Recently, the High Court of Delhi seeks a response from the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Delhi Police in a plea alleging irregularities by former AIIMS officials.  A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued a notice to file a status report.

The plea was moved by NGO ‘Janhit Abhiyan – A campaign for People Voice’, challenging the order of the special judge (CBI) in which the Court rejected the petitioner’s complaint “on the basis of a false complaint submitted by the CBI and without following the procedure” under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The court also issued notice to Dr Mishra, Dr Amit Gupta, T R Mahajan, the ex-store officer at the trauma centre, partners of M/s Drishti Medicos and Surgical. The plea was filed by Advocate Rudra Pratap, which he alleged that these persons conspired with each other to cause loss to the exchequer by embezzlement of funds in violation of rules laid down in the central government finance rules.

Case Brief:

“The respondent no. 4, T.R. Mahajan ex-store officer, JPNA Trauma Centre AIIMS New Delhi, in criminal conspiracy with Respondent no. 3 Dr Amit Gupta associate professor and Respondent No. 2 Dr M C Mishra chief JPNA trauma centre, purchased disinfectants/fogging solutions, from the firm owned by his own son and daughter-in-law without any tender/quotation on the basis of forged proprietary certificate at a substantially high price at which the same items were being purchased in the main hospital through rate contract,” the plea stated.

The plea alleged that the items were purchased between November 2012 and March 2014 by declaring them proprietary. Further, it stated that this was done to avoid any tender/quotation in the said purchase “so as to altogether block the entry of other firms in the bidding process” and the proprietary certificate was for a one-time purchase; however it was repeatedly used for subsequent purchases and neither Gupta nor Mishra objected.

The plea alleged that the special judge  failed to appreciate that there was an “obvious quid pro quo” between Gupta, Mishra, Mahajan and the partners of Drishti “which only a detailed inquiry/investigation can reveal after an FIR is registered”.