Taj ghost is back: CBI said no case, CVC says Maya directly involved

The apex court is expected to resume hearings in the case next month.

This indictment is significant since the CBI has asked the Supreme Court to file a closure report in the Taj case.

Taking a stand in sharp contrast to the A-G’s, the CVC’s report, available with The Sunday Express, says that Mayawati’s conduct right through the project “leads to the irresistible inference that under her instructions only the department moved so fast…as otherwise so many officials would not have dared to take such hasty, bold and high-handed action at the risk of losing their jobs and facing prosecution.’’

Recommending prosecution of Mayawati and the officials accused, the CVC report says that Mayawati is “directly involved in the irregular commencement of the work and release of funds to the contractors.” And so she should be booked for being “party to the conspiracy for commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.’’

Key to the CVC’s case are two statements made by Mayawati’s Principal Secretary, P L Punia, to the CBI in May 2004 and in a sworn affidavit given to the Special Judge in Lucknow in June that year. Punia told the CBI that he had explained to Mayawati in detail that work couldn’t begin without the CCEA approval, project reports and techno-feasibility studies. However, Punia said, she told him that she had raised the matter with the Centre and work could indeed begin pending approval.

Punia testified that ‘‘she (Mayawati) also explained that work could go on like other projects where CCEA approvals were still awaited and construction work had already started.’’

Interrogated by the CBI, Mayawati denied giving approval for the project but the CVC held that Punia’s testimony was ‘‘credible and reliable.’’

Following its own probe and scrutiny of 18 volumes of case material, the CVC has built its case against Mayawati. Salient points:

• Mayawati was aware that work had begun. She was also aware that she needed the approval of the Centre’s Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs. She herself signed a note to then Environment Minister T R Balu for CCEA approval.

• As UP Environment Minister, Mayawati should have made inquiries about the execution and tendering etc. of a prestigious project of this nature. But this was not done.

• Work started without proper detailed project reports and environmental assessment. It continued till the monitoring Committee brought it to the notice of the Supreme Court which directed stoppage of work.

• The state Government issued an order for release of Rs 17 crore without approval of the Expenditure Finance Committee. Given her position as the head of the government and the Minister concerned, she should have promptly reacted when work began and money was released without her approval. But she took no action to stop the work.