New Delhi: SC reserves order on plea for CBI probe into govt contracts to firms of Arunachal CM's kin
New Delhi, The Supreme Court was on Tuesday told that government contracts and work orders worth around ₹1,270 crore were awarded in the last 10 years in Arunachal Pradesh to four firms related to the family members of Chief Minister Pema Khandu.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria reserved its order on a plea seeking a CBI probe into the award of contracts for public works in the state to firms owned by the family members of Khandu.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner NGOs Save Mon Region Federation and Voluntary Arunachal Sena, referred to the recent affidavit filed by the state of Arunachal Pradesh and argued that a number of contracts were awarded to the companies owned by the family members of the chief minister.
He said the affidavit refers to only four firms which were directly related to Khandu’s family members.
Bhushan said the total value of works awarded through tender to these four companies in the last 10 years was ₹1,245 crore.
He said work orders of around ₹25 crore were also given to these firms during this period.
“The total about ₹1,270 crore worth of works have been awarded in the last 10 years to these four firms which belong either directly to the chief minister, or his wife, or his mother, or his brother,” Bhushan alleged.
He argued that roughly three per cent of the total value of contracts awarded in the state in the last 10 years were given only to these four firms.
“There should be a CBI investigation. This is reeking of corruption,” Bhushan said, adding the state police would not be able to investigate the matter impartially.
He said it should be investigated whether the firms that participated in the government tenders or work orders were related directly or indirectly to Khandu.
While reserving the order in the matter, the bench said the counsel for the parties may submit their written brief within two weeks.
The counsel appearing for the state had earlier argued that the plea was a “sponsored litigation”.
Source: Read full coverage
