Gadkari files suit against Wasnik

Apart from Wasnik, the four other respondents named in the suit are: N Y Khadilkar, editor, printer-publisher and director, and Kulkarni, assistant editor, both of Navakaal, Ramesh Rajhans, executive editor of Janvaad and Dilip Pisode of Renuka Prakashan Pvt Ltd which publishes the daily here.

The instant suit comes as a fallout of the complaint which Wasnik had lodged with the State Governor on June 23 last year, levelling several corruption charges against Gadkari and seeking appropriate action. A copy of the plaint was also forwarded to anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare.

The issue came into prominence in November last year when Navakaal and Janvaad published reports about Wasnik’s complaint to the Governor thereby, sparking widespread speculation and debate in the media throughout the state.

Hazare whose anti-corruption crusade was at its peak around this time, had addressed a public meeting at Shaniwarwada in Pune on December 8 last year, where he mentioned the charges against the Public Works Department although not naming Gadkari.

In his 10-page civil suit application, Gadkari has charged that Wasnik’s prime motive behind lodging complaint against him, was not to seek some action from the governor but to provide the news dailies with an excuse for publishing `defamatory statements without apt verification’.

Besides, it smacked of deliberate intention on part of Wasnik to defame the minister.

Gadkari has further charged that Wasnik made the `false and defamatory’ statements intentionally and knowing well that the same would harm the minister’s reputation. This had directly affected his image of a high moral character, he stated.

“Having maliciously written, published and circulated the false statement through the dailies, the defendants i.e. Wasnik and four others, have made widely known to the public at large the said statements thereby, exposing the plaintiff (Gadkari) to public contempt verging on hatred and ridicule, the suit application stated.

It further added that the statements have caused injury to the reputation, good name, image and character of the plaintiff.