lokayukta, Justice (retd) NK Mehrotra, served notice to social activist, Nutan Thakur, directing her to appear before him and gave details of the properties which she claimed through her affidavit that the assets were owned by mining minister Gyatri Prajapati, his family members or his close associates.
Mehrorta asked Nutan to appear before him on Friday. He also served similar summon to one Mahendra Kumar, a native of Amethi,whom Nutan claimed to be witness in the case who had full information about the properties mentioned by her the affidavit.
Reports said that in his summon served to Nutan Thakur, the state ombudsman asked Nutan, that she gave a list of properties owned by Gyatri Prajapati, his kins or associates but she not cited any details which could helped lokayukata to pin-point the property so that evidences regarding it’s owner, or who invested money in the property etc should be collected from the authorities concerned. Mehrotra also summoned Mehendra, and informed Nutan that as per her request to call the said witness, he summoned both on the same day so he (Mehrotra) could sought out some queries particularly regarding Prajapati’s assets.
Sources said that if the papers pointed that the properties were purchased by Gyatri or his kins after he became minister or any money has been spent by the minister in purchase of any property in the name of associate, than Mehrotra would sent a notice to the mining minister to seek his reply on the allegation of making more wealth then his known resources.
On last Tuesday, Nutan Thakur, claimed to have provided full details of property owned by Prajapati, and his family members or close associates, to lokayukata. She asked Mehrotra to expedite the investigation against the mining minister and also to summon some of witnesses who could provide important clues regarding how Gyatri Prajapati and his henchmen had earned huge wealth through illegal mining in the State. Nutan claimed that she gave property details of Mining Minister Gyatri Prajapati, his wife Maharaji, daughters Sudha and Ankita (village Parsawa), sons Anurag (Dilkusha road) and Anil (Indrajeet Kheda, Amethi). He said that the properties were allegedly brought after October 2013 pointing that they were probably made by income through illegal mining.
She claimed that in addition to the above properties, she also gave examples of life Cure Medical Center (Pratapgarh, Amethi), Shubhang Exports limited (Amethi, Indrajeet Kheda)and Decent constructions (Indrajeet Kheda), having Gyatri’s son with Anil as director. Besides, Dr Thakur has also presented 7 properties of Prajapati’s associates, Devatadeen at Mahmudpur and 15 properties of his official driver Ramraj and 10 properties of private driver Ram Sahai. She presented facts about Prajapati’s three brothers Jagdish, Chediram and Sriram being beneficiaries of Antyoday Yojana and he and his brothers being in BPl list.
Dr Thakur also gave Prajapati’s form submitted in 2012 in Amethi Assembly where his wife and children were shown to have zero Income tax return and very few properties belonged to his family. She also claimed to have requested the lokayukata, to summon Amethi resident Mahendra Kumar as witness, who has separately presented a complaint against Gyatri Prajapati.
Earlier, Mehrotra, who is probing the matter had also served a notice to another complainant, Om Shankar Dwivedi, asking him to clear the objections raised by mining minister Gyatri Prajapati. He directed Dwivedi to come with proper reply, particularly regarding the affidavit, otherwise action could be also taken against him. The move was made by Mehrotra, after Prajapati challenged the on-going enquiry against him by lodging primarily protest before lokayukta.
It may be mentioned that Gyatri had filed a reply with Mehrotra in which he raised some primarily objection over the on-going probe against him. Sources said that Gyatri claimed that the affidavit filed against him by complainants, was not duly signed by the notary which pointed that it was fake so how a probe could be made against him on basis of a forged affidavit. Similarly, Gyatri lodged protest that his illegal income shown by the complainant in the affidavit, and the one mentioned in the documents provided by him as evidence had vast difference than how the allegations could be correct. Besides Gyatri also raised protest that the complainant shown some persons as his cohorts but not mentioned that what relations he had with them. likewise, the complainant also mentioned vague details of some properties shown to be owned by him or his cohorts so how a probe could be carried out on it’s basis. Citing above protest, Gyatri asked Mehrotra to first clear whether the complaint made against him was maintainable or not and if he think that it is legally correct as per the rules mentioned in the lokayukta Act, than he would give answer to the queries sought by him and would also help him in the on-going probe.