Times of India: Nagpur: Tuesday, September 19, 2017.
Taking
cognizance of allegations of massive irregularities in the purchase of
furniture in Nagpur Zilla Parishad, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has
ordered an enquiry into the issue. The court directed ZP chief executive
officer (CEO) to enquire and prepare proper report in three months.
"If the
authorities are not satisfied with compliance, they have the power to proceed
further under Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930. In this situation, as we find
that a case for an enquiry is made out, we initially direct CEO to look into
the matter and prepare a proper report," a division bench of Justices
Bhushan Dharmadhikari and Arun Upadhye said before disposing of the plea.
While asking
the CEO to supply copy of report to petitioner Mohan Karemore before March 31
next year, the judges granted liberty to latter to re-approach the court in
case the directives were not complied with.
In a previous
hearing, the petitioner was told to deposit a fine of Rs50,000 by the court to
prove his bona fides as neither his counsel nor him appeared for several
hearings. He deposited Rs20,000 and requested the court to grant him time to
engage a new lawyer. While disposing of the petition, the court told registry
to refund Karemore's amount.
Citing audit
objections of 2014-15 obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the
petitioner claimed the work was sub-divided and awarded to different
contractors, while three offers were procured from from unauthorized suppliers.
The court noted that since objections were raised in the audit report, the
concerned office bearers of Zilla Parishad were supposed to submit appropriate
reply to it.
The
petitioner made state rural development department secretary, Public Works
Department (PWD) principal secretary and executive engineer, besides ZP CEO as
respondents in the PIL, while seeking a thorough probe into alleged
irregularities in furniture purchase. Earlier, appearing for PWD engineer and
ZP CEO, counsel Manoj Sable sought time for placing on record objections raised
in audit report but the court declined and disposed of the case.