The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a PIl demanding CBI probe into a Haryana land deal involving Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra.
Vadra’s company Skylight Hospitality Private limited was one of the beneficiaries allotted land measuring 21000 acres between 2005 and 2012 by the Haryana Government. The licenses were issued by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) to develop residential colonies in and around Gurgaon. Although several licensees were involved in the allocation process, the petitioner’s attempt to target Vadra’s company irked the bench.
“You say that for 21000 acres of land licenses for construction were given by Haryana Government. But you choose only one person on what principle,” asked a bench of Justices Hl Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi. Sharma explained that the controversy ran deeper as due to the presence of Vadra in the deal, even the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had passed order not to proceed with further inquiry.
However, the petitioner failed to produce the said letter or order issued by the central auditor. “Why you have not alleged against other licensees,” the bench sought to know. “Merely because they (Vadra) are related to politicians, you cannot call them sinners,” said the bench, clarifying, “In the name of PIl, we will not allow you to destroy the name of any person.”
The Court held the petitioner at fault as he failed to obtain the copy of the CAG order. Sharma told the Court that he tried for six months to obtain a copy of the order but in vain. The Court suggested that since the land in question fell in Delhi and Haryana, nothing stopped him from approaching the Delhi or Punjab and Haryana High Court for a copy of the CAG order. But with the petitioner interested in CBI inquiry against Vadra and not against the other licensees, the judges had serious doubts over the petitioner trying to draw “cheap publicity” from the case.
The Court appreciated the good work done by Sharma in the past and allowed him to withdraw the petition. “Don’t spoil your good reputation by such cheap work,” the bench observed, asking the petitioner to channelize his energy for fighting the cause of flood-affected persons and shelter-less people.