New Delhi/Jaipur: In a major development in the single-lease case, the Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by former minister and senior Congress MLA Shanti Dhariwal, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier order that allowed further proceedings in the matter.
A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Vishnoi declined to interfere with the High Court’s November 1 decision, which had permitted the state government to conduct a preliminary probe and allowed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court to hear the pending protest petition.
However, the Supreme Court granted Dhariwal interim protection from arrest until the disposal of the protest petition currently before the ACB court.
Dhariwal argued before the bench that, while his name was mentioned in the initial complaint, the ACB later gave him a clean chit following a detailed investigation.
A closure report was subsequently filed in the trial court but was rejected — a decision later stayed by the High Court. He maintained that reopening the matter now is legally unjustified.
The controversy dates back to June 29, 2011, when the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) issued a single lease to Shailendra Garg, owner of Ganpati Construction.
Two years later, in 2013, a complaint was filed with the ACB by Ramsharan Singh alleging irregularities.
Following the complaint, several officials — including then-ACB Secretary G.S. Sandhu, Deputy Secretary Nishkam Diwakar, Zone Deputy Commissioner Omkarmal Saini, and Shailendra Garg — were arrested.
A challan was filed against them, and the lease was cancelled on May 25, 2013.
The case moved forward during the Vasundhara Raje government, when the ACB registered a formal FIR on December 3, 2014, and filed a challan against the accused. Dhariwal was also interrogated during this phase.
However, after a change in government, the ACB under the Gehlot administration submitted three closure reports, clearing the accused including Dhariwal, Sandhu, and others. In 2019, the trial court received a closure report from the ACB giving a clean chit to all accused.
The complainant challenged this by filing a protest petition.
The ACB has now sought the court’s permission to withdraw this closure report — a request that will be heard on December 4. If the court allows withdrawal of the closure report, the state may conduct a fresh investigation before submitting a new report.
The protest petition will also continue to be heard in parallel. The legal and political implications of the Supreme Court order are being closely monitored ahead of the next hearing.
(IANS)
