Delhi High Court seeks CBI, Delhi Police’s stand on plea alleging irregularities by former AIIMS officials

The plea moved by the NGO ‘Janhit Abhiyan – A campaign for People Voice’ challenged a February 2018 order of the special judge (CBI) which dismissed the petitioner’s complaint “on the basis of a false complaint submitted by the CBI and without following the procedure” under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Apart from seeking that the special judge’s order be set aside, the plea sought that the case be remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings.

The plea filed by advocate Rudra Pratap alleged that these persons conspired with each other to cause loss to the exchequer by embezzlement of funds in violation of rules laid down in the central government finance rules. It was alleged that the firm (Drishti Medicos) from which the purchases were made at higher prices was owned by the son and daughter-in-law of Mahajan.

“The respondent no. 4, T.R. Mahajan ex-store officer, JPNA Trauma Centre AIIMS New Delhi, in criminal conspiracy with Respondent no. 3 Dr Amit Gupta associate professor and Respondent No. 2 Dr M C Mishra chief JPNA trauma centre, purchased disinfectants/fogging solutions, from the firm owned by his own son and daughter-in-law without any tender/quotation on the basis of forged proprietary certificate at substantially high price at which the same items were being purchased in the main hospital through rate contract,” the plea stated.

It further stated that proprietary items were innovative in nature and technologically so complex that a particular firm manufactured them while these items were general in nature.

The plea alleged that the items were purchased between November 2012 and March 2014 by declaring them proprietary. The plea stated that this was done to avoid any tender/quotation in the said purchase “so as to altogether block the entry of other firms in the bidding process”.

“The said purchases were made possible through the approval of Dr Amit Gupta and Dr M C Mishra…Further, they never tried to make any enquiry about the proprietary nature of the said product as being experienced medical professionals, they were very well aware that these are routine items and can never be put into the category of proprietary items,” the plea states. The plea further states that the proprietary certificate was for a one-time purchase; however it was repeatedly used for subsequent purchases and neither Gupta nor Mishra objected.

The plea alleged that the special judge, in the order, failed to appreciate that there was an “obvious quid pro quo” between Gupta, Mishra, Mahajan and the partners of Drishti “which only a detailed inquiry/investigation can reveal after an FIR is registered”.