Delhi HC seeks reply from Delhi govt, CBI on plea alleging corruption in disinfectant purchase by AIIMS Trauma Centre

New Delhi [India], March 6 : The Delhi High Court has sought responses from the Delhi government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in a plea moved by an NGO raising the issue of corruption in the purchase of the disinfectant for the AIIMS Trauma Centre at exorbitant rates without any tender in 2012-2014.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on March 3 issued notice to the CBI and Delhi Government and sought status reports from them.
The Counsel for the CBI and Delhi Government accepted the notice and sought time to file a status report.
The bench has also issued notice to MC Mishra, the former director of AIIMS, T R Mahajan, former Store officer and Dr Amit Gupta, Professor, AIIMS Trauma Centre and all partners of Drishti Medicose and Surgical, Dwarka, New Delhi.
The matter has been listed on September 14, 2023.
The notice has been issued on the revision petition moved by the NGO Janhit Abhiyan-A Campaign for People Voice through its convener Raj Narayan.
The petition has been moved by Advocate Rudra Pratap.
The NGO has sought a direction to set aside the order passed by the CBI Judge (South), Saket Court February 7, 2018, call the trial court record, and remand the complaint case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The NGO has challenged the order of the CBI judge dismissing the complaint on the basis of a false report filed by the CBI and without following the procedure laid down by the law.
It is alleged in the petition that all the accused persons conspired and caused loss to the government exchequer by embezzlement of funds in violation of the rules laid down in the Central Government General Finance Rules.
It is also alleged the accused in conspiracy with each other purchased disinfectants and fogging solutions, from the firm owned by their own son and daughter-in-law of the accused, without any tender or quotation, on the basis of a forged proprietary certificate, at a substantially higher price, at which the same items were being purchased in the main hospital through rate contract.
The said purchases were allegedly made from November 2012 to March 2014, of cleaning disinfectants and fogging solutions by declaring these as proprietary items, the petition stated.
"It is to be noted that proprietary items are only those items which are innovative in nature, technologically so complex that manufactured by a particular firm, while the items in this case, were very general in nature," the NGO's plea stated.
It also claimed that to facilitate this purpose, forged entries were made into the certificate regarding efforts made to locate alternative sources of supply, substitutes that/internet search has been made while the fact is that internet search revealed that the same item was available at much cheaper prices, the petitioner claims.
It is also said that the most important evidence in this regard was the fact that the same items were being purchased in the main hospital through rate contracts at substantially lower rates.
The petition also mentioned that then Chief Vigilance Officer Sanjiv AIIMS found the misappropriation of Government Funds by illegal means to pass the benefits to the accused persons and he referred the matter to CBI. The preliminary enquiry was held and CBI found the above irregularities.
It is also said that similarly two other particular firms, were repeatedly benefitted, through the splitting of supply orders in violation of Rules and also to benefit these two particular firms, items were purchased in excess of requirements and during a single inspection of the Vigilance Team constituted by the complainant, from 17-21 February 2014, items around Rs. 67 lakhs were found unused and expired.
The NGO had first filed two complaints for the offences mentioned above, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, when the SHO and DCP failed to take action on the complaints against the Respondent.
The session court heard the matter and without waiting for the action taken report sought by the Magistrate, dismissed the complaints for want of sanction while disposing of an application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
It is alleged that the CBI did not investigate the forgery committed, the genuineness of participating firms, the violation of rules in declaring proprietary items, the coincidence of the same two firms succeeding and criminal liability for the excess purchase of surgery items worth Rs. 67 lahks which expired without use.
The Special Judge had dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground of the absence of sanction and lack of material on record for ordering the registration of FIR without appreciating the fact that it was the report of the CBI and CVO present on record that the ex store officer issued tenders to the firm of his son and the other respondent illegally issued proprietary certificate and also used it repeatedly to avoid tendering.
The Complainant had sought sanction from the competent authorities, but they failed to respond within 90 days.
The Complainant thereafter filed a second complaint against the accused persons and the same was marked for hearing before Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) South District, Saket Court, New Delhi which was dismissed.