ascertain and declare the conflict of interest if any regarding Suresh Prabhu and this writ petition and/ or the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects and tenders; any dealings (financial or otherwise) between Suresh Prabhu, his son or their companies and General Electric Company and/or its affiliates; and declare whether Mr Suresh Prabhu has been made aware of this writ petition and of the full evidence of corruption, fraud, forgery, bribery and illegal lobbying concerning the tenders for the Madhepura and Marhowra Projects; and directions to Advocate Om Prakash to disclose who instructed him to oppose the Petitioner's representations to the President and Prime Minister against Suresh Prabhu's appointment as Rail Minister; and for issuance of notice of criminal contempt to Advocate Om Prakash for obstruction of court proceedings on 20 November 2014 when he prevented the petitioner from addressing the court by shouting at her and by shouting her down with the specific intent to prevent her from addressing the court and to prevent her from responding to his invalid objections; (along with affidavit) has been drafted by me and the facts stated therein are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing material has been concealed there-from and that all annexures to the application are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at New Delhi on this 26th day of November 2014 that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and that nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
In the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Civil Writ Jurisdiction C.M. Appl. No. of 2014 In Writ Petition No. 1280 of 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
Seema Sapra …Petitioner versus
General Electric Co. and Others ….Respondents
INDEX
Place: New Delhi Petitioner in Person 26 November 2014 Seema Sapra
Rendered homeless since May 30, 2012 as a result of corruption complaints against General Electric and as a result of this whistleblower corruption petition (W.P. (C) 1280/ 2012) and presently homeless 9582716748
Note: All 17 respondents have been served with an advance copy of this application by email dated 26 November 2014 All the prayers are inter-connected and flow from each other. Please list the application before court as it is. |
No comments:
Post a Comment