NEW DELHI: Though Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeswar has denied sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation for prosecuting Chief Minister Mayawati and her Cabinet colleague Naseemuddin Siddiqui in the Taj Heritage Corridor scam, key questions remain on fixing responsibility for the alleged wrongdoings.

The Government began the project on March 25, 2003 for diverting the Yamuna to reclaim 75 acres between the Agra Fort and the Taj Mahal. The reclaimed land was to be used for constructing shops, food courts and recreational activities. The project was intended to be part of development of a heritage corridor for the Taj Trapezium Zone.

World heritage

On July 16, 2003, the Supreme Court said: "It is painful to note that instead of creating something new which could be classified as a world heritage or national heritage, the persons concerned who are in power are trying to damage or endanger the world heritage by their hasty, irregular, illegal activities."

This observation referred to the construction by the National Project Construction Company (NPCC) in the course of the execution of the Taj Heritage Corridor project. Later, the CBI was asked to probe the case, and the court monitored the progress of the exercise. CBI records and the opinion of Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam, which was sent to Mr. Rajeswar, show that Ms. Mayawati on October 1, 2002 sought approval for six projects, including the Taj Heritage Corridor..

Significantly, Mr. Subramaniam said the investigation the case would bring about long-term and important changes in the administration of the State Governments. "It may also be noted that civil servants, who must maintain the highest standards of probity and rectitude, not insisting upon minimum constitutional requirements in matters such as a contract, an open enquiry and tender, as well as non-compliance with rules of procedure, does indicate a clear state of lack of professional conduct."

It turned out that the Mission Management Board (MMB), as a collective body, took substantive decisions, and Chief Secretary D.S. Bagga, as the seniormost civil servant, headed it. The board decided that governmental agencies, including the NPCC, be awarded the work of preparation of a techno-feasibility report.

Mr. Subramaniam noted that after approval was accorded on October 12, 2002, the sudden mention of "construction work" as well as the manner in which the subsequent minutes of MMB meetings were prepared "clearly reflects wrongdoing on the part of the officers of the State Government, including Environment Secretary R.K. Sharma. There clearly appears to be some wrongdoing."

It was strange that on November 1, 2002, a government order was passed in favour of the NPCC, without a formal agreement between the State Government and the public sector undertaking. Even the then Principal Secretary (Finance) N.C. Bajpai indicated that some kind of agreement was essential before concurrence was granted for release of money.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail