The Maharashtra government today informed the Bombay High Court that it proposed to issue a Government Resolution on constituting an inquiry committee headed by retired High Court Judge M G Gaikwad to probe alleged financial irregularities in tribal welfare schemes.
A draft of such GR was produced before a bench headed by Justice V M Kanade which was hearing a PIL filed by a tribal Bahiram Motiram from Nashik district demanding probe into alleged Rs 6,000 crore scam in regard to tribal schemes.
The petitioner's counsel, Rajendra Raghuvanshi told the bench that the proposed GR does not give powers to the committee to recommend action against guilty persons.
The committee should be empowered to recommend action and this aspect should not be left to the government, he said, adding that the court should ask the state to incorporate this in the proposed GR.
The bench said this issue would be considered on the next date of hearing and adjourned the case to Thursday.
The draft of the proposed GR mentioned that besides the chairman, other members of the inquiry committee would include Bipin Shrimali, managing director of State Electricity Transmission Co Ltd; Dhananjay Kamlakar, special inspector general of police, Nashik Region; Sunil Bhonsale, joint director (finance), Maharashtra State Aids Control Society and Dr Sanjeev Kumar, commissioner of tribal development.
Earlier, the court had ordered a CBI probe into the allegations. Simultaneously, the court also asked the state to conduct an independent inquiry into the alleged irregularities in tribal welfare schemes of the state.
While the CBI probe is still on, the inquiry committee of the state is yet to be constituted and for which the state has proposed to issue a GR.
The petitioner alleged that the tribal welfare department made purchases towards curbing malnutrition, distribution of cows and buffaloes, supply of diesel engine and pipes, without calling for tenders and the amounts shown as disbursed towards tribal welfare were siphoned off.
The PIL alleged that in March 2006, the department procured liquid protein without following the due procedure or floating tenders. Also, the liquid protein bottles were not distributed, though the amount was disbursed.
