In a major development that could set the precedence for spurring probes against various scams, the principal bench of the Gauhati High Court has directed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a ‘preliminary inquiry’ into alleged misappropriation of funds in construction of Nagaland High Court complex in Kohima by the State government and to submit the report to the Registrar of the Gauhati High Court within three months.
The intuitive judgment was given by a division bench of Gauhati High Court comprising of chief justice Ajit Singh and Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka in response to a PIL (suo motu) No. 5 of 2017 on allegations of misappropriation of public money in construction of the new high court complex Meriema.
The division bench noted that, on finding any material to support the allegations, CBI will take action as per law by registering an FIR and that the State government will fully cooperate with the investigation. CBI has also been directed to depute an officer to immediately collect all relevant records from the Nagaland government pertaining to the PIL.
Since CBI has been directed only to carry out a preliminary inquiry, not an ‘investigation’, the division bench refrained from commenting on the explanation given by the Nagaland government justifying use of huge amount of money as well as on completion of works so that neither the inquiry nor interests of the parties suffer prejudice.
It may also be recalled, that Nagaland Post as well as other media had on September 13, 2017, published the statement of Nagaland Tribes Council (NTC) alleging misappropriation. It pointed out that the foundation stone for an independent High Court for Nagaland was laid at Meriema in 2007, and that the building was still not complete. Even the amount for construction exceeded the original estimate by Rs 9.63 crore. However, planned in the same year (2007), Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura had established their respective high courts and made those functional in 2013.
NTC had claimed that as per RTI reply received by it, Rs. 43 crore was the original estimate for the High Court complex. However, between 2009-2014 and 2015-2017, NTC stated that the Justice & Law department had withdrawn Rs 41.62 crore and Rs 11.25 crore against the project respectively. In 2009-2017, there were 18 withdrawals and the amount increased to Rs 52.63 crore against the original estimate. It also stated that despite huge expenses, only 35% work was completed and the concerned department had availed a loan from Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (HUDCO).
Some social and RTI activists of Nagaland also filed a petition at GHC alleging that Rs 22.42 crore was withdrawn against construction of judges’ bungalows even though no area was earmarked for the same. Besides, Rs 44,24,700 was withdrawn against electrification and water supply, whereas the basic structure of the building was yet to be completed. Further, Rs 1.30 crore was paid as consultancy fee, which the activists termed as unbelievable, and that after exhaustion of the entire money, the State government took a loan of Rs 12,45,90,287 from HUDCO, the activists petitioned.
On perusal of all records, the division bench found that there was a prima facie case of misappropriation of huge public money and siphoning off the same in a systematic manner to the gross prejudice to the public exchequer.
Though the Nagaland government tried to justify how the money was utilised, it could not however explain as to why only 35% of the construction of the new high court complex has been done, whereas the high court complexes in Manipur, Meghalaya and Tripura which also started during 2007 have been completed in 2013 and where the court offices have been fully functioning.
The division bench has therefore, directed the State government to expedite the construction and ensure that it is completed at the earliest and with highest standard of construction so that the long cherished dream of the people of Nagaland to have an independent high court of their own materialises.
SK Medhi and A. Das argued for the petitioners, while Nagaland government advocate M Keichi argued for the respondents, which included chief secretary, Finance commr & secy, law & justice commr. & secy, Development commr, PWD commr & secy (W&H), PWD E-in-C (W&H) and PWD E-in-C (Housing).
RELATED POSTS
View all
