Mining minister Gyatri Prajapati, who got relief in a probe into charges of disproportionate assets and illegal mining from former lokayukta, Justice (retd) NK Mehrotra, has again found himself being accused of benefiting his family members through government-run schemes.
A native of Faizabad submitted a complaint with the lokayukta alleging that Gyatri Prajapati’s daughter had received benefit under Kanya Vidyadhan Yojna by the SP government even as the scheme was started to facilitate girls belonging to Below Poverty lines (BPl) families.
The complainant pointed out that Prajapati while filing his nominations had submitted an affidavit clearly mentioning that he does not belong to a BPl family anymore and that his family owned properties. The complainant goes on to question that if that was so then how come the minister’s daughter qualify to be a beneficiary scheme which is anybody’s guess.
The complaint further stated that Prajapati can not claim that he wasa not in the know about how his daughter received the benefit as for availing the benefit under Kanya Vidya Dhan, the college principal as well the parents (both mother and father of the girl) have to sign an agreement in which they give undertaking that they belong to BPl families. The complainant said that Prajapati’s signature was present on the agreement papers which clearly indicates that he was aware that he was working against government orders to benefit his daughter. The complainant also asked urged the lokayukta to reinvestigate charges levelled againt the minister earlier by Om Shankar Dwivedi, Nutan Thakur and Yashwant Singh.
Earlier, the then lokayukta had closed the probe filed by Om Shankar Dwivedi against Prajapati. later he also withdrew the probe as social activist Nutan Thakur and Yashwant Singh failed to give evidence against the mining minister.
Interestingly in reply to charges made by the complainants, Prajapati had replied by raising primary objection over the on-going probe against him. The minister had claimed that the affidavit filed by complainant Om Shankar Dwivedi was not duly signed by the notary which pointed that it was fake so how could a probe be made against him on the basis of a forged affidavit.
Similarly, he protested that his illegal income shown by the complainant in his affidavit, and the one mentioned in the documents provided by him as evidence had vast difference than how the allegations could be correct. Besides Prajapati also protested that the complainants had shown some persons as his cohorts but not mentioned what relations he had with them. The minister then asked the lokayukta whether the complaints made against him were maintainable or not and promised to reply only if t hey were maintainable.