COUNTERVIEW: Ahmedabad: Sunday, 24 August 2014.
A right to
information applicant has suggested that Gujarat chief minister Anandiben
Patel, one of the closest confidantes of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, did not
declare her position as director in a non-profit company in the affidavit she
filed before the Election Commission of India ahead of the December 2012
Gujarat state assembly elections. The company, according to the RTI applicant
Roshan Shah, who brought this to light, was registered as a section 25 company
under the Companies Act with the registrar of companies (RoC), making it a
non-profit organisation.
According to
Shah, “As per election law, if a candidate does not disclose their business
interests in their nomination, she or he is liable to be disqualified.” Under a
section 25 company registered under Companies Act, the non-profit company's
dividends are not distributed to its members. However, members can take use its
funds for expenses. "Most global large non-profits are hugely funded and
are cash rich", Shah said.
“Non-profit
company does not mean that it does not receive funds from any sources, and it
also does not mean that the directors do not take out money from its funds”,
Shah insisted, adding, “Patel contested the Gujarat assembly elections from
Ghatlodia constituency in Ahmedabad. In her affidavit Anandiben Patel did not
disclose her interests in Gramsheel Women Empowerment, established as a section
25 company under the Companies Act on March 29, 2011. She is one of its
directors.”
Pointing out
that “this is the only company registered in RoC in which Patel is director,
and was Director at the time of filing her nominations for the Gujarat state
assembly elections in 2012”, Shah adds, “Hiding material and substantial fact
in affidavit is an offence for any elected representative, and Patel by not
disclosing this information in her affidavit is liable to be disqualified.”
Shah has
further alleged that the RTI query has “revealed” that the Gramshree Women
Empowerment company has not filed balance sheet with the RoC either ever since
its inception. “Usually RoC levies quarterly fine if anyone fails to file
return, but it seems that the RoC because of her political stature has not
levied any fine on the company either.”
Shah wonders,
“The RTI response questioning the details of fine did not provide any response
from the public information officer… If the lawmakers themselves hide material
facts and fail to file balance sheet and follow corporate rules, why should
they get separate special treatment compared to others?” He adds, “Concealing
of information in affidavit is substantial since this is the only firm in which
Patel is director. This is a gross offence.”
Finding more
discrepancies in the affidavit, Shah says, interestingly, in the 2007
affidavit, Patel signed in Gujarati but
in 2012 she signed in English. It also brings to question as to how many
signatures one can use as per the law and shouldn't the returning officer
verify the signature on record and reject the nomination for signature
mismatch.”
When
contacted, Congress leader Arjun Modhwadia denied that the RTI was filed on the
party’s instructions. “I was told a TV channel carried the news. We are
investigating. An RTI applicant appears has brought this to light. We will take
appropriate steps after consulting legal opinion in the matter”, he said. There
is so far no word on it from the chief minister's office.
.JPG)
.JPG)
